‘There is no occupation', Arab pastor tells shocked young tourists

An international group of millennials have seen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a new light after engaging with both sides – and being shocked by what they discovered.

A party of 11 young people from seven nations were brought together for the chance to understand issues from the point of view of those living there.

They were deliberately not primed to view things from any particular perspective in order to allow them to form their own conclusions through interviews and talks with representatives of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Their three-week trip was recorded on film for a feature-length documentary called Quest 4 Truth, now available on YouTube.

It was produced by Generation 2 Generation, a UK-based organisation founded by Andrew, Daniella and Daphne Kirk committed to inspiring the next generation with an uncompromising passion for Jesus and the Gospel.

Impact of Social Media

The group – from Germany, the USA, the UK, Norway, Japan, Brazil and South Africa – were introduced to community leaders in the Palestinian territories as well as in Israel itself.

Not surprisingly, most of them are strongly influenced by social media which generally portrays a narrative of Israel as big bullies of an oppressed people. Media bias had shaped their perception of the conflict, and they were profoundly shocked to discover that the truth was very different.

“I’ve been lied to,” said one. “You realise how false these stories are,” said another.

The Deputy Mayor of Bethlehem, Essam Juha, was forced to explain why a swastika was inscribed into the fabric of the hotel where they met him. He said it was because Israel had humiliated nations in the same way they had been treated.

“It was so hard for me to keep a straight face”, said Marlea, from New Orleans. “How dare they make that comparison [with the Holocaust]?”

Media bias had shaped the millennials’ perception of the conflict, and they were profoundly shocked to discover that the truth was very different.

After hearing how Palestinians see the Israelis as occupiers of their land, they were taken aback by the response of Arab pastor Naim Khoury, who asked: “What occupation?” And as he turned towards the windows, he added: “Where is the occupation? We are completely under the Palestinian Authority.”

The point was further brought home by a member of the group, who observed: “I have not seen one IDF [Israeli Defence Force] soldier, or Israeli flag.”

They also learnt that the throwing of rocks – and even Molotov cocktails – at Israeli soldiers is seen by Fatah, the PA’s ruling party, as non-violent activity.

Visiting ‘the Wall’

A further learning curve involved meeting Col Danny Tirza, architect of Israel’s notorious security barrier built to keep out terrorists, who said he wanted to be the first to begin taking it down when peace finally came. But in the meantime the murder rate from terrorism had been cut by 90%.

He said that those whose land had been split by the wall – only five per cent of which is concrete, the rest being a much more discreet wire fence – are offered compensation, but refuse to accept it for fear of being labelled collaborators.

Graffiti on the wall betrays the true ambition of Palestinian agitators, with a map showing all of geographical Israel as theirs. They have no wish to share the land, or establish a state beside Israel. They want all of it.

As historian Dr Michael Brown put it: “If the Palestinians put down their weapons there’d be no more war; if Israel put down their weapons, there’d be no more Israel.”

An ex-IDF soldier said: “They use our moral standards against us.” As an example, he explained how a terrorist suspect fled to a crowded residential area, knowing they wouldn’t open fire if civilians were at risk. And when the military had the place surrounded, the fugitive duly appeared on the roof in a bid to escape, at which point they shot him in the leg. But while supporting medics were bandaging him up, the soldiers were pelted with huge rocks. Israelis risk death because of the great value they place on life.

Israelis risk death because of the great value they place on life.

The youngsters hear from Israeli-supporting Stand with Us representative Shevy Kass on a visit to Sderot.Evidence of Apartheid?

Further observations on the Palestinians included – “They are victims of their own hatred” and “They are suffering a lot because of radical people in their community.”

In the southern city of Sderot, meanwhile, a rocket-proof playground has had to be built for children so that when sirens warn of regular incoming missiles from Hamas in nearby Gaza, the kids have an immediate bolt-hole.

The group also visited Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem Holocaust museum where a tearful young British woman, Megan, was visibly shocked by the way her country – in charge of the region then known as Palestine – closed the doors to Jews trying to escape Nazi-occupied Europe. And on the question of Israel practising apartheid – a charge widely disseminated by the liberal left – she added: “I haven’t seen any evidence of it.”

Dr Brown emphasised the need for Israel’s self-defence by saying that anti-Semitism levels are as high now as they were immediately before the Holocaust. A Brazilian member added: “I believe the biggest reason for anti-Semitism is lack of knowledge.” And a German youth said: “The greatest enemy of anti-Semitism is the truth.”

Watch the full documentary by clicking here (Christian version) or here (non-Christian version).

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘Guardian Angel’ by Melanie Phillips (Bombardier Books, 2018).

