Wait, did the South Carolina legislature pass a one-state resolution?!

on 28 Comments
South Carolina state rep Alan Clemmons

From the Israeli settlers’ news source (emphasis mine):

The Samaria (Shomron) Regional Council honored South Carolina State Representative Alan Clemmons, Sunday, for his pro-Israel resolution, which was passed by the South Caroline House of Representatives and forwarded to other states in June. Reflecting biblical promises made to Israel, the Jewish state’s relations with the United States and South Carolina in particular, as well as the enmity that some have for Israel and the United States, Clemmons’ resolution states the assembly’s support for Israel, “recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others, and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.”

Here is the South Carolina resolution, by the way. Writes an activist friend: Activists in all 50 states should consider pressing for precisely such language! My bold below:

South Carolina General Assembly
119th Session, 2011-2012…

H. 4339



Whereas, Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest recorded deed as reported in the Old Testament, a tome of scripture held sacred and reverenced by Jew and Christian, alike, as the acts and words of God; and

Whereas, as the Grantor of said lands, God stated to the Jewish people in the Old Testament; in Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 24: “Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey”; and

Whereas, God has never rescinded his grant of said lands; and

Whereas, along with the grant of said lands to the Jewish people, God provided for the non-Jewish residents of the land in commanding that governance must be in one law for all without drawing distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, as contained in Leviticus 24:22; and

Whereas, the Nation of Israel declared its independent control and governance of said lands on May 14, 1948, with the goal of reestablishing their God-given lands as a homeland for the Jewish people; and

Whereas, the United States of America, having been the first country to recognize Israel as an independent nation and as Israel’s principal ally, has enjoyed a close and mutually beneficial relationship with Israel and her people; and

Whereas, indeed, Israel is the United States of America’s greatest friend in the Mideast; and

Whereas, the roots of Israel and the roots of the United States are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other under the word and protection of almighty God; and

Whereas, there are those in the Middle East who have sought to destroy Israel from its inception as a nation; and

Whereas, those same haters of Israel also hate, and seek to destroy, the United States of America; and

Whereas, the State of South Carolina and the nation of Israel have enjoyed cordial and mutually beneficial relations since 1948, a friendship that continues to strengthen with each passing year. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America and with the State of South Carolina.

Be it further resolved that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others, and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each of South Carolina’s sister states within the United States of America with the request and recommendation of this body that a similar resolution to that stated herein be proposed within their respective bodies.


This web page was last updated on June 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

28 Responses

  1. Chaos4700
    November 28, 2011, 9:30 am

    Fifth column.

  2. mudder
    November 28, 2011, 9:57 am

    Here is a tweet from Rep. Clemmons today:

    Today while touring Samaria in the so-called ‘West Bank’ I met Jews and Arabs who work and play side by side! Apartheid in Israel is a myth!

    Clearly Clemmons is not touring courthouses or polling places.

    • Avi_G.
      November 28, 2011, 1:43 pm

      Today while touring Samaria in the so-called ‘West Bank’ I met Jews and Arabs who work and play side by side! Apartheid in Israel is a myth!

      Sure, in the West Bank, in so-called ‘Samaria’, Arabs work and their Jewish overlords tell them when they can breath.

      As for the “play” bit, perhaps Clemmons is confusing the Price Tag attacks with the game Tag.

      Someone clue him in.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2011, 3:49 pm

        He sounds to me like that certain type of Southerner who will tell you all about how well the black and whites got along during Jim Crow, until all the Yankees came down from the North.

      • Potsherd2
        November 28, 2011, 8:09 pm

        This is what happens when ignorant XtoZionists try to write their own resolutions instead of getting an official script from AIPAC

        Then you wouldn’t have Rick Perry claiming that Yassir Arafat was an “Israeli,” which I’m sure that Israel wouldn’t be happy to see.

  3. pabelmont
    November 28, 2011, 10:09 am

    If there is one law, with voting by all residents, I think Palestinians would take the deal in a heart-beat. Depends on the “one law” though.

    Israel today has laws to restrict the “lists” that can put forward candidates for election. A law that requires every electoral list to have a platform assuring a right of “return” for Jews but denying a right of return for anyone else would — in my opinion — somewhat attenuate the value of this “one law”.

