The Bible Teaching Ministry of David Hocking
“The Word of our God shall stand forever” Isaiah 40:8

Archive for March, 2010


Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

by Gil Ronen (Arutz Sheva News)

Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara reacted acerbically to a BBC report that the United States may abstain from using its veto power if the UN Security Council votes to condemn Israeli building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem.

“If Israel does not receive backing from the United States in the Security Council and the US does not veto a resolution of condemnation,” said the Deputy Minister for Development of the Negev and Galilee, “we should cut off all contacts with Hussein Obama and call upon the American people to raise a cry of dissent against the belligerent policy that has been implemented of late – first and foremost by the President of the US.”

The “abuse” and “aggression” toward the Prime Minister is abuse of each and every Israeli, he said, in a reference to the humiliations Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has undergone in his visits to the White House.

Kara intentionally used Obama’s Muslim middle name, leaving out his first name, which is also of Muslim origin.

Kara said Netanyahu should receive maximum backing within Israel, and particularly inside the Likud party.

Deputy Minister Kara was hosted for the Passover seder at Pisgat Ze’ev, along with dozens of Christian Zionists who came from the US to celebrate Passover in Israel.

Deputy Minister Kara, a Druze, is one of the most proudly and aggressively Zionist members of the current coalition. He has compared his connection to the Jewish people to that of Yitro (Jethro) and Moses. The Druze see Yitro – whom they call Shuaib – as their greatest prophet.

A senior US source has denied the BBC report, saying that no resolution of condemnation of Israel over construction in Jerusalem is expected in the United Nations Security Council.


Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu (Arutz Sheva News)

Nearly 200 Fatah leaders and Israeli leftists rioted late Wednesday morning near a military prison near Jerusalem and stoned Israeli soldiers and police, wounding two Border Police officers.

The violent riot was in protest of Sunday’s arrest of Abbas Zaki, a senior member of Fatah, led by Palestinian Authority PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Zaki and a dozen others were arrested near Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem after storming an Israeli checkpoint during a march, and he has refused to appear in an Israeli military court.

Following speeches of incitement outside the Ofer military prison located west of Ramallah and near Jerusalem, police dispersed the rioters with tear gas, injuring three demonstrators.

The arrest of Zaki is politically significant because he is the most senior Fatah official to have been arrested by Israel in 17 years, according to the pan-Arab Al-Jazeera news service. “The response from the Fatah political leadership has been a commitment to step up popular resistance,” according to Al-Jazeera.”

The IDF closed the Bitunia checkpoint, near the Ofer prison, after protesters broke through it. Among the demonstrators were three Fatah Central Committee members, leading rioters who threw rocks at Israeli security officers.

Abbas recently has told English-speaking media he is against violence but in Arabic media he has encouraged “resistance,” a code word for violence and terrorist attacks


Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

by Maayana Miskin (Arutz Sheva News)

The Arab League concluded its 22nd summit in Libya on Sunday without any changes from its longstanding policies: no to recognizing Israel under any conditions, yes to armed resistance (aka terror) against Israel, no condemnation of genocide in Darfur, yes to Arab Jerusalem, and more. A follow-up meeting will be held in October.

This summit focused on Jerusalem, which the League termed an Arab city. “East Jerusalem is an integral part of the occupied Palestinian lands of 1967. All procedures that are carried out by the Israeli Occupation Authorities is illegal, and does not change the legal status of the city that remains occupied, nor does it impact the political status as the capital of Palestine,” the League stated.

The League called on United States President Barack Obama to continue criticizing the building of homes for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern and northern Jerusalem. Israel must not be allowed to “Judaize” the city, Arab ministers said.

As the summit opened, Arab leaders agreed to give the Palestinian Authority $500 million to “fight Judaization” in Jerusalem and promote its own interests in the city.

Jerusalem has historically been a majority-Jewish city. In 1948, the Jordanian army drove Jews out of historic Jerusalem, including the City of David and the Old City.

Jews returned to the eastern and northern neighborhoods of Jerusalem 19 years later, in 1967, and have remained there since. The land has been annexed to Israel, and is officially part of the nation’s capital city. However, the PA claims that the areas temporarily controlled by Jordan rightfully belong to the PA as capital of a future Arab state.

The League determined that if Israel were to give the PA control over all areas controlled by Egypt and Jordan from 1948 to 1967 – Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and much of Jerusalem – the Arab League would support peace. However, the League would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

No to Terrorism – just call it “Resistance”

The Arab League also condemned terrorism, but then redefined the word “terrorism” to exclude attacks intended to “resist occupation.” The change in terminology effectively gives the green light to groups such as Hamas, Fatah, and Hizbullah, which justify their attacks on Israeli civilians by saying that Israel was established on Arab land.

