RUTHFULLY YOURS

A New Zealand production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” sponsored by a local council has been forced to issue an apology to famed lyricist Tim Rice after removing “Israel” from the lyrics to one of the songs.

Festival organizers said they were doing so to keep things simple for students who would be performing, but did not explain why they found the word Israel in the play problematic.

The substitution was discovered by Twitter user, Kate Dowling, who noted on Friday that in the song “Close Every Door,” the line “Children of Israel” had been replaced with “Children of kindness.”

She wrote to the Wellington city council and to Rice, one half of the famed musical writing team, together with Andrew Lloyd Webber, to ask for clarification.

The changed lyrics were the work of the New Zealand capital’s Artsplash festival, in which 10,000 elementary school pupils take part. They distributed song sheets to those who were taking part with the changed lyrics to one of the best known songs.

The musical, written by Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber, tells the biblical story of Joseph and the Israelites leaving Canaan and going to Egypt.

In both the biblical story and the musical, the word “Israel” does not refer to the country, but to Jacob, who was given a second name, and “children of Israel” means Joseph and his brothers.

Rice was unhappy at the “unauthorized” change, tweeting, “This is a totally unauthorised change of lyric by @WgtnCC. Plus it’s a terribly drippy and meaningless alteration.”

He tweeted to the Wellington City Council asking them to explain.

“Please explain Joseph lyric change: ‘children of Israel’ to ‘children of kindness’. Permission not given. Tim Rice.”

In the sinkhole of moral depravity inhabited by Islamic terrorists, pedophiles and serial killers (but I repeat myself) there are vital issues at stake. Such as which “lion of the caliphate” stabbed a 23-year-old Israeli policewoman to death.

Hadas Malka, a 23-year-old Border Police officer, was murdered in a combined shooting and stabbing attack in Jerusalem’s Old City on Friday evening.

Four other people were wounded, among them two moderately and one lightly.

The attack took place around 7:30 p.m. on Friday evening, when two terrorists armed with knives and rifles attacked people at Zedekiah’s Cave. They were shot dead by security forces.

A third terrorist stabbed Malka, who was stationed at the Damascus Gate. He, too, was eliminated by security forces.

Malka, who suffered critical injuries, was evacuated to the Hadassah Mount Scopus Hospital, where she later succumbed to her wounds.

Then the rush was on to take credit for murdering a 23-year-old Jewish woman. First ISIS claimed credit…

The Islamic State (ISIS) on Friday night claimed responsibility for the stabbing and shooting attack in the Old City of Jerusalem, in which 23-year-old Border Police officer Hadas Malka was murdered.

According to the SITE Intelligence Group, ISIS identified the attackers and referred to them as “lions of the Caliphate”.

It takes real “lions” to stab an Israeli woman.

Initially Hamas played it cool.

In a statement, Hamas said that “the attack in Jerusalem is renewed proof of the continued revolution of the people against the occupier, and that the intifada continues until full freedom is attained.”

Freedom being the genocide of non-Muslims and tyranny for Muslims.

But once ISIS took credit, Hamas demanded credit.

Hamas on Saturday rejected the Islamic State (ISIS) group’s claim of Friday’s terrorist attack in Jerusalem, in which 23-year-old Border Police officer Hadas Malka was murdered.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, told the Palestinian Arab news agency Safa that the perpetrators of the “operation” were two “fighters” from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and that the third terrorist was a member of Hamas.

Unless he was a member of ISIS.

And thus we have the Gazan Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State arguing which of them should get credit for stabbing a 23-year-old Jewish woman.

The recent terrorist attacks in Europe by Muslim jihadists using car (truck) ramming’s and knifings to kill innocent civilian bystanders may have jolted some European governments to recognize that Israel is indeed “the canary in the coal mine.” The car ramming’s and knifings first occurred in Israel with Palestinian jihadists using this method to kill Israelis. It has been emulated by Jihadists in France, Germany, and Britain. It was however, the regime of Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and Hamas in Gaza who have used their mosques, media, and educational systems to spread incitement and hate of non-Muslims, particularly Israelis and Jews, in what amounts to blatant anti-Semitism.

