RUTHFULLY YOURS

“It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism is not just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it is routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It is our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.” — Mehdi Hasan, The New Statesman.

“There isn’t much of a desire to do anything about it [the problem of antisemitism]. It should also be said that the so-called interfaith outreach work… achieves almost nothing. A couple of old bearded men get together and agree on some dietary thing they’ve got in common, but it doesn’t solve the fact that anti-Semitism mainly comes from Muslim communities these days. … that that’s taught in many mosques and many Muslim schools…” — Douglas Murray, British commentator.

The question that arises is, are the elites of Sweden in general suffering from a case of Stockholm syndrome? Are we encouraging our adversaries to Islamize Sweden, which in the long run, might result in the abolition of freedom of religion, forcing Jews and Christians to live as dhimmis [subjugated citizens] in humiliation?

If by allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to settle here — people much more hateful of Jews than the average German during the Nazi era — are we not in fact paving the way for another Holocaust?

One of the most visible effects of Muslim mass immigration into Sweden is that anti-Semitism is very much on the rise in the country. Swedish Jews are being harassed and threatened, mainly in the Muslim-dense city of Malmö, where in January 2009, the friction deepened during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration. Demonstrators were attacked by pro-Palestinian counter demonstrators, who threw eggs and bottles at the supporters of Israel. The mayor of Malmö at the time, Ilmar Reepalu, failed to take a clear stance against the violence, and was accused of preferring the approval of the city’s large Muslim population to protecting Jews. He remarked, among other things, that “of course the conflict in Gaza has spilled over into Malmö.”

A segment of Christians is actually trying to delude the world into thinking the absurd: that the ancient Jews of Canaan and Judea are “colonialists” who are “illegally occupying” their own native land.

Seemingly undeterred by their 2016 defeats, the Christian anti-Israel coalitions are regrouping for their next attacks, while pro-Israel Christian Zionist organizations — including Christians United for Israel (CUFI), Friends of Israel (FOI), International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem (ICEJ) and Bridges for Peace, among others, continue to speak out and teach the facts and the truth about Israel to Christians throughout the U.S. and Europe.

Still, the Bible gives us hope and assurance that there is a future day when Israel will be able to bask in the elusive peace it demonstrably continues to offer those who are trying to destroy it.

In breaking news yesterday, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America approved a resolution calling on the U.S. government to end all aid to Israel if Israel does not stop building settlements and “enable an independent Palestinian state.”

Several international Christian policy conferences this summer have produced a mixed bag of both blessings and curses — all aimed at Israel. The United Methodists, The Southern Baptists, The Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Unitarian Universalists are worth noting here.
United Methodists

From the quadrennial United Methodist General Conference (UMGC), the good news is that the four major divestment and boycott proposals were defeated in committee before ever reaching a floor vote. The primary targets of the defeated boycott campaign were Caterpillar and Motorola, the corporate giants alleged — in a totally fictitious plot — to be co-conspirators with Israel supposedly to disable and destroy the Palestinian people.

The General Conference, not surprisingly, also voted to reaffirm (759-24) the United Methodist resolution #60229 — Guiding Principles for Christian-Jewish Relations. This is a resolution that has been reinforced and amended for many years. It reflects the UMC’s interest in establishing and maintaining relationships with the Jewish community.

However, mention of Israel in the UMC resolution is a trailing number nine out of nine points with a hesitant tone that reveals a distinct lack of understanding of the critical role of Israel in worldwide Jewish affairs.

Because of their apparent lack of factual information on the topic of Israel, the resolution appears to have caused some confusion. According to their document, they are “searching, wrestling, and struggling with complexities and painfulness of the controversies surrounding these Middle East issues.” (extrapolated from petition #60229)

The UMC story however, does not end there. There are two nagging unresolved elements: first is the United Methodist Kairos Response Committee, which some people say is openly anti-Semitic, and second is the misguided United Methodist membership in the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

RIO DE JANEIRO—The Egyptian Olympic Committee has sent judoka Islam El Shehaby home after his refusal to shake an Israeli opponent’s hand following a bout last week, the International Olympic Committee said.

El Shehaby broke with judo and Olympic tradition when he snubbed Israeli opponent Or Sasson’s offer of a handshake after being defeated in a men’s heavyweight bout on Friday. Sasson went on to win a bronze medal.

The IOC’s disciplinary commission investigated the incident and issued a “severe reprimand” to the athlete, as well as warning the Egyptian Olympic Committee to make sure its athletes receive “proper education on the Olympic values.”

El Shehaby also initially refused to bow to Sasson after the bout, but was called back onto the mat to do so. Some Egyptian commentators had suggested he should have refused to compete against an Israeli opponent in the first place.

Donald Trump, expanding on the provocative immigration ideas that have propelled his presidential candidacy, proposed on Monday a new ideological test that would limit immigrants seeking admission to the U.S. to “those who share our values and respect our people.”

He argued in a speech fleshing out his plans to combat terrorism that tighter immigration standards were needed to fight Islamic State with the same vigor with which the U.S. fought the Cold War. “We will be tough, and we will be even extreme,” he said.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the test—he called it “extreme vetting,” a phrase that didn’t appear in his prepared remarks—would include, but Mr. Trump suggested he would ban not only terrorist sympathizers but those who believe in Shariah law, don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution or “support bigotry and hatred.” Shariah law is the legal system of Islam that governs public and private behavior.

The speech represented a response to Mr. Trump’s critics, including many Republicans, who have expressed doubts that he has the experience and temperament to lead the U.S. in a dangerous world. Last week, 50 Republican foreign policy experts signed a statement saying they wouldn’t vote for Mr. Trump because they question his capacity to serve as commander in chief.

Democrats on Monday sought to rebut Mr. Trump even before he spoke. Appearing with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at a rally in Scranton, Pa., Vice President Joe Biden said Mr. Trump’s comments had been quoted approvingly by the leader of Hezbollah and posed a threat to U.S. troops in the region. “Trump is already making our country less safe,” Mr. Biden said.

“This man is totally, thoroughly unqualified to be president of the United States of America,” Mr. Biden said of Mr. Trump. “On every issue that matters most to our security, Donald Trump has no clue what it takes to lead this great country.”

In his speech at Youngstown State University in Ohio, Mr. Trump unfurled a broad-gauge critique of the antiterrorism policies of President Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton, his former secretary of state.

“The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton,” he said. “Our current strategy of nation building and regime change is a proven absolute failure.” CONTINUE AT SITE