Part II: Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11412 Worth a careful read. Has the UN's Partition Plan any remaining significance for either the Arabs or the Jews? From Wallace Edward Brand, JD Balfour resigned as foreign secretary following the Paris  Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord president of the council. In a memorandum addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, he stated that the Balfour Declaration contradicted the letters of the covenant (referring to the League Covenant) the Anglo-French Declaration, and the instructions to the King-Crane Commission. All of the other engagements contained pledges that the Arab or Muslim populations could establish national governments of their own choosing according to the principle of self-determination. Balfour explained: “… in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present (majority) inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are. Balfour stated explicitly to Curzon: "The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right." * * * * * Balfour continued: "I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them.". . ."If Zionism is to influence the Jewish problem throughout the world,  Palestine must be made available for the largest number of Jewish immigrants" While the rights granted under the Trust restricted the Jews, when they did exercise sovereignty, from doing anything that would impair the civil or religious rights of the Arabs it was silent as to the political rights for the Arabs. The Mandate Law also became the domestic law of the UK and the US in 1924 as Treaty Law when, under a new American Administration, the Mandate became the subject of the Anglo American Convention of 1924.[24] Perfidious Albion did not maintain the 1920 form of its proposed trust for very long. Circumstances changed, British interests changed, and the British Government also changed. President Wilson's opposition had delayed the issuance of the mandate as proposed in the initial draft submitted to the WWI Allies at San Remo.  In the meantime, England had installed Feisal as the King of Syria.[25] After the Battle of Maysalun, in which the French Armed Forces defeated the Syrian Army the French deposed Feisal.[25] Abdullah, Feisal's brother, was furious. He marched his troops from their home in the Hejaz (in the Arabian Peninsula) to Eastern Palestine and made ready to attack the French in Syria. Churchill did not want war between the Arabs and the French. In the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, Syria was in the French sphere of influence.  Churchill gave Feisal the Kingdom of Iraq as a consolation prize[26] and gave Abdullah and his Hashemite tribe from the Arabian Peninsula Eastern Palestine in violation of the British Mandate.[27] The Mandate at San Remo  had prohibited the Mandatory from ceding any land to a foreign nation. In the 1922 change, with a new Article 25, it formally approved delaying organized settlement by the Jews East of the Jordan River and informally gave TransJordan to Abdullah and his Hashemite Tribe from the Hejaz.  Article 25 preserved the prohibition of the Mandatory Power from discriminating among races or religions.[28] The land East of the Jordan River became TransJordan and then Jordan and the Mandatory, despite the specific terms of the mandate, prohibited Jews, but not other ethnic groups, from settling there.   The British urging the League to adopt Article 25 was a breach of its fiduciary relationship as trustee with its beneficiary and as guardian, with its ward.[29] as were the policies in their White Papers of 1922, 1930 and the vicious White Paper of 1939 under the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, of Munich fame, that blocked many Jews from fleeing from the Nazi Holocaust.  A vicious enforcement of the blockade ensued and directly disobeyed the Mandate's requirement to facilitate Jewish immigration. During WWI the Hussein/McMahon correspondence with the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula led to a British offer to all Arabs in the Caliphate of self-government free from Turkish rule if they helped the British in the war.[30] The Arabs local to Palestine, unlike the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula that had been led by Lawrence declined the British offer of political self determination if they were to help the Allies, and preferred to fight for the Ottoman Turks who ruled from Constantinople. According to Winston Churchill, , "The Palestinian Arabs, of course, were for the most part fighting against us, ,,," [31] "However the Jews assembled several battalions of Jewish soldiers that fought alongside the British in Palestine in WWI.[32] At that point the Jews had, de facto, lost 78% of their Mandated beneficial right to sovereignty in Palestine, the land TransJordan or East of the Jordan River.  Only 22% of the Mandate was left.  After WWII, Article 80 of the UN Charter[33] expressly preserved the rights that had been granted by the League of Nations prior to its demise, i.e. the Jewish national rights, so the UN could not grant any of it to the Arabs. As I have noted, the Mandate itself prohibited the trustee from ceding any land in Palestine to a foreign Power. Known as “the Palestine clause,” Article 80 was drafted by Jewish legal representatives including the liberal Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) from the right-wing Irgun, and prominent Revisionist Ben-Zion Netanyahu (father of Bibi). It preserved the right of the Jewish people to “close settlement” throughout their remaining portion of Palestine west of the Jordan River.    