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

Archive for December, 2013


Tuesday, December 31st, 2013

by Maayana Miskin (Arutz Sheva News

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu slammed the Palestinian Authority on Tuesday following the PA’s celebration late Monday night over Israel’s release of convicted terrorists.

“The essential difference between us and our neighbors can be seen in a single picture,” Netanyahu said. “While we are willing to take extremely painful steps with the goal of reaching an agreement that will put an end to the conflict, they, along with their most senior leaders, are celebrating.”

The PA’s celebration sends a terrible message, he continued. “Murderers are not heroes. This is not how you educate people to peace. This is not how you make peace,” he warned.

“Peace can exist only when the education to incitement and to destruction of Israel is stopped,” he declared.

“Peace will come only when our interests are protected, regarding defense at settlements,” he continued. “Peace will only happen if we can defend ourselves, by ourselves, against any threat.”

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was among those to celebrate the release of terrorist prisoners on Monday night. Abbas declared the occasion “a day of joy to your people, our families, and our hero prisoners who have achieved freedom.”

Among the terrorists given a warm welcome were many convicted of murder, including one who burned a woman and her child to death in a firebomb attack.

Terrorists released in previous Israeli “gestures” have stated that they do not regret their actions, and that life in Israeli jail was easy. The terrorists receive generous cash stipends from the PA while in prison, and are given guaranteed work upon their release.


Monday, December 30th, 2013

by Gil Ronen (Arutz Sheva News)

Experts from Iran and six world powers (known as the P5+1, or sextet) are gathering in Geneva for a third round of nuclear talks later in the day, aimed at setting a framework to implement last month’s landmark interim deal.

Two rounds of talks have been held so far since Tehran agreed on November 24 to suspend parts of its disputed nuclear program for six months in return for limited sanctions relief while a longer-term agreement is forged.

Iran’s Mehr news agency on December 29 quoted Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araqchi, as saying he hoped the deal could be implemented within a month.

Araqchi, however, said the talks are “proceeding slowly, as there are misunderstandings over the interpretation of some elements of the accord.”

The first round of talks was interrupted when Iranians walked out after Washington expanded its sanctions blacklist against Tehran.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D) said at week’s end that the “Iranians are showing their true intentions,” following a statement Thursday by Iran’s nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, that his country is building a new generation of centrifuges for uranium enrichment but they “require further tests” before they can be mass produced.

Menendez is putting pressure on the administration by urging Congress to pass sanctions legislation against Iran, following the statement by Salehi.

“If you’re talking about producing more advanced centrifuges that are only used to enrich uranium at a quicker rate … the only purposes of that and the only reason you won’t give us access to a military research facility is because you’re really not thinking about nuclear power for domestic energy — you’re thinking about nuclear power for nuclear weapons,” said Menendez.

In addition, two officials familiar with Iran’s nuclear activities revealed to the Associated Press Friday that Iranian technical experts told counterparts from the six powers last week that some of the centrifuges have been installed at “a research tract of one of Iran’s enriching sites.”

Israel’s Minister Yuval Steinitz said last week that if sanctions on Iran had not been eased, Iran’s economy would have collapsed “in a year or two.”

Iran’s Fars news noted Monday that Iran announced in April that it could start enriching uranium to the purity level of 50 percent “if its research community declares a need to nuclear-fueled submarines,” but that it has no such plans at the moment.

“For now we have no plans for enrichment above 20 percent,” former Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi said at the time, and added, “But in some cases … such as ships and submarines, if our researchers have a need for greater presence under the sea, we must build small engines whose construction requires fuel enriched to 45 to 56 percent.”

“In this case, it’s possible we would need this fuel.”

“We have the capability to produce nuclear fuel for ships and submarines,” Abbasi said, and added, “But currently no plan to enrich uranium beyond 20 percent of enrichment is on our agenda.”


Sunday, December 29th, 2013

by Tova Dvorin (Arutz Sheva News)

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu held Lebanon responsible for the rocket fire on northern Israel Sunday, and called on the Lebanese government to stop a “double war crime” against civilians – in Israel and on its own soil.

“We hold the Lebanese government responsible for firing that is carried out from within its territory,” Netanyahu stated, at the beginning of his weekly Cabinet meeting. “What is happening in Lebanon is that Hizbullah is stationing thousands of missiles and rockets in apartments, in the heart of the civilian population, and is thus perpetrating two war crimes simultaneously. It is organizing the firing at civilians, just as it did today, and it is hiding behind civilians as human shields.”

“This is a double war crime that that is being perpetrated under the aegis of the Lebanese government and army,” he continued, “which are not lifting a finger to prevent this arming and these crimes. We hold the Lebanese government responsible for this development.”

