Below is a 2007 article from CAMERA which should be read by all. Sabeel describes itself as a Christian organization yet it is thoroughly steeped in pro-Palestinian liberation theology that uses revisionist history and anti-Israeli propaganda. Sabeel is also heavily endorsed by the crusading anti-Zionist (they're deadly) and Israeolophobic Stephen Sizer:
When Rev. Dr. Gary Burge, the man who turned God’s promise to Abraham into a cosmic “kick me” sign permanently affixed to the back of the Jewish people in his error-laden book, Whose Land? Whose Promise? appeared on Hank Hanegraff’s show in May 2007, he invoked an essay by Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, founder of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center as evidence that there are Palestinians opposed to acts of terror against Israel.
If you go on the web and you just simply were to Google an article by a Christian leader named Ateek A-T-E-E-K and he has an article published on the web [about] suicide bombers. Just type in Ateek and suicide bombers and there you will have a Christian leader, a Palestinian who actually comments on that kind of Muslim violence.
Readers who do as Rev. Dr. Burge suggests will find hundreds of links confirming that indeed, Rev. Dr. Ateek has condemned suicide bombings – in an essay written in English and using Christian theology.
While Rev. Dr. Ateek’s essay is often invoked before Christian audiences in the U.S. to demonstrate that indeed, Sabeel is a peacemaking organization, it is unlikely that Rev. Dr. Ateek’s essay contributed to the decline of suicide attacks that has taken place since 2004. Israel’s security barrier was built to stop attacks perpetrated by Arabic-speaking Muslims living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, not English-speaking Presbyterians, Episcopalians or Congregationalists who are Rev. Dr. Ateek’s primary audience in the U.S. Still, for what it’s worth, different versions of Rev. Dr. Ateek’s essay are available here, here, and here. It is also appeared in the September/October 2003 issue of Church and Society, a defunct journal previously published by the Presbyterian Church (USA)...keep reading
Speaking of Sizer; Moriel's Jacob Prasch still has an open invitation to debate him:
Repeated Debate Challenge
Jacob Prasch wishes to repeat his challenge to publicly debate Anglican Stephen Sizer on Sizer's contentions that Zionism is apartheid and that the modern state of Israel does not fulfill biblical prophecy. As an Anglican in a church ordaining homosexual clergy and with a Druid Arch Bishop of Canterbury now calling for Britain to integrate elements of Islamic Sharia, anti Zionists like Sizer in a church with a pro Islamic hierarchical agenda must be challenged.
We are compelled by the evidence to regard Sizer as hypocritical and biblically ignorant and would relish the opportunity to demonstrate this in public debate before a video camera in a properly moderated format.
It is also difficult for us not to additionally suspect Sizer of being a pseudo-academic fraud, but he at least deserves the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise in a public forum.
In view of the widespread persecution of Arab, Persian, Asian, and African Christians throughout the Moslem world it is nothing short of ludicrous that Sizer continually targets Israel as the perpetrator of injustice when Israel is the solitary country in The Middle East assuring the rights and security of its Christian population.
Our expectation is that Sizer will continue to run as usual. This however simply serves to underscore the indefensible implausibility of his pseudo-scholarly and pseudo-biblical antics.
Apparently Rev. Sizer is currently too busy worrying about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent treatment of the hapless President Obama, and all those TV interview trips to Indonesia and Malaysia to discuss those naughty Jews takes up a lot of his valuable time.
Sizer appears to be ignorant of the fact that the above countries are notorious for their selective tolerance towards Christians. I can vouch that I've met (and worked for) Christians who migrated to Australia to escape the intolerance of the dominant Muslim Indonesia and Malaysia.
Perhaps Sizer can discuss this with them during any forthcoming trips.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Where did the name Palestine come from?
The following article comes from Palestine Facts and can be found HERE:
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.
From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.
This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.
The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.
The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:
The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]
*************
Don't forget to get your latest Off The Wall News
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.
From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.
This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.
The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.
The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:
The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]
*************
Don't forget to get your latest Off The Wall News
Monday, November 3, 2008
Three new articles from FrontPage Mag plus a new King in Israel?
