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

Archive for November, 2010


Tuesday, November 30th, 2010

by Ryan Jones (Israel Today News)

The land-for-peace process that the international community, in cooperation with Yasser Arafat’s PLO, so self-righteously and with exaggerated attention foisted upon the region was not only supposed to bring stability, but also to draw Jews and Arabs closer together in peaceful coexistence.

It has failed to accomplish either goal, and has actually had the opposite effect. The region is far more volatile today than it was 15 years ago, and according to a new poll, Jews and Arabs west of the Jordan River now can’t stand to be close to one another.

Carried out by the Israel Democracy Institute, the poll asked Israeli Jews various questions regarding their Arab countrymen. The results were that 46 percent of Jews don’t want to live near Arabs and 53 percent of Jews think their government should encourage local Arabs to emigrate to one of the surrounding Arab nations.

Most media coverage of the poll stopped there in order to paint Israel’s Jews as racist. But the Arab respondents were equally intolerant.
Seventy percent of Israeli Arabs said they don’t want to live near homosexuals (only 25 percent of Jews were opposed to living near gays), 67 percent of Arabs don’t want to live near religious Jews, 65 percent of Arabs will not live near Jews who at any time lived in Judea and Samaria, and nearly half (46 percent) won’t be neighbors with foreign laborers.

Just 10 years ago, the situation was not this way. While there were certain taboos on moving into ethnically-dominated neighborhoods or towns, Jews and Arabs freely entered one another’s communities on a daily basis with little or no fear of prejudice or harm. In fact, it was equally as common for Jews to enter Palestinian Arab areas for a day out, and vice versa.

The results of the Israel Democracy Institute poll are representative of a broader phenomenon that is seeing Jews and Arabs retreat into their own communities have far less trust for one another. This phenomenon can only be blamed on the circumstances created by the so-called “Oslo” peace process.
With the introduction of Arafat’s PLO into the region, and Arafat’s belief that past terrorist activities had won him that diplomatic victory, violence against Israel’s Jews increased exponentially. That naturally led to far less trust from Jews for Palestinian and even Israeli Arabs, many of whom were being taken in by Arafat’s message. The resulting Israeli security measures in turn irreparably damaged the trust local Arabs had for Israeli Jews.

Far from bringing the two sides closer to a genuine peace (and not just a signed document), the current peace process has served to entrench the sides in ethnic conflict for the foreseeable future, further driving a wedge between local Jews and Arabs. And the gap is only getting wider with each passing year, even as world leaders declare that they are getting ever closer to concluding a peace agreement.

So much for the wisdom of men.


Tuesday, November 30th, 2010

by Elad Benari (Arutz Sheva News)

Professor Eytan Gilboa, professor of communication and government at Bar-Ilan University, addressed on Monday the exposure of sensitive documents by WikiLeaks.

Speaking to Arutz Sheva’s daily journal, Gilboa, who is an expert on U.S. matters and former advisor in the offices of the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister, said: “The publications weaken the United States and a weak United States is not a good thing for Israel.”

He added that he is concerned by an image of the U.S. as a country under attack led by a weak President. Such an image, according to Gilboa, might very well lead to continued attacks on the Americans.

Gilboa said that the very exposure of the documents is a “serious failure” on the part of the U.S. government, a failure which he believes that the U.S. is already paying for in the international arena, since it is now assumed by any diplomat or informant that should they contact their American counterparts, there is a legitimate concern that what they say would ultimately be made public. “There are known rules to the game,” said Gilboa. “Things that are said and sent confidentially should remain that way.”

He added that he does not believe that so far, any particularly severe information has been leaked, but warned that such information could be made available later in the week.

“So far there is nothing new,” said Gilboa. “Most of it was already known, but still, when things show up written in black and white it’s embarrassing. We all knew that Saudi Arabia and other countries fear Iran, but when it is written that there was pressure on their part to attack Iran it’s embarrassing.”

According to Gilboa, the U.S. administration must find the person who leaked the documents, punish them severely, and work to repair foreign relations. As for Obama’s dealing with the information that has been leaked, Gilboa believes that he should focus on changing his treatment of hostile countries.

“Obama so far has been relatively soft on the enemy, and he should examine his strategy and support more allies,” said Gilboa. “The reconciliation with the Arab world failed. Now Obama needs to change his policy and present an action plan so that he can deal with two problems for which a solution has still not been found: the fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, and the proliferation of nuclear countries such as Iran and North Korea.”