Netanyahu’s remarks appear to confirm rumors earlier Sunday by Lebanese media sources that the rocket fire had been perpetrated by Hizbullah terrorists. Israeli media reports suggested that Sunni pro-Palestinian groups in Lebanon were behind the rockets, but those reports remained unconfirmed.

Netanyahu praised the IDF’s response to the rocket fire, echoing similar statements by Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon. “Today, the IDF responded quickly and forcefully to the rocket fire from Lebanon. This is our policy regarding Lebanon just as it is with the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a drizzle and we will respond strongly, and if need be, will carry out preventive action.”

Earlier this month, tensions rose between Israel and Lebanon after a Lebanese army soldier shot and killed 31 year-old IDF Master Sergeant Shlomi Cohen. The attacker eventually turned himself in to Lebanese authorities, and will be placed on trial there over the incident, according to Yaalon.

The Prime Minister also linked the attacks to Iran, which has been alleged to be arming Hizbullah via Iraq. “We also know that Iran, of course, is behind this arming by Hizbullah. It is the same Iran which is continuing to assist the Syrian government in slaughtering civilians and which is continuing to arm terrorist organizations that are perpetrating acts of terrorism in many countries. It is also the same Iran that is currently developing centrifuges that are capable of enriching uranium six times faster than its regular centrifuges.”

Netanyahu warned that the enabling of Iran via Lebanon could lead to a dangerous situation in the Middle East, aided by the false security of the interim deal between Western powers and the Islamic Republic.

“All of this is being done now, before the agreement is written. Even before the agreement is signed I see that the Iranian economy is recovering somewhat. We are monitoring these developments and are pointing them out to the world. We continue to see preventing the nuclearization of Iran as our main goal vis-à-vis the national security of the State of Israel, as well as the security of the region and the entire world,” he concluded.


Friday, December 27th, 2013

by Ari Yashar (Arutz Sheva News)

Gaza’s only power plant ground to a halt again on Friday, only 12 days after being brought back online following a 7 week shutdown due to fuel shortages. The shutdown was announced by Gaza’s electricity firm, reports AFP.

An official of the company claimed “the plant stopped working on Friday morning due to a lack of fuel caused by Israel’s closure of the Kerem Shalom crossing.” He added that electricity would now be supplied for only 6 hours a day instead of the normal 12.

While officials from the territory’s Islamist rulers were quick to blame Israel, in reality Egypt is largely involved after having shut down the tunnels into the Sinai that were used to illegally smuggle fuel. Gaza’s power plant was initially shut down on November 1 under the Egyptian siege.

Egypt has accused the Hamas terrorist organization which rules Gaza of promoting terror in Egypt through the Muslim Brotherhood, which it is an offshoot of. Hamas denies the charges, although Egypt is continuing to act against the terror group.

As for the Kerem Shalom crossing, it reportedly was closed Tuesday after Gaza terrorists fatally shot an IDF civilian worker. The crossing had been used to deliver fuel purchased from Israel by the Palestinian Authority, using money donated by Qatar.

On Thursday, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said of the incident “we thought there were ‘game rules,’ according to which you do not fire at civilians who work near the fence. Until now, they did not fire at civilians, and we will have to think what to do, if someone has changed the rules.”

Tensions have risen after terrorists from Gaza fired 2 Kassam rockets at Israel in as many days. In response, the IAF has struck several terror targets in Gaza.

Just in late November, Hamas threatened Israel with genocide. The terror group also appears to be gathering long-range missiles for further assaults on Israel.

Meanwhile, recent reports indicate that Turkey has replaced Iran as the leading financial sponsor of Hamas since 2012, following a cooling of relations between the Sunni terrorist group and its former Shia Iranian sponsors.


Thursday, December 26th, 2013

by Maayana Miskin and Ari Soffer (Arutz Sheva News)

Residents of the Jordan Valley will fight the latest attempts to delegitimize their presence in the area, Jordan Valley Council head David Elhayani told Arutz Sheva.

United States diplomats have been promoting the idea of an eventual Israeli withdrawal from the region, in the context of a final agreement proposed by the Obama administration. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has reportedly suggested that international forces could protect against terrorism in the IDF’s absence.

But residents of the Jordan Valley are up in arms at the suggestion, which they say compromises Israel’s security.

“The communities of the Jordan Valley will not sit silently in the face of the recent reports regarding a change in the Jordan Valley’s status, at least in the Americans’ eyes,” Elhayani said.

Residents are planning a campaign “to explain the importance to security of the Jordan Valley communities, to explain that this is important to the entire nation of Israel,” he said.

