Christian Zionist summit in Washington DC draws thousands of participants

Christian Zionist Summit Draws Thousands of Participants Print E-mail
20.07.11 – 12:22
Washington DC – PNN – Thousands of Christian Zionists gathered in  Washington DC this week to attend the annual Christians United for  Israel summit.


Keynote Speaker Glenn Beck


The organization, founded by Texas megachurch Pastor John Hagee in 2006, seeks to unite all pro-Israel Christian church organizations in the US behind a single voice in support of Israel.

This year’s conference brought 5,000 attendees to hear speeches by Pastor Hagee, Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren, as well as a keynote speech by the controversial political pundit Glenn Beck.

Much of the summit is focused on the May 19 speech by US president Barack Obama, in which he called for the resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority based on 1967 borders, with mutually agreed upon land swaps.

“President Obama is not pro-Israel,” Hagee said, in an apparent response to the speech.

“Attention liberal media: The Jewish people are not occupying the land of Israel, they own the land of Israel … America should never pressure Israel to give up land for peace, not for any reason, not to anyone, ever.”

Land for peace is a reference to the foundation of the Oslo Accords, in which a Palestinian state would be formed in the West Bank based on negotiations between the two parties. Because such negotiations have stalled, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has decided to seek United Nations recognition for the Palestinian state in September.

In response to Abbas’ move, Glenn Beck, the keynote speaker at this year’s Christians United for Israel summit said, “When has a state been declared a state by a global body?”

Beck’s assertion was not in reference to the 1947 United Nations resolution that recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, but rather irritation directed at the Palestinian Authority for shifting tactics in their push for a Palestinian state.



4 responses to this post.

  1. “in reference to the 1947 United Nations resolution that recommended the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine” is a loaded and misleading statement. In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 181 which recommended the creation of a Jewish state, yes, but it ALSO recommended the creation of an Arab state in what was at the time a territory under British Mandate called Palestine. In other words, it was not an independent nation that the Jews occupied and whose inhabitants they displaced, as the sentence implies and would like uninformed readers to believe. The Jews and the Arabs were given an equal chance to have their own state each. The Jews accepted and went on to create Israel. The Arabs refused and attacked the Jews with the declared objective of destroying Israel. In the end, the Arabs lost. Tough luck. They should not have attacked in the first place. Aggressors should never be rewarded. Ask the Germans and the Japanese.



    • Angel (whoever you are): This is now the second time that you are implying that articles placed here are meant to mislead uninformed readers. Why do you not simply say that from your knowledge and your perspective (which is clearly liimited to a particular perspective) this is what you understood happened. Historians such as Ilan Pappe and others have unearthed documents that prove what the real intention of the occupiers were: to engage in an orgy of ethnic cleansing. These are strong words but enough academic work has been done to prove it and the onus is now on you to show that there were other (as you would probably say – good) intentions. The Palestinians are not sinless and their mistakes must be acknowledged, but let us be clear that the primary aggressors are not the Palestinians,



  2. Fair enough: we each have different perspectives on what we understand happened. But then the question becomes who can we believe. Pappe is revered by pro-Palestinian voices… and loathed as a neo-modernist “historian” for whom ideology trumps facts every time by people like me who are looking for just the historical facts. What actually happened is irrelevant to him. What matters is which facts he can cherry-pick in other to support his ideological pre-conceived ideas. That makes him an unreliable and therefore irrelevant source in my book. You are naturally free to consider him as a reliable source, but that’s basically why we have diverging views. Benny Morris was recently in town here and gave a lecture, and I asked him what he thought of the “new historians”. After reminding us that he was the one who coined the term, he rejected individuals as Pappe as unreliable because of his lack of academic integrity (to put it mildly). Morris himself changed course over the years, and when I asked him why, he said that he had come to the conclusion that peace with the Palestinians will never be possible because they are not interested in peace. What they want is to replace Israel and take everything that the Israelis have built. Coming from him, now that has weight. He also criticized Ephraim Karsh, with whom he has a feud, but that doesn’t diminish in my view the excellence of Karshs’ book titled “Palestine Betrayed”. If you want a more balanced assessment of the actual historical facts, that would be the one I would recommend. Pappe is trash.