This is an intriguing look at the life and career of one of Britain’s most forthright and controversial journalists who regularly champions our national identity and Judeo-Christian heritage. Here we discover what shaped her early life and the key factors and influences that precipitated, in the words of the subtitle, her “journey from leftism to sanity”.

The book is perhaps better seen as a memoir than an autobiography but it does nevertheless take us chronologically from Phillips’ childhood in London through her career path to where she is now.

Poignant, Personal, Illuminating

The opening chapter is by far the longest as Phillips describes the angst and anxieties she experienced as a child. Clearly her family home was not a happy one, although it provided the moral foundation she would need in later life.

It is interesting that after describing her (Jewish) parents and upbringing in some detail there is little about her own family. We learn how she met her husband and that she has two children, but almost nothing about them. Later family relationships are also noticeably absent. It seems Phillips wants her personal story to be understood more in terms of the social and political changes that have happened in Britain during her professional lifetime (though intuitive readers will undoubtedly feel keenly the ways these have intersected with her family life). 

This is an intriguing look at the life and career of one of Britain’s most forthright and controversial journalists.

In the second chapter Phillips describes how she learnt her trade as a reporter and eventually joined the staff of The Guardian as a promising writer, by all accounts. Later chapters recount her ups and downs (mainly downs) at that publication in a way that is eye-opening and often entertaining (at least for those of us simply reading about them). We are led through the inner and outer turmoil she experienced as she gradually became aware of and came to terms with the vast ideological differences between herself and her co-workers.

Her account is deeply personal and yet illuminating for anyone learning their way around the problems with the ideological left-wing (cf. classic liberalism, Phillips’ background) and desiring to work through them intelligently and face the consequences bravely.

Overall, the account of her career path away from The Guardian is a poignant one - a move as traumatic and bewildering as any she could have imagined, but which was necessary if she was to remain true to her principle of “following the evidence where it led, and only then reaching a conclusion” (p119).

When towards the end of the book she states that “I believe what has happened to me illustrates what has happened to British society and western culture during the past three decades” (p172), we can readily agree. This is not over-inflated egotism but a logical conclusion that clearly follows from what she has recorded of her experiences.

Alfred and Mabel’s Daughter

Anyone familiar with Melanie Phillips’ writing will find this informative and for those who are not regular readers of her articles or blog, this is an excellent introduction to a social commentator who is both prescient and provocative.

An excellent introduction to a social commentator who is both prescient and provocative.

In some ways the book comes across as a sort of self-explanation, an attempt to understand what actually happened to her, personally and professionally. Certainly the book helps us understand her better and appreciate her even more.

When summing up who she is, Phillips concludes that she is neither on the left nor the right: “I am simply Alfred and Mabel’s daughter, a Jew who believes in helping make the world a better place and a journalist who believes in speaking truth to power” (p175).

'Guardian Angel' (175pp) is available on Amazon for £12.50 (paperback) or £5.91 (Kindle). Melanie Phillips writes regularly for The Times, the Jewish News Syndicate, the Jerusalem Post and for her own blog, at www.melaniephillips.com.

If we are to regain peace in our nation, we have to study the social geography of voting in the Referendum and learn from it.

My joy at hearing the result of the Referendum was very short-lived when I saw the dismay of some of the younger members of my own family.

Social media went into overdrive in condemnation of the decision to leave the European Union, which many young people saw not as a victory for freedom but as a triumph for racism and prejudice against foreigners.

I was immediately moved with compassion for those who felt betrayed by the older generation who had voted heavily for leaving the EU and who they accuse of not considering the views of young people and their future. But a breakdown of the voting pattern shows that it was not only older voters who wanted to break with the European Union. There were other social dimensions to the voting which are most informative about our society.

Understanding the 'Older' Vote

But first, why did so many older people vote 'Leave'? The simple answer is that they remember being told in 1975 that Britain was joining a trading organisation that would lead to great prosperity for all the nations of Europe and bring greater international cooperation and harmony - which is what everyone desired in the aftermath of two terrible wars in the 20^th Century.

But fundamental changes have taken place in the European Union, from simple trade agreements to political power being removed from our own Government to Brussels and Strasbourg, and our politicians actually admitting that we had been deceived.

The older generation was brought up in a social environment of strict morality where truth, loyalty, integrity and righteousness were universally accepted values – they deeply resent being deceived.

The older generation remember joining a trading organisation that promised peace and prosperity – and which became about political power.

Voting on Principle

These issues and the philosophy underlying the policy being pursued by the European Union were not discussed during the Referendum debate, which was an utter disgrace, descending into personal abuse and slogan shouting.

