Hypocrisy at the World Conference Against Racism

Former slave sets the record

straight

These are the words of SIMON DENG, a former Sudanese slave, in his address at the Durban Conference in New York.

Simon Deng

I want to thank the organizers of this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance. It is a great honor for me and it is a privilege really to be among today’s distinguished speakers.

I came here as a friend of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I came to protest this Durban conference, which is based on a set of lies. It is organized by nations who themselves are guilty of the worst kind of oppression.

It will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has itself become a tool against Israel. For over 50 years, 82% of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel. Hitler couldn’t have been delighted!

The Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people will know that. But friends, I come here today with a radical idea. I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those peoples. By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for
it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over fifty years the indigenous black population of Sudan – Christians and Muslims alike – have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum. In South Sudan , my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered between 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II. 

The UN is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency for them, and they are treated with special privileges. Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved,
are relatively ignored. The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the real causes of Sudan ’s conflicts. Who knows what is really happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.” It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism well known in north Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan, everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded northern Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam.

But in the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And the Darfuris do not want to be Arabized. They love their own African languages and dress and customs. The Arab response is genocide! But nobody at the UN tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains , another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The Islamist regime in Khartoum is targeting the black Africans – Muslims and Christians. Nobody at the UN has told the truth about the Nuba Mountains. Do you hear the UN condemn Arab racism against blacks?

But what you find on the pages of the New York Times, or in the record of the UN condemnations is “Israeli crimes” and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages because of the exaggerations about Palestinian suffering. What Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin. But the truth is that the real sin happens when the West abandons us: the victims of Arab/Islamic apartheid.

Chattel slavery was practiced for centuries in Sudan. It was revived as a tool of war in the early 1990s. Khartoum declared jihad against my people and thus legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity! I don’t like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it
because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today. I was only nine years old when an Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat. The boat wound up in Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliation; working around the clock; sleeping on
the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no.” All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”

The United Nations knew about the enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs. Their own staff reported it.
It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish-led American Anti-Slavery Group – sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening. I want to publicly thank my friend Dr. Charles Jacobs for leading the anti-slavery fight.

But the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, which backtracked, and started to criticize those who worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

Today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent
about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League.

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees [seeking refuge] there. Let me tell you how they ended up there. They had fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. How wrong they were! When Egyptian security forces slaughtered twenty six black refugees in Cairo who were protesting Egyptian racism, the Sudanese realized that the Arab racism is the same in Khartoum or Cairo. They needed shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for very long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel ’s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

Black Muslims from Darfur chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area. Do you know what this means [in terms of differences in culture, religion and language]? And the Arabs say Israel is racist!

In Israel, black Sudanese, Christian and Muslim were welcomed and treated like human beings. Just go and ask them, like I have done. They told me that compared to the situation in Egypt, Israel is “heaven.”

So, is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know the meaning of racism – the answer is absolutely not. Israel is a state of people who are the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Beautiful black Jews.

So, yes … I come here today to tell you that the people who suffer most from the UN anti-Israel policy are not the Israelis but all those people whom the UN ignores in order to tell its big lie against Israel: we, the victims of Arab/Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab/Muslim world. These are the main victims of UN Israel hatred.

Look at the situation of the Copts in Egypt, the Christians in Iraq, Nigeria and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais who suffer from Islamic oppression, and the Sikhs. We – a rainbow coalition of victims and targets of Jihadis – all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned. So that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan . I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. She wanted to go to school to become a doctor. And then she wanted to visit Israel. I was amazed. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel ? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On January 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. For South Sudanese, that means continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement. In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel ’s legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I bring you the news that my President, the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, publicly stated that the South Sudan Embassy in Israel will be built – not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its peoples, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply continuing to tell the truth! Our truth!

THE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEM – 1

HOW IT STARTED

By RALPH DOBRIN

Excerpt from his book “How to Avoid Armageddon“

Available through Amazon

Click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid armageddon

“The first casualty when war comes is truth.”

– U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson 1918

In every conflict the opposing sides invariably have very different perceptions regarding its background and the actual events. What was the cause of the conflict? What were the actions taken by each side? How did the conflict end? Who was to blame for the outbreak of the conflict in the first place? While authoritarian, non-democratic, tyrannical regimes are more likely to use blatant falsehood than genuine democracies, nevertheless, even the most enlightened democracies seldom if ever present the history of any single event or development in a manner that is fully credible. That’s because even serious historians find it hard to be fully objective – especially when they deal with events that happened within their own lifetimes in their own countries. Furthermore, much of the material they use is from old newspaper reports, hearsay, or released government documents that are often impossible to verify for accuracy. The best that can be expected is an approximate account of past events. Also, there are historians and commentators, who become so imbued with even-handedness that their entire approach becomes slanted in favor of their countries’ adversaries, and are thus as unreliable as the jingoists.

One thing that can be said to be true regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, is that every aspect of this generations’ long clash is fraught with volumes of misinformation and selective omission by both sides as well as by outside commentators and researchers. The Arab refugee problem singularly reflects this.

In order to get a close rendering of the events and circumstances as they really were, one needs to double and triple check all the relevant data and consult sources of both sides as well as other reputable non-involved parties.
As a Jew and a loyal Israeli, I would reckon that even with the best of intentions, I cannot be fully objective about the ongoing conflict between my country and the Arab and Muslim world. Even though I was brought up to regard honesty and respect for others as important values, I admit to being unable to completely shake off all my prejudices, and also to indulge in wishful thinking from time to time. After all, these are natural tendencies. But they are contrary to the main premises suggested in this book, therefore I am resolved to try as far as possible to disconnect from my personal experiences, emotions and affiliations, although I doubt whether I will succeed completely. So I invite the reader to maintain a critical approach to my words, while relating to them with an open mind.