    • dimadok
      November 28, 2011, 10:39 am

      That’s a blatant lie! None of the Arab parties have any parts of theirs platform devoted to the ‘”right of return”.

      • pabelmont
        November 28, 2011, 2:55 pm

        You must know there are restrictions. Probably a list that is called “The Nakba Remembrance Party” could not run under today’s Israeli election laws. However, as to “return”, I said such a law “would — in my opinion — somewhat attenuate the value of this “one law”.” I did not say there was, today, such a law in place.

      • dimadok
        November 28, 2011, 3:09 pm

        I’m truly sorry, but care to explain it to me in plain English, please?

      • Hostage
        November 28, 2011, 11:28 pm

        Surely, the lists of candidates have to be approved in advance by the Central Election Commission. Beginning with the Socialist list organized by al-Ard (the Land) in 1965 it has disqualified Arab parties which either
        a) deny that Israel is the land of the Jewish people (Yardor v. Central Elections Committee for the Sixth Knesset (1965) 19 P.D. III 365); or
        b) challenge “the foundations of the state as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Law of Return” (Neiman v. Chairman of the CEC 1985, 238).

        An amendment to Basic Law-the Knesset adopted on July 31, 1985, reads:
        A list of candidates shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its goals, explicitly or implicitly, or its actions include one of the following:
        (1) Negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people;
        (2) Negation of the democratic character of the State;
        (3) Incitement of racism. (Israel, Knesset 1985, 3951).

        In the words of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Elon:
        The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people.(Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 1:36 pm

        So of course there are no Arab politicians in Israel who call for right of return. They are blacklisted and banned from politics in the “Jewish state.”

  4. Dan Crowther
    November 28, 2011, 10:33 am

    South Carolina: Home state of Ben Bernanke. Go F yourself South Carolina.

  5. FreddyV
    November 28, 2011, 10:49 am

    I had a similar report from a friend who visited recently. I don’t doubt there’s areas without issue, but I also doubt Rep. Clemmons and my friend were taken to areas that told an opposite story.

    Norman Finklestein wrote a great piece about the idea of a one state solution. I certainly believed in one state until I read this.


    I think if this happens, Zionists will use it as an opportunity to purchase land from Palestinians and cleanse the land initially by purchase and then resort back to the tactics we’re currently seeing.

    Kind of like a return to the early days of the Zionist movement.

    However, my big issues are with the religious tone of this resolution.

    Religion has no place in politics of any kind.

    It automatically relegates non Jews to citizenship at the pleasure of the Jewish ruling class and their interpretation of Biblical instruction.

    It incorrectly assumes that land covenants have not been rescinded and were inconditional, irrespective of conditions of obedience detailed in Scripture in order to inhabit the land and in light of the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ.

    It assumes that the people who refer to themselves Jews currently residing in the land of Eretz Israel are ancestors of the historical people of the Bible to whom the promises were applied to without any consideration of those people currently living as Palestinians being just as likely to be ancestral Israelites.

    I could see a secular resolution offering equality being able to carry some weight, but this is Christian Zionism masquerading as some kind of broker to peace when all it’s doing is stroking the egos of ‘God’s Chosen People’.

    If this were to be adopted across the US, I can only see it making matters worse.

    • Potsherd2
      November 28, 2011, 8:54 pm

      A Potemkin settlement? Maintained by Birthright as a stop for all the tour busses.

      I recall the Nazis had a Potemkin concentration camp that they would show visitors to convince them the Jews were really being treated well.

  6. Woody Tanaka
    November 28, 2011, 10:57 am

    South Carolina exists to make Mississippi look progressive.

    Jeez-louise, it is absolutely revolting and disgusting that, here, in the 21st Century, a legislature in a putitively advanced, educated nation can actually pass a bill quoting fairy tales about land grants from a fictional character in the Whereas clauses of legislation. Next thing you know we’ll be passing laws citing the actions of the Tooth Fairy and the Loch Ness Monster.


  7. annie
    November 28, 2011, 11:40 am

    without drawing distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, as contained in Leviticus 24:22;

    and what about non-citizens? also note the use of the term “non-Jewish residents” exists in the same paragraph but not in the section referenced above, instead they use ‘citizen’.