In 1947 nevertheless, the UN did not “grant” but its General Assembly “recommended” (not a grant-- that would be inconsistent with the previous grant) a partition that offered a part of the area West of the Jordan (a part of the 22% remaining) to the Jews, in effect, releasing that part of the trust res (the political rights) to the Jews, and the remainder to the local Arabs, although the latter was unauthorized by the Mandate.  In the UNSCOP hearings, the Arabs had threatened violence if the Jews were to have a state in any  part of the Middle East.  It is evident that the UN, by submitting to the Arabs extortion -- threats of violence -- and recommending still further partition of the remainder, hoped to avoid the violence.  In the San Remo Resolution, the Allies agreed "To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted a process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;"[34] What were those rights? The Mandate preserved the civil and religious rights of the local Arabs but did not create any political rights for them. The civil rights included individual political or electoral rights but not the collective political right of self-determination.  It did not and could not "preserve" any collective political rights or "national rights" in Palestine for local Arabs in Palestine as they had never in history had any. It follows, therefore, as to political rights, the local Arabs were no worse off than they were under the Ottoman rule from 1520 to 1920, the British suzerainty from 1920 to 1948, or the Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967. But the Arabs didn't want the Jews to have any land with political rights for religious reasons, because it violated Islam to have any inroads on the Dar-al-Islam.[35] They engaged in jihad against the Jews and the Arab Higher Committee brought in the Armies of the surrounding Arab and Muslims States. What was the effect of the abandonment of the trust by the trustee in 1948?  Howard Grief provides a more legally precise reason,[36]  but a simple way to look at it was that when the trustee quit his obligation, the only equitable thing to do was to give the rights to the beneficiary of the trust or the ward of the guardian. Going back to 1922, by 1922 the British Government's interests had changed and the government had changed. In addition to its problems with the deposing of  King Feisal, it was defending itself from charges that it had conferred political rights to the same land to the French, the Arabs and the Jews in three different agreements, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, and the Lord Balfour Declaration. So in 1922, Churchill, in a White Paper, tried wiggle out of England's obligation to the Jews by hinting broadly that a "national home" was not necessarily a state. However in private, many British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Zionists that a state would be established when a Jewish majority was achieved.[37] In the British cabinet discussion during final consideration of the language of the Balfour Declaration, in responding to the opposition of Lord Curzon, who viewed the language as giving rise to the presumption that Great Britain favored a Jewish State, Lord Balfour stated: "As to the meaning of the words 'national home', to which the Zionists attach so much importance, he understood it to mean some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real center of national culture and focus of national life. It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution." The key word here was 'early'; otherwise, the statement makes it quite clear that Balfour envisaged the eventual emergence of an independent Jewish state. Doubtless he had in mind a period somewhat longer than a mere thirty years; but the same could also be said of Chaim Weizmann."[38] According to Lloyd George, one of Churchill's contemporaries, for example, the meaning was quite clear: "There has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of the words "Jewish National Home" and whether it involved the setting up of a Jewish National State in Palestine. I have already quoted the words actually used by Mr. Balfour when he submitted the declaration to the Cabinet for its approval. They were not challenged at the time by any member present, and there could be no doubt as to what the Cabinet then had in their minds. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. The notion that Jewish immigration would have to be artificially restricted in order to ensure that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered into the heads of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing."[39] If there is any further doubt in the matter, Balfour himself told a Jewish gathering on February 7,1918: "My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state. It is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity." [40] Following an opinion of the renowned international lawyer Julius Stone that focused on the settlement question,[41] President Reagan and succeeding Presidents through George W. Bush maintained a US view that the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank were legal but as a policy matter should be discouraged because of their tendency to discourage the Peace Process. President Obama while continuing the position on policy has not specifically stated his view on legality of the settlements but has referred to them as “illegitimate”.. As to Jerusalem, East Jerusalem fell in 1948 [42] to an attack of the Arab Legion supplied and trained by the British and led by Sir John Bagot Glubb frequently referred to as "Glubb pasha". The Arab Legion later became the Jordanian Army. The Jordanians demolished 58 synagogues and their contents, uprooted the tombstones of Jewish cemeteries, and used them for paving or building latrines, and built a latrine against the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the single most holy site for Jews.