This preamble to the subject of the Arab Refugee Problem is essential because of the centrality of the issue to the whole conflict and the strong emotions it generates. However, in accordance with my earlier words I have tried to double check almost every statistic and assertion from different sources. While I cannot state categorically that everything here is absolutely accurate, I feel that it presents a pretty trustworthy rendition of the overall situation. Nevertheless I anticipate that many people – Arabs, Muslims, Jews and Israelis, as well as others, will find much here with which they cannot agree. My response to them is that I have found over and over again that notions I had once thought absolutely correct, turned out to be wrong; that I need to question the validity of my notions from time to time. This is an approach I would recommend to everyone.

* * *

To understand what the Arab refugee problem is all about, it is essential to be acquainted with the background. A census of Palestine, conducted in 1922 by Britain, the ruling Mandatory power at that time, showed a population of 757,182 people (78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 11% Christians and other faiths. Most of the Christians were Arabs). Clearly the Arabs vastly outnumbered the Jews in Palestine and it is understandable that they would have strenuously opposed the decision of the victorious allies of the First World War – Britain, France and the United States – together with the League of Nations, to allocate a large part of the country as the national homeland for the Jewish people.

It should be remembered, however, that national independence had been promised to the Arabs throughout most of the Middle East. As part of this undertaking, Palestine itself was divided in 1923, with 77% of the country lopped off to create a new Arab state, subsequently called the Kingdom of Jordan. Within the next 25 years, there would be many cataclysmic events in the world as well as in the Middle East. Nazism and Fascism swept through Europe and parts of Africa. Communism spread considerably. The Second World War led to numerous border changes in Europe and Asia, with millions of displaced persons. A number of additional Arab countries won their independence.

Meanwhile, the Jewish population in Palestine had grown to constitute almost 40% of the country’s population. On November 29, 1947, prior to the end of the British Mandate, the United Nations Organization voted for a partition of what remained of Palestine after its initial division in 1923. Slightly less than half the land was to become an independent Arab state and the rest an independent Jewish state.

The Arabs, locally and throughout the Arab world, felt utterly betrayed by this decision and embarked on a war that was intended to end forever any Jewish claim or ability to acquire sovereignty in any part of Palestine.
For the Jews it was the most desperate of times, a mere three years after a third of their people had been killed during the Nazi Holocaust in Europe. The Jewish population in Palestine stood at a little over 600,000 souls, outnumbered and initially poorly armed in comparison with the Arabs.
There were two main stages in the war. The first stage began on November 30, 1947, the day after the United Nations voted to partition Palestine. All over the country, Jewish suburbs, villages and farming communities were attacked by local Arab forces, reinforced by thousands of volunteers from outside Palestine as well as, at a later stage, the well-trained Arab Legion of Jordan, which was under the command of British officers. During the first stages of the war, the situation of the Jews in many places was desperate. Cut off from the rest of the country, the Jewish areas of Jerusalem were under siege and the water supply had been cut. In other parts of the country supply lines were often cut and the Jews barely managed to hold their own, but because they were far better organized, they soon improved their overall situation dramatically.

The second main stage of the war began on May 14 when the British Mandate of Palestine expired and most of His Majesty’s armed forces and non-military personnel had left Palestine. At this point, armies from all the surrounding states, reinforced by contingents from more distant Arab countries, launched a simultaneous invasion against the Jews. During this stage there were four cease-fire agreements. The war continued until March 1949.

In a few cases during the war, Jewish positions were overrun by the Arab forces – as was the case in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Etzion bloc and elsewhere. But generally, the Jewish forces managed to stand firm against attacks by the local Arab forces as well as the invasion by the Arab countries, and eventually in spite of many bitterly-fought clashes, they got the upper hand throughout most of the battle zones and repulsed their enemies.

In many towns and villages Arab families fled or were forced out of their homes and lands. Estimates vary from between over 800,000 (Arab sources) to 726,000 (U.N. sources) to over 520,000 (official Israeli sources). In addition to the people displaced by the 1947-49 War, about 300,000 Arabs fled their homes during the 1967 war, and joined this refugee population. Many of these people were already refugees from the earlier war.

These are the bare facts that can be easily checked in any impartial reference book. But what do the parties to the conflict claim? How faithfully do these claims reflect what really happened? And to what extent have fairness and integrity determined the attitude of the international community in relating to what really happened? These are indeed crucial questions for solving the Arab-Israel conflict.

Most Israelis are of the opinion that the Jews were seriously threatened with annihilation. For almost three decades before the war, there had been frequent armed Arab attacks throughout the country, during which hundreds of Jews had been killed. Furthermore in the early months of 1948 there could be no mistaking Arab intentions or their ruthless tendencies in conflict. The Arabs had repeatedly promised that this was to be a war of annihilation of the Jews in Palestine. And the Jews expected – from their bitter experiences during a generation of ethnic struggle – that the Arabs would not show any mercy whatsoever to Jews, whether combatants, civilians, young or old, men, women or children.

Their fears were quickly realized when a number of mass killings of Jewish civilians took place. That these killings were often claimed to be in retaliation for Jewish killings of Arab civilians, did little to allay their fears. 39 Jewish civilian workers were killed by Arab rioters at Haifa’s oil refinery on December 30, 1947. The month of February started with a bombing of The Palestine Post in Jerusalem, killing three people and wounding dozens of others. Three weeks later, just down the street from this bombing, 53 Jews were killed when a bomb exploded in Ben-Yehuda Street. Then on March 11, twelve people were killed when a bomb went off at the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem. The dead had all been non-combatants.

Also, Jewish prisoners of war were apt to be slaughtered, such as the 128 Jewish combatants (including over a dozen women) who were killed at Kfar Etzion on May 15, 1948, after they surrendered.

On the other hand, the Arab version, since the mid-nineteen fifties, that can be gained by reading official and unofficial sources is largely that the local Arabs (always referred to as Palestinians – even though until that time the Jews of the country were also called Palestinians) were suddenly attacked by the Zionists and brutally evicted from their homes and lands, as part of a preconceived plan of ethnic cleansing. There is very scant reference to the intentions of the Arabs of that time to destroy the Jewish entity in the nascent state of Israel. Never is there any mention of mass killings of Jews that had been reported in Jewish and other sources, as well as official British Mandate documents.