Monday, November 29th, 2010

by Ryan Jones (Israel Today News)

There was much apprehension and concern on Sunday evening as whistleblower website WikiLeaks began publishing nearly a quarter of a million classified US diplomatic cables. Washington had already phoned Israeli leaders to prepare them for any embarrassing information that would be revealed.
But by Monday morning, Israel appeared to be the one nation that had benefited from the stunt.

“If anything, the leaks were positive and did not damage Israel’s image at all,” former National Security Adviser Giora Eiland told Voice of Israel radio. “There was no contradiction between what Israel has said in public and in private.”
In fact, the documents reveal that Israeli officials, especially Meir Dagan, head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, are regularly sought after by officials from all parts of the American government for their expertise and insight on various Middle East situations. In short, Israel is an enormously valuable resource for America and its interests in the region.

The documents further aid Israel by revealing that it is far from being the only nation in the region calling for military action against Iran’s defiant nuclear program, or at least greater efforts to effect regime change in Tehran.

The authors of several of the cables accuse Israel of overestimating Iran’s nuclear program and how quickly Iran would be able to field a nuclear weapon. They insist that Israeli assessments of the situation must be “taken with a grain of salt.” Former US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer was especially critical of Israel’s assessment of the situation with Iran.
But another document has Israeli Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin stressing to two US congressional leaders that “Israel is not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on September 11, 2001.”

A slew of other documents reveal that the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and Jordan all share the Israeli sense of urgency regarding Iran, and also want the US and/or Israel to stop Iran’s nuclear program at any cost.
“That program must be stopped,” King Hamad of Bahrain is quoted as saying in one of the documents. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”

In other documents, Israeli accusations that certain UN bodies have ties to Muslim terrorist groups are justified by the revelation that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered ongoing investigations of UN personnel working in Lebanon and Palestinian-controlled areas. “Washington wanted intelligence on the contentious issue of the ‘relationship or funding between UN personnel and/or missions and terrorist organizations’ and links between the UN Relief and Works Agency in the Middle East, and Hamas and Hizballah,” the British newspaper Guardian reported, citing several of the documents. Clinton even ordered a probe of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a revelation that is certain to ratchet up tensions between Washington and the world body.

The only other Israel-related issue in those documents that have been released concerns the 2008-2009 Gaza war. It was revealed that prior to invading Gaza in response to escalating Hamas rocket fire on southern Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak tried to convince either Egypt or Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority to step in and assume control of the territory after Hamas was defeated. It seems neither Egypt nor the PA were interested in bringing an end to the destructive rule of Hamas and the atmosphere of conflict the group continues to foster.


Sunday, November 28th, 2010

by Chana Ya’ar (Arutz Sheva News)

The faction that is led by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and which leads the PA has officially declared its formal refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Its announcement recalled the three no’s of the Khartoum Arab League Conference of September 1967, following the Six Day War, which squelched all efforts to reach a peace agreement by declaring “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it”.

The Fatah Revolutionary Council over this weekend voted to “affirm its rejection of the so-called Jewish state or any other formula that could achieve this goal” at its fifth convention in Ramallah.

“The Council also renews its refusal for the establishment of any racist state based on religion in accordance with international law and human rights conventions,” the council said in a statement issued at the end of the convention.

In addition, the statement said Fatah was opposed to the concept of swapping land for peace, because “illegal settler gangs cannot be placed on an equal footing with the owners of the lands and rights.” Israel has long considered land swaps to be part of a final solution.

The latest efforts by the United States to bring Israel and the PA back to the negotiating table did not help the cause of peace, opined the Council, because it could “harm Palestinian rights and prolong the occupation… and such gifts to the occupier will only make the occupier more stubborn and radical.”

The Council also condemned the new Israeli law that mandates a full nationwide Israeli referendum prior to ceding land from within Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, saying it violated international law. Fatah Council members urged the PA leadership to fight the measure in the United Nations plenum and in U.N. Security Council.

PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas received the Council’s sole praise, with Fatah leaders expressing support for “adhering to the basic rights, first and foremost the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Also… for standing up against pressure aimed at resuming the peace talks without achieving the demands of the Palestinians.”