“We want the position that the Jordan Valley needs to be under Israeli sovereignty to have overwhelming support, so there will be no question mark hanging over the Jordan Valley’s future,” he explained.

Replacing Israeli communities with an international force would be a disaster for Israel, he warned. The area would be like southern Lebanon, he said, where Hizbullah seized control and deployed thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli cities, despite the presence of international troops.

“You and I can’t send an army to patrol the border with Jordan in a hostile Palestinian environment, where an RPG could be fired at them at any moment,” he stated. Palestinian terrorist groups have already declared that if foreign troops are stationed in the region, they will be attacked.

“There will be no security here without Israelis living here,” Elhayani concluded.

The Jordan Valley runs through eastern Samaria (Shomron), to the north of what is often referred to as the “West Bank”. Vis-a-vis negotiations, Israeli leaders have long subscribed to the “Allon Plan”, which maintains that in the event of a withdrawal from the rest of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley would need to be kept by Israel for strategic reasons.

But the theory that an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would still be “safe” for the Jewish state as long as a presence was maintained in the Jordan Valley has been challenged.

In particular, Arutz Sheva analyst Mark Langfan has pointed towards formerly classified US military documents which posit that, on the contrary, the Jordan Valley – along with all of central Israel – would be extremely vulnerable to attack in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from the rest of Judea and Samaria. Langfan further warns that any military presence in the Valley – Israeli or otherwise – would not be sustainable if the neighboring highlands of western Samaria were ceded to the Palestinian Authority.

In any event, John Kerry’s proposed plan is said to preclude even an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley.

Kerry’s plan would reportedly only permit Israel to partially retain the 15 kilometer (9 mile) wide strip of the Jordan Valley as a security zone for 10 years.


Tuesday, December 24th, 2013

Interview with Dr. Jacques Gauthier, non-Jewish legal researcher: “I have spent 20 years investigating the legal aspects of sovereignty concerning Jerusalem.”
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld
The writer has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe and North America.He is board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.

In international law, once the title to Palestine was given to the Jewish people, this cannot be nullified retroactively as a result of the introduction of new principles of international law several decades later.

“Declarations relating to the status of Jerusalem should clearly distinguish between the legal aspects of the issue and political claims. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and other political leaders frequently employ baseless legal arguments when they make statements concerning Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and the “West Bank”.

“I have spent 20 years investigating the legal aspects of sovereignty concerning Jerusalem. My unequivocal conclusion is that according to international law, Israel has a well-founded claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem, including its Old City.”

Dr. Gauthier is a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who received his PhD after twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem. His dissertation comprises some 1,300 pages with 3,000 footnotes. He has served as legal counsel to various governments including France, Spain, Mexico and Canada.

“The Balfour Declaration was a statement by the British government.

“In November 1917, Great Britain however, did not have military control or the legal authority to give rights over Palestine to others.

“To understand the legality of Israel’s sovereignty in Palestine, we have to begin with the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 which took place at the French Foreign Office on the Quai d’Orsay. Both Arabs and the Zionist Organization presented their cases concerning the future of Palestine there. The Zionist Organization asked for the recognition of ‘the historic title of the Jewish people in Palestine and the right of Jews to reconstitute their national home.’ It demanded that the borders of Palestine – for which a map was presented – broadly follow the biblical territory on both sides of the Jordan River.

“It proposed that ‘the sovereignty of Palestine shall be vested in the League of Nations and the government will be entrusted to Great Britain acting as Mandatory of the League.’

“The Paris Conference led to various treaties with nations defeated in the First World War. They transferred title of many territories they had lost in the war to the five Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan.

“The Paris Conference was followed by the San Remo Conference, which took place in April 1920 at the Villa Devachan. There, the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers adopted a resolution on 25 April concerning Palestine. It stated that its administration would be entrusted to a Mandatory which they would select.

“It also said: ‘The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November 1917 by the British government and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People. It being clearly understood, that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed [by] the Jews in any other country’.

“This resolution is the legal foundation of the rights under the Law of Nations granted to the Jewish people in respect to Palestine.’

“In San Remo, the Principal Allied Powers approved British mandates over Palestine including Trans-Jordan, (East-Palestine) and Iraq, as well as the French Mandate over Syria and Lebanon. The Arabs acquired huge territories as a result of the San Remo Conference.