Seldom if ever mentioned in current Arab sources, are the violent riots that had been carried out from time to time for almost three decades before the war. In studying dozens of accounts in Arab sources I have never read about the 1929 Hebron massacre of 67 unarmed Jews, and the 66 killed in Safad and other villages during this time. I have seen only one brief reference to the Hadassah medical convoy massacre on April 13, 1948, when 79 Jewish doctors, nurses and other personnel (mostly unarmed) were ambushed, killed and incinerated by Arab fighters while on their way to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. Reading the Arab version one gets a distinct impression who is the ruthless, evil villain and who is the innocent victim. However, these are all events that were reported in official British documents (accessible through the British Government on-line archives) as well as in the international press of the time.

According to the Arab version, not only was their land stolen from them, not only were they raped, butchered, slaughtered and massacred, they were also banished from their land. However, modify the language and the objective observer can see some truth in these claims. Regarding “rape and being butchered,” some Israeli researchers agree that there were cases of rape throughout the year-and-a-half war. But it must be remembered that in every war there are cases of rape. That includes wars waged by Arabs to the present day. Regarding the words “butchered, slaughtered and massacred,” these are evocative dysphemisms for actions that take place in any war. When attacking someone with the intent to kill, the attacker might conceivably find himself “killed” or “fatally wounded.” That’s a fact of life. That’s what can happen when you launch a war – which is what the Arabs had done. I have made these comments, not as an attempt to exonerate Israel, but to amend the widely-held perspective that Israel’s actions to the present day, have generally been vile and wantonly detestable and exclusive to Israel alone.

Continued at The Arab Refugee Problem – 2

http://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/how-to-avoid-armageddon-%e2%80%93-5-2/

To order the book click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid Armageddon

See also www.israelandtruth.org

A light unto the nations

… and two nice ladies at a

felafel stand

By RALPH DOBRIN

Ralph Dobrin is the author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”
To order the book click: www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid Armageddon

I was feeling great and it probably showed. I had just ridden eight kilometers into Jerusalem’s city center on my bicycle, so I felt that surge of energy and joy that can come from physcial exertion. I went into my favorite felafel stand near the top of Ben Yehuda Mall, where the felafel is especially deep-fried on an individual basis. There’s always a crowd of people waiting to be served but it’s worth it.

So I’m standing there waiting. Two nice-looking middle-aged women are standing next to me. One of them says to me: “Hello, I sometimes see you here.” Now, I’m at that age where in my eyes a middle-aged women is really a youngster. I don’t recognise this particular lady, but we begin to chat. She tells me that she’s from Fort Worth, Texas. She introduces her companion to me. She’s from a small town in Western Australia. They’ve been in Israel for about a year and they love being here.

I try to sum them up. New immigrants, I wonder. Naah, they’re too enthusiastic about Israel! Ordinary tourists, maybe? But ordinary tourists don’t stay for a whole year. They ask me about myself. I joke a bit and ask them about themselves. “Oh we are here to help people,” says the lady from Fort Worth.

Immediately I have them pegged as part of those misinformed contingents that come to help the downtrodden Arabs in Gaza or Judea and Samaria. They look the type – kind-hearted, concerned, middle-class westerners. I enjoy verbal sparring with people like these – apologists for the Palestine cause. Most of them have a one-sided view of the Israel-Arab conflict and its background, and for me personally, meeting such folks is always a good opportunity to help set the record straight.

So, I prepare the stage for an interesting conversation while we wait to be served. I ask how they help people. “We give food parcels and clothes,” is the smiling answer. “Yeah, that figures,” my mind registers.

“Do you work for some organization?” I ask.

They hesitate. I can imagine their minds wondering who I am. Can they trust me, they ponder? Am I in the Secret Service, perhaps? Their permanent smiles freeze somewhat.

I take another tack. I talk about the Arabic language and how similar it is to Hebrew. I talk about the Arab skills as stone masons and builders. I talk sincerely because I have always admired Arabic as well as the hardy diligence of Arabs engaged in building construction. But the two ladies just listen politely and there’s no smile on their faces.

So, what are they doing in Israel, I wonder, and with which organization are they connected.

So I ask them outright. “Do you distribute food and clothes to people living in Gaza or the West Bank?”

“No!” they both blurt loudly. Then quietly, the Fort Worth lady says, “We help mostly new immigrants.”

“Gotcha!” I say to myself. Obviously they are missionaries. Not that I care. What counts for me is common decency and national loyalty of my fellow-Jewish Israelis and not whether they have two separate sets of dishes for meat and milk or whether they believe in the divinity of Jesus or whether they are agnostics.

Anyway, I say: “That’s interesting. So, you help new immigrants? Who else do you help?”

I can see on their faces that they are wary of me. They know about Israel’s concern regarding the erosion in Jewish loyalty that missionary work might cause.

The Aussie says in a low voice, “We are not missionaries. We are connected with a group that has no interest in missionary work. We just love the Jewish people and want to help Israel.”

“That’s great,” I say sincerely. “Which group are you connected with?”

They tell me. It’s a very pro-Zionist Christian group that takes great care not to spread the Gospel among Jews. I won’t mention their name because there are people who mistakenly lump all Christians in the same missionizing mold. I have known this particular group for about twenty years now. As a writer I have occasionally met the founders and some of their associates over the years; I have also met other Christians who care about Israel, who come here for a few months or years and who work in one of the splendid Christian associations that supports Israel in whatever way they can. I know these people and I have no doubt that they are among the finest people who walk God’s earth.

And I expressed these sentiments to the two ladies. They looked relieved and I could feel that we were striking up a fine rapport. Meanwhile, the three of us were served and sat on the bar stools, munching away at our felafel with informal gusto and a nascent sense of camaradie.