While giving lip service to the war on terrorism, the League also condemned the assassination of arch-terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh of Hamas. Mabhouh was killed in Dubai, in an operation that the world has blamed on Israel.

League members also agreed to express support for Arab countries under Western pressure. League members backed Sudan, expressing solidarity with the country and rejecting “attempts to violate its sovereignty.”

Sudan has faced widespread criticism for failing to stop an ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of the country, and for allegedly giving support to the perpetrators. Arab militias have slaughtered tens of thousands of non-Arab Muslims in Darfur, and many more have died of starvation.

The League also called for compensation for Libya over losses it sustained due to Western sanctions following the Lockerbie bombing. It supported Syria in its demand that Israel hand over control of the strategic Golan region, which was annexed to Israel following the 1967 Six Day War.


Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

By Caroline Glick – Jerusalem Post

Why has President Barak Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel? Some commentators have claimed that it is Israel’s fault. As they tell it, the news that Israel has not banned Jewish construction in Jerusalem—after repeatedly refusing to ban such construction drove Obama into a fit of uncontrolled rage from which he has yet to recover. While popular, this claim makes no sense. Obama didn’t come to be called “No drama Obama” for nothing. It is not credible to argue that Jerusalem’s local planning board’s decision to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo drove cool Obama into a fit of wild rage at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Obama himself claims that he has launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny. On last Friday, Obama ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum.

First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.

Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. The US suggests releasing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.

Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than a half million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called “right of return,” in the course of indirect, Obama administration-mediated negotiations with the Palestinians. To date, Israel has maintained that substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.

If Israel does not accept all four US demands, then the Obama administration will boycott Netanyahu and his senior ministers. In the first instance, this means that when Netanyahu comes to Washington (last week for the AIPAC conference) no senior administration official will meet with him. (Editor’s note: President Obama did meet with the Prime Minister several times last week, but the meetings were reportedly brief, cool and unproductive.)

Obama’s ultimatum makes clear that mediating peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a goal he is interested in achieving.
Obama’s new demands follow the months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing both his support for a Palestinian state and a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make the latter concession. Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has, in the model of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, pocketed Netanyahu’s concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary.

With the US president treating Israel like an enemy, the Palestinians have no reason to agree to sit down and negotiate. Indeed, they have no choice but to declare war. And so, in the wake of Obama’s onslaught on Israel’s right to Jerusalem, Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews has risen to levels not seen since the outbreak of the last terror war in September 2000. And just as night follows day, that incitement has led to violence. These recent Arab riots from Jerusalem to Jaffa, and the renewed rocket offensive from Gaza are directly related to Obama’s malicious attacks on Israel.

But if his campaign against Israel wasn’t driven by a Presidential temper tantrum, and it isn’t aimed at promoting peace, what explains it? What is Obama trying to accomplish?

There are five explanations for Obama’s behavior. And they are not mutually exclusive.

First, Obama’s assault on Israel is likely related to the failure of his Iran policy. Over the past week, senior administration officials including Gen. David Petraeus have made viciously defamatory attacks on Israel, insinuating that the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem is a primary cause for bad behavior on the part of Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. By this line of thinking, if Israel simply returned to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Iran’s centrifuges would stop spinning, and Syria, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would all beat their swords into plowshares.

Second, even more important than its usefulness as a tool to divert the public’s attention away from the failure of his Iran policy, Obama’s assault against Israel may well be aimed at maintaining that failed policy. Specifically, he may be attacking Israel in a bid to coerce Netanyahu into agreeing to give Obama veto power over any Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations. That is, the anti-Israel campaign may be a means to force Israel to stand by as Obama allows Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.

For the past several months, an endless line of senior administration officials have descended on Jerusalem with the expressed aim of convincing Netanyahu to relinquish Israel’s right to independently strike Iran’s nuclear installations. All of these officials have returned to Washington empty-handed. Perhaps Obama has decided that since quiet pressure has failed to cow Netanyahu, it is time to launch a frontal attack against him.

This brings us to the third explanation for why Obama has decided to go to war with the democratically elected Israeli government. Obama’s advisers told friendly reporters that Obama wants to bring down Netanyahu’s government. By making demands Netanyahu and his coalition partners cannot accept, Obama hopes to either bring down the government and replace Netanyahu and Likud with the far-leftist Tzipi Livni and Kadima, or force Israel Beiteinu and Shas to bolt the coalition and compel Netanyahu to accept Livni as a co-prime minister. Livni, of course, won Obama’s heart when in 2008 she opted for an election rather than accept Shas’s demand that she protect the unity of Jerusalem.