    As for your statement that “the real intention of the occupiers were to engage in an orgy of ethnic cleansing”, again, this flies in the face of what actually happened. The Jews were not interested in “ethnic cleansing”. They just wanted to be left alone. But the Arabs wouldn’t leave them alone, they wanted to kick them out. To this day, they still reject the notion that Jews have the right to live in what was once their ancestral land. The Arabs are the ones who rejected the UN-sponsored partition plan in 1947. They’re the ones who attacked with intent to destroy, repeatedly. The Jews merely did what anyone else, including you and me, would have done had we been in their shoes: defend themselves. You can’t possibly blame them for that. You are totally off when you assign blame to the Jews for being the primary aggressors. The Arabs were the aggressors. They were in 1920, 1931, 1936, 1948, 1967, 1973 and 2006. How many more times will they need to try to destroy Israel before they get it into their thick skulls that they’re not going to succeed? Additionally, if the Jews intended to perform “ethnic cleansing”, how come they left 150,000 Arabs stay in Israel? The same 150,000 are now 1.3 million Israeli Arab citizens. The ones who fled did so at the urging of hysterical Arab radios telling them to vacate the place because their Arab brothers would come and kill all the Jews, promising them that they could share the spoils once it was all over. The only problem is that this great plan did not work. The Arab armies were defeated… and the refugees not allowed to come back, which was the logical outcome of the war they had started. Millions of Germans were expelled of Poland and Chekoslovakia at the end of WWII. Such is the fate of the population of aggressor countries.



  3. In the 1980s I spent many long hours with white South Africans trying to convince them that their understanding and their logic was wrong and I have often asked myself the question if it was worth it. For the moment my answer is yes, but of course there is a limit to one’s patience. I will therefore spend some more of my time explaining my perspective to you.
    Firstly, we use different words. When I use the word Zionist, you use the word Jew. Where I use the word Palestinian, you simply use the word Arab. Perhaps you are doing it deliberately, but this is a method of debate about this issue that is well-known and needs to be exposed.
    Secondly: many people have tried to write a common history of what happened in Palestine but for some reason it eludes us all. Hopefully one day, instead of simply trashing people’s unique research, we can all have a history book that most of us can subscribe to.
    Thirdly: the very notion that “Jews have the right to live in what was once their ancestral land” has been unpacked significantly by a Jewish professor in Tel Aviv, Shlomo Sand (whose research you will probably thrash…). The irony and the truth is that many Palestinians (who today happen to be Muslim or Christian because of historical factors) have MORE right to the land than those who came from all over Europe, Russia, etc. to settle there. To be honest, when I saw some of them in Hebron they reminded me of the worst racists in South Africa, who interestingly also had this strange notion of South Africa being their “promised land”. I definitely know who the aggressors are…..
    But of course we can go on and on and throw facts at each other forever and this will not move the debate forward. What are you proposing? I for one recognise that there should be a State of Israel and a State of Palestine. I do not believe in religious states and therefore will not subscribe to any such notion for either Israel or Palestine and hopefully neither of them will go in that direction. In an ideal world I believe in one democratic state under one constitution where everyone has the same rights, and if those who believe in a state for Israel are not careful, the idea of two states will disappear. What you and others need to understand is that this is the greatest threat to Israel and some of us will (again ironically) be the defenders of Israel. To only give the Palestinians 22% of their land is however not acceptable to me either, but of course that is something that those who negotiate with integrity must eventually resolve taking into account that refugees should be allowed to return. It is therefore in my mind a very simple matter (perhaps you do not know about the Arab Peace Plan of 2002?) if only the state of Israel will negotiate with integrity instead of all the time creating facts on the ground thereby making even a two state solution impossible.
    The post above however is about Christian Zionism, which – and I write as a Christian – I reject utterly and completely. It will only lead to war and annihilation and perhaps this is what they want…..



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: