ThePresbyterianChurchBearingFalseWitnessAgainstIsrael-Part 1

[johnkarls]

.
There follows below material posted in Sec. 3 of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Possible Topics for Future Meetings.”

What follows below is the first portion the 8/26/2014 Sec. 3 posting entitled “EXPIRED: The Presbyterian Church Bearing False Witness Against Israel” comprising documentation of many of the zillion ways in which the National Presbyterian Church’s Brochure “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace” defames Israel.

The reason for separating “EXPIRED: The Presbyterian Church Bearing False Witness Against Israel” into 3 parts is that the following Part 1 IS INDEED required reading for our 1/15/2010 meeting.

[The topic for each meeting is selected by vote of the participants of the previous meeting. If a proposed topic fails to receive a single vote at 6 consecutive meetings, it expires. HOWEVER, if a topic proposal contains voluminous information worth preserving, it is retained in Sec. 3 of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org with “EXPIRED” preceding the subject of the topic proposal.]


******************************************************************************************************************
EXPIREDThePresbyterianChurchBearingFalseWitnessAgainstIsrael
by johnkarls » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:33 pm
.
I propose that we focus on the Palestinian issue in general. And, in particular, on “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest For A Just Peace” (the 50-page glossy propaganda piece published by the National Presbyterian Church) and all of the defamation of Israel with which “Steadfast Hope” is riddled.

[The reason for the proposal is that several RSVP’ers for our 9/3/2014 meeting on “Hillary Distancing Herself from President Obama Re The Islamic State” noticed that in her interview by The Atlantic, she had made some comments in support of Israel and the RSVP’ers believed that the Palestinian issue is relevant to our discussion of The Islamic State. Since the Palestinian issue itself is more than could be discussed in one session, particularly if there is no agreement beforehand on what the facts are, I promised the RSVP’ers who wanted to discuss the Palestinian issue (1) a meeting-topic proposal so that the Palestinian issue could be the sole focus of one of our meetings, and (2) an extensive recital of the facts so that anyone who disagrees with anything can try to disprove it with research before the meeting, because discussions bog down in frustration if instead of discussing principles, participants are arguing over facts. Hopefully, this proposal and its extensive recital of “facts” alleged by Yours Truly can help to preserve the major focus of our 9/3/2014 meeting on The Islamic State exclusively of the Palestinian issue.]

We have only focused on the Palestinian issue once during our 8.5-year history.

Following our 10/14/2009 meeting, we launched a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign calling for “A Marshall-Type Plan” for the Palestinians which concluded with --

“What is necessary is a good education for the Palestinian children and training for the adults so that they can handle jobs that would go with economic development (construction, irrigation, manufacturing, etc.), following a careful assessment of the comparative strengths that Palestine would possess. The U.S. began providing Egypt and Israel with $6 billion/year of economic aid when they signed their 1979 Peace Agreement. It would seem a comparable amount would be a small price to pay to provide a real solution to a conflict that has festered for 60 years and, with nuclear arms soon to permeate the area, could soon produce a nuclear holocaust that might lead to ‘the twilight of the humans’!”

[For the curious, this policy proposal was conceived by Yours Truly who persuaded the other attendees of our 10/14/2009 meeting to support it. The persuading wasn’t difficult!!!]

At the moment (8/26/2014), we are preparing for a meeting on 9/3/2014 that will focus on the topic of “Hillary Distancing Herself From President Obama Re The Islamic State” and several of our members who have RSVP’d have mentioned that they believe that the Palestinian issue, though not central, is still relevant in discussing The Islamic State.

Unfortunately, one constantly encounters Americans who believe that “if only we would throw Israel under the bus” all our problems would be solved. And who, if queried to any extent, display an amazing ignorance based on lies such as those propagated by the National Presbyterian Church in, inter alia, its 50-page glossy propaganda piece entitled “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest For A Just Peace.”

The National Presbyterian Church’s website http://www.pcusa.org indicates that “Steadfast Hope” is in its Second Edition as of 4/1/2011.

What http://www.pcusa.org does NOT disclose is that the Second Edition MADE NO CORRECTIONS as a result of the documentation presented to it of the egregious lies permeating its First Edition (6/1/2009) which was the subject of the following e-mail from Yours Truly to the Adult Ed Committee of Wasatch Presbyterian Church of Salt Lake City. Yours Truly provided a copy of that e-mail to the National Presbyterian Church with a covering letter demanding that the brochure be substantially revised, if not withdrawn entirely.

The Second Edition made NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER that Yours Truly was able to detect, much less ANY CHANGES TO ALL OF THE LIES CONCERNING ISRAEL WITH WHICH THE FIRST EDITION WAS RIDDLED.