Abbas also vowed not to return to the negotiating table unless Israel completely froze Jewish construction throughout Judea, Samaria, and all areas of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority for its hoped-for new country.

Last Sunday thousands protested in Jerusalem against Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s agreement to a 90-day extension of the freeze.

U.S. President Barack Obama had threatened to back a unilateral PA declaration of statehood if Israel did not agree to the freeze. Obama also said, however, that there would be no demands for any further freeze extensions if Israel were to agree to the current “request.” He had no demands for the PA. Israel has repeatedly asked the PA to resume negotiations without pre-conditions.


Friday, November 26th, 2010

by Ryan Jones (Israel Today News)

One Egyptian Christian was killed and hundreds more were arrested this week while protesting a government ban on their completing the construction of a new church near the famed pyramids. Naturally, government officials in Cairo blamed Israel for the entire affair.

The trouble started on Wednesday, when Egyptian police violently confronted about 200 Coptic Christian demonstrators outside an unfinished church building in Giza. The police shot and killed one protestors and wounded dozens of others. Another two dozen protestors were arrested.

During the clash, the Christians hurled stones at police, wounding 12 officers.
A day later, the demonstration intensified, and police arrested 156 Christians. The Christians were charged with trying to murder the local police chief, apparently by throwing stones in the earlier protest. They were denied legal representation during their questioning, according to local media reports.

The building at the center of the confrontation is already partially completed. But after discovering that the Christians intended to use it as a church, Egyptian police banned further construction work at the site. Christians in Egypt have long complained that while it is very easy for Muslims to obtain the needed permits to build a mosque, Christians must secure special presidential approval to build a church.

But Mustafa El-Feki, head of Egypt’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, said the church is just an excuse, and that Israel is behind all the recent Muslim-Christian tension in Egypt. “It is almost certain that the Mossad is involved in these events. The State is dealing with dangerous events that could not have succeeded without external intervention with Israel at its head,” claimed El-Feki at a university conference on Thursday.

In September, a prominent Egyptian cleric declared on the pan-Arab satellite network Al Jazeera that Egyptian Christians were working with Israel to undermine the country’s Muslim majority. Western officials fear these accusations are tied to upcoming parliamentary elections as a means of diverting focus from the government’s failures.

Despite the dangerous situation for Egypt’s 10 million Christians, these events have garnered very little coverage from an international media still far too obsessed with reporting on the construction of a few Jewish apartments that upset the Palestinian Arabs.


Friday, November 26th, 2010

by Elad Benari (IsraelNationalNews)

Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced Thursday that his country will not be taking part in the Durban III conference next year.

Speaking at a press conference and quoted in AFP, Kenney said: “Our government has lost faith in the Durban process. We will not be part of this event, which commemorates an agenda that promotes racism rather than combats it.”

Kenney called the conference a “charade” and a “hatefest”, and said that it is essentially all about criticizing Israel. “The government of Canada will not lend Canada’s good name to the organized exercise in scapegoating (Israel) that is the Durban process.”

While Canada will not participate in the conference nor will it provide funding to any NGOs that are planning to participate, Kenney was quoted by Canadian newspaper The National Post as saying: “We obviously continue to believe in the United Nations as an important multilateral forum. But we are able to make basic distinctions between good and bad.”

The UN resolution on Durban III passed by a 121-19 vote, with 35 abstentions. The conference will commemorate the 9th anniversary of the first such conference, held in Durban, South Africa just 10 days before the 9/11 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. That conference was described by the ICEJ as a “concerted effort by nearly all the Muslims of the world to denounce and de-legitimize the Jewish state of Israel; an awful verbal forerunner much as the one the Nazis sent before launching the Holocaust of the expunging of Israel as sovereign Jewish state from their Arab Muslim midst.”

The upcoming conference is to be held in New York City just ten days after the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, in September 2011.

The Canadian Jewish Congress praised the decision by the Canadian government on Thursday. CJC President Mark Freiman was quoted in The National Post as saying: “Both Durban I and II, ostensibly aimed at fighting racism, turned out to be little more than concerted anti-Semitic charades that set back the real fight against racism and discrimination by decades. This UN process is fundamentally flawed and by now beyond repair.”

The Canadian delegation walked out of the first Durban conference to protest a “festival hate” directed at Israel, as then federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler called it.