[43] They expelled all the Jewish inhabitants of East Jerusalem and it became, as Adolph Hitler liked to say, judenrein or cleansed of Jews. In 1967 in the Six Day War, Israel drove the Jordanians east to the Jordan River and became in control of East Jerusalem.[44] They did not use their conquest to deprive the Moslems access to their holy sites in East Jerusalem as the Jordanians had done to the Jews and Christians. Has the UN's Partition Plan any remaining significance for either the Arabs or the Jews? No.  According to acclaimed International Lawyer Julius Stone, ""The State of Israel is … not legally derived from the partition plan, but [in addition to the grants referred to above] rests (as do most other states in the world) on A. assertion of independence by its people and government, B. on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and C. on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control."   The Partition plan had assigned the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area to the UN's International Control, at least temporarily for a period of 10 years.  However in the war of 1948, the UN did nothing to vindicate that assignment by force of arms against the assault of the surrounding Arab states.  Therefore nothing remains of that part of the Partition Plan either.  [45] In fact you read in the news and hear on TV a lot about Jewish settlements outside of Jerusalem and in East Jerusalem, but have you ever seen or heard a reference to new Arab settlements there? Since 1950 more than twice as many new settlements have been built by Arabs in the West Bank as have been built by Jews,[46] totally ignored by the press. They fill them with Lebanese, Iraqis, Jordanians and Egyptians, and, mirabile dictu, they are Palestinians. An Israeli Professor in Haifa named Steven Plaut suggests, tongue in cheek, that the Arabs must have changed the name of the area from Judea and Samaria to the "West Bank" so they wouldn't look silly in claiming that the Jews were illegally settling in eponymous Judea. In June,1967, in the Six Day War , Israel recaptured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.[47]  In 1994 Israel agreed that in return for a quitclaim of Jordan, to CisJordan, or the land of Palestine west of the Jordan River, it would release its claim to TransJordan, the land East of the Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. [48] My understanding from many authors, is that the Arab claims for the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are overstated.  Annexing the so called West Bank would not currently jeopardize a Jewish democracy in Israel.  Nor would it in the long run as correct population growth shows Jewish population increase in the West Bank greater than that of the Arabs.[49] I would only offer citizenship to those, Muslim, Jewish or Christian, who would take a loyalty oath to Israel.  Others could remain with the status of permanent residents. What about Gaza?  It it were to keep shooting missiles at Israel, that would be a casus  belli and Israel should take it over.  Also, when it ceded its sovereignty over Gaza to the Arabs living there, the cession was under a tacit agreement that the Arabs would quit their attacks on Israel.  They haven't.  [50]  A material breach of that obligation  also justifies a takeover.  Although the people in Gaza were ceded Israel’s political or national rights to the Gaza Strip, they never met the requirements for sovereignty   The first of these is: are the Arabs local to Palestine a “people”?  No, as noted above they are an invented people.  Another requirement of a separate nation-state is unified control.  When armed truces were broken by the Gazans, Hamas, that claims control, always blames the problem on other terrorist organizations.  Since Israel’s takeover would not be taking land of another sovereign, the land would not be occupied, but disputed with Israel having the far better claim.[51]  I would suggest that until further Jewish population increase over that of the non-Jewish population justifies annexation of Gaza, that the Gazans be authorized Home Rule, but no vote in Israel’s policies.  Israel should retain the right to eliminate candidates or parties that are terrorists.  That should meet the requirements of the French "procès verbal" as the Arabs in Gaza never had the right to vote on the policies of the Ottoman Empire. In sum, it appears that there are five separate views that justify Israeli sovereignty over CisJordan.  These are 1.  The San Remo  Resolution of 1920 which is justification under International Law, 2. The Anglo-American Convention of 1924 makes the Balfour Policy Treaty law and therefore the Domestic Law of the US and the UK, 3. Facts occurring after 1948, including Jordan’s aggressive war in invading a land in which the Jews had been awarded political rights, and the defensive war by the Jews retaking it resulted in acclaimed International Lawyers holding that the West Bank was disputed, not occupied, and the Jews had the better claim to it.  In the Partition of 1947, the UN General Assembly recommended an award of part to the Arabs, that was not a grant because it had already been granted to the Jews.  The Jews assented, but the Arabs declined.  The Jews still had their rights under San Remo.  The Arabs had no rights, certainly not the inalienable rights continuously claimed by Arafat and Abbas.   4. In 1948 Israel declared independence, established unified control over its territory and defended it by blood and treasure.  That is historically the way sovereignty arises.     5.  Under canon law the Jews had exclusive rights granted by G-d as provided in the Old Testament.  These San Remo rights make possible a one state solution to the current Arab Israeli conflict in Palestine. Those in the Diaspora are also intended as the beneficiaries of the San Remo grant.  