    • Hostage
      November 29, 2011, 1:05 am

      without drawing distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, as contained in Leviticus 24:22;

      Of course, nothing could be further from orthodox Jewish tradition. Non-Jewish sources use terms like aliens/native born; native-born Israelites/foreigners; sojourner/native; stranger/native; & etc.

      Here is the Judaica Press rendering of the passage: One law shall be exacted for you, convert and resident alike, for I am the Lord, your God.

      Rashi’s Commentary: I am the Lord your God: the God of all of you. Just as I attach My Name uniquely upon you [native Jewish people], so do I attach it uniquely upon the converts [to Judaism].

      • Shmuel
        November 29, 2011, 2:23 am

        Of course, nothing could be further from orthodox Jewish tradition.

        Although the word “ger” generally means “convert” in Modern Hebrew, it is used in Rabbinic tradition to signify both a “resident alien” (“ger toshav”) and a convert (“ger tzedek”). There is no indication in this verse or in Rashi’s commentary (Rashi uses the word “ger” without qualification, as do the biblical text and the Targum) that the reference is to “converts” rather than to non-Israelite residents of the land – which would be a departure from the “peshat” or “plain meaning” of the text, requiring specification. All of the other biblical references to treatment of “gerim” (“for you were gerim in the land of Egypt”) concern “resident aliens”, not converts. Furthermore, the word for law in this verse (“mishpat”) is generally associated with rational, “civil” law, that (in the words of Nahmanides) “ought to be heeded by every creature who knows his creator”. And finally, there would be little point to a verse stating that the law (as opposed to social mores and attitudes) should be the same for converts and Jews from birth.

        Does Judaica Press cite any source for its unusual translation? Do you know of any traditional sources that interpret the word “ger” in Lev. 24:22 as a “convert” rather than a “stranger”?

      • Hostage
        November 29, 2011, 3:31 am

        Do you know of any traditional sources that interpret the word “ger” in Lev. 24:22 as a “convert” rather than a “stranger”?

        I agree with you that convert is not the better reading. Nonetheless, several instances of stranger/proselyte (36 or 46) are implied in the Soncino Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Mezi’a, folio 59b:

        Our Rabbis taught: He who wounds the feelings of a proselyte transgresses three negative injunctions, and he who oppresses him infringes two. Wherein does wronging differ? Because three negative injunctions are stated: Viz., Thou shalt not wrong a stranger [i.e., a proselyte],18 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not wrong him,19 and ye shall not therefore wrong each his fellowman,20 a proselyte being included in ‘fellowman.’ But for ‘oppression’ also three are written, viz., and thou shalt not oppress him,21 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger,22 and [If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,] thou shalt not be to him as a usurer23 which includes a proselyte! — But [say] both [are forbidden] by three [injunctions].

        It has been taught: R. Eliezer the Great said: Why did the Torah warn against [the wronging of] a proselyte in thirty-six, or as others say, in forty-six, places? Because he has a strong inclination to evil.24 What is the meaning of the verse, Thou shalt neither wrong a stranger, nor oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt? It has been taught: R. Nathan said: Do not taunt your neighbour with the blemish you yourself have.25 And thus the proverb runs:26 If there is a case of hanging in a man’s family record, say not to him,27 ‘Hang this fish up for me.’


        P.S. The other argument, of course, is that only the Noahide laws applied to Gentiles living in the Land of Israel.

      • Shmuel
        November 29, 2011, 4:16 am


        The translation “proselyte” in the Gemara in Bava Metzia is based on the context provided by the Mishnah there (58b), which clearly refers to a convert (“ben gerim”). The various homilies concerning the number of injunctions one transgresses in offending or wronging a “ger” simply play upon the word “ger”, but by no means imply that those verses refer exclusively to converts. That is not the “peshat” (plain meaning) of the biblical texts, and that is not the Halakhah.

        Applying a single “mishpat” (civil law) to Israelites and sojourners is in no way inconsistent with the application of the Noahide laws.

        PS. Note the way the Soncino translation switches back and forth between “proselyte” (for the Talmudic statement) and “stranger” (for the biblical verses cited), although the word “ger” remains the same throughout the Hebrew/Aramaic text.