Canada was also one of nine governments (along with countries such as the United States, Australia, Israel, Germany, and Britain) to boycott last year’s Durban II due to fears of anti-Semitism, which Kenney said came true when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the conference as a means to launch an attack on Israel. He expressed his hope that other countries will follow Canada and recognize that Durban is nothing but a “dangerous” platform for racism and anti-Semitism.


Thursday, November 25th, 2010

A blessed thanksgiving!
It was 15 days ago when David was hit with the ECOLI bacterial infection throughout his whole body, blood system, and urinary tract. To this date, we still do not know how he acquired this infection. With all his travels, both in the USA and other countries, it is very possible that he picked it up without knowing it.

This coming week he will be meeting with several of the doctors who handled his case at St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, CA. On one day he will meet with the pulmonary doctor to check out his continual dry coughing spells. On another day he will meet with the Urologist, and finally with the Doctor of infectious diseases. Your prayers mean so much to us at this time.
He has not been eating very well, but has shown some improvement in this regard the last few days. Because he is so weak, the doctors have urged him to walk around the house throughout the day to strengthen his joints and muscles. I see some improvement and praise the Lord for your faithfulness in praying for him.

We have so much to thank the Lord for this special day in the USA. We praise the Lord for over 48 years of marriage, three wonderful married children and six grandchildren living, and one in heaven. The ministry of God’s Word continues to expand beyond our expectations. It is God Who deserves all the praise and glory!

Again, thank you all so much for your cards, letters, calls, and assurances of your prayer in our behalf.

Love to you all!
Carole Hocking


Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

by Chana Ya’ar (Arutz Sheva News)

The Republic of Gambia has cut all ties with Iran and given its diplomats 48 hours to leave following suspicion that Iran sent arms and drugs to the African country.

Illegal Iranian shipments of heroin and arms sent last month were apparently headed for Gambia, according to an article published in the UK-based Financial Times.

Nigerian officials intercepted crates of missiles and other ordnance marked as “building materials” during inspection at the port of Lagos. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki later tried to explain away the incident as a “misunderstanding” — but last week a second crisis arose when a container arrived in the port from Iran filled with packets of heroin.

Nigerian authorities said they believe the weapons were intended for Gambia, in violation of sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. The incident was reported to the world body. It is not clear where the heroin was headed, but officials said it is possible that this shipment, too, may have been going to Gambia.

The tiny western African nation, home to some 1.7 million people, is primarily Sunni Muslim although its official language is English. The smallest country on the mainland African continent, Gambia has been governed for 16 years by President Yahya Jammeh, who seized power in a coup in 1994 but who subsequently continued as an elected leader.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spent years working to build up the relationship between the Islamic Republic and various African nations. He exchanged state visits with the Gambian president in 2006 and returned for a official visit to the country in 2009.

Ahmadinejad has also been exceptionally successful in extending Iran’s diplomatic relations with various nations in South America and in the Middle East, tightening Tehran’s ties with Venezuela, Brazil, Turkey Syria, and Lebanon.


Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

by John Bolton, The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2010

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, for 21 months the centerpiece of Obama Administration Middle East policy, are moving inevitably toward collapse. The talks may limp past our Nov. 2 election, but they are doomed to fail.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) fully understands that the talks—and the “two state solution”—will fail. It needs a plan B. Accordingly, several ideas are circulating to skip bothersome negotiations with Israel and move immediately to Palestinian “statehood.”

Two different tactical approaches have emerged. In one, the PA would persuade the United States to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, within the pre-1967 cease-fire lines (often characterized, wrongly, as “borders”). The other option would have the United Nations Security Council call upon U.N. members to recognize “Palestine” within those lines. Critical to this second tactic is a U.S. commitment either to support such a Security Council resolution or, at a minimum, not to veto it.

In many respects, these and related gambits hearken back to the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) 1988 declaration of statehood, which was recognized by dozens of U.N. members, including many in Europe. The PLO then tried capitalizing on the declaration by seeking membership in U.N. agencies like the World Health Organization, which require members to be “states.” In this way, the PLO sought to create “facts on the ground” in the international arena that it hadn’t been able to establish through force.
Those efforts failed because of Washington’s determined opposition within the U.N. system, and the overall effort faded away. The PLO gained no new legitimacy, although it did change its General Assembly nameplate from “Palestine Liberation Organization” to “Palestine,” which passes for substance at the U.N.