However in writing this from the relative safety of suburban Washington, DC, it is not our intention to urge this course on the heroic Israelis who currently face an added existential threat from Iran.  Note we say relative safety.  With Iran’s hurrying development of nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles, no one is safe. This is only to confirm the necessity and legality of a "one Jewish state solution" that others, before us, have already  suggested.  It is the Israelis who must choose. Mr. Salomon Benzimra contributed to this article.  He is the author of "The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel", available in "Amazon-Kindle edition". End Notes [24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 [25] http://www.answers.com/topic/faisal-i-ibn-hussein [26] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18250.htm [27]  Mandate Article 5 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/britman.htm [28] Article 15.  It is preserved by Article 25 [29] http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary [30]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence [31] http://cojs.org/cojswiki/What_Mr._Churchill_Said_in_1939_About_the_Palestine_White_Paper:_Excerpt [32] http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/il%5Egb.html#wwi [33] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art80 [34]  Text of San Remo  Resolution, section (a) I am advised it appears only in two paragraphs of  the Agreement, written in French http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248 [35] http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-does-dar-al-harb-dar-al-islam-dar.html Spain in the dar al Harb http://countercultureconservative.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/dar-al-islam-muslim-worshippers-squat-spanish-cathedral/ [36] Grief refers to the doctrine of "acquired rights" codified in the Vienna Convention on  the Law of Treaties, Article 70 Article 70 1 b) and the legal doctrine of "estoppel" See: Grief at pp.175,176 (The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law) [37]  http://www.answers.com/topic/balfour-declaration-1917 [38] High Walls of Jerusalem,  at 611 [39]  David Lloyd-George, Memoirs 736-7.  [40] http://www.irfi.org/articles2/articles_2301_2350/Balfour%27s%20deceit.HTM [41] “Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations” which dealt with the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In it, Stone set forth the central principles of international law upon which Israel’s right to settle the West Bank is based and discussed the inapplicability of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the case of Israeli settlement. Stone drew upon the writings of Professor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice (1981-2000), who distinguished between territory acquired in an "aggressive conquest" (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel’s capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them; their occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.  See also  a discussion of Stone's work, by Andrew Dahdal: “A Reflection On The Views Of Julius Stone And The Applicability Of International Law To The Middle East Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations” which dealt with the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Finally, see a video with Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, adopting and illustrating the position of Stephen Schwebel and Julius Stone. [42] http://www.historynet.com/glubb-pasha-and-the-arab-legion.htm [43]  http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_holysites.php http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=3052  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall [44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem [45] http://www.dore-gold.com/2011/11/the-palestinians-resurrect-the-partition-plan.php [46] Draft Report of Arab Settlement Activity in the West Bank  http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/settlementreport.html [47] Best account is still Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2003)  See also, his Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present [48] Israel - Jordan, Treaty of Peace http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Jordan%20Peace%20Treaty [49] http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives15.html http://www.ijn.com/columns/view-from-denver/2220-the-myth-of-the-palestinian-arab-womb [50] 660 rockets and 404 mortar shells fired into Israel since the end of Operation Cast Lead until the end of February, 2012.  March 1, 2012 Palestinians fired three rockets toward Ashkelon. The projectiles landed in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council, causing no injuries or damage. March 2, Palestinians fired a Qassam rocket into the Eshkol Regional Council, causing no injuries or damage., March 3 After nightfall, Palestinians fired a Qassam rocket into the Eshkol Regional Council, causing no injuries or damage, March 4. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired two Qassam rockets at Israel. One exploded in the Sdot Negev Regional Council [51] http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

What Harvard didn't Want to Hear Part I