Obviously the National Presbyterian Church is insisting despite protests from at least Yours Truly, with violating the Ten Commandments which include “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor” and in violating Christ’s Two Commandments which include the Golden Rule “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.”

For the curious, Yours Truly attended SLC’s Wasatch Presbyterian from 2007 through 2010 when in Utah and even led 5-6 Adult Ed classes while Rev. David Henry was its Senior Minister (though on topics that did not involve the Palestinian issue). However, Yours Truly never became a member of Wasatch because of concerns over its Anti-Semitism and stopped attending after 2010 because Wasatch persisted in basing Adult Ed classes on “Steadfast Hope” despite his 3/31/2010 e-mail protest that follows below.

In preparing the traditional Suggested Discussion Outline for our pending 9/3/2014 meeting on “Hillary Distancing Herself From President Obama Re The Islamic State” I will include some “bullet points” regarding the Palestinian imbroglio with references to this Proposed Topic for a stand-alone meeting so that, hopefully, the issue does not have to occupy an unduly long portion of the 9/3/2014 meeting because of factual disputes that are easily resolved by consulting the following e-mail (and by verifying through research any factual matter that anyone wants to investigate further).


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Good Samaritan Report on Your Personal Exposure to Defamation and Punitive Damages
From: john@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 3:24 pm - MST
To: Scott Wipperman (Wasatch Presbyterian Interim Associate Minister and Adult Ed Committee Chair) and the other four members of the Adult Ed Committee
Cc: Ginger Memmott (Wasatch Presbyterian Interim Senior Minister)
Attachments:
WPC-v222
WPC-v301
WPC-v302
UNSCOP Report (Adobe File)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bob, Scott, Ashdora, Elizabeth and Jan,

The following may come as a shock to you, or you may already know all about it.

The reason for uncertainty regarding how much you know is that I queried one of you whether Scott apprised all of you (as the WPC Committee with responsibility for Adult Education when you approved the "Palestine Occupation" class) that Rev. David Henry*, in the course of Session rejecting his recommendation in 2007 to accept the offer of Rabbi Rosen of Congregation Kol Ami to conduct an Adult Ed class for us in response to our Anti-Semitism, had ascertained that the lie contained in our long-standing Anti-Semitic prayer requests to the effect that Gaza as of 2007 was “occupied,” was mirrored by a similar lie on the national-Presbyterian web site. And, accordingly, that the materials from the National Presbyterian Church on which the current class would be based, should be viewed as suspect and receive special scrutiny.

I received no answer.

[* Reading Liberally Editorial Note: Rev. David Henry was the long-time Wasatch Presbyterian Senior Minister as of 2007 and Yours Truly had, upon first attending Wasatch Presbyterian in 2007, called attention to the lie in the long-standing prayer request.]

**********
MY STATUS AS A GOOD SAMARITAN

At the outset, please permit me to describe my status.

I have no particular love for Israel. Indeed, Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned.

However, I do have a love for the law. And it pains me as a lawyer to witness defamation accompanied by obvious hostility (or, in legalese, “motivated by malice”).

In addition, you may wonder about my credentials for commenting on the accuracy of the lesson materials for the “Palestine Occupation” class which were issued by the national-Presbyterian organization. I was married for 33 years (1967-2000) to the co-author of the United States’ best-selling high school world history textbook (McGraw-Hill with National Geographic illustrations – now in its 6th edition and counting). And when not engaged in my own unrelated career, I was responsible for reading EVERY YEAR 12-15 thick biographies and/or historical tomes for nuggets and nuances that should be included in the next edition of the world history textbook. When one has read more than 900 thick biographies and/or historical tomes, one probably knows more about world history than the author herself who was only provided the nuggets that were important enough to be considered for inclusion.

Nevertheless, if you have any question regarding any statement in this e-mail or in any of the materials that you will receive, I would be happy to provide documentation.

In case anyone is curious why my marriage ended after 33 years, the situation was very sad. She was not religious and did not believe in an after life. Her psychiatrists testified that she had a romantic idea from childhood that a spouse is supposed to solve all your problems so that, when she reached “mid-life crisis” and began focusing on her own mortality, she blamed me for not solving the problem that she (like the rest of humanity) was destined to die eventually. Indeed, on the recommendation of her psychiatrists, she moved to the opposite end of our home for 3 years in an attempt to fool herself into believing that she was no longer married to me so that she could then stop blaming me for her mortality (she is a wonderful human being who has always treated everyone else beautifully). When that didn’t work, her psychiatrists had nothing further to recommend and she filed for divorce.