They told me about their families and their respective professions. They were educated, intelligent, charming people and they had twinkling eyes that beamed at me and made my heart do a little jig. That’s one of the great things about being a guy – no matter how many years you’ve rambled on this planet, the attention of fine looking women always makes your heart do that little jig.

AN EMBARRASSING BIBLICAL QUOTE

But then the Texan said something that broke the mood for me. We had been talking about the readiness of the international community to condemn Israel exclusively for the plight of the Arabs of this region and she paraphrased, “People must realize that Israel is actually the light unto the nations.”

My heart stopped doing that little jig. I find it hard to contend with praise or positive remarks directed at me, especially when unwarranted. So personally, this light unto the nations thing regarding Israel sounds unbecoming and inappropriate. Furthermore, lots of nations have been a beacon in some field or other. These same nations also have a lot in their pasts that is pretty shameful. Actually I don’t think that the Jews have much reason for any deep national shame – not like the British, Spaniards or French with their exploitative imperialism or the Germans with the Nazi era. Although each of these nations, in common with the ancient Greeks, Romans and Chinese, as well as the Mohammedans, also gave immensely to humanity in the fields of philosophy, science, technology and the arts.

Nowadays people in Israel have centered their lives on becoming an independent nation again, against demonic odds. But much of the present effort is fraught by stupidity at all levels and selfishness and conceit at the higher levels. Nationally, at this point, I feel there’s not much justification to reckon that we are a light unto anyone. Actually, in many ways some of the nations can be a light unto us. After, we are still learning basic moral stuff like how to stand in a queue or get into a bus or an elevator without a scuffle. And at any given time about a dozen Israeli parliamentarians are being investigated for corruption, embezzelment or sexual offences. Also, moral wrongdoing is not limited to secular people. Our religious public officials have proven just as prone as anyone else to stray morally.

So please don’t give me any of  that “Light unto the nations stuff.”

Apart from which, anyone who claims to be a “Light unto the nations” reveals a huge conceit. That alone negates any claim to luminariness. 

The Texan must have noticed a frown on my face, so she repeated her quotation about Israel being a light unto the nations and added, “That’s what the Prophet Isaiah said. Chapter 42, verse 6.”

“Yes, I know,” I said, taking a bite of my felafel. She bit into hers and some tehina dripped off her chin. The Aussie lady noticed and dabbed it clean. Embarrassed smiles.

“Actually there are many interpretations to this quotation,” I said. “Just like in many other parts of the Bible.”

They nodded.

“Personally, I just cannot accept that Isaiah meant that the Jews are such a fine people that they will teach the rest of the world morality. 

“What about monotheism?” the Texan interjected.

“You’ve got a point there,” I admitted. “Nevertheless, half the world has no idea who Abraham or Moses were or what they really represent, or even Jesus for that matter. Take all the Buddhists and other eastern religions, for instance. When I visited Thailand and Singapore, I swear I had never seen such common decency and patience anywhere else in the world. I had never seen such deep respect and consideration for others, as well as kindness and gentleness. Certainly not in this land of the chosen people.”

“Yes, but the Jews brought monotheism to humanity – the idea of one God, as opposed to the dozens of deities in eastern religions,” the Texan emphasized.

“So what?” I responded.

They both looked shocked.

“One God or a hundred gods – what difference does it make?” I asked. “No one really knows anything about what you call God.”

One of them said to me, “Don’t worry. I can see that you are a good man and one day you will see the light.”

“The light that I am supposed to spread among humanity?”

We all laughed.

I continued, “Look, I don’t want you to get the wrong impression about me. While I might be embarrassed when people say that the Jews are a light unto the nations, I can entertain the notion that what Isaiah meant was that the existence and sovereignty of God will be proved to all the nations through the Jewish people.”

“A very apt sentiment,” said the Texan.

“That’s not my idea,” I said. “A French guy called David Kimhi who was also known as the Radak, came up with this idea. He lived in the twelfth or thirteenth century.”

I took another bite of the felafel and continued. “Many serious Jews accept this interpretation, together with the call for a high standard of personal morality. They understand that what the Radak meant was that all those prophecies regarding Israel’s redemption would come true, including the wars of Gog and Magog, and thus the nations of the world would recognize God and repent.”

The two ladies nodded enthusiastically. One of them said, “And then we will see the advent of the Messiah.”

“Yours or mine?” I laughed.

“Both of ours,” they chorused.

BELITTLING THE ALMIGHTY

“Well, I don’t like it,” I said. “I think this is a terrible indictment on what you call God and what I am for a lack of better word, prepared to call the ‘Creator of the universe’.”

They looked perplexed. The Aussie said, “I am sure that you can see what is happening in the world today. You can see how the nations are arraying themselves around Israel. Can’t you?”

“I can’t ignore it,” I said.

“Well that’s been predicted in the Bible,” she said.

I nodded. “I know and it’s absolutely amazing to see stuff that was written thousands of years ago unfolding before our very eyes. It’s uncanny.”

“It’s prophesy coming true,” said the Texan. “It’s God manifesting Himself.”

The Aussie looked at me and shook her head. “How can you deny it?”

“I don’t,” I said. “But I just find it hard to accept that the Creator of all this inexpressively incredible and wonderful world has to go to such lengths just to get some attention from the beings He himself created … in his own image.”

They both sighed and shook their heads. One of them said, “Don’t be such a skeptic! You yourself said it’s amazing to see what was written in the Bible unfolding before our very eyes.”

“A lot is coincidence and a lot is grist for contention.”

“It’s all the Truth!”

“If it’s all the Truth, then surely Truth should unite people rather than drive them to war against each other, as religion has done over and over again, up to the present day.”

“That’s so as to tally with prophesy,” one of them said.

“I told you what I think of that idea,” I said. Then I repeated: “I can’t accept that the Almighty, the unfathomable, ineffable Creator of this wonderful world, has to go to such lengths just to get some attention from the foolish creatures He himself created … in his own image.”

They didn’t have an answer. So I continued. “The fact that I am an agnostic doesn’t make me a complete non-believer in the existence of what you call God,” I said. “Billions of people all over the world believe in God and nobody knows what the hell they are talking about.”

