The Theology Behind the ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Gospel

Petra Marquardt-Bigman has an excellent post at her ‘Warped Mirror’ blog about Ben White and his new book, which she terms as the “Israeli apartheid gospel.” How true that really is. Whilst current reviewers of Ben White’s book have looked at fake quotes, dubious sources, and the ethics of recommending Holocaust deniers to beginners, one subject left mostly untouched is the theology which Ben White employs.

It is rumoured that Ben White is writing a book on ‘justice and mission’ for YTC Press, to be published at a later date. Ben White has revealed his interest in theology through a public letter published on the 60th anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel, which you can read here. White and his fellow blogger Philip Rizk end the letter thus:

We therefore urge all those working for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine to consider that any lasting solution must be built on the foundation of justice, which is rooted in the very character of God. After all, it is justice that “will produce lasting peace and security” (Isaiah 32:17). Let us commit ourselves in prophetic word and practical deed to a courageous settlement whose details will honour both peoples’ shared love for the land, and protect the individual and collective rights of Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land.
“Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid” (Micah 4:4)

In April 2008, Ben White published on The Guardian‘s Comment Is Free, tellingly titled ‘The Other Evangelicals.’ Having mentioned the predominance of Christian Zionists and pro-Israel evangelicals amongst American Christians, White writes about those ‘other evangelicals’. White reassures us that ‘already by the mid-1980s there were signs of dissent,’ hailing the creation of the group Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, and celebrating the ‘alternative theology’ on Israel:

In the 1990s, Don Wagner (one of the key figures behind EMEU) published Anxious for Armageddon, and the British author and scholar Colin Chapman wrote Whose Promised Land?, a title later reissued during the second intifada and considered a go-to text for western Christians seeking to get to grips with the conflict for the first time.

More recently, US evangelical scholar Gary Burge has written Whose Land? Whose Promise?, which again combines theology with the experiences of Christian Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Another crucial British contribution has come from Stephen Sizer, who in three years has written two critical studies, Christian Zionism and Zion’s Christian Soldiers?

To many people, the names listed here by White do not conjure up images of Martin Luther King Jrs or William Wilberforces, but instead men who are feeding negative stereotypes about Jews into Christian minds whilst claiming to inform them about the Middle East conflict.

Take Colin Chapman. Many have criticised Chapman’s 1983 book Whose Promised Land? for, in their view, pushing an anti-Jewish and anti-Judaic form of Christian theology. For Chapman, Jewish statehood in itself presents a problem, rather than necessarily the actions of said Jewish state, writing in his book:

What is the whole enterprise of settling Jews in the land and setting up a Jewish state doing to the soul of Judaism? Did God really intend that they should be ‘a peculiar people’ for ever and ever? Is there no alternative to the choice between traditional orthodox Judaism, assimilation and Zionism? Is there no other way by which the Jews can live securely among the nations without ceasing to be Jews?

Ben White also recommends Stephen Sizer, whose political opposition to Israel is at least supported by his theological ideas about Israel being a ‘rejected vineyard,’ as you can hear in this sermon. Sizer has also said he ‘fears another exile’ for Jews in Israel. His book Christian Zionism alleges Israeli complicity in 9/11.

According to Sizer, Palestine must be liberated from the Jews,  He has forwarded emails from Holocaust deniers and Christian antisemites, given interviews to and promoted the work of those on the American Far Right, and shared a platform with various Islamists and antisemites.

It is extremely revealing that for Ben White, the alternative to the Christian Zionists, and the apocalyptic overtures associated with Tim LaHaye and John Hagee, are the Christian anti-Zionists. In other words, the best option for Christians who want peace and justice in the Middle East is to take the polar opposite position to John Hagee. If John Hagee’s a Zionist, then the alternative is anti-Zionism.

Yet if Christian Zionism encourages the idea that the Jewish state should be as strong as possible  due to God’s covenant with Israel, Christian anti-Zionism encourages the idea that no Jewish state should exist because God has broken his covenant with Israel.