But enough already on digressions.

**********
REVIEWING MY LEGAL OBSERVATIONS WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL ATTORNEY

Although I have practiced law in New York for 43 years, I am not admitted to practice in Utah. Accordingly, you should view my legal observations as unofficial and each of you should review them with your own personal attorney.

In doing so, my credentials offered for the consideration of your own personal attorney = JD, Harvard Law School, 1967; Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003; Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003; Who’s Who in the World, 1994-2003.

It should be noted that it would be improper for the attorney(s) representing Wasatch Presbyterian to offer you legal advice because you and Wasatch Presbyterian have a built-in “conflict of interest” = if this imbroglio should become a legal problem, the attorneys for Wasatch Presbyterian will be trying, in part, to absolve (and limit punitive damages for) their client by blaming you as individuals.

**********
THE MATERIALS DOCUMENTING THE ANTI-SEMITISM OF WASATCH PRESBYTERIAN

You will be receiving momentarily copies of three e-mails (one of which has 3 attachments) that document (1) the 2007 rejection by Session of Rev. David Henry’s recommendation to accept the offer of Rabbi Rosen of Congregation Kol Ami to conduct an Adult Ed class for us in response to our Anti-Semitism, and Rev. Henry's discovery that the lie contained in our long-standing anti-Semitic prayer requests to the effect that Gaza as of 2007 was “occupied” was mirrored on the national Presbyterian web site and (2) the current imbroglio comprising the Adult Ed class on “Palestine Occupation.”

Anti-Semitism almost always comprises defamation = statements that are false and that are made either with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The classic historical example would be the myth that was widely believed throughout history at various times by various groups that “all Jews drink the blood of Christian babies.” Though probably the most egregious was the Roman Catholic Church’s “blood guilt” doctrine that all Jews currently living are responsible for the death of Christ – which remained official Roman Catholic doctrine until 1961, SIXTEEN YEARS AFTER THE END OF WORLD WAR II.

For that reason, the most prominent organization fighting Anti-Semitism in America is the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. It has limited resources, though it often accepts donations “ear marked” for acting in specific situations. For example, if a member of the Salt Lake Jewish community were to take umbrage at the Anti-Semitism of Wasatch Presbyterian Church, it is quite possible that funding for a JADL lawsuit against Wasatch Presbyterian Church and you as individuals might be instituted.

Defamation comes in two varieties – slander is oral and libel is written.

Libel is “actionable per se” which means that punitive damages are in order even if there have been no monetary or other damages. However, unless there has been monetary or other actual harm, punitive damages cannot be imposed for slander unless it involves a claim of (1) criminal conduct by the victim, (2) the victim has a loathsome disease, (3) professional incompetence of the victim, or (4) sexual misconduct by the victim.

Your personal responsibility for the defamatory materials being used in the “Palestine Occupation” Adult Ed class comprises libel and subjects you personally to punitive damages even though there may have been no actual harm to the Salt Lake Jewish community.

Your personal responsibility for the use of these defamatory materials is not excused by the fact that they were prepared by the national Presbyterian organization, and it is not excused by the fact that you may have authorized one of your members to make the decision to permit the use of these materials rather than participating in a vote on the issue (indeed, such an authorization as a “dereliction of duty” may be worse from a legal viewpoint than simply claiming your disregard for the truth was not “reckless” -- especially compounded by the fact that the the person you authorized to make the decision would be considered your agent and, therefore, any knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of that agent would be attributed back to you).

Punitive damages are usually based on the net worth of the defendant(s) and the percentage of that net worth awarded is based on the judgment of the jury regarding how much would be needed to “teach a lesson” to the defendant(s) so that the behavior does not recur.

A good “rule of thumb” would be to plan on punitive damages equal to 50% of the net worth of the defendant(s).

Incidentally, with regard to Wasatch Presbyterian Church, it is easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that the church’s property would not be very valuable because, with declining church attendance across America in general and in Salt Lake City in particular, there may not be much demand for a church building such as ours.

However, both the bank that holds our mortgage(s) and the jury as instructed by the judge would look at the value of our land as building lots and/or a site for a condominium/PUD, less the cost of knocking down the church building and removing the debris.

**********
GOING-FORWARD MODUS VIVENDI

Before offering comments on a few examples of the many defamatory statements contained in “Steadfast Hope” (the brochure used for your “Palestine Occupation” Adult Ed course), I am willing (as mentioned above) to provide documentation regarding any historical facts that are contained in this e-mail or the other materials that you will receive.