“Oh yes, we do,” said the Aussie.

I lowered my voice because I didn’t want to sound too offensive. I said slowly, “What you know is what you’ve read or heard from other people who had read or heard going back in time to what was probably the rantings of some overly imaginative or opinionated recluse, village dreamer or lunatic.”

They both shook their heads. By now we had all finished our felafel. I didn’t feel comfortable that our conversation, which had started off so pleasantly, had taken this confrontational turn. These were two very good people and I had no right to upset them. So, I said, “Look, I’m sorry to have been so outspoken about belief and religion.”

“Oh that’s all right,” they said. “We found talking to you very stimulating.”

I replied: “Well I found talking to you very stimulating too. But I would like to add just one thing to what I had said, and maybe we can part having agreed with each other.”

“Go on,” they said.

I continued. “Whether what’s happened in the last seventy years with Israel and what is happening now, is the result of some divine hand or purpose, I am not prepared to accept or reject. But what I can see is that we in Israel, and in fact the whole world, are facing a very perilous future. Muslim fundamentalism, pollution, weather change, economic havoc. And here in Israel, we face a dreadful line-up of nations preparing to annihilate us. What all this means is that firstly we in Israel have to face the truth of the situation. In order to survive, we have to gather all our resources and work wisely together. This means, for Israel, the highest possible level of integrity and a strong personal dedication on the part of every Jew to the cause of national survival. It means respecting each other and accepting our differences of opinion without forcing ours on others. It means honest pragmatisim. On the individual level it means being a thoroughly good person, with or without the trappings of religion. Can you accept that?”

They thought for a moment. The Aussie shrugged her shoulders and said, “You could be a good diplomat.”

Her colleague added, “After Gog and Magog, if we meet again, we can compare notes.”

“It’s a deal!” I said.

We shook hands and parted. I got on my bicycle and pedalled up Ben-Yehuda Street towards Bezalel Street. A car behind me brought me back to reality as it honked loudly and the driver glared at me as he passed, while his exhaust fumes momentarily constricted my breathing. A few minutes later another car almost knocked me off the road and I was actually forced to stop so as to avoid crashing into the pavement. Fairly typical on Israel’s roads and not a good harbinger for the future. Why on earth should the Lord of the Universe want to help this obtuse, self-centered people? Why were we given this incredible opportunity to renew our sovereignty in our ancient Land once again? A crucial question we should all be asking ourselves if we want to survive – whether one is religiously observant or not.

Actually, Israel has a cosmic opportunity to show that good can prevail over lies and evil. We are living in an age when Israel faces impossible, diabolical odds, compounded by a global blood libel that supports her many mortal enemies. The only way that tiny Israel can prevail will be by forging a lifestyle for all its people that could really be a light for others to see. But we ourselves should allude to it very, very rarely – so as to avoid the pitfall of conceit.

Riding a bicycle in the center of Jerusalem is a good way to gauge where we stand at the moment. 

For more see: www.israelandtruth.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Israeli conversion crisis

Maybe by their own strict standards …

Even some of the rabbinic

judges aren’t really Jewish

By Ralph Dobrin

The High Rabbinical Court in Israel, headed by Rabbi Avraham Sherman, recently dropped a bombshell – they announced that the conversion of thousands of proselytes to Judaism might need to become nullified. It all started when a woman who had converted 15 years earlier, was going through divorce proceedings with the Rabbinical Council of Ashdod. Following a few questions by one of the rabbinic judges, it was deemed that she had not observed the Jewish laws, therefore she had forfeited her membership among the Jewish people.

This verdict, though extremely rare, might according to the High Rabbinical Court in Israel, have rendered the Jewish status of thousands of other converts who had undergone conversion through Rabbi Haim Druckman’s Conversion Authority, retroactively invalid. What a slap in the face for these people who opted to throw in their lot with the Jewish people, and who invested considerable time studying in order to prepare for their conversions. For the men, it also entailed painful circumcision!

Also, this could mean that their children, are not recognized as being Jewish in Israel, and therefore any religiously conducted marriages might be impossible for them in this country. They could be doomed to becoming less than second class citizens in Israel. Even those who served in Israel’s army, some of them with distinction and heroism.

The High Rabbinical Court is a department of the Israel Rabbinate. It is staffed mainly by Haredi rabbis with an even stricter view of Jewish observance than the Chief Rabbis themselves. The High Rabbinical Court’s seemingly extreme stand on conversion has deepened the rift between Haredi Ultra-Orthodoxy (usually non-Zionist) and the rest of the Jewish population, especially the religious Zionists, of which Rabbi Druckman is a highly respected and prominent figure.

Clearly, whether you’re a convert or a Hebrew with roots going back a hundred generations, being Jewish should be a serious status, because it implies an ancestry or affiliation stretching back to Mt. Sinai, through King David, Solomon, the Talmudic period, the Golden Age of Spain, the Enlightenment and Emancipation, weathering all the frightful challenges until the present day.

But taking note of the Rabbi Avraham Sherman’s drastic-sounding pronouncements against the conversions, I am prodded into asking myself: am I really a Jew by their standards? After all, I am just an agnostic (although I am nevertheless awe-struck by the wonder of life and I do have a deep gut-feeling that a totally unfathomable power is behind it all.)

Moreover, according to rabbinic law (halacha) it’s the mother’s religious affiliation that determines one’s Jewishness. It is the female lineage all down the line that determines one’s identity. Paternal lineage is not an issue. Your dad could have been the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Grand Mufti or even Adolph of the Schicklgruber line, but if your mom is bona fide Jewish that makes you Jewish in the eyes of the strictest rabbi.

Solomon’s women

But there’s a big problem here if you’re serious about halachically bona fide Jewishness. Indeed, here’s a challenge for the good Rabbi Sherman himself. The Bible tells us that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 mistresses, none of whom were Israelite. Probably the appetite for non-Israelite gals in those days wasn’t limited to Solomon. Therefore thousands upon thousands of their progeny were not halachically Jewish. Israelites – they might have become, but by today’s strict Orthodox standards none of them would have been considered Jewish. And by the laws of gender, a certain percentage of these women kept propagating girls who remained in the Jewish fold, but willy-nilly, kept turning out more non-Jewish girls right up to the present day.