“However, there were crucial differences in the texts of the Mandate treaties for Syria and Lebanon, as well as the one for the Mesopotamia (Iraq) Mandate on one hand and the Mandate for Palestine on the other. In the former, it said that the organic law will be ‘formed in agreement with the native authorities and shall take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the population inhabiting the mandated territory.’ In the Mandate for Palestine, there is no such formula. It stated that the Mandatory will be responsible for creating the conditions to ‘secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.’

“It also said that recognition was given ‘to the historical connection of the Jewish People within Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.’

“The Council of League of Nations approved the British and French Mandates in July 1922. In the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey renounced all rights and title on the aforementioned territories.

“In international law, once the title to Palestine was given to the Jewish people, this cannot be nullified retroactively as a result of the introduction of new principles of international law several decades later.

“In fact, the rights granted to the Jewish people are protected under Article 80 of the UN Charter. This preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiration in May 1948.”


Monday, December 23rd, 2013

from David & Carole Hocking

We are so THANKFUL TO THE LORD for all that He has done in our lives in 2013!

1. His faithfulness, protection, and mercy!
2. For how He continues to use us in spite of our unworthiness and “stupid” mistakes!
3. For His provision for our needs!
4. For the measure of health and strength He provides!
5. For the wonderful privilege of teaching His Word and sharing His love and gospel to thousands of people!
6. For giving us such wonderful and supportive friends who have shown love to us in spite of our weaknesses!
7. For our wonderful children and grandchildren!
8. For the opportunities to minister in many churches
and to fellowship with many pastors and their wives!
9. For our “blessed hope” – which according to Titus 2:13 is the “glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ our Lord.”

David & Carole Hocking


Friday, December 20th, 2013

by Dalit Halevi, Tova Dvorin (Arutz Sheva News)

Mohammed Shtayyeh, Member of the Central Committee of Fatah, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) cabinet minister, accused the Israeli government of avoiding political agreements and employing a policy of “settlement” expansion, house demolitions and “killing civilians.”

Shtayyeh was one of the negotiators who submitted his resignation to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas earlier this year.

Ma’an reports this week that at a restaurant in the PA village of Beit Jala, Shtayyeh claimed the “so-called bilateral Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are not going to take us anywhere”.

“There is a strong party and there is a weak party, and the Israelis want to dictate rather than negotiate,” he told journalists. “The Israelis want to replace occupation by force with occupation by an invitation, with our signature, and it will never happen.”

Shtayyeh also blamed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, claiming he has not put effort forth to present to the government a peace agreement because his government is “not a government of peace,” and that Israeli government ministers would not approve a peace agreement.

He further called Netanyahu’s move toward negotiations a “tactical move” that “does not stem from peace,” and that negotiations conducted with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Attorney Yitzchak Molcho were not negotiating with the full Israeli government.

The alternative, according to the PLO official, is not through fighting – but through PA citizens garnering international support. Shtayyeh threatened Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria that they would be stripped of their Israeli citizenship and pursued by the governments of the US, Britain, Russia, and the European Union, claiming that they were violating PA territory after the UN allegedly legitimized the body last year.

PA officials have claimed since 2012 that the UN granting the PA non-member status has effectively made them a full-fledged country according to international law.

The remarks also confirm similar statements by Abbas, who has openly declared that a future Palestinian state will have no Jewish presence, military or civilian.


Friday, December 20th, 2013

by Tova Dvorin (Arutz Sheva News)

Michael Reagan, son of former US President Ronald Reagan, spoke in a special interview with Arutz Sheva about the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the PA, the situation with Iran, and Israel’s security needs.

Reagan spoke from the Young Israel in New York, at an event dedicated to the memory of the Righteous Gentile Raoul Wallenberg, who saved thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. The event was organized by Dr. Joseph Prager, who has been tireless in his efforts to strengthen the State of Israel.

“I think that the US has put Israel in a very tough situation, having to do with Iran,” Reagan related. “The United Stated has sworn to protect Israel – and what we’re doing is certainly not protecting Israel and her people from massive destruction.”

Reagan explains that people today suffer from apathy regarding the situation in the Middle East, as most Westerners have not experienced the same hardships or patriotism that Israelis have in trying to protect their country.

“I think it’s going to ultimately up to Israel to make a determination for what they need to do to protect themselves,” he explains, “when it should be the United States of America being strong to make sure Iran does not do what she wants to do.”

“Sometimes you have to stand up for what is right,” Reagan declared. “Ronald Reagan did that; Raoul Wallenberg did that; and Israel is most likely going to have to do that.”

Regarding the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority: “When Israel conforms with negotiations, and agrees to give up prisoners, it comes back to haunt them,” he noted. “Those prisoners come back to kill, hurt, and maim more Israelis.”