I am not willing to provide further elaboration on any legal observations. As previously mentioned, they should be reviewed by you with your own personal attorney.

And I am not willing to engage in any oral discussions regarding this imbroglio. Throughout a 43-year legal career, I have found it essential in matters such as these to keep everything “on the record.”

**********
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS – HISTORICAL CONTEXT PLUS CLAIMS BY ADOLF HITLER AND BY IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

Palestine has not been a “country” for 2,000 years even though “Steadfast Hope” refers several times to Palestinians and “their country.”

Indeed, from the mid-1000’s to 1299 AD, it was part of the Seljuk Turk Empire. The Seljuk Turks came from Russian Turkestan which fragmented into all of the “stans” except Afghanistan which was always separate, and from Chinese Turkestan aka Sinkiang Province. Following their arrival in the Middle East, the Seljuk Turks were centered in modern-day Iran where they promptly “went native” in terms of dress, language, inter-marrying, etc.

From 1299 AD, it was part of the Ottoman Turk Empire. The Ottoman Turks also came from Russian Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan. Following their arrival in the Middle East, the Ottoman Turks put military pressure on Constantinople and, after conquering it in 1453, made it their capital until World War I when the Ottoman Empire was defeated along with Germany and the Habsburg (aka Austro-Hungarian) Empire.

What became Palestine remained part of the Ottoman Turk Empire until it was captured by the British in 1917 as part of World War I.

In 1923, the League of Nations divided the area into four parts – giving France “mandates” to rule what the League created and called Lebanon and Syria, and Britain “mandates” to rule what the League created and called Iraq and Palestine.

However, immediately after the capture of the entire area by Britain in 1917, British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour wrote a letter to the head of the world-wide Rothschild family promising that Jews not currently living in Palestine would be permitted to make it their national home.

This letter (which “Steadfast Hope” calls the “Balfour Declaration” though it is usually called the Balfour Doctrine in most historical works) was the basis for Hitler’s claim that Germany had been “stabbed in the back” by international Jewry toward the end of World War I. Certainly its substance, its timing, and the person to whom it was addressed lend credence to Hitler’s claim (though, of course, there is little or no evidence that the international financial-powerhouse Rothschild family actually took any action as a result of the letter from Balfour).

Although the Balfour Doctrine had promised Jews not living in Palestine in 1917 a homeland there, the British following the end of World War I decided that it was more important from the viewpoint of oil supplies to renege on the Balfour Doctrine – which is why there is little or no evidence that the international Rothschild family reacted to Arthur Balfour’s letter since they were probably properly skeptical.

Indeed, when Hitler’s concentration camps opened and the international community refused to permit German Jews to immigrate into their countries (including the famous ship loaded with Jewish refugees that sailed around the world and was refused by everyone, including the U.S., to permit its passengers to disembark and eventually had to sail the Jewish refugees back to Germany), Britain announced a policy in 1939 that Jewish immigration in Palestine would be limited to a grand total of 75,000 for the next 5 years (i.e., 15,000/year) and prohibited thereafter.

This policy was strictly enforced. Indeed, the Hollywood movie Exodus starring Paul Newman was a hoax. On July 11, 1947, the Exodus sailed from Sète, France loaded with 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors. It was intercepted by the British Royal Navy (1) in violation of international law because it occurred on the high seas, and (2) with loss of life including some Americans among the crew. It was escorted to Cyprus where the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors were imprisoned briefly. The movie falsely shows the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors (which the movie says numbered only 611), making a daring escape from the British prison back to the Exodus, and engaging in a hunger strike that forced the Brits to permit the Exodus and its human cargo to sail to Haifa. There was no escape or hunger strike in Cyprus. The Brits did sail Exodus to Haifa, where the Brits re-loaded the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors onto three more sea-worthy vessels. The Brits then sent the 4,515 human cargo back to France. It was at Port-de-Bouc near Marseilles that on August 2, 1947, the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors refused to disembark and engaged in their 24-hour hunger strike. In response, the French refused to force them to disembark. So the Brits sailed them to Hamburg located in the British occupation zone of Germany, from which the Brits transported the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors to be imprisoned in the Pöppendorf Concentration Camp at Lübeck, Germany which was also in the British occupation zone.

Indeed, one of the worst scandals of World War II was the decision by the victorious Americans, Brits and French (the 7 million man French army from the African colonies was the largest allied army at the time of the Normandy invasion) NOT TO PERMIT THE 1.2 MILLION SURVIVORS OF HITLER’S CONCENTRATION CAMPS TO RETURN TO THEIR EUROPEAN HOMES. INSTEAD, THE AMERICANS, BRITS AND FRENCH CONTINUED TO CONFINE THEM IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS (old concentration camps, new management – though the ovens were turned off).