By today’s stringent rabbinic standards Ruth would definitely not have been considered a convert. Indeed even King David would have had difficulty being recognized as a bona fide Jew? Preparing for marriage in present-day Israel, for instance, with his ruddy complexion, David would have been questioned about his parentage. “Show us your mother’s marriage certificate!” the rabbis would have demanded. “And show us her mother’s marriage certificate!” “Bring us a letter from the rabbi who officiated at her wedding.” And heaven forfend if the rabbi who had officiated at David’s grandmother’s wedding happened to have been of the Reform or even Conservative branch of Judaism. No chance buddy! Go through our lengthy conversion program or have a civil marriage in Cyprus.

In addition, over the ages there were always cases of gentile women coming into the Jewish fold, sometimes as wives, mistresses or a housekeeper or servant woman succumbing to infatuation or lust. Not all went through any kind of conversion. How many of their female progeny were subsequently accepted into the Jewish fold and begat halachically non-Jewish offspring who kept the disqualifying trend going?

If I’m asked, how far back I can trace the female lineage of my family, I would have to say that I might have difficulty even assessing my late mother’s biological lineage. Not all the Jews lived in an East European shtetl. My maternal grandfather was religiously-observant Jew. Most Jews were a hundred years ago. He had four daughters. Wonderful gals, I’m sure. From what I hear he was also a very fine, compassionate man. He was well-off, had a nice-sized store near Konigsberg, then East Prussia. His wife was very sick and died at an early age. He also had a fine looking housekeeper – a Christian lady who stayed with him and his family for twenty years after his wife died. I’m not saying that any hanky-panky took place, heaven forfend. But the guy was a guy after all and if I were a rabbinical judge sitting on the High Rabbinical Court of Israel, I could easily be suspicious of Ralph Dobrin’s kosher roots.

And maybe very, very few Jews today, including Rabbi Sherman himself and all the other venerable rabbis fastidiously making lists of persons disqualified from being counted as Jews, would find it quite impossible to show proof of a continuously untainted line of female ancestry, all the way back. Especially if you have blue eyes and fair hair. (Turn in your grave Schicklgruber).

Is all this as ridiculous as it sounds?

Now, to the average person – religiously observant or not – this is simply facetious rumination. And yet it should be a serious issue for the people running Israel’s High Rabbinical Court. After all, if they are so serious about Jewishness and religious observation that they are ready to nullify the hard-won conversion of thousands of good folks because of the perceived laxity of one convert, then they should be serious about themselves, too. Shouldn’t they be ferreting for their great great grandmothers’ ketubot (marriage certificates) to determine if they were indeed halachically Jewish? And if they can’t find the necessary documents, maybe they themselves and their zealous followers – might need to pursue conversion! I’m sure that Rabbi Druckman would know where to send them. Either that or be less fastidious regarding the Jewishness of others !!!

As a totally secular Israeli I am saddened by this rift because there seems to be so much ugly invective and hostility exchanged by Israel’s religious leaders, as well as pain meted out to the thousands of good people who converted to Judaism. Also, I am sure it can only weaken Israel. I would like to believe that the argument is based on what is really best for the Jewish people in the context of rabbinic law. So is it naïve to hope that the strenuous Ultra-Orthodox opposition to Rabbi Druckman’s conversions is based solely on what is halachically correct in the name of the Almighty and that it has absolutely nothing to do with clashes of personality, power play or plain nastiness? Sadly, it is often hard not to feel that that is the case.

Many special committees have been set up over the years to find a solution that could satisfy the strictest demands while facilitating a process that would not cause unnecessary prolongment for the prospective convert. None of the results of these committees satisfied everyone. But there has to be an end to the question of generally accepted conversion. It can only come through sensible, constructive debate at the highest rabbinic levels.

There is a way of deliberating wisely over any issue. At the outset there must be sincere resolve to find the best possible solution. Sectarian considerations must be subdued enough to be able to see the issue from an overall perspective. Each point must be viewed and discussed with total openness and honesty. Also personal feelings about others with whom the polemic is being conducted, must be set aside.

It is significant that after thousands of years of tradition, people in the loftiest clergical positions still haven’t learned how to conduct a meaningful discussion with others who might differ from them. One would have thought that all that endless study of holy texts and praying and observing of laws and mitzvot, said to enhance wisdom and spirituality, would have given the Ultra-Orthodox rabbis some compassion, humility and common sense. If they want to learn how to debate constructively they can visit the following site: http://truthandsurvival.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/why-argue/

 

 

 

Why argue?

AND IF WE DO THEN HOW

NOT TO LOSE

By RALPH DOBRIN

Ralph Dobrin is the author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”
To order the book click:  www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid Armageddon

Arguing, all too often, accomplishes nothing apart from anger, frustration, bitterness and unbridgeable disagreement. Many relationships have been permanently ruined because of arguments. Businesses have crashed when partners disagreed stubbornly and national calamities have resulted from entrenched polemic in high places.

But there is a new way of arguing in which there are no losers. Contrary to the usual aim which is to win the argument, or at least never to concede defeat, the aim of this new way is to try and establish the truth about something, or understand it better, or to figure out the best possible way to do something, or to diffuse an unpleasant situation.

At the outset we should ask ourselves if the argument is worth the time, effort and hypertension. Is the subject trivial? Is the person we’re arguing with a rigidly stubborn, obtuse person with whom it is futile to conduct any exchange? Is there any point to this argument or should we just drop it?

If we do decide to continue the argument we should remember the following basic rules which hold true for almost every discussion – rules that every decent person knows but often ignores: never shout, or get personal (even if the other side shouts or gets personal). Many arguments get started because someone raised their voice. Avoid using terms like “You always think only of yourself” or “You think you know everything.” Perhaps the statements are valid, but invariably they won’t help solve anything. They will only stiffen the resistance and prevent resolution of your differences.