This would also explain why, whilst Christian Zionists are proud of Jewish influence in politics, Christian anti-Zionists appear deeply fearful and cynical about the ‘Jewish lobby’ or ‘the Zionist lobby’. Sizer has complained about the Jewish lobby before, whilst Chapman appears positively paranoid about Jewish power, writing in Whose Promised Land?:

“Six million Jews in the USA have an influence that is out of all proportion to their numbers in the total population of 281 million. Through wealth, education, skill and single-mindedness over many years they have gained positions of power in government, business and the media. It is widely recognised, for example, that no one could ever win the presidential race without the votes and the financial support of substantial sections of the Jewish community.”

In ‘Israeli Apartheid’: A Beginners’ Guide, Ben White cites Chapman’s book Whose Holy City? in order to cite claims about East Jerusalem, yet Chapman as a source is far from authoritative. White’s book comes with glowing recommendations from other prominent Christians, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who likewise believes the Jewish lobby is ‘powerful, very powerful’ in America, and Garth Hewitt, the Anglican canon who came up with the idea to re-write Christmas carols as anti-Zionist hymns – a spiritual accompaniement to the ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Gospel if ever there was one.

Additionally, there is a commendation from Nur Masalha, prompting one observer to write:

[Ben White’s] latest book/pamphlet, aimed at a mass market, attempts to spread a gospel of Zionism as an essentially predatory evil, with Zionist Jews as predatory colonial dispossessors/crucifiers of innocent Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

Nur Masalha’s commendation is interesting because he was highly influenced by his mentor, Michael Prior, who concocted a Palestinian Christian (and, by extension, Muslim) liberation theology, which held Modern Zionist, Palestinian or Israeli Jews had expelled Palestinian Christians and Muslims, just like the ancient Israelites expelled the Canaanites. And there was more than a nasty hint that they were crucifying (Palestinian) Christ, all over again.

It was a deadly concuction of ancient genocide and cosmically criminal crucifixion conflated with modern ethnic cleansing. I am not saying White expresses (at least, not overtly), but it is interesting, as I said, that on Amazon, Nur Masalha’s is the first and most glowing commendation.

In raising awareness of his ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Gospel, White is positively evangelistic. Here he is preaching faith-with-action in the Church Times in early 2009:

More than ever, Christian leaders and Churches need to stand up and be counted. This could mean many things: pilgrimages that show solid arity with Palestinians; targeted boycotts of Israeli products; writing to MPs; inviting Palestinian speakers; twinning; film screenings; selling Palestinian-made goods.

This, White has reasoned elsewhere, is popular struggle, which:

‘”like violent resistance, is not an end in and of itself; it is a method, a strategy. It is the end goal, decolonization and liberation from occupation and Zionist apartheid, that is ferociously opposed by the self-declared international guardians of the “peace process” and their friends in the Palestinian elite. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.”

Indeed, whilst White encourages anti-Israel boycotts in the West, he writes glowingly of Palestinian Christians who have taken part in violent activities against Israel.

Ben White wrote an article in the Al Aqsa journal (edited by Islamist antisemite Ismail Patel, who shares with Ben White an apparent admiration for French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy), entitled ‘Palestinian-Christian/Muslim Relations: Myths, Propaganda and Realities.’

What is most interesting is that White frames Muslim-Christian co-operation amongst Palestinians by focusing on their response to Zionism, writing:

‘I will look at how Christian and Muslim Palestinians have traditionally lived and worked alongside each other, with a focus on their united front against the Zionist movement.’

White informs readers that:

‘From the Arab Revolt in 1936, to the flourishing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the mid-1960s, Christian Palestinians played a significant role in the resistance to Israel.’

White even quotes the founder of the Islamic Jihad movement as having said:

‘in our movement we accept the participation of our Christian brothers in our struggle without them having to change their religious beliefs.’

