Responding briefly to Marlene Hammersmith's history lesson in writing.

 

These pages have been produced in an attempt to dissuade the very rude and unchristian views of Christians who believe they have the right to ridicule well researched work done by someone else purely on the basis that the author is persistently faced with the "I have all the answers - and you are ignorant, and your opinion is of little or no value". Please remember the context with which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said "I never knew you" when faced with people at the judgment seat who claimed to have done "this, that and the other" in "His name".

 

"...but it was then under British mandate - and the UN, then the League of Nations, made a resolution,

There is little similarity between the League of Nations and the United Nations. Yes, both were set up by the powers that “won” in World War 1 and World War 2.

But, there was absolutely no political connection between the two. Also, both were flawed in their aims for different reasons.

The Mandate over Palestine - along with the other British mandate, the one over Iraq, and the two mandates the League gave to France, one over Syria, and the other over Lebanon, were NOT United Nations mandates.

However, once the NEW United Nations was created, meeting for the first time on 6th January, 1946, its Security Council needed to do something about the Mandates it had inherited de facto.

Unfortunately, they made the wrong decision for security, humanitarian, and common sense reasons.

Not to mention the reasons many of their delegates were swayed in casting their votes. This is all a matter of well documented fact.

When they realised they got it wrong, it was far too late. The Jews had demolished a village in no-mans' land the other side of the no-go zone, killing unarmed women and children.and had murdered a member of the European aristocracy who had come up with a better plan.

that Palestine should be a homeland for the Jews but there was a lot of messing around and the British did stop migration at one point, and boats were turned back with Jewish people returning to their homeland, they were turned back and went straight into the gas ovens of Hitler.

I'll deal with the claimed turning back of ships carrying Jews away into the German gas chambers in a moment, but Mrs Hammersmith has confused the blobs on the timeline she has tried to draw, forcing us to jump backwards and forwards. She also has used histrionics without citing details, so let me tell you she was talking about just one ship, the “Exodus”, which was turned back after the war while the mandate was still in place, in about 1947.

Why was the vessel turned back? Quite simply, the mandate government had a necessary policy maintaining the proportions of Jewish and Arab immigrants reasonably similar in numbers to prevent sudden opportunities for all-out internal civil war. The ship owners and the Zionists knew this before the ship sailed.

No, Herr Hitler's "solution to the Jewish Problem" - his words, not mine - did not feature between the two World Wars, but during World War II, and there were no ships bringing any civilians to Palestine during the war.

It was wartime!

Ships did not sail into the Mediterranean - except for military ones, for belligerent purposes. No civilian ships went through the Pillars of Hercules at the western end, nor the Suez Canal at the south-eastern end.

Civilian ones only sailed in protected convoys across the Atlantic, and round the Cape of Good Hope to the Far East. So it could not have possibly happened in the way she said. Simply not true.

What is not true is, by definition a lie. However it was a good way to discredit and blacken a nation's reputation.

As an ex-patriate Brit myself, I admit that the Brits have done many questionable things - but let's stick to the truth, please?

And so there was the Nazi holocaust,

(That was before the events described, and what caused the sympathy across the world, and in Mrs Hammersmith's dialogue to generate sympathy for her Zionist views of history)

and a third of the Jewish population died. But such horror from what happened there, that the world became sympathetic to the Jewish plight,

The world was already sympathetic, but they were safe now the war was over. The 3rd Reich had been dismntled, the Nurnberg Tribunal was ensuring those responsible were sentenced, etc.

the land was again open

The whole world was "open" actually, since the end of the war.

the Arabs weren't happy

Depends who you mean by "The Arabs"

Surrounding Arab nations and the fenced-in residents of both the proposed Jewish state and the proposed "West Bank" had already seen Zionist Jews destroying homes.

They had already seen Zionist Jews destroying an entire little village in the UN-decreed no-mans-land on the western side of Jerusalem, what is known as the "Deir Yasseen Masacre", and they had to barricade Jerusalem to keep the Zionist Jews out of the eastern side - despite the UN guaranteeing the city to be an international free one, which the Zionist Jews were hell-bent on stealing as their capital while denied it under the UN Partition Plan.

The similarity between east and west Berlin and east and west Jerusalem are discussed by many commentators.

and in the end there was so much fighting and to-ing and fro-ing that the British actually walked away and left the Jews and Arabs to it.

Of course there was a change of government overnight.

Yes the British did leave. They had to abide by the U.N. Decision.

No, they most definitely did not “just walk away”. Like with Hong Kong more than 50 years later, the evacuation of the British administration was planned.

They left because the mandate under which they legally and lawfully occupied Palestine in a supervisory ruling situation ceased to exist on May 14th 1948 by Act of the New Order “world parliament” the previous November when it voted to carve up that piece of land in a similar way the land was carved up after the end of Ottoman Turkish rule.