DON’T THINK OF WINNING!

Here are some additional points in this new way of arguing. Listen to what the other person has to say. Interrupt only if something has been said that you don’t understand. Let the person complete making his or her point of view even if it is ridiculous or outrageous. Get a good idea of their side of the argument. Ask questions if something is not clear. During the whole course of the argument refrain from being aggressive, competitive, challenging, patronizing, belittling, overbearing or interrogative. On the other hand, don’t let them keep repeating themselves. If they do, tell them politely that repeating themselves is not necessary because you understand what they are saying. Also try to get them to stick to the point. Don’t let them digress. The issue must remain as clear and simple as possible.

Then, when you get to tell your side to the argument, if you are interrupted, remind them that you didn’t interrupt them. (That’s one reason you let the other person talk without interruption. You also let them speak freely beforehand in order to use what they say to strengthen your point of view.) Try to subdue the impulse to win the argument at all costs. The purpose of the argument should be to find a solution to an issue about which there is a disagreement. Present your point of view calmly and clearly. But do it without being long-winded. Don’t ramble or embellish it with all kinds of personal experiences or parables.

Try to get the other person to be affirmative to your questions. For instance you can start by saying something like: “We both want the same thing and that is to solve the problem, isn’t that so?” The aim of this type of leading question is to be answered “Yes!” That already gives us something in common and from the outset it might just put the other person in a positive “yes” frame of mind.

Observe the other person’s expression and body language. Are they listening? Do they understand your point of view? From time to time ask: “Did you get that?” Often people pretend to be listening to you or to understand what you’re saying. Occasionally ask a question to verify whether you have a real audience. If the person wasn’t listening you were just wasting your time and “talking to the wall.”

If you’re talking to a sensible, decent person, there is every chance that you will be able to resolve your differences – assuming that your point of view represents logic and the arguments are valid. Most people, however, don’t like to concede arguments and you’ll usually find that the other person will try and counter your argument – and that’s fine. When he does this he is giving you an opportunity to further clarify something.

AND WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG?

Also, he might be absolutely right. Suddenly you might realize that you had been wrong. Don’t see the argument as a chess game which you are trying to win, but an opportunity to learn something or improve something and the other person has enabled this to happen. So, if you suddenly realize that you had been wrong, then admit it. “Yes, I think you may be right.” But just to make sure, it’s worth going over his argument again. Then, if it is acceptable, nod and acknowledge that you have just learned something from him. Even shake his hand and thank him.

Solutions to questions and problems are found by trying to see the whole picture from both sides. Let’s take an example: A husband and wife have a serious problem. The wife wants her mother to move in with them and her husband objects strongly. The mother is old, grouchy, fussy and will have many demands on their time. Also she has often made it clear that she dislikes the husband. But now her health has deteriorated seriously and she can’t stay alone anymore. Also there isn’t enough money to put her in an old age home. If the wife tries to force the issue it might lead to a flaming row with a lot of mutual bitterness, and possibly no agreed-upon solution. But if at the outset she says that she can understand why her husband doesn’t like the idea, she is setting a suitable mood for a serious discussion. “I’m not crazy about the idea myself,” she says. “But what alternative do we have?”

Her husband might suggest an alternative solution. If it makes sense, she should continue discussing it with him in order to find the best solution. If the suggestions that the husband makes are unacceptable to her, she should explain quietly why. In the course of the discussion they can explore other solutions. They can discuss making adjustments in the family budget or, if there is no alternative and the mother does come to stay with them, they can establish groundrules for all of them – so as to create as quiet and harmonious an ambience as possible. The point is to prevent any initial disagreement from becoming a bitter argument and to transform it into a serious quest for the best practical answers to a sticky situation.

AVOIDING AN UNPLEASANT SCENE

Sometimes an incident can develop into a violent argument with very unfortunate results. On a hot summer’s day a friend of mine, Morris was riding his bicycle along a busy road. He was worried about his daughter who was hospitalized with a serious illness. A taxi came whizzing past, honked loudly and almost edged him off the road. “You bloody stupid maniac,” he yelled. The taxi continued driving for about two hundred meters and then stopped abruptly. The driver got out of the taxi and waited pugnaciously for Morris to reach him. Morris was ready to pounce on him and knock his teeth down his throat. The taxi driver probably had similar sentiments. Morris reached the taxi and got off his bike, confronting the driver. Morris is in his sixties, but he’s in pretty good physical shape. As a young guy he had done boxing, judo and karate. He sized up the driver, a middle-aged guy with a big, soft-looking paunch. “He was a bit taller than me, but I reckoned I could easily take him,” Morris related afterwards.

The driver challenged him: “What did you call me?”

Morris suddenly realized that they were heading for an unnecessarily dangerous situation – possible hospitalization for one of them, involving police, maybe jail.

He calmed down and replied. “It’s a helluva hot day, and you nearly knocked me off the road.”

“You’re a liar!” the driver shouted.

Morris countered unexpectedly: “I shouldn’t have called you what I did. It’s not right to swear at another man on the road. But really, you came very close to me and almost edged me right off the road.”

“You’re lying!” said the driver.

Morris: “Maybe you didn’t notice. You nearly knocked me off the road. Honestly! But like I said, calling you names was not right. I shouldn’t have done that. It’s just such a hot day and everyone’s nerves are frazzled.”

The driver looked at Morris with a puzzled expression for a moment. Then he said, “Yeah, it’s a hot day.” Then he leaned forward and shook Morris’ hand. “So long,” he said as he got into his car. “Have a nice day.” “You too and drive carefully,” Morris responded. The driver tipped his head and with a slight smile he drove off.