The Brits and French were planning to keep the 1.2 million Jewish survivors confined in Hitler’s concentration camps permanently (the last did not close until 1951).

However, President Truman, in disgust, forced the Brits and French to acquiesce in ending the League of Nations “mandate” for Britain to rule Palestine and in forming a United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (“UNSCOP”) to carefully catalogue who owned what in Palestine. UNSCOP, which did not have as members France, Britain or the United States, made the survey and recommended that Palestine be partitioned on the basis of actual ownership of the land. The UNSCOP Report (which will be e-mailed to you) lists the population of the Palestine Mandate at the end of 1945 and the end of 1946 (reflecting no changes as a result of the 1939 British prohibition on Jewish immigration) as:

Moslems – 1,076,783
Jews – 608,225
Christians – 145,063
Others – 15,488
Total – 1,845,559

The 8/31/1947 UNSCOP Report recommended a “Jewish State” comprising all of the land then owned by Jews, and an Arab State comprising all of the land then owned by non-Jews – even though much of the land comprising each state would be islands within the other state.

U.N. Resolution 181 (11/29/1947) adopted the UNSCOP recommendation. However, the UNSCOP Report had documented that virtually all of the Negev desert was unpopulated and not owned by anyone except Britain since 1917 and the Turks for 900 years prior to that. U.N. Resolution 181 gave the Negev desert to the Jewish State.

On 5/14/1948 (the anniversary of the U.N. resolution creating UNSCOP), the old British mandate to rule Palestine terminated by virtue of the U.N. resolution creating UNSCOP. On that date, Israel declared its independence based on U.N. Resolution 181. It was immediately invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

The United Nations had only 50 members in 1947 at the time of U.N. Resolution 181. All of the European members voted for the resolution.

Accordingly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is correct in his often-repeated claim that Israel was created by the European nations as a dumping ground for their surviving Jews.

**********
EXAMPLES OF EGREGIOUS DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS BY “STEADFAST HOPE”

As a preliminary matter, I would reiterate my claim that I have no particular love for Israel and that Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned.

For example, Israel joined Britain and France in invading Egypt when, immediately following full Egyptian independence from Britain in 1958, Egypt immediately nationalized the Suez Canal which was owned by France and Britain.

And, as noted on p. 45 of “Steadfast Hope,” Israeli troops in 1982 under the command of Israeli General (and later Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon surrounded a Palestinian refugee camp just south of Beirut Lebanon and permitted Lebanese Christian troops to massacre thousands of women, children and elderly over a period of several days. Indeed, “Steadfast Hope” does not mention that Ariel Sharon was convicted in absentia of war crimes for this massacre in a Belgian court in 2001. However, a Belgian appeals court reversed the conviction because during the appeal, Belgium changed its law to disallow criminal prosecutions for acts occurring outside Belgium unless committed by a Belgian citizen. [NB: The original provision in Belgian law is fairly standard by international norms in order to prosecute the actions of pirates on the high seas; the provision was changed under pressure from the U.S. which questioned whether Belgium should remain the location for the headquarters of such international institutions as NATO unless it changed its law.]

EXAMPLE 1 – HAVING IT BOTH WAYS RE “INTERNATIONAL LAW”

Whenever a U.N. resolution (such as Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine) favors Israel, it is disregarded by “Steadfast Hope.” But whenever it favors the Palestinians, it is described as “international law.”

In reality, U.N. resolutions have no force as “international law” as was on prominent display when Saddam Hussein over a period of years thumbed his nose at approximately two dozen U.N. resolutions on various subjects. However, U.N. resolutions are occasionally used as justification for U.N. sanctions and/or U.N. military action but that is only achieved by virtue of yet another U.N. resolution.

EXAMPLE 2 – THE “RIGHT OF RETURN”

“Steadfast Hope” and the first portion of its accompanying DVD, talk constantly about Palestinian ownership of their former homes inside what is now Israel on the basis of a “right of return” with regard to which “Steadfast Hope” states (p. 10) “UN Security Council Resolution 194 stated that ‘refugees wishing to return to their homes should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that those choosing not to return should be compensated for their property.’”

Minor points are: (1) according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, 567 thousand Jews were thrown out of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon when they invaded Israel immediately after its Declaration of Independence in 1948 which is comparable to the number of Moslems that were displaced from what became Israel, and (2) this is another example of “Steadfast Hope” treating any favorable U.N. resolution as “international law.”