White, seeking to break down ‘Zionist propaganda’ that Palestinian Muslims persecute Palestinian Christians, even lays the blame with Israel for inter-Palestinian honour killings, writing:

‘Israel’s territorial fragmentation of Palestine has always threatened to affect Palestinian society on a wider-level and indeed, there are worrying signs that the “sociocide” being practised by Israel has gradually pressurized Palestinian society to breaking point. One such indication is the increase in so-called ‘honour killings’ in recent years, a phenomenon that has sometimes been presented as part of a Muslim-Christian conflict within Palestine.’

The impression gained by these articles is that Ben White defines his form of Christianity as a response to Zionism. Just as the virtue and earnestness of American evangelicals can be judged according to their opposition to Zionism, as we saw in White’s piece from The Guardian, so too can the legitimate Palestinian credentials of Palestinian Christians can be judged by their participation in ‘resistance’ against Zionism.

We see here how the ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Gospel inspires Christians in the West to be free of Zionism and colonalism, whilst inspiring Palestinian Christians to be authentically Palestinian. For Ben White, to be Palestinian is to ‘resist’ Zionism (consider, lest we forget, what White has to say about Palestinians who pursue peace with Israel).

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the Israeli Apartheid Gospel is that, for those who genuinely believe in it, it needs Israel to survive.

Without Israel, what would become of Palestinian-Christian/Muslim relations, previously held together by a united fight against Zionism? And how else could Western Christians prove their commitment to peace and justice without Israel to boycott?


Filed under apartheid analogy, theology

17 responses to “The Theology Behind the ‘Israeli Apartheid’ Gospel

  1. Pingback: Ben White, Stop Digging. « ModernityBlog

  2. White Flag

    “Sizer …. his book Christian Zionism alleges Israeli complicity in 9/11”.

    Do you have the quote please?

  3. seismicshock

    “For allegations of Israeli complicity in the 9/11 tragedy, see…” p.251 footnote 170 (links to newspaper article).

  4. zkharya

    free publication of introductory chapter to BW’s book:

    Introducing Israeli Apartheid

    Supporters of Israel present Zionism as an ideology of liberation of the Jewish people, but for Palestinians, Zionism, as it has been practiced and as they have experienced it, has been precisely apartheid.1 Approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the first time can be a confusing experience. There seem to be such widely varying points of view, contradictory versions of history, and utterly opposing explanations for the root of the problem. Why is this? One of the main reasons for this difficulty is the fact there are disagreements over Israel’s origins.
In this book, the truth of Israel’s past and present is laid bare; the ethnic cleansing, land grabs, discriminatory legislation and military occupation. This reality is very different from the typical tale of a small, brave nation, forced from the very beginning to fight for survival against implacable, bloodthirsty enemies; a country that has made mistakes but has always done its best to achieve noble aims with pure means.
What can explain such a profound difference? Pro-Israeli propaganda in the West has had a huge impact, but there is a more fundamental reason. ‘Security’ has been the justification for all manner of Israeli policies, from the population expulsions in 1948, to the Separation Wall over 60 years later. Defence, so it goes, is why Israel is forced to take certain measures, however unpleasant they may be.
Indeed, Israel argues, it alone is a country that fights for its very survival. Even putting aside Israel’s vast military strength, why would Israel’s existence as a Jewish state be so objectionable to Palestinians? Unlike today’s slick apologists, the early Zionists were refreshingly honest about the reality of their mission, as we will see more of in Part I.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky was one of the foremost Zionist leaders and theoreticians, a man who has more streets in Israel named in his honour than any other historical figure. In perhaps his most famous essay written in 1923, Jabotinsky was clear about one thing: ‘Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population’. Why? Simply put, history shows that ‘every indigenous people will resist alien settlers’.
This book has been written in order to describe clearly and simply what Zionism has meant for the Palestinians, how Israeli apartheid has been implemented and maintained, and suggestions for how it can be resisted. In this task, I am indebted to the many academics, writers and journalists who have researched, documented and witnessed the unfolding of Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
Part I begins with a concise history of the development of Zionist settlement and theory, particularly with how it related to the Palestinians. There is then a summary of the key historical events of the Nakba, the Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948, when the aim of a Jewish state in Palestine was realised.
Part II will clearly define the main areas of Israeli apartheid and the contradictions of a so-called ‘Jewish democratic’ state. Dispersed through Parts I and II will be small ‘stand alone’ boxes with personal stories of how individual Palestinians are affected by a given aspect of Israeli apartheid.
Part III is the section in which ways to resist Israeli apartheid are discussed, with details of existing initiatives that should hopefully encourage you the reader to think of your own ideas. Finally, the book concludes with a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section in which doubts or criticisms of the book’s main thrust will be asked and answered. But first, we are going to take a look at the definition of apartheid in international law, and the similarities and differences between South African apartheid and Israel.