The feral antipathy towards Israel, the concerted bid to leverage it out of the community of nations, accounts for the obstinate reluctance on the part of Western academics, intellectuals, professionals, churchmen and journalists to examine the true history of the region, which would expose the Palestinian claim to plenary proprietorship as largely fraudulent while buttressing the Jewish and Israeli title to rightful occupancy. As Joan Peters has shown in her scrupulously researched seven-year study From Time Immemorial, examining census reports and internal memoranda during the British Mandate, perhaps a majority of the “original” Palestinian inhabitants were relative newcomers to the territory in question, having migrated into the Holy Land from the surrounding Arab countries, mainly from what was then known as Greater Syria (i.e., Syria and Lebanon) when still part of the Ottoman empire, and afterward during the post-Balfour period.
A Mid-East Fiction
One of the perks of being Israeli is that people in far-off places seem to take an interest in your problems. For instance, Queen’s University and York University of Canada are planning a conference for June 1, 2009, on “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace.” There’s already a website that’s issuing a call for papers and setting forth the “vision” of the conference.
Canada Conference Plans Israel’s Demise
When voters go to the polls on November 4th, they will choose not only a new presidential administration, but also the candidate's circles of influence. In the case of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, this includes Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.
Obama's Middle East Studies Mentors
And finally at Israel National News, a very interesting viewpoint from an historian:
Historian: Conditions Are Ripe for a King of Israel
A Mid-East Fiction
One of the perks of being Israeli is that people in far-off places seem to take an interest in your problems. For instance, Queen’s University and York University of Canada are planning a conference for June 1, 2009, on “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace.” There’s already a website that’s issuing a call for papers and setting forth the “vision” of the conference.
Canada Conference Plans Israel’s Demise
When voters go to the polls on November 4th, they will choose not only a new presidential administration, but also the candidate's circles of influence. In the case of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, this includes Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.
Obama's Middle East Studies Mentors
And finally at Israel National News, a very interesting viewpoint from an historian:
Historian: Conditions Are Ripe for a King of Israel
Monday, October 27, 2008
World Government to Reign in "Fascist" America?
Another interesting article from FrontPage Mag written by Joseph Klein. Klein is right in sounding this warning and his observations are spot on...
Richard Falk, who justly earned his way into David Horowitz’s book The Professors as one of the “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” now lectures more august audiences at the United Nations. Appointed as the United Nations Human Rights Council to serve as its special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in March, Falk has in a matter of months lived down to his opponents’ worst expectations. In addition to The Professors, Falk should be added to a list of the most biased anti-Israel UN human rights investigators, not an easy list to make at the UN. He believes Israel, and the United States, are guilty of Nazi-like barbarism, which the United Nations decries even as it dismisses investigations into North Korea and Cuba. Falk would abolish the alleged democratic atrocities by establishing a “world government” in which foreigners could overturn U.S. policies through “binding referenda.”
And:
He has a plan to make sure Nazism never breaks out again: allowing foreigners to veto the American voter.
Falk is a strong advocate for “world government” and “global law.” The United Nations General Assembly, in his view, does not have enough power to legislate and enforce its decisions. He suggests the possibility of forming a Global Parliament, either operating as a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly or taking some more autonomous character within the UN system.” He has recommended consideration of “allowing persons outside the United States to challenge policy affecting their wellbeing by way of binding referenda or even by casting votes in national elections held within the United States.”
Read the full article HERE
Richard Falk, who justly earned his way into David Horowitz’s book The Professors as one of the “101 Most Dangerous Academics in America,” now lectures more august audiences at the United Nations. Appointed as the United Nations Human Rights Council to serve as its special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in March, Falk has in a matter of months lived down to his opponents’ worst expectations. In addition to The Professors, Falk should be added to a list of the most biased anti-Israel UN human rights investigators, not an easy list to make at the UN. He believes Israel, and the United States, are guilty of Nazi-like barbarism, which the United Nations decries even as it dismisses investigations into North Korea and Cuba. Falk would abolish the alleged democratic atrocities by establishing a “world government” in which foreigners could overturn U.S. policies through “binding referenda.”
And:
He has a plan to make sure Nazism never breaks out again: allowing foreigners to veto the American voter.
Falk is a strong advocate for “world government” and “global law.” The United Nations General Assembly, in his view, does not have enough power to legislate and enforce its decisions. He suggests the possibility of forming a Global Parliament, either operating as a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly or taking some more autonomous character within the UN system.” He has recommended consideration of “allowing persons outside the United States to challenge policy affecting their wellbeing by way of binding referenda or even by casting votes in national elections held within the United States.”
Read the full article HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