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11408#.T5w1XlJAa-U What Harvard Didn't Want to Hear: Part I Arutz Sheva comes to the aid of free speech. A succinct exposition of facts and law in support of Israel's lawful exercise of sovereignty over East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria that Harvard and UCLA don't want to hear. From Wallace Edward Brand, JD Background (part of letter written by the author, a Harvard and UCLA alumnus, to UCLA): On March 3,4 there was a conference held at Harvard on a one state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  In effect it was a "one Arab majority state" solution.  The panel consisted of Arab academics and Israel post modern revisionist who are apologists for terrorism.  The other side or sides were completely missing. Harvard would not accept our request to be part of a panel or make a presentation. A similar conference was held or is soon to be held at UCLA.  A second conference is likely at Harvard sponsored by Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School on a "two state solution"  to the Arab Israeli conflict.   There are in fact three sides.  That last would be "a one lawful state West of the Jordan River" solution.  These three sides are akin to a three legged stool.  When only one or two sides is presented it makes for a strong presentation but not a very balanced one. I have been trying to find out how this third side could be presented at UCLA and I have been told by all my contacts at UCLA that it is impossible. They tell me that UCLA is just too politically correct.   So I am making a last effort.  I have published information on the three sides in an on-line blog entitled "Middle East and Terrorism" and a conservative Israeli newspaper called "Arutz Sheva", and I hope, at the very least, that you will  make the links available to students at UCLA so they have access to a balanced presentation to a solution for the Arab Israeli conflict. At least three nation-states, the UK, the US and Canada allow evidence of legislative purpose to be admitted to show the meaning of a statute that is ambiguous. What follows is a necessary minimum of that evidence to show the purpose of the Balfour Declaration that was adopted by the WWI Allies at San Remo that established the International Law provided by that Agreement and the British Mandate for Palestine. It is widely accepted, but not correct, that the West Bank belongs to the local Arabs in Palestine who in 1964, at the suggestion of the Soviet dezinformatsia, decided to call themselves "Palestinians.” [1] These "invented people" [2] also pretend they had long had a passion for self government. [3] The full extent of Israel’s claim of sovereignty has not recently been stated. At most, it is said by the Israeli government that no one has sovereignty over the West Bank, but that Israel has the better claim. [4] A better view is that the Jews obtained a beneficial interest in sovereignty over all of Palestine in the 1922 enactment of the British Mandate for Palestine, that entrusted exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to Britain in trust for the benefit of the Jews that later matured into a legal interest on the abandonment of the trusteeship by Britain and the attainment of the Jews of a majority population.  The trusts or guardianships were to be called "mandates”. It was in 1919 that Jan Smuts submitted a memorandum to the League, which later became Article 22. The Council of Ten drafted for the League of Nations as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles [5], an Article 22 providing for trusts and guardianships for the areas in The Middle East and North Africa captured by the WWI Allies from the Ottoman Empire.  This concept was later applied to other areas. Article 22's first two paragraphs provided a reasonably clear showing that a mandate was based on the longstanding British legal concepts of trusts and guardianships. In 1917, in advance of the end of WWI, the British had drafted and published a policy for the disposition of the captured Ottoman  lands in Palestine. [6] Britain and France were at that time following the “secret’ Sykes-Picot Agreement in their disposition of Ottoman Lands. But in recognition of the historic association of the Jews with Palestine, the  Balfour Declaration, a British Policy approved it its Cabinet, provided for exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to be granted to the Jews. The 1920 agreement of the WWI Allies at San Remo, on the terms of the Mandate turned what had been only a British Policy approved by the Cabinet, into International Law.  Under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, the rights were to be provided in trust, [7]. We know this because the Balfour policy had been attacked as antidemocratic, as giving sovereignty to the Jewish people who constituted only 60,000 of the total population of 600,000 in Palestine as of 1917.  In Jerusalem, the Jews had had a plurality of the population since 1845 and a majority since 1863, but in all of Palestine, in 1917 they constituted only 10% of the population.  Even US President Woodrow Wilson was advancing that argument that award of sovereignty to a minority population was inconsistent with his 14 points that provided, among other things, for majority control. To counter this argument, which they conceded was a good one, Arnold Toynbee and James Namier in the British Foreign Office, in a memorandum of September 19, 1917 [8] said the problem of control by a minority was "imaginary" because they predicted that the grant would be placed in trust and would not vest sovereignty in the Jews until the Jews fit to govern it on modern European state. In my view these included attainment of a majority population, defined boundaries, unified control over all within the boundaries, etc..  Providing a National Home for Jews in Palestine with the British running the government until the Jews could attain a majority status based on favored immigration from the Jews in the Diaspora would be a temporary measure and not antidemocratic. [9] The statement of the purpose of the British Mandate for Palestine in its Preamble and Article 2 is entirely consistent with this view although not express. [10] What was the National Home, a reconstituted state?  