    For the purpose of the present Convention, the term ‘the crime of apartheid’, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them…5 [emphasis added]
Article II, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, UN General Assembly Resolution 3068, 30 November 1973

    While South Africa is most associated with apartheid (and is the context from which the term originates), the crime of apartheid actually has a far broader definition. This is important in the case of Israel, since even putting aside the similarities and differences to the South Africa case specifically, we have some kind of measure by which to assess Israel’s policies past and present towards the Palestinians.
In 1973, the UN’s General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which meant agreeing on a detailed description of what exactly ‘the crime of apartheid’ looked like. From this list of ‘inhuman acts’, there are some particularly worth highlighting:

    • Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person … by the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country … [including] the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence …
• Any measures including legislative measures designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups … the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group …

    As will be described in Parts I and II of this book, Israel has been, and continues to be, guilty of these crimes, which are all the more serious for having been ‘committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons’.
More recently, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted in 1998 at an international conference. Israel was actually one of seven countries (out of 148) to vote against the statute. The ICC Statute includes the ‘crime of apartheid’ in a list of ‘crimes against humanity’, going on to describe apartheid as:

    inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime …
Therefore, even before a consideration of the similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid South Africa, there is a clear set of criteria for what constitutes the crime of apartheid under international law with which we can assess Israel’s policies since 1948.


    If Palestinians were black, Israel would now be a pariah state subject to economic sanctions led by the United States.
Observer, October 2000

    White settlers in South Africa, like Zionist pioneers, colonised a land already inhabited. As in South Africa, the settlers in Palestine expelled the indigenous population, some two-thirds of the Palestinians in the land that became Israel in 1948, took possession of their properties and legally segregated those who remained.

    It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear. There was never anything like that in our case. The whites did not want the blacks to disappear.
Mondli Makhanya, editor-in-chief of the South African Sunday Times, July 2008

    Israel was compared to South African apartheid long before Jimmy Carter wrote his bestseller ‘Peace not Apartheid’. While the legal infrastructure that enforced apartheid South Africa differs substantially from the relevant Israeli legislation, there are also strong similarities. The common element of both legal systems is the intention to consolidate and enforce dispossession, securing the best land control over natural resources for one group at the expense of another.
Architect and academic Lindsay Bremner has observed that while in the popular imagination apartheid in South Africa meant walls, fences and barbed wire separating blacks and whites, in fact:

    it was the countless instruments of control and humiliation (racially discriminatory laws, administration boards, commissions of inquiry, town planning schemes, health regulations, pass books, spot fines, location permits, police raids, removal vans, bulldozers) … that delineated South African society during the apartheid years and produced its characteristic landscapes.

    As will be seen in Part II, this kind of description is all too familiar for Palestinians inside Israel, and the OPT, for whom – like black South Africans – ‘daily acts and rituals’ become ‘acts of segregation and humiliation’.
In a bitter irony, important parts of the so-called ‘peace process’ of the 1990s, which saw limited Palestinian ‘self rule’ in a small percentage of the OPT, have actually strengthened the comparison with apartheid South Africa. In 1959, South Africa passed a law designed to promote ‘self-government’ amongst blacks in sealed-off ‘reservations’. Reading this description by the late Israeli journalist Tanya Reinhart, the similarities with the situation in the OPT since the 1990s are striking:

    The power in each of these entities was bestowed to local flunkies, and a few Bantustans even had elections, Parliaments, and quasigovernmental institutions … The Bantustans were allowed some symbols of sovereignty: a flag, postage stamps, passports and strong police force.