The fourth explanation for Obama’s behavior is that he seeks to realign US foreign policy away from Israel. Obama’s constant attempts to cultivate relations with Iran’s unelected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad’s Arab lackey Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, and Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan make clear that he views developing US relations with these anti-American regimes as a primary foreign policy goal.

Given that all of these leaders have demanded that in exchange for better relations Obama abandon Israel as a US ally, and in light of the professed anti-Israel positions of several of his senior foreign policy advisers, it is possible that Obama is seeking to downgrade US relations with Israel. His consistent castigation of Israel as obstructionist and defiant has led some surveys to claim that over the past year US popular support for Israel has dropped from 77 to 58 percent.

The more Obama fills newspaper headlines with allegations that Israel is responsible for everything from US combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran’s nuclear program, the lower those numbers can be expected to fall. And the more popular American support for Israel falls, the easier it will be for Obama to engineer an open breach with the Jewish state.

The final explanation for Obama’s behavior is that he is using his manufactured crisis to justify adopting an overtly anti-Israel position vis-à-vis the Palestinians. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that administration officials are considering having Obama present his own “peace plan.” Given the administration’s denial of Israel’s right to Jerusalem, an “Obama plan,” would doubtless require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel some 700,000 Jews from their homes.

Likewise, the crisis Obama has manufactured with Israel could pave the way for him to recognize a Palestinian state if the Palestinians follow through on their threat to unilaterally declare statehood next year regardless of the status of negotiations with Israel. Such a US move could in turn lead to the deployment of US forces in Judea and Samaria to “protect” the unilaterally declared Palestinian state from Israel.

Both Obama’s behavior and the policy goals it indicates make it clear that Netanyahu’s current policy of trying to appease Obama by making concrete concessions is no longer justified. Obama is not interested in being won over. The question is, what should Netanyahu do?

One front in the war Obama has started is at home. Netanyahu must ensure that he maintains popular domestic support for his government to scuttle Obama’s plan to overthrow his government. So far, in large part due to Obama’s unprecedented nastiness, Netanyahu’s domestic support has held steady. A poll conducted for IMRA news service this week by Maagar Mohot shows that fully 75% of Israeli Jews believe Obama’s behavior toward Israel is unjustified. As for Netanyahu, 71% of Israeli Jews believe his refusal to accept Obama’s demand to ban Jewish building in Jerusalem proves he is a strong leader. Similarly, a Shvakim Panorama poll for Israel Radio shows public support for Kadima has dropped by more than 30% since last year’s election.

The other front in Obama’s war is the American public. By blaming Israel for the state of the Middle East and launching personal barbs against Netanyahu, Obama seeks to drive down popular American support for Israel. In building a strategy to counter Obama’s moves, Netanyahu has to keep two issues in mind.

First, no foreign leader can win a popularity contest against a sitting US president. Therefore, Netanyahu must continue to avoid any personal attacks on Obama. He must limit his counter-offensive to a defense of Israel’s interests and his government’s policies.

Second, Netanyahu must remember that Obama’s hostility toward Israel is not shared by the majority of Americans. Netanyahu’s goal must be to strengthen and increase the majority of Americans who support Israel. To this end, Netanyahu went to Washington last week and spoke at the annual AIPAC conference as planned, despite the administration’s threat to boycott him.

While in Washington, Netanyahu met with every Congressman and Senator who wanted to meet with him as well as every administration member who sought him out. Moreover, he gave interviews to as many television networks, newspapers and major radio programs as possible in order to bring his message directly to the American people.

Obama has made clear that he is not Israel’s ally. And for the remainder of his term, he will do everything he can to downgrade US relations with Israel while maintaining his constant genuflection to the likes of Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and Turkey.

But like Israel, the US is a free country. And as long as popular support for Israel holds steady, Obama’s options will be limited. Netanyahu’s task is to maintain that support in the face of administration hostility as he implements policies toward Iran and the Arabs alike that are necessary to ensure Israel’s long-term survival and prosperity.



Monday, March 29th, 2010

by Gil Ronen (Arutz Sheva News)

The US is considering abstaining if the United Nations Security Council votes on a resolution against Israeli construction in eastern Jerusalem, the BBC reported Sunday.

For decades, Israel has depended on the US to veto UNSC resolutions aimed against it. A change in this US policy could be very perilous for Israel.

Anti-Israeli resolutions pass regularly in the UN General Assembly, but their meaning is largely declarative. The UNSC, however, has the power to back its resolutions with action.