The major point is that “Steadfast Hope” lied by omitting from its purported direct quotation of U.N. resolution 194 an important element of the U.N. resolution which states “…that the refugees wishing to return to their homes AND LIVE AT PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS should be permitted…” (emphasis added). Israel has always taken the position that Arab refugees do not wish to “live at peace with their neighbors” and the Arab track record is not supportive that they do.

Moreover, the Palestinians have never recognized Israel’s “right to exist” which is the usually insuperable obstacle to achieving a two-state agreement. That issue will be addressed in the next section. However, it is relevant here because the refusal of Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” coupled with their constant terrorism against Israel (not to mention 3 wars of annihilation against Israel by its Arab neighbors) are at least a respectable prima facie case that Palestinian refugees do not wish “to live at peace” with Israel.

EXAMPLE 3 – ISRAEL’S “RIGHT TO EXIST”

“Steadfast Hope” defamatorily attempts to create the misimpression that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right to exist.”

Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip, has never recognized Israel’s “right to exist” and even “Steadfast Hope” does not falsely claim that they do.

The basis of the defamatory claim by “Steadfast Hope” at, for example, page 8 that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right to exist” is the fact that the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) which rules the West Bank has engaged in negotiations with Israel regarding a two-state agreement. However, “Steadfast Hope” blandly states (p. 45) that in 2000 “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack, Palestinian Chairman Yassir Arafat, and U.S. President Bill Clinton meet at Camp David in a failed attempt to negotiate a settlement of final status issues.”

“Steadfast Hope” is engaged in a bald-faced lie. The negotiations at Camp David were successful!!! They did result in an agreement of final status issues. The problem was that Yassir Arafat, in all of his Arabic speeches, had always preached to all of his followers that he and the PLO had an implacable goal of “throwing Israel into the sea”!!!

Accordingly, when he returned to Palestine from Camp David, he realized that he could not possibly admit to his followers that he had recognized Israel’s “right to exist” and that they should do so also. Therefore, he reneged on the agreement without ever daring to mention to his followers that he had agreed that Israel had a “right to exist”!!!

EXAMPLE 4 – EGYPTIAN ANNEXATION OF GAZA 1949-1967 AND JORDANIAN ANNEXATION OF THE WEST BANK 1949-1967

“Steadfast Hope” (p. 44) states that in 1949, “West Bank and Gaza came under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively.”

No, they didn’t happen to “come under Jordanian and Egyptian control” in 1949. THEY WERE INVADED THE PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE JORDANIAN AND EGYPTIAN ARMIES ON 5/14/1948 AND THEY WERE STILL OCCUPIED WHEN THE SMOKE CLEARED.

Indeed, they continued to be occupied by Egypt and Jordan until 1967. Both were annexed, though Egypt did not grant Egyptian citizenship to Gazans while Jordan did grant citizenship to Palestinians living on the West Bank. However, there was a recent article in the NY Times about how Jordan has been trying to revoke the citizenship of Palestinians who were born on the West Bank after 1967 and have lived only on the West Bank even though both parents may also have lived solely on the West Bank but, having been born before 1967, are Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship.

EXAMPLE 5 – ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

“Steadfast Hope” constantly claims that since 1967, Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory. In fact, Israel has been occupying a portion of Egypt and a portion of Jordan which it captured as a result of a war initiated by Egypt and Jordan (technically, both Egypt and Jordan massed troops on their borders with Israel for an attack pursuant to which Israel, under the authority of Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions of 8/12/1949, launched a preemptive attack under its “right of self defense” – and super-technically, although Article 51 does not speak of a preemptive attack, its “right of self defense” is repeatedly and universally held authoritatively in various contexts to include the right to launch a preemptive attack in the face of an “imminent” threat).

It is true that various international efforts have been made to make Gaza and the West Bank into a separate Arab state rather than return them to Egypt and Jordan.

However, when a war has resulted in the capture of territory, the cease-fire line usually becomes a permanent border absent an agreement following the conflict – for example, the cease-fire line in 1953 between South Korea and North Korea which is still today technically at war with the United Nations, the division of Germany following World War II based on the position of Russian and Western troops, etc., etc.

Although Egypt entered into a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 pursuant to which Egypt took back the Sinai Peninsula but abandoned Gaza, and Jordan entered into a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 which, inter alia, did NOT address whether The West Bank was still part of Jordan while recognizing an “administrative boundary” between Jordan and the West Bank, the other 20 members of the Arab League of nations, do NOT recognize Israel’s “right to exist.” And, as described above, the Palestinians themselves (just like Yassir Arafat in 2000) still refuse to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” or to enter into a peace agreement with it.