      • Hostage
        November 29, 2011, 11:39 am

        Note the way the Soncino translation switches back and forth between “proselyte” (for the Talmudic statement) and “stranger” (for the biblical verses cited), although the word “ger” remains the same throughout the Hebrew/Aramaic text.

        Yes I understand, but I was providing an example that has been traditionally employed. For example the Jewish Encyclopedia interprets ger as either a “Gentile” or an “indwelling stranger” “(a half-convert of foreign blood)” and discusses the fact that the law against usury didn’t apply to them and that methods were developed of employing them to evade the laws against charging usury to a fellow Jew (i.e. a different law for the convert or Gentile):

        Case of a Gentile.

        When an Israelite lends money to a Gentile or to an “indwelling stranger” (a half-convert of foreign blood), he may and should charge him interest; and when he borrows from such a person he should allow him interest. It is the opinion of Maimonides that for Jews to charge Gentiles interest is a positive command of the written law. [The reason for the non-prohibition of the receipt by a Jew of interest from a Gentile, and vice versa, is held by modern rabbis to lie in the fact that the Gentiles had at that time no law forbidding them to practise usury; and that as they took interest from Jews, the Torah considered it equitable that Jews should take interest from Gentiles. Conditions changed when Gentile laws were enacted forbidding usury; and the modern Jew is not allowed by the Jewish religion to charge a Gentile a higher rate of interest than that fixed by the law of the land.—E. C.] The intervention of a Gentile may lead to an evasion of the law between Israelites. For example, one not standing in need of it has borrowed the money of a Gentile; the borrower lends it to another Israelite, he to pay the interest thereafter; this the first borrower may do only with the consent of the Gentile, if he will accept the other Israelite as his debtor, but not on his own responsibility, although the first borrower would pay to the Gentile the same interest which he should receive from his brother Israelite (B. M. v. 6).In a baraita (ib. 71a) the other case is also put: “A lends money to a Gentile; the latter needs it no longer, but meets an Israelite who does. If the Gentile is willing to lend him the money on interest, he may do so, remaining bound to A; but A must not be a party to the change of debtor.” However, it must have been easy to evade the usury law through the Gentile intermediary, even while maintaining these distinctions.

        The guilt of breaking a Scriptural command falls not on the lender alone, but on the borrower as well (on the supposition that the verb referring to usury in Deut. xxiii. 20, “tashshik,” stands in the causative form); also on the surety for the borrower, the witnesses, and, according to some opinions, the scrivener. The latter participants violate the precept “thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind” (Lev. xix. 14).

        Maimonides treats of interest in his “Yad” (Malweh, ch. v.), following the Gemara and the responsa of the Geonim. He to a certain extent mitigates the usury law; mitigation had indeed become a necessity in his time, as the Jews no longer dwelt in compact farming settlements like those of Palestine and Babylonia in the days of the Mishnah and the Talmud, but had been forced to become traders, brokers, and money-lenders. He says (ib. ch. xiv.): “There are things resembling interest that are allowed; e.g., a man may buy at a discount bonds belonging to his neighbor; a man may give his neighbor a denarius, on condition that he lends 100 denarii to a third person. A may give B a denarius to induce C to lend him (A) 100 denarii” (ib. ch. xv.). Some things are allowed by law, but have been forbidden by the Rabbis as a cunning evasion. A says to B, “Lend me 100 zuzim.” B says, “I have no money, but I have wheat worth that sum, which I can lend you.” Then he buys the same wheat from him for 90 zuzim. He may afterward by law recover 100 zuzim because it is not even “dust of interest.” Thus a man who has taken a field in pledge should not rent it back to the owner. But if such evasions are forbidden only by an appeal to the lender’s conscience, very little is left of the enforceable law against usury. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14615-usury#anchor6

      • Shmuel
        November 29, 2011, 12:26 pm


        I think you are confusing two issues. The first is whether the word “ger” in Lev. 24:22 can be understood to refer only to converts, and the second whether there is a double (or more) ethical and legal standard in the Bible, particularly as understood in Rabbinic tradition.