“I don’t think the Palestinians really want peace,” he continued. “I don’t think they’ve really ever wanted peace; I think they want Israel.”

Reagan maintained that US support for Israel is important for the future. “I think that if the United States doesn’t stand up and say, ‘We’re with Israel – 100%,’ then the fights and the battles are going to in fact continue” – a situation undesirable for all parties involved.

“It is time for peace, but it is time for the Palestinians to, in fact, want it,” he concluded


Thursday, December 19th, 2013

by Ari Soffer (Arutz Sheva News)

Recent months have seen the Obama administration face sharp criticism from the USA’s traditional Middle Eastern allies over its foreign policy.

Almost all regional leaders outside of Damascus and Tehran have watched in horror as American pressure on Iran over its nuclear program crumbled, just months after the administration’s “red line” on Syria rapidly blurred and disappeared. From Riyadh to Jerusalem, the US President’s policies have been slammed and derided as weak and uncertain.

Coming after the astonishing ease with which the Obama administration threw its long-time Egyptian ally Hosni Mubarak under a bus – and then subsequent proved woefully unable to decide whether it backed Morsi’s Islamists or Sisi’s military establishment as a replacement – the conclusion that Washington was either confused or lacking in conviction seemed a fairly logical one.

But according to one American academic, the Obama administration’s apparently “confused” foreign policy is in fact a conscious attempt to sideline American foreign policy.

Speaking to Arutz Sheva, Professor Samuel Schneider, a Hebrew and Jewish World expert at Yeshiva Univeristy, maintained that Obama’s foreign policy decisions since his election in 2009 are driven by an overarching agenda to champion American isolationism, and concentrate efforts on reshaping American domestic policy – along with the very face of the United States – instead.

Dr. Schneider highlights three major foreign policy decisions by the Obama administration which he sees as proving that Obama’s policies are anything but “indecisive”: the abandonment of Iran’s Green Movement during the short-lived uprising in 2009, the decision not to intervene in Syria and the controversial deal over Iran’s nuclear program.

“I don’t think he’s confused at all,” he asserts.

“The 2009 elections in Iran were a fraud, and the intelligentsia and middle-class took great risks to demonstrate. They did so with the open expectation that the US – the ‘moral conscience of the world’ – would come to their aid,” he said.

Yet despite the pressure on the new President to do so, he did not, and the “Green Revolution” was smothered by a fierce crackdown by the Islamic regime.

“It was the same thing with the Iranian nuclear program. Obama firmly withstood pressure coming from all over the place – the Republicans, the Israel lobby, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf States, even many European leaders” and implemented a compromise fiercely criticized by his opponents as overly generous.

“With Syria as well, everyone, even some liberals, pressured Obama to take a stand,” he added.

Pointing out that it took stiff determination to withstand such concerted pressure, Schneider dismisses arguments that a general war-weariness following the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were to blame as falling short of the mark.

“Of course there is some fear because of the trauma of Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of resources went into them with very little results. But it’s not just fear of getting mired in another foreign conflict alone” which informs such decisions.

“The problem,” he asserts, “is with Obama himself.”

“He is a product of the 60’s, determined to affect radical social change” and implement a distinctly left-wing brand of “social justice,” through policies such as “Obamacare” and lax immigration rules. The President has shown equal determination to push through his healthcare reforms, despite its vast unpopularity, for equally ideological reasons he says.

“He is basically a socialist, and his priorities are economic recovery through socialist policies and social change; foreign policy simply isn’t a priority for him – it’s a distraction.”

And that, he claims, bodes ill for Israel-US relations – which he sees as already flagging due to what he describes as a growing shift leftwards among young American Jews.

“He’ll abandon Israel just like the US did with South Vietnam,” he says of Obama. “Despite the rhetoric and pious statements about Israel being America’s ‘best friend’ in the Middle East, in the long-run Israel just isn’t important to him.”

As for Secretary of State John Kerry’s apparently earnest pursuit of a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Dr. Schneider dismisses it as a “cheap way of making the administration look like a peacemaker.”

“Kerry’s shuttling doesn’t cost any money, apart from a plane ticket. Compare that with Iraq or Afghanistan, you see how cheap it is – and it makes him look like a peacemaker.”

It is also, however, a worrying sign that the Obama administration has chosen to take seriously the idea that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the root of all the region’s problems.

“This mistaken belief that stabilizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will stabilize the whole Middle East is a theory held by the Arabists in the State Department – but it is simply not historically true.

“Together with the Israeli Left, the administration is of the opinion that if Bibi would just give in to pressure everything will be fine and ‘the Redeemer will come unto Zion.'”

Web Site Designed and Hosted by Ceronex