So they had to leave the day before the people the land had been given to by the NWO took over. They had no choice, did they?

I mentioned Hong Kong. Remember India and Pakistan, and Ceylon, now known as Sri Lanka, also, shortly after the war? Similar scenarii.

And the next day, Ben-Gurion declared Israel a nation. "Can a nation be born in one day?" asked Isaiah. Yes. May 14th 1948.

She actually got the date wrong. That was the date that under United Nations' orders, the British High Commission and its military peace-keepers vacated the mandated territory. There have been no effective peace-keepers since. Yes, a few foreign nationals wearing grey berets. But they were not effective.

Now the Arab nations surrounding said to the Palestinian Jews in there the Jews called, the Romans called the land "Palestina" as a final insult to the Jews, to name their land after their early enemies, the Philistines, and it is still being used today.

Wikipedia tells us: "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in "The Histories", the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan "Rift Valley".

And when I was there in 1990, the term "Filistini" was in common usage by Hebrew-speaking Jews I met socially in connection with identifying citizens (albeit 2nd-class citizens) of Palestinian origin. It was not necessarily a term that wrenched the heart-strings of Jews, whether Zionists or not. I know an Australian who was described as such. A fine young man.

But the Arabs said to those living in the land who are Arab, "You get out, we'll drive the Jews into the sea, and you can come back, and our problem has gone on from there. But God was at work, his handful of mostly holocaust survivors, one against five Arab nations.

Australians will remember from only a few years ago, how we sent a substantial military contingent to East Timor to prevent Indonesia from annexing that territory out of greed for someone else's land Australian soldiers forced the invading Indonesians' departure.

Why was it right for us to do that, to help our neighbour, and wrong for an Arab nation to do the same for their neighbour?

It is such a tiny land, someone said from Port Augusta to Victor Harbour, and I know you can drive from one end to the other in a day.

That sounds like she hasn't been there herself if she says "I know that..." - had she been there she would have stated it as fact, not relying on hersay, surely? This suggests to me that Mrs Hammersmith relies on other peoples' thoughts, rather than hr own observations. PERHAPS SHE HAS NEVER VISITED THIS LAND SHE TEACHES ABOUT?

FAR BETTER described as being as wide as from Glenelg on the coast to the west, to the River Murray to the east, more South Australians would relate to that. Then place Jerusalem where Premier Dunstan wanted to place his proposed decentralised administration capital, at Monarto.

Then picture a double chain link fence running along the line Strathalbyn - Birdwood - Tanunda and you'd have the "green line" seperating the plebs on the other side from the people allowed to exercise muscle and kill ten plebs for every plains dweller killed by a pleb.

I have witnessed an unlawful Jewish settler in the West Bank think better of shooting a Palestinian boy throwing stones as the settler's car passed him, because the settler had taken common land belonging to the village the boy lived in.

Are those the acts of God's people? Or the acts of someone who believed he had the right of weapons on his side? Maybe because our car had diplomatic plates on it, the settler put his revolver away and got back in to head home? Whatever the reason, the boy's life was spared.

In our car we were on our way to the mountain-top village of Qibya where the 2nd worst attrocity committed by the Zionist Israelis took place. The Massacre of Qibya in 1954.

I was visiting to present my apologies on behalf of my late uncle, who took full responsibility for allowing Major Ariel Sharon to blow up almost the entire village, killing 74 (the number varies slightly) unarmed women and children hiding from the dreaded equivalent to the Nazi SS. Forteen years ago, I talked to the Jordanian ambassador to Australia who remembered with respect and sympathy Ashton Pasha who tried to hold off Zionist reprisal attacks from what the Zionists still call "Disputed Territories".

The head man of the village gracefully received our unannounced visit and they gathered round as I prayed in their cemetery for 1954 (past), for 1990 (present), for the future, and for the most recent shooting of a boy (perhaps throwing stones) a couple of days before.

As a Christian, I do not believe the overlords in that country are there with Almighty God's permission, let alone at His direction.

But this Arab - Jew problem goes on, it began with Ishmael and Isaac, and on the Temple Mount there is no temple, there is the Islamic Dome of the Rock,

Remember Vespasian and Titus? Father and son duo who were both Tribunes in the Roman Legions at one time, and who both became holders of the top office of Emperor? They both struggled with the continual civil disobedience of the Jews - and in 71 AD they destroyed the temple, leaving the foundations, and then the mountain fortress and palace of Masada 3 or 4 years later, and of course in 200 and something further destruction of public works and many Jews were dispersed into other parts of the empire to prevent further civil war. Just like in the mandate era where the governing people made the essential law that curtailed Jewish immigration above a certain level because of the potential for civil war.

As an after-thought on Titus and Vespasian, a Tribune is the rank that approximates to General in our military; they had far fewer ranks, but most of theirs had several levels. For example a base-grade Centurion was roughly equivalent to a Warrant Officer - aka Sergeant-Major. A top grade Centurion was perhaps in some cases like a Captain or Major. My father was a Lieutenant-Colonel acting in the rank of a full colonel. My uncle was a Colonel, who was acting Brigadier on secondment to the Arab Legion.