What a lesson! Firstly, never to express what you feel when you are very angry. Wait a moment before opening your mouth. Secondly, even if the other guy is abusive and calls you a liar, you might be able to diffuse the situation by calmly stating your version of the events, including your own mistakes or mishaps. “I shouldn’t have called you what I did,” followed by an explanation why he yelled the way he did. This way, they didn’t waste time arguing and screaming about who was in the wrong. And most importantly, they avoided what could have developed into a very unpleasant situation.

THE BENEFITS OF ARGUMENT

There are a few more cardinal rules in this new way of arguing. Avoid saying anything that you’re not sure of. Never lie. In this new way of arguing we are trying to come to an agreement about something through a partnership of honest, logical deduction. By being untruthful we would be distancing ourselves from the ultimate goal of the argument which is to find the best possible answer.

Generally, arguments are won by the side that is shrewder, more adept with words, or the one who puts on a angrier face, raises his or her voice louder, uses personal threats, or who simply lies. In such cases the outcome is seldom based on what is the best overall decision. Frequently, if the argument is about how to improve a situation or procedure, the outcome ends in the worst possible results.

Some professions are geared for arguing. Insurance executives find themselves frequently arguing with policy-bearers who have found their claims inappropriately honored. Lawyers are paid a lot of money to argue with other lawyers about rights and wrongs of their clients claims and counter-claims. Politicians spend a great part of their time arguing about government procedures, budgets, personalities and party platforms. Most argument conducted in these professions is all about winning. There has to be a loser. This new way of dealing with controversy that we propose might not be relevant in many situations. The lawyer, adopting this method would likely lose his livelihood. The politician in today’s world of cut-throat politics would have to be monumentally brilliant in order to get anywhere. But possibly in the future when the paramount value in life becomes truthfulness, then all professions will also abide by the groundrules suggested here.

However, humanity faces many critical challenges which demand clear thinking and the most efficacious reasoning possible. The old way of arguing will eventually have to give way to a far more honest, objective approach – an approach based on: “There is an important issue about which we disagree. We must find the best solution … together.”

It is hard to imagine Osama Ben-Laden and George W. Bush debating a solution to their disagreements, using this approach. After all, Ben-Laden represents the ultimate evil, and there is no point arguing with evil. But by using this new way of dealing with disagreement, there is every chance that  George W. and the most anti-war members of congress would have found the best possible solutions to the problems of global terror. 

With all the seemingly insurmountable problems now facing humanity, leaders and people everywhere will have to learn this new approach to controversy in order to see us through the Twenty-First Century.

Ralph Dobrin is the author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”
To order the book click:  www.amazon.com  type: how to avoid Armageddon

See also www.israelandtruth.org

 

 

 

 

How honest is Bishop Tutu?

Embarrassing questions from

a Sudanese refugee

By Ralph Dobrin

Author of “How to Avoid Armageddon”

To order the book click: www.amazon.com type: how to avoid Armageddon

 

Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureatte, is a stern critic of Israel, who like so many others, ignores Arab aggression whenever Israel defends itself, disregarding Arab culpability for their own plight. But his censure of Israel is always very compelling to those whose knowledge of the Middle East conflict is limited to the half-truths, selective omissions and blatant lies of Arab spokesmen and other gullible media outlets.

When the Bishop addressed a conference in Boston on “Israel Apartheid” most of his audience warmed to his diatribe, but one man was distressed by it because it sounded false.

Simon Deng is a Christian from the Shiluk region of southern Sudan, who has survived slavery and escaped death at the hands of the radical jihadist regime in Khartoum.

Deng finds it hard to understand how a fellow Christian, a “man of God,” who helped bring reconciliation between blacks and whites in South Africa could lead a conference that uses lies in damning Israel, while disregarding the wholesale murder of millions of Christians in Southern Sudan, as well as the dreadful plight of the people of Darfur and other parts of Africa.

After hearing Bishop Desmond Tutu condemnn Israel, this is what Simon Deng has to say:

“The State of Israel is not an apartheid state. I know because I write this from Jerusalem where I have seen Arab mothers peacefully strolling with their families even though I also drove on Israeli roads protected by walls and fences from Arab bullets and stones. I know Arabs go to Israeli schools and get the best medical care in the world.

“I know they vote and have elected representatives to the Israeli Parliament. I see street signs in Arabic, an official language in Israel. None of this was true for blacks under Apartheid in Tutu’s South Africa.

“I also know countries that do deserve the apartheid label: My country, Sudan, is on the top of the list, but so are Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. What has happened to my people in Sudan is a thousand times worse than apartheid in South Africa. And no matter how the Palestinians suffer, they suffer nothing compared to my people. Nothing. And most of the suffering is the fault of their own leaders.

“Bishop Tutu, I see black Jews walking down the street here in Jerusalem. Black like us, free and proud. Tutu said Israeli checkpoints are a nightmare. But checkpoints are there because Palestinians are sent into Israel to blow up and kill innocent women and children. We all go through checkpoints at every airport. Are the airlines being racist?

“When you struggled for freedom, Africans all over Africa joined in. Our support was a key in your freedom. But when children in Burundi and Kinshasa, all the way to Liberia and Sierra Leone, and in particular in Sudan, cried and called for rescue, you heard but chose to be silent.

“Today, black children are enslaved in Sudan, the last place in the continent of Africa where humans are owned by other humans. I was part of the movement to stop slavery in Mauritania, which just now abolished the practice. But you were not with us, Bishop Tutu.

“So where is Desmond Tutu when my people call out for freedom? Slaughter and genocide and slavery are lashing Africans right now. Where are you for Sudan, Bishop Tutu? You are busy attacking the Jewish state. Why?”

In a future blog I shall try to get Bishop Tutu’s answer to these questions. While Tutu’s words do carry importance because of his eminent standing as a former freedom fighter and Noble Prize winner, thus promoting the lies of Israel’s enemies, the plight of the Christians in Southern Sudan and the Black Muslims of Darfur, is of far greater importance. It shows the cynicism and cruelty of the whole Jihad enterprise and the weak-kneed hypocrisy of the international community.

To order “How to Avoid Armageddon”
click: www.amazon.com type: how to avoid Armageddon