EXAMPLE 6 – CONTINUED ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF GAZA FOLLOWING THE 2005 PULL OUT

“Steadfast Hope” (like Rev. David Henry discovered was true of the national Presbyterian web site in 2007) continues to claim that Gaza is still “occupied” by Israel despite the pull out in 2005 – INCLUDING THE FORCED REPATRIATION BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT OF ALL THE JEWISH SETTLERS IN THE GAZA STRIP BACK TO ISRAEL.

The false claim is based on Israeli control of Gaza’s air space and ports to try to prevent the importation of rockets that are constantly used to attack Israel.

However, using the term “occupation” to describe import controls is torturing the English language. The plain meaning of “occupation” is to occupy. Obviously, if Israel still had “boots on the ground” in Gaza itself, rockets would not have been raining daily on Israel from the 2005 pull out until Israel invaded part of Gaza 1/3/2009 for 18 days until withdrawing again 1/21/2009 – following which rockets have continued to be fired into Israel sporadically to the present day.

EXAMPLE 7 – THE WALL

“Steadfast Hope” contains a section entitled “Illegal” (p. 25) to describe the wall separating Israel from the West bank.

The section describes at length an opinion of the International Court of Justice.

The first problem is that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction in the matter so its “advisory opinion” (as “Steadfast Hope” admits was volunteered following, of course, no participation by Israel to defend itself in the proceedings) has no authority for rendering anything “illegal.”

Moreover, the wall follows for the most part the 1967 cease-fire line which everyone who supports a two-state solution (which the Palestinians and 20 of 22 Arab nations, as discussed above, do NOT), believes should be Israel’s border – or at least the starting point for negotiations. Although the wall does make some deviations from the 1967 cease-fire line, the 2000 peace agreement between Israel and Yassir Arafat did provide for changes in the 1967 cease-fire line which are reflected in the location of the wall in some instances. However, it must be conceded that the wall also reflects in a few spots Israel’s future negotiating position in the event that there are ever again any negotiations for a peace agreement – though even the most Anti-Semitic opponents of Israel would have to admit that the Israeli Government’s forced repatriation of all Israeli settlers from Gaza back to Israel in 2005 demonstrates that “bricks and mortar” are not the “last word” on what Israel might do in the future.

Nevertheless, the most important aspect of the wall is that it was built to exclude from Israel proper all of the Palestinian suicide bombers who dominated the world’s headlines almost on a daily basis by blowing up school buses, restaurants, etc. – until the wall was constructed beginning in 2002.

The wall has been a tremendous success in excluding suicide bombers. If a proper court with jurisdiction were to consider the matter, it would most likely decide that Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions of 8/12/1949 sanctioning “self defense” is sufficient to justify the legality of the wall.

EXAMPLE 8 – THE MENDACITY OF TRYING TO ABSOLVE PALESTINIANS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WARS OF ANNIHILATION LAUNCHED BY THEIR ARAB SUPPORTERS AND THEIR OWN TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAEL

As discussed above, the policy of both Hamas and the PLO and all of the 22 members of the Arab League of nations (with the sole exceptions of Egypt and Jordan) is that Israel does not have a “right to exist” and should be “thrown into the sea.”

*****
Any objective observer would have to admit that when Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon invaded Israel on the first day of its existence on May 14, 1948, their objective was annihilation.

*****
“Steadfast Hope” states (p. 18): “On June 5, 1967, Israel initiated a preemptive strike by bombing and then invading Egypt, Jordan, and Syria with the goal of expanding the boundaries of the state. Six days later Israel controlled Gaza, Sinai, the Golan, and the West Bank.”

This claim regarding Israel’s goal is one of the most gruesome lies contained in “Steadfast Hope.”

First, as discussed above, Egypt, Jordan and Syria massed troops along the Israeli border in preparation to attack Israel. Nobody has ever argued throughout the course of history that they were merely bluffing and did not intend to carry through.

Second, as discussed above, in the face of the imminent attack, Israel did launch a preemptive strike as permitted by the “right of self defense” under Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions of 8/12/1949.

Third, how could Israel conceivably be DEFENDING itself with an objective of conquest??? And why would Egypt, Jordan and Syria be mounting an attack on Israel with an objective of losing territory???

William Manchester’s thesis in “The Arms of Krupp” is that military battles are almost always decided on the basis of superior weapons – but who was certain in advance that the Russian weapons would prove inferior??? And why would Israel want to risk its existence except in order to defend itself???

*****
The last Arab-Israeli War (the so-called Yom Kippur War because it was a surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur in 1973) is described by “ Steadfast Hope” as follows (p. 44): “On the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attack Israel. With significant US economic and military assistance, Israel, although losing nearly 150 planes and suffering hundreds of casualties, pushes back both armies.”