The possibility of the US abstaining on a vote on eastern Jerusalem came up at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani. A diplomatic source told the BBC that the official said the US would “seriously consider abstaining” if the issue of Israeli construction for Jews was put to the vote.

Sheikh Hamad Al Thani was in Paris last week for an economic forum. He asked the US official if Washington would promise not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that criticized Israel’s construction for Jews in eastern Jerusalem.

The US official replied that the current feeling in Washington was that the US would “seriously consider abstention”. An Egyptian official reportedly confirmed the US position during a closed-doors meeting at the Arab League summit.


Monday, March 29th, 2010

by Maayana Miskin (Arutz Sheva News)

At least 40 people were killed in Moscow Monday morning in a double suicide attack on the city’s metro system. Dozens more were wounded. One attack took place at the Lubyanka station; 40 minutes later, a second bomber struck the Park Kultury station.

A Russian official said an estimated 25 people were killed in the first attack. The attack killed both passengers on the train and people waiting on the platform.

The Lubyanka station is located next to the Russian Federal Security Service headquarters, and is also near the Kremlin.

A website affiliated with Muslim rebels seeking to create their own state in the Chechnya region claimed that the Chechen separatists were responsible for the attack.

Chechen terrorists have been responsible for previous mass casualty attacks in Russia, including a 2002 attack on a Moscow theater and the 2004 Beslan school massacre, in which terrorists took more than 1,100 people – including over 770 schoolchildren – hostage, ultimately killing hundreds.


Sunday, March 28th, 2010

by Hillel Fendel (Arutz Sheva News)

More than 75 percent of Congressmen in the U.S.House of Repreentatives have signed a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing support for Israel and demanding an end to the highly-publicized state of tensions with Israel.

Signed by 327 Representatives, out of 435, the letter calls on Clinton and the Obama Administration to settle its disputes with Israel in a non-public and friendly fashion. The current tensions “will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share,” the letter states, as “above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.”

The letter was initiated last week by leaders of both parties, including the top Representatives of each one: Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Additional excerpts from the letter:

“We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel, and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts… Differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies…

“We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises a municipal Jerusalem announcement on approval of another step towards the construction of 1,600 apartments in a post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhood during U.S. Vice President Biden’s recent visit to Israel, however unintended, will not recur.”

“The United States and Israel are close allies whose peoples share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism, and share an important strategic relationship…

Strong Israel is an Asset to U.S.

“A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East. We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.”

Netanyahu returned on Thursday from Washington after a highly-unpublicized meeting with President Obama there. The lack of a press conference and photo-ops is widely viewed as an Obama snub of Netanyahu, though the excuse has been offered that the meeting was barely planned in advance.

Obama’s One-Sided Demands on Israel

Obama demands that Netanyahu stop building in eastern Jerusalem and make a series of other gestures to the Palestinian Authority, while not demanding anything from the other side. Netanyahu has not agreed to do so, but met with his mini-cabinet of seven ministers on Friday to try to formulate a response. The ministers plan to meet again before the Passover holiday, which begins Monday night.


Saturday, March 27th, 2010


5-hour long ‘Septet’ discussion on US demands yields no decisions.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu convened his senior ministers in Jerusalem on Friday afternoon to discuss the demands made by US President Barack Obama and his overall trip to Washington – a trip that, because of negative atmospherics and amid a paucity of hard information, has been widely characterized as among the most difficult in recent memory.

Late Friday evening, Israel Radio reported that Netanyahu holds to the view that Israel must not change its policy in Jerusalem, despite the fact that this was the main point of contentions between Israel and the United States.

However the circle of seven top ministers, known collectively as the ‘Septet’, did not come to any conclusions following the five-hour discussion and will probably only announce the government’s position after the Passover Seder which occurs Monday evening.

Netanyahu told his inner circle also that on Iran, the US and Israel were in complete agreement.

Earlier, officials in the Prime Minister’s Office threw a complete blackout on the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, and also gave very sketchy information about the commitments that the US is demanding of Israel as a precursor to starting the proximity talks with the Palestinians. According to officials, the US wants these commitments by Saturday so it can take them to the Arab League meeting in Libya and receive that organization’s backing for starting proximity talks.

Netanyahu’s spokesman Nir Hefetz on Friday morning said that the Prime Minister reached understandings with Obama regarding continued construction in east Jerusalem.

In an interview with Army Radio, he added that Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Netanyahu agree on these issues and assessed that the inner cabinet will support the understandings reached in Washington.