    In 1984, Desmond Tutu noted that the Bantustans, in territory ‘arbitrarily carved up for them by the all mighty White Government’ deprived of ‘territorial integrity or any hope of economic viability’ were basically intended to ‘give a semblance of morality to something that had been condemned as evil’. ‘Fragmented and discontinuous territories, located in unproductive and marginal parts of the country’ with ‘no control’ over natural resources or access to ‘territorial waters’ – as we shall see, this is a frighteningly spot-on description of the OPT today.
However, to describe Israel as an apartheid state ‘does not mean equating ‘Israel with South Africa’. Indeed, any comparison should highlight both ‘corresponding developments’ as well as ‘obviously different circumstances’. One particularly striking difference is the fact that the apartheid regime in South Africa meant the rule of a white minority over a sizeable black majority; in 1913, when ‘the first segregation laws were passed’, the indigenous blacks made up ‘more than 75% of the total labour force’.
The other main difference is that Israel has not practised socalled ‘petty’ apartheid – in other words, there are no public toilets marked ‘Jews’ and ‘Non-Jews’. Palestinian citizens of Israel have full voting rights and there are a small number of elected Palestinians in the Israeli legislature (the Knesset). This is because had the ‘discrimination against Palestinians been written into Israeli law as specifically as discrimination against Blacks’ was written into South African law, then ‘outside support would surely be jeopardized’.
There is one key difference between Israel and apartheid South Africa that Zionists definitely do not trumpet. While in apartheid South Africa, the settlers ‘exploited’ the ‘labour power’ of the dispossessed natives, in the case of Israel, ‘the native population was to be eliminated; exterminated or expelled rather than exploited’. It could be said that Zionism has been worse for the indigenous population than apartheid was in South Africa – Israel needs the land, but without the people.
In a conversation between Israeli historian Benny Morris and Palestinian American academic Joseph Massad, the latter compared Israel to South Africa by way of its ‘supremacist rights’. Morris said this was ‘ridiculous’, responding that throughout Zionism’s history, Zionists ‘would have much preferred Palestine to be empty of Arabs with therefore no need for Jews to be supreme over anybody. They simply wanted a Jewish state.’
Morris’s objection to the term ‘supremacist’ is revealing, as it fl ags up the problem that has haunted Zionism until today. South African apartheid had a critical internal contradiction: while aiming ‘at setting racial groups apart’, it also ‘acknowledged their dependency’. Zionism, on the other hand, has tried ‘disappearing’ the Palestinians from Palestine in theory and in practice, yet they are still there.

    Over the years there was a good deal of warmth between the respective leaders of the South African apartheid regime and Israel. South Africa’s Daniel Malan was the first prime minister to visit Jerusalem in 1953, but long before Israeli statehood was proclaimed, a personal friendship had thrived between Chaim Weizmann, who became Israel’s first president, and Jan Smuts, South African prime minister and senior military leader for the British. Weizmann often turned to Smuts in times of crisis – and ‘both men took for granted the moral legitimacy of each other’s respective position’.
Israel eventually became a prominent supporter of the apartheid regime in South Africa, leading to a 1984 UN General Assembly Resolution specifically condemning ‘the increasing collaboration by Israel with the racist regime of South Africa’. While many countries supported apartheid, what is interesting in the case of Israel is the extent of the shared empathy. In the early 1960s, for example, Hendrik Verwoerd, the South African prime minister, shared his own view that ‘the Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.’
In 1976, then South African Prime Minister John Vorster – a man who had been a Nazi sympathiser in World War II – was afforded a state banquet during a visit to Israel. At the official welcome, Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin made a toast to ‘the ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful coexistence.’ The following year, the ‘Official Yearbook of the Republic of South Africa’ noted that ‘Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples.’