Remember the Crusades? They resulted in Muslims eventually controlling the region from when Saladin beat the crusaders at the battle at the "Horns of Hatim" not far from the ruined Crusader fort of Belvoir on the western side of the Jordan valley.

Caliph Omar, who ruled the area for a while some time later, insisted that the mosque built where the temple had been until the Romans destroyed it, not be named after him, to prevent discord and bloodshed between Arabs, Christians and Jews, and there is a large sign in the old City explaining this.

In explanation, in those days - and up to only a few short years ago, Arabs and Jews understood that the "People of the Book" were Arabs, Jews and Christians. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by one of several shepherd boys looking for stuff to sell to the Europeans, this concept of "The Book" was emphasised through the Jewish authorities in the Old City deciding to build the "Shrine of the Book".

My uncle, being the military commander of what had become the whole of the West Bank since the 1948 partition happened, was instrumental in ensuring that as few of the scrolls and artifacts in the Q'mran cave fell into buyers hands, but the boys managed to conceal and sell some of them.

and the Mufti control the Temple Mount.

Mufti is a title of Turkish origin, a singular word, There is only one mufti in Palestine.

The word dates from the Ottoman Empire rule over the region, just like "Pasha" does still. A "mufti" is a learned Islamic scholar whose role is to give judgement on matters that only someone learned in the Islamic sacred books can do. He could be compared to a Queen's Counsel because he is qualified in Sharia Law, and also in teaching and preaching... perhaps having the status of the equivalent to an "archbishop".

Like all human beings some have had bad moral points viewed from our perspective. The one during World War 1 most definitely supported the Kaiser, and the one during World War 2 supported Reichsfuhrer Hitler.

In this case Mufti is not plural. There is not more than one Mufti. It is correct to say "the Mufti controls the Temple Mount" although even that is not quite right. He controls the mosque known as the "Dome of the Rock". The temple on the mount - the foundations - was destroyed by the Romans in 71AD.

I fail to understand why mention was made of the Mufti.

Israel is always in the news,

Often for all the wrong reasons.

it is the centre of the world, west of Israel is "The West". east of Israel is "The East". Someone said even the language works that way. So if you are in the west, your language goes from left to right, but if you are in the east, like Arabic and so on, the language moves from right to left.

I suspect Mrs Hammersmith is talking about the written and printed numbers and letters of the Hebrew script.

Actually Moshe Menhuin in a very good book of his called "The Decadence of Judaism in our time" points out that the common usage of Hebrew as a native tongue is almost tantamount to blasphemy because the language was only ever used in temple and synagogues because it was sacred to Ha-Shem (The Name) - the name ascribed to Almighty God by believing Jews in preference to using any of His known names.

Moshe as a believing Jew himself, understood that the everyday dialect of the region (eg Aramaic and Koine Greek in Jesus' day) was the common tongue used in the street.

I'm not sure if Shlomo Sand makes the same connection in his excellent treatise "The Invention of the Jewish People" - which would have made him few friends in Zionist circles! As one of the reviewers points out, whether you are a Zionist or not, there is stuff in its 344 pages well worth exploring in order to be historically accurate, and to not make a fool of yourself in public.

Sand has written a more recent book which I have not yet read, but I'm sure it will annoy his Zionist masters even more with his academic debunking of the myths created by Hertzel and earlier protagonists of Zionism.

We speak of the "Middle East" but Israel is the middle. And Daniel takes us east and west..."

If you are a Christian, it is my firm belief that you should realise that Zionism is as irrelevant to Christianity as the British-Israelite theory which permeated the Elim wing of Pentecostalism decades ago, and the prosperity gospel as taught by the Assemblies of God here up to the present time. Neither is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is important to understand also, that I do have sympathy with the Jewish peoples' plight over the centuries. After all, I am a child of God, and if my Father is saddened by happenings in life, so should I be.

And something else, which I learned from a Palestinian lawyer who is also a Christian. Anti-Semticism is not ANTI-Jewishness. it IS ANTI- the progeny of Abraham - or Avraham if you are Jewish,or Ibrahim if you are an Arab. You see, The best known son of Shem was Abraham. Abraham fathered both those nations.

So if you bad-mouth any descendent of Ishmael, you are being just as anti-Semitic as if you bad-mouth a Jew. Please ponder that. It should clear another bit of air.

Sorry I may have bored you with the length of this page of comments. However I felt every single point needed to be made to accurately debunk this three minutes of rubbish, believed by so many without an ounce of knowledge of either the region or its history, or even of middle-20th-Century history. Christian Zionism is as much a myth as Jewish Zionism.

Richard Ashton
September, 2013,
tidied up 22nd Sptember 2014.