        I see no reason to interpret the word “ger” in Leviticus (again, according to Rabbinic tradition) as an exclusive reference to converts, because there is no need for a commandment stipulating a single law for Jews from birth and those who have converted to Judaism; because the word “ger” in such commandments generally refers to a non-Jewish “stranger” (as evidenced e.g. by the explanation given in many such verses “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” – the Israelites were certainly not “converts” in Egypt); and because the traditional commentators (Rashi included) and Halakhic codifiers would have cited such a qualification and they do not. The Gemara you cited from Bava Metzia does not purport to interpret Lev. 24:22 or any of the other verses as an exclusive reference to converts, but offers a “drash” (homiletic interpretation), in the context of a Mishnah that would appear to refer to converts.

        Regarding the second issue, of course there are double ethical and legal standards in the Bible and Rabbinic tradition, and usury is a good example. This has nothing to do with the interpretation of the word “ger” in Lev. 24:22, and in fact requires the explicit stipulation in Ex. 22:24 “If thou lend money to any of My people“.

  8. FreddyV
    November 28, 2011, 12:11 pm


    Interesting point on the ambiguity here. Does this mean annexation of the West Bank and Gaza?

    The Biblical ‘land promises’ include all land from the Nile to the Euphrates. Using Christian Zionist understanding, does Rep. Clemmons consider this in his thinking?

  9. split
    November 28, 2011, 1:32 pm

    ‘Using Christian Zionist understanding’ – Actually he’s a Mormon just like K. Rove, G. Beck, M. Romney,… is there something in the water these prostitutes drink ?

  10. dumvitaestspesest
    November 28, 2011, 2:22 pm

    This “resolution” is such an utter, brainwashed , idiotic propaganda that anybody ,who has a knowledge of 8th grader should easily recognise it .
    Alan Clemmons should hang this on his restroom door, so he can memorize it ( and use it if he is short of toilet paper) ,while he is doing , what people are commonly doing in the restroom.
    Does he really think that people are such imbecile like he is???
    I hate when public officials are trying to stuff their own ,sickening propaganda lies and B*l-S**t in other people’s throats, using on top of it quotes from the Bible.
    That’s despicable.

  11. Charon
    November 28, 2011, 8:53 pm

    Google Leviticus 24:22 and select the first link that pops up. Look at how many translations this one line has. Think about all the ways to interpret it.

    Not that it holds any grounds in the first place. The majority of the world prays to different gods if you know what I mean. And speaking of gods, pick any edition of the Bible and read the OT front to back. Yahweh or God is often used describing multiple gods, usually a pair of gods. These are leftovers prior to transitioning over to monotheism and combining them. Usually one is a good god and one is the opposite. Then there are the ‘sons of God’ fallen angels, watchers, Nephilim, who are also occasionally referred to as god or in the same context as ‘normal’ angels. Because of monotheism, the OT god has multiple personalities and some of them are evil. Maybe the evil one(s) is referred to in Leviticus 24:22

  12. American
    November 29, 2011, 3:22 am

    I was looking for Clemmons motivation in doing this.
    One reason could have been that he was thinking of running for the US congress and was looking for Israel donors. He was instrumental in redrawing his district in SC and then announced he was runing for the US congress last Spring.Then this month announced he wasn’t and it appears that the re districting is being held up.
    Other thing is maybe he is christian zio, but I don’t know. He belongs to the Church of Latter Days Saints who say their official position is they don’t support zionism but then again there seem to be some Mormon churchs that do, so I don’t know.
    But he has an angle, they always do.

    While looking for this however I found something interesting from 2008:..from the LA Times.

    Effort aims to counter Christian Zionism

    Critics of the movement will make their case with millions of brochures.
    October 25, 2008|Nathan Olivarez-Giles | Olivarez-Giles is a Times staff writer.

    Before the year is up, nearly 45 million people will get more than a sermon at their churches — they’ll get a brochure titled “Why We Should Be Concerned About Christian Zionism.”

    The brochure says Christian Zionism “fosters fear and hatred of Muslims and non-Western Christians” and “can lead to the dehumanization of Israelis and Palestinians.” Its distribution reflects the concerns of Christians who are trying to combat what they call the growing influence of Christian Zionism in the U.S.