The truth is that Israel was within 24 hours of becoming the answer to a trivia question = What WAS Israel?

Israel had followed the philosophy of Charles de Gaulle who pulled France out of NATO and developed French nuclear weapons because he didn’t believe that the old Soviet Union would believe for a minute that the U.S. would risk a nuclear holocaust in order to save France from a Soviet invasion using its overwhelming advantage in conventional weapons.

Pulitzer-Prize author, Seymour Hersh, details in his book “The Samson Option” Israel’s nuclear capabilities and how it saved Israel when Egypt & Syria launched the “Yom Kippur War” in 1973. Henry Kissinger had imposed an ammunition boycott on Israel for more than a year because Kissinger was so upset with the imperious treatment Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had been heaping on Arab diplomats since the 1967 war. So when Egypt and Syria (which had actually united into a single country called the United Arab Republic for 3-4 years immediately after Egypt achieved full independence from Britain in 1958) launched their surprise attack on Yom Kippur in 1973, Syrian tanks were encountering virtually no resistance because the Israelis were rationing their ammunition.

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir convened the Israeli Cabinet (1) to re-affirm their long-standing policy that if they reached the point at which Israel had fewer than 24 hours to go to complete annihilation, they would fire their 7 nuclear missiles which, interestingly, were trained on Russian cities rather than Arab capitals (because Israel recognized that the old Soviet Union had been inflaming Arab public opinion against Israel since its independence in 1949 in order to alienate oil-producing countries from the U.S.), and (2) to formally agree that Israel had reached the point of fewer than 24 hours to go to complete annihilation.

Seymour Hersh’s “Samson Option” does not record the identity of the Cabinet Minister who, at that meeting, made the suggestion that a telex be sent immediately to Kissinger to inform him on what would be “going down” within a matter of minutes. Luckily, Hersh reports, Kissinger was available to receive the telex and immediately replied: “Commence firing as if there is no tomorrow – the re-supply planes will take off at dawn.” The Israelis did begin firing “as if there were no tomorrow,” the re-supply planes did take off at dawn, the Israeli-Syrian front lines stabilized, and Israel did not become the answer to that trivia question.

Incidentally, since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis have been following a policy of being as self-reliant as possible with regard to military supplies.

*****
There has already been discussed above all of the Palestinian suicide bombings that were only brought to a halt with the construction of the wall.

*****
There has already been discussed above the constant raining of rockets on Israel on a daily basis by Palestinians from Gaza following the 2005 Israeli pull out until the end of 2008 when Israel invaded Gaza. The rockets have continued on a sporadic basis since then.

EXAMPLE 8 – THE FALSE POSTURING AS “PEACE MAKERS”

“Steadfast Hope” constantly postures itself as making peace.

Removing the wall would simply expose Israel once more to the Palestinian suicide bombers. That is hardly advancing the cause of peace.

A two-state “solution” has little promise for achieving peace. The Israeli experience of pulling out of Gaza and then having rockets rained on it on a daily basis demonstrates that giving the Palestinians control will do the opposite.

Indeed, when the U.S. has been confronted by terrorist regimes (the Old Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. – though I recognize that some readers of this e-mail will quarrel with my characterization or with some of the countries on my list), the policy has always been containment without any “peace agreement” – not risking our existence for a so-called “peace agreement.” Peace-wise, co-existence is often “as good as it gets.”

CONCLUSION

I’m sorry to have been so verbose. However, as you can probably appreciate if you have read this far, I could write an entire book about all of the falsehoods contained in “Steadfast Hope.” Indeed, a more appropriate title might have been: “Constant Arab Wars of Annihilation and Other Forms of Palestinian Terrorism.”

As promised, I will send you momentarily three e-mails that contain the historical record of Anti-Semitism at Wasatch. And a fourth e-mail which will contain as an attachment the UNSCOP report of 1948.

If your private attorney would like to contact me for any reason, I would be willing to respond to any queries s/he might have.

If you decide that you don’t want to stand the expense of advice from your own private attorney, it is respectfully suggested for your consideration the observation of what I would do in your shoes = request a vote on whether to continue with the “Occupied Palestine” Adult Ed course in the future (I notice from the WPC web site that Part II of 3 is scheduled for the next session commencing April 16th) and, in the event that a vote is denied or that a vote is taken but it permits the course to continue or that Session overrules a decision by your group to terminate the course, I would immediately resign from your group.

Good luck!!!

Your friend,

John K., Good Samaritan