This time is different. Once past Nov. 2 and faced with the impending and embarrassing collapse of direct talks, President Obama is moved to punish Israel or at least fashion a teachable moment out of his diplomatic failure.
The Obama Administration has a jaundiced view of Israel, but actual U.S. recognition of “Palestine” seems a remote prospect in the near term. The domestic political firestorm for the President—already likely to be badly wounded in midterm elections and deeply concerned about his own prospects in two years—would simply be too much.

A more indirect but still effective course is to let statehood emerge through a Security Council resolution. Prior U.S. Administrations would unquestionably have voted “no,” thus vetoing such a proposal, but Mr. Obama’s penchant for publicly pressuring Israel is a foreshadow that Washington may decide not to play its traditional role. While even Mr. Obama is unlikely to instruct a “yes” vote on a Security Council resolution affirming a Palestinian State and subsequent U.N. membership, one could readily envision the
Administration abstaining. That would allow a near-certain majority, perhaps 14-0, to adopt the resolution. Israel would then confront a dramatic change in its international posture, facing a political equivalency with the new state of Palestine. What’s more, customary international law’s definition of “statehood” requires that a putative state have clear boundaries. This is why the potential Security Council resolution would refer to Palestine as a state within the “1967 borders,” or some such language.

Border delineation is a zero-sum game. Right now, as in 1988-89, “Palestine” has no real borders, other than those around the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Moreover, Israel has long contended that it would never return to its pre-1967 configuration, and would instead insist on secure and defensible borders. Its extensive West Bank settlements and fortifications are concrete proof of its determination.

A Security Council resolution fixing the 1967 lines as borders would call into question even Israel’s legitimacy, dramatically undercutting prospects for security and defensibility. By defining “Palestine” to include territory Israel considers its own, such a resolution would delegitimize both Israel’s authority and settlements beyond the 1967 lines, and its goal of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.

Mr. Obama has unmistakably left open the possibility of defaulting to the 1967 borders. In his September 2009 speech at the U.N., for example, he supported a Palestinian State “with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967.”

No one should underestimate the gravity of this threat to Israel’s position, although Mr. Obama could eliminate it at a stroke if he chooses to speak out. We will soon see how hostile to Israel he is prepared to be.


Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

(Articles on FLAME)

The Palestinians, despite all efforts of the Obama administration, have steadfastly resisted entering into serious peace negotiations with Israel. Now, to circumvent negotiations, they are threatening to declare a state unilaterally and then go to the United Nations Security Council or the General Assembly for ratification.

In this week’s Hotline, the ever-articulate John Bolton warns of a possible United States abstention on a United Nations Security Council resolution affirming a Palestinian state. Such U.N. support would effectively save the Palestinians the trouble of negotiations on a two-state solution with Israel, and perhaps even be a ploy to force Israel to accept 1967 cease-fire lines as its borders.

Clearly such a development would not bode well for Israel’s security. However, the Obama Administration recently offered Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu an assurance that the U.S. would block any Palestinian attempt to obtain international recognition of statehood. Naturally, in order to get this assurance, Israel must pay a price—yet another Israeli building freeze in the West Bank (though only for 90 days and not in Jerusalem).

President Obama’s response to this new deal was, “I think it is promising.” Promising? Thanks to Mr. Obama, the two sides are not even speaking to one another, yet he considers it promising that his strong-arming of Israel may, possibly, bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table, at least for a period of time.

Wouldn’t it be promising if President Obama could persuade the Palestinians to publicly acknowledge Israel’s right to exist? Or get the Palestinians to announce that they are giving up the unrealistic notion of the right of return of refugees’ relatives?

As ambivalent as Mr. Obama has been in supporting Israel, another world leader just to our north has shown himself to be avidly pro-Israel. In a bold speech at an anti-Semitism conference, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently said:

“Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, (the attack on Israel’s legitimacy) targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so . . . We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is. Of course, like any country, Israel may be subjected to fair criticism . . . But when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand . . . As long as I am Prime Minister . . . Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost.”

What an amazing breath of fresh air! As the peace process hobbles along, President Obama can learn both from Prime Minister Harper and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. Mr. Harper’s words should convince him of the righteousness of Israel’s cause. Mr. Bolton’s article, should fortify him for dealing with the rogue notions of the Palestinians about the best way to achieve statehood.

Web Site Designed and Hosted by Ceronex