Some European governments have finally awakened to the reality that their charities, particularly those funding Palestinian NGO’s, are in essence supporting incitement to hate and anti-Semitism. The Swiss parliament decided to change the country’s policy with regards to funding Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) that are involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The new policy would bar funding of organizations that participate in incitement and spreading of hate propaganda, racism and anti-Semitism. The measure was introduced by Christian Imark, a National Council deputy from the conservative Swiss People’s Party. It passed 111 – 78.

The Swiss Council of States or Upper House of Parliament passed the resolution with modest modifications of the bill introduced by MP Christian Imark, which was previously approved in the Lower House of Parliament three months ago. The passing of the bill will result in ending official Swiss funding of NGO’s that participate in incitement against Israel, and use anti-Semitic language

Professor Gerald Steinberg, President of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem based NGO, which analyzes and reports on the output of the international NGO community, had this to say…This decision marks a fundamental change. When we first approached the Swiss government officials, including the Foreign Ministry, their response was denial. For the first time now, a European country has passed legislation to end funding for NGO’s that are vehicles for incitement and hate speech, specifically including anti-Semitism.”

NGO Monitor has shown that the primary channel for Swiss funding of NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict is the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, which is a joint funding mechanism involving the governments of Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. The Secretariat has funded over 40 Israeli and Palestinian NGO’s, including groups that engage in “lawfare” against Israeli officials and companies that do business with Israel. It also funded NGO’s that promote Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) campaigns against Israel, and exploit the false analogy of “apartheid” to vilify Israel in what amounts to anti-Semitic propaganda. The NGO Monitor has moreover, documented the extent to which the Secretariat disbursed over $14 million to NGO’s in 2014-2016 that supported the BDS campaigns. For example, 15 out 24 core funding recipients, and 11 out 20 project funding grantees promoted BDS.

The newly enacted Swiss law has set the criteria against funding NGO’s that have ties to terrorist organizations or promote anti-Semitism, as well as those organizations with connections to BDS. The net result of the law is likely to impact on anti-Israel Palestinian organizations such as Badil, which is the Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, based in Jerusalem. Badil (pronounced in Arabic as Badeel, meaning Alternative) supports Palestinian “right of return” and refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Badil is also engaged in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda.

Rep. Lamborn is an active conservative patriot ready to repeal Obamacare, change job killing regulations, and one of the greatest supporters of Israel in the American Congress. This column was published in the fall of 2016.
Congressman Lamborn Op-ed: Settlements Are Not the Obstacle to Peace

The argument that “settlements” are the obstacle to peace is based on the notion that if Jews continue to build on the land of Israel, then this will somehow predetermine the final status of borders and will therefore derail the sacrosanct “Two-State Solution.” This worry over predetermining the “final status” ignores two facts: 1) Jewish settlement of its land is legal, and 2) because of Israel’s desire for peace, both Jews and Arabs have settlements.

Millions of Christians, including myself, believe the creation of Israel was prophesied in the Bible. It should be no surprise that many Jews believe this as well. But the argument for the legality of settlements goes beyond faith. Nothing in the Oslo Accords, the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement, or U.N. resolutions prohibit Jewish settlement. It was clear in the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Peace Conference and the Mandate for Palestine, among others, that there was to be the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people on this land.

As a result of the Arab armies’ resounding defeat in the six-day 1967 war, Israel gained all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, all of the Sinai Peninsula and what is conventionally known as the West Bank. I prefer the term Judea and Samaria because that is its historical name and the name by which it is known in Israel. The West Bank was Jordan’s name for the land. Jordan’s short-lived annexation and occupation of the land from 1948 to 1967 was never even legally recognized. A state should have sovereignty over land in order to name it.

Jews and Arabs, since before Oslo, both have continued to build and “settle” the land. The State Department of all past administrations since President Lyndon B. Johnson seem determined to maintain a “status quo” based on no new settlements that is as unrealistic as it is impractical. What’s worse is that the pressure to be stagnant is applied only to the Israelis, and specifically the Jewish communities.