    Increasingly, Israelis, Palestinians, South Africans and international observers are pointing out the parallels between apartheid South Africa and Israel. Several prominent South Africans have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians, denouncing what they see as a similar (or worse) structure of oppression to the apartheid regime many of them fought against.
In 2002, veteran anti-apartheid figure and human rights campaigner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu made headlines with his article ‘Apartheid in the Holy Land’. Describing himself as ‘deeply distressed’ after a trip to Palestine/Israel that had reminded him ‘so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa’, the Archbishop affirmed that ‘Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people’.
In 2007, the UN Human Rights Rapporteur John Dugard, South African legal professor and apartheid expert, said that ‘Israel’s laws and practices in the OPT certainly resemble aspects of apartheid’, echoing other South African trade union leaders, politicians, church groups and academics. Western media correspondents have also made the comparison.
Even Israeli politicians and commentators are now talking about apartheid, or more specifically, the risk of Israel facing a similar civil rights struggle that eventually prevailed in South Africa. Indeed, albeit from quite a different perspective on the matter, Israel’s foreign ministry predicted in 2004 that if the ‘confl ict with the Palestinians is not resolved’, Israel ‘could turn into a pariah state, on a par with South Africa during the apartheid years’.
It is important to realise, however, that to compare the situation in Palestine/Israel to apartheid South Africa is not to try and force a ‘one size fits all’ political analysis where there are clear differences, as well as similarities. Rather, any such comparison is useful in so far as it helps sheds light – in Israel’s case – on a political system that is based on structural racism, separation and dominance.
Moreover, as the rest of this book explains, even leaving aside the specific comparison with South Africa, Israel’s past and present policies towards the indigenous Palestinians fully meet the aforementioned definition of apartheid laid out in international law – and urgently need to be treated as such by the international community.

    Jonathan Hoffman’s review on the Z-word blog, published by the American Jewish Committee

    Ben White’s rebuttal on his blog

  5. zkharya

    or just post the link, sorry.

  6. zkharya

    seismic, feel free to delete the excerpt, as its rather long: I just mean to publish the link.

  7. seismicshock

    no probs zak i’ll leave it up

  8. seismicshock

    thanks for the links

  9. zkharya

    I’ve been looking throught the reviews of Whose Land, Whose Promise, and a consistent plaint against Israel is that it does not, allegedly, behave according to “biblical” criteria. This is complete hypocrisy from Christians and Muslims given ethnic cleaning for Jews was considered perfectly acceptable in Christian and Islamic tradition, making Palestinian Christian and Muslim denial to Jews of right of return as a matter of justice and need quite incompatible with ethical Christianity and Islam.

    It is sheer hypocrisy to judge Israeli Jews by the highest standards of Judaism but not to judge Palestinian Muslims and Christians by the highest standards of Islam and Christianity.

  10. zkharya

    This too is how Dr. Burge interprets John 15:6: “The people of Israel cannot claim to be planted as vines in the land; they cannot be rooted in the vineyard unless first they are grafted into Jesus. Branches that attempt living in the land, the vineyard, which refuse to be attached to Jesus will be cast out and burned.”

    Is this Ben White’s view, too? Incidentally, Paul’s metaphor is confused: one grafts cultivated olive branches onto a wild trunk, not vice versa. Paul was definitely an urbanite by upbringing.

  11. seismicshock

    Just found this on the counterpunch/antisemitism piece:

    “Once again, due to the (theologically false) mergence of Zionism with Judaism, unconditional support for the state of Israel in the media can lead some to misguidedly respond with charges of a ‘Jewish conspiracy’.”

  12. zkharya

    Ah, he was only a wee lad then, Seismic, a mere strippling of 18 summers.

  13. Pingback: UCCF blogger gives Carte Blanche to ‘Israeli Apartheid Guide’ « Seismic Shock

  14. Pingback: A fully controlled threat to our freedoms? « Seismic Shock

  15. Pingback: Reverend Stephen Sizer Uses British Police Against A Blogger. « ModernityBlog

  16. Pingback: Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) a Christian response? | eChurch Christian Blog

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