    “If we don’t speak up against it — Christian Zionism — then people will think we don’t care or that we agree with it,” said the Rev. John Hubers, supervisor of mission programs in the Middle East and South Asia for the Reformed Church in America.

    The Reformed Church in America is one of the 35 Christian church bodies that make up the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, which wrote the brochure and began distributing it this month.

    “To say we’re dehumanizing Israelis and Palestinians with our support for Israel dehumanizes us,” said David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, one of the most prominent Christian Zionist organizations in the United States. The group was started in 2006 by controversial televangelist John Hagee, senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.

    But what exactly do Christian Zionists believe?

    Christian Zionists say they believe that the creation of Israel was ordained by God.

    Detractors say Christian Zionism fosters the belief that the return of Jews to Israel has fulfilled one of the steps that will set the stage for Armageddon and the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. These detractors say Christian Zionists want to hasten that end time by promoting conflict in the Middle East.

    The National Council of Churches includes more than 100,000 individual churches, made up of about 45 million churchgoers, and is hoping it can use its membership to curb the political and social influence of Christian Zionism, said Antonios Kireopoulos, the group’s director of interfaith relations.

    The brochure will be handed out in member churches.

    As a resource for those churches, the council is also creating an analysis of parts of the Bible that Christian Zionists use to justify their views, he said.

    “We have to wake up Christians,” said the Rev. Gwynne Guibord, of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, also a member of the council.

    “We have to show Christians and others that there is another way of looking at these things, a way that isn’t so antithetical to who Jesus was,” she said.

    Guibord and other Christian and Jewish leaders in Southern California formed Christians Concerned About Christian Zionism, which held a conference on the issue Oct. 4.

    The conference, “Christian Zionism: Rapture and the Holy Land, Theology and Politics,” was held at Pasadena Presbyterian Church. Among its speakers was Rabbi Haim Beliak, who teaches at the Leo Baeck Temple in Los Angeles and spoke on the influence of Hagee and Christians United for Israel.

    Beliak said at the conference that Hagee and other Christian Zionist leaders are using Israel to further their own Armageddon agenda.

    The brochure, which was passed out for the first time at the conference, says Christian Zionism leads to a conclusion that “involves the death of all non-Christians, including Jews, through apocalyptic warfare or divine judgment” and “is not based on traditional teaching or doctrines of the Church.”

    Brog said Christians United for Israel rejects the brochure.

    “I would say the whole flier seems to me to be describing a stereotype of a Christian Zionist,” Brog said. “There are some Christian Zionists who are opposed to the peace process in the Middle East, but that does not define a movement of millions of Christian people.”

    He said the group believes simply that Israel should make all decisions regarding its land use and peace effort — not the U.S., Palestinians or anyone else.

    “Once we start discussing how we go about supporting Israel is when the disagreements come in,” he said. “When you get beyond that, there are lots of disagreements, and that’s why we don’t really speak about that.”

    As for the argument over Israel’s status as political body or godly appointment, Brog said, there is room for disagreement.

    “America is a shining city on the hill ordained by God. We have that tradition right here in America, and we do see Israel’s promise in the Scripture,” he said.

    Brog said that one way the group urges the federal government to support Israel is through “A National Night for Israel,” in which members of Christians United for Israel gather in Washington to meet with lawmakers. In 2007 about 3,000 members made the trip, he said.

    Brog, who is Jewish, said that he’s always felt “complete comfort” working with Christians United for Israel and that the group has the best interests of Israel and Jews at heart.

    “I wish [the council] would be more fair and respectful of our teachings,” he said. “If they have a problem with us, shouldn’t they be the ones to invite us to a debate? We’ve never attacked the National Council of Churches, and I think it would be fair for them to start that dialogue if they really want it.”

    LOL…how typical is it that the manager for the Christians United for Israel, Borg, is Jewish.
    But I also wonder if the efforts of the big Churches against the Christian Zionist hasn’t also created some of the public criticism of Israel..

    • john h
      November 29, 2011, 5:06 pm

      Thanks for that, American.

      “We have to show Christians and others that there is another way of looking at these things, a way that isn’t so antithetical to who Jesus was,” she said.

      And of what he and the New Testament teach.

      The counterfeit becomes so obvious when the genuine and authentic is seen.

Leave a Reply