Many in the older generation ignored the debate and held fast to their social values. They knew that if Britain voted to leave the EU, there would be a period of severe economic turmoil. But, in the long-term, it seems they also believed that British character is sufficiently strong to come through the shockwaves of change and steer the country through to a time of prosperity, equality and a recovery of the values and heritage we have lost.

This is why so many in the older generation voted to reassert our independence from the EU and seek a new relationship with the other nations of Europe in a partnership of peace and prosperity. They did not want to leave Europe! They wanted Britain to decide our own destiny!

Voting Against the Establishment

But it was not only the older generation in Britain who voted 'Leave'. In areas of social deprivation, it was young people who see no future for themselves in simply maintaining the status quo. Their vote was as much against the Westminster establishment who never listen to their plight as it was against the European Union, which is just another set of faceless rulers in the 'them and us' structure of society in which they are the forgotten underclass.

For many young people and ordinary working people this was an opportunity to go against those in power. It was a chance to give a black eye to the bankers, stockbrokers, big business moguls and politicians (even including the Labour Party leaders). Sadly, we belong to a highly structured and divided society, in which the gap between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots has been growing steadily wider for at least the past 30 years.

It was not only the older generation who voted 'Leave', but also young people – particularly in areas of social deprivation.

This is why the Labour Party is in turmoil today - because it has always been a mixture of middle-class idealists and ordinary working people, but the gap between the workers and the middle classes has grown steadily wider.

The Social Geography of the Vote

Many firms in Britain have been recruiting from Eastern Europe, where migrant workers are willing to work for lower wages that are still vastly higher that they can get in their own countries. But this has created huge resentment among British workers, especially when the migrants bring their families, with great impact upon schools and the Health Service.

The affluent middle classes, academics, civil servants, politicians, bankers and businessmen who voted to 'remain' don't have to compete for jobs with immigrants, feel the upheaval of drastic cultural change or send their children to overcrowded schools. The unwillingness of Labour politicians in Westminster to face these issues is now tearing their Party apart.

If we are to regain peace in our nation, we have to study the social geography of voting in the Referendum and learn from it.

According to figures published by The Times (25 June 2016), 72% of voters in areas of high average house prices (above £282,000) voted to remain; whereas in areas where house prices are lower than that, 79% voted to leave the EU. Similarly, in affluent areas, 65% voted to remain, whereas in areas where average wages are lower than £23,000, 77% voted to leave.

In terms of occupation and education the differences are even greater, with 86% voting to leave the EU in areas of high manufacturing and 83% in local authority areas where more than a quarter of the electorate do not have at least five good GCSEs.

British society is highly divided, with the gap between the haves and the have-nots growing steadily wider for at least the past 30 years.

Holding Out Hope

So what can Christians do to heal the divisions that are so apparent in our nation and promote harmony and a single-minded determination to seek the national good?

First, we all need to show love and compassion to those who fear for the future. We have to replace fear with hope. This can only be done by reasserting the values that have held the nation together during times of great trouble and danger in times past, and by encouraging people to put their trust in the Lord. Today, as one of our readers said in a perceptive comment, our situation is more like Dunkirk than D-Day. When we found ourselves alone facing vast hostility across the Channel we cried out to God for help; we put our trust in the Lord and he answered our prayers. This is the first thing we need to do today!

Secondly we know that we are facing turbulence for the next two years and at the moment we have no stable Government or credible Opposition. Both political parties are deeply divided and have no clear plans for the future, which is highly dangerous for the nation. Christians should be coming together to seek the Lord for his plans. Now is the time for believers to close ranks and unite in prayer for the nation; boldly speaking the word of the Lord. We know that it is only when we recognise the mess we are in and we cry out to the Lord in repentance that any real change will come in the nation, because God always responds to such prayers.

Thirdly we must intercede for our politicians. Prayer groups and intercessors should be praying for the MPs who have to elect a Prime Minister and for each of the candidates. Of the three leading contenders Theresa May attends her local Anglican church, Michael Gove is an Anglo-Catholic and Stephen Crabb is an Evangelical: all three are known to be friendly to Israel. But we not only need a Godly Prime Minister, we need committed Christians in the Cabinet who will have the discernment to know the will of God for the nation and the courage to speak the word of the Lord in decision-making.

Prayer groups should let their local MP know that they are being supported in prayer and ask if there are any special prayer needs. The next few weeks are especially important to pray for MPs when far-reaching decisions will be made. This is where Christians can play a vital part in the affairs of the nation. We need the same boldness that Peter and John had when they faced the leaders of Israel in Jerusalem soon after the Day of Pentecost. They spoke about Jesus and declared "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4.12).

This is the message that should be upon our lips and declared in our Parliament and in the public square!