“There are several steps that the Americans would like to see Israel take in order to restart the peace process. We returned from the US with the understanding that on one hand, the construction policy in Jerusalem will remain unchanged, and on the other hand, Israel is prepared to make gestures in order to resume the peace process,” Hefetz said.

The main point of contention between Netanyahu and Obama, Hefetz confirmed, was the US demand that Israel extend the ten-month West Bank building moratorium.

Netanyahu’s spokesman rejected reports that Obama demanded that the Palestinian Authority be given control over east Jerusalem’s Abu Dis neighborhood.

Meanwhile in the opposition, Kadima MK Yohanan Plessner told the radio station that his party would agree to partner with Likud if the parties managed to agree on the political agenda. “The policy is clear – we are for a real unity government, with a joint agenda. After we have a real agenda and a coalition that can implement it, we can discuss who gets which ministries,” Plessner said.


Thursday, March 25th, 2010

by Avi Yellin (Arutz Sheva News)

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) revealed in a January report that was updated recently that the government of Israel has been concealing a change in arms policy by the United States against the Jewish state. The Institute further stated that the Likud-led government of Binyamin Netanyahu has also refrained from protesting massive American weapons sales to Arab states in the region, an initiative that has eroded Israel’s military edge over its neighbors.

The Institute reports that over the last year, the Obama administration has refused to approve any major Israeli weapons requests. Government sources asserted that the refusal represents a new White House policy to link arms sales to the Jewish state with the Netanyahu government’s willingness to submit on Washington’s demands that Israel surrender Judea, Samaria and most of Jerusalem to the American-backed Palestinian Authority.

The report revealed that the White House has so far blocked key weapons projects and upgrades for Israel, rejecting requests for AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters while approving advanced F-16 multi-role fighters for Egypt. Israel has meanwhile refrained from objecting to American plans to sell F-16s, Harpoon Block 2 anti-ship missiles, Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, fast attack craft and helicopters to the Egyptians. In addition to the advanced weapons sold to Egypt, Washington has also approved more than $10 billion worth of arms sales to Arab League states, including Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“Indeed, Israel’s request for six AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters was blocked by the Obama Administration in June — the same time the Egyptian sale was approved,” the JINSA report stated.

According to the report, the failure to sponsor Israel’s qualitative edge, which violates a pledge given more than 40 years ago to maintain Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors, began not with Obama but under the previous administration of President George W. Bush. “The concept of the Qualitative Military Edge failed to keep up with the changes in U.S. arms sales and training policy over the decades.” Israel has to now stay ahead through other means.

A major U.S. policy shift came in 2004, when the Bush Administration needed Gulf Arab help for the American-led invasion of Iraq – particularly after Turkey denied Bush entrance into Iraq from the north – and wanted to bolster Washington’s influence and ability to deal with regional problems.

JINSA dismissed Israeli government claims that the White House was ready to address the erosion of Israel’s defensive capabilities. The Institute said the January 2010 visit by U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones did not concern the Washington’s pledge to Israel’s qualitative military edge but was to push Israel into making further concessions to the Fatah-led PA.

According to the report, the U.S. aid to Arab states has hampered Israeli military cooperation with Washington. More than 20 years ago, the Israel Air Force stopped participating in American sponsored regional exercises in order to prevent the leakage of combat tactics.


Thursday, March 25th, 2010

by Hana Levi Julian (Arutz Sheva News)

( A U.S.-based Egyptian Coptic Christian leader has called for Jewish support to help prevent Egypt from becoming a “jihadist state hostile to Israel.”

Magdi Khalil, a Coptic Christian activist who runs the Pennsylvania-based Middle East Forum, as well as a center in Cairo, called on American Jewry in a video conference lecture last month to invite Coptic leaders to speak. The lecture was translated into English by the media watchdog MEMRI.

“The Copts face the same terrorism that the United States faced on September 11th and London, Madrid, Moscow, Bali, Mumbai and Tel Aviv as well,” Khalil contended. “The difference is that the Copts were subjected to Islamic terrorism for decades and by the state itself.”

Khalil accused President Hosni Mubarak’s government of scapegoating the Coptic community as a means of diverting public attention away from the issue of corruption.

He added that “about one-third of the terrorists in the world have come from Egypt,” and contended that Egypt is one of the main centers of Islamic thought and one of the main sponsors of terrorism in the world.

“Copts in Egypt are struggling to prevent the transformation of Egypt into an armed jihadist state that would be anti-Western and anti-Israel,” Khalil claimed. He added that the sect is “a large minority, and the largest minority under the rule of Islamic regimes and in a Muslim country.”

Web Site Designed and Hosted by Ceronex