The constant refrain that Jewish settlements are an “obstacle to peace” is what led to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address, which stated that “ethnic cleansing for peace is absurd.” But why is it that the international community and the Obama administration bristle only at the thought of Jewish expansion within its own country? Israel has not only tolerated but incorporated the 1.75 million Arabs within Israel, where they are entitled to become citizens, vote, serve in the Knesset, armed forces and even the Supreme Court. In contrast, the international community pronounces the idea of 420,000 Jews continuing to live in Judea and Samaria an “obstacle to peace.”

In addition, it is utterly hypocritical that no one makes the slightest peep about Arabs who continue to live, build, and settle the land — with international funding, no less.

There are approximately 150 Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Since 1967, Israel’s Jewish population has increased from about 2.3 million to about 6.1 million as of 2014. Israel has every right, and in fact a duty, to provide infrastructure and housing for its increasing population. Do not forget that this is the only Jewish homeland in the world.

There are 350 Arab communities in the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories and between 1.7 and 1.8 million Arabs living there. This number is in addition to the approximately 1.75 million Arabs living within Israel as citizens, not including Jerusalem. It must be noted that in the 350 Arab communities in the Palestinian Authority, and of course also in Gaza, there are no Jews living among them.

WASHINGTON – Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told PJM that “nothing,” including President Trump’s decision to delay moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, is going to make the Palestinians “be more conciliatory” toward Israel.

Trump, who pledged to move the embassy during the presidential campaign, decided not to order its relocation at this time.

“President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement.

Lamborn said the embassy should not be “linked” to the peace negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

“I was sure hoping he was going to follow through and I’m disappointed that he signed a waiver. He hinted at the fact that he might be letting it go through the next time around or in the future, and I sure hope he does that. I think it’s futile to refrain from doing the right thing in the hopes that it makes the Palestinians more willing to negotiate; they’ve unfortunately taken a hard line up until now and nothing will make them be more conciliatory,” he said.

“So let’s just do what we have to do, let’s just do the right thing. Let the chips fall where they will and then hopefully have negotiations with them in the future, but do not link the capital and the embassy to negotiations,” he added.

Lamborn argued that relocating the embassy to Jerusalem would actually help the peace process move forward.

“You can even make the argument that by showing strength and resolve to do the right thing, even though there will be an outcry, that strengthens the position of the U.S. and Israel to send a message that, ‘Hey you better start negotiating or the train is leaving the station,’” he said. “I don’t see real hope for breakthroughs in the Middle East until the Palestinians have a change of heart and I don’t know what would cause that.”

Under the regimes of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, Palestinians are free to criticize Israel and incite against it. But when it comes to criticizing the leaders of the PA and Hamas, the rules of the game are different. Such criticism is considered a “crime” and those responsible often find themselves behind bars or subjected to other forms of punishment.

This, of course, is not what the majority of Palestinians were expecting from their leaders. After the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA more than 20 years ago, Palestinians were hoping to see democracy and freedom of speech. However, the PA has proven to be not much different than most of the Arab dictatorships, where democracy and freedom of expression and the media are non-existent.

Given the current state of the Palestinians, it is hard to see how they could ever make any progress towards establishing a successful state with law and order and respect for public freedoms and democracy.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip may be at war with each other, but the two rival parties seem to be in agreement over one issue: silencing and intimidating their critics. Of course, this does not come as a surprise to those who are familiar with the undemocratic nature of the PA and Hamas.

Under the regimes of the PA and Hamas, Palestinians are free to criticize Israel and incite against it. But when it comes to criticizing the leaders of the PA and Hamas, the rules of the game are different. Such criticism is considered a “crime” and those responsible often find themselves behind bars or subjected to other forms of punishment.

This, of course, is not what the majority of Palestinians were expecting from their leaders. After the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA more than 20 years ago, Palestinians were hoping to see democracy and freedom of speech. However, the PA, first under Yasser Arafat and later under Mahmoud Abbas, has proven to be not much different than most of the Arab dictatorships, where democracy and freedom of expression and the media are non-existent.