No, it was a place for the Jewish people to feel at home while the immigration was going on that would ultimately give the Jews a majority of the population and a reconstituted state. So that the staff of the British Mandatory Power, will know how to do that: Article 4 provides for the Zionist Organization to advise the mandate government staff. Part of Article 6 requires the staff of the Mandatory Power for The Administration of Palestine, to facilitate immigration of Jews.   The Mandate does NOT provide that immigration of any other peoples is to be facilitated. (emphasis added) Article 5 provides that none of the land is to be ceded to a foreign power. Who were the beneficiaries of the trust?  Only the Jews, both those already in Palestine and many more scattered worldwide in the Diaspora since the time of the Roman Empire conquest of Palestine.  Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with specially. [11]The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their civil and religious rights are to be protected. Because Article 22 of the League Covenant defined the relationship of Britain and the Jews as trustee and guardian with Jews in effect being beneficiaries and ward the Mandate essentially provided for a Jewish National Home that would be supervised by the British until its ward was capable of exercising sovereignty, including helping it attain a majority of population it needed to do that.  It was charged with facilitating such immigration. All this purpose was not expressed very clearly in the Mandate, likely to avoid stirring up the Arabs in time of war that might bleed off troops to maintain stability in Palestine. But the Arabs did understand that this was the case.   After the war, the Arabs were told by Winston Churchill that the request for self government by the inhabitants of Palestine would be denied until such time as the Jews had attained a majority of the population.  They made that understanding clear in their arguments against Partition in the UNSCOP hearings in 1947. [12] The Arabs argued in 1947 "It was clear from the beginning that if Palestine were to be turned into a Jewish national home, this would involve the indefinite denial of self-government until such time as the Jews were strong enough to take over the government; that pending such time, Palestine would have to be subjected to a foreign administration [of England] which had no basis in the consent of the population and of which the policy would be determined, not by consideration of the welfare of the population, but by the desire to assist in the settlement of an alien group; and that to make such a settlement possible the country would have to be cut off from the surrounding Arab lands by artificial frontiers, would be given a separate system of law, administration, finance,  tariffs, and education and would thus inevitably lose some if not all of the Arab character." But  that is what the grantors had in mind and the Arabs knew it when they argued against Partition in 1947. [13] They had learned after WWI from Winston Churchill this was their intention. "As the first Arab delegation to England stated in the course of its correspondence with Mr. Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, 'we are to understand ...that self-government will be granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by it, and not before.' "[14] Prior to the publishing of the British Mandate the French attached a "proce’s verbal" in French shown only in the French Version. [15] This was their agreement only on their stated understanding that the Mandate would not eliminate any existing rights of the non-Jews in Palestine.  The League had no objection to the process verbal.  The Mandate expressly preserved existing civil and religious rights of the non-Jews.  It could not preserve their political rights because they had never had any.  The  preservation of their civil rights only protected their individual political rights, ie. their electoral rights.  It did not protect their collective political rights or national rights, the right of sovereignty and political self-determination.  The Arabs in Palestine had always been ruled from afar.  So the Mandate carried out the “process verbal” Why, in 1917, did Britain establish a policy that gave a preference to the Jews?  There were several reasons.  1.  Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration was David Lloyd-George. Later, in 1923, he was the author of an article "The Jews and Palestine"  [16] In it he revealed his view that the Arabs under Ottoman Rule had turned Palestine, the Biblical land of milk and honey into a malarial wasteland.  He believed it could be remedied under a reconstituted Jewish State. 2.  There was considerable sympathy among many Christian Evangelicals in England who thought the Jews should be restored to Palestine to flee from the pogroms of Russia and Poland. This sympathy did not extend to receiving them in England.  British workmen had complained that Jews were flooding in to England and taking their jobs and working for less. This led to the Aliens Act of 1909 restricting Jewish immigration into England. But the British recognized that the oppression of the Jews in Russia and Poland was very bad and they needed some place to go. [17] 3.  Chaim Weismann, an ardent Zionist and also a good chemist, had helped Britain in the war by developing an inexpensive method of manufacturing acetone used in cordite for munitions and had given it to the British. It was a great help to the British war effort. [18] 4.  And England, according to Winston Churchill, also desired to win over the Jews in Russia, many of them in the Bolshevik government, so that they might influence the new Marxist government to remain in battle with the Germans and Ottomans in WWI on the side of the Allies.  He thought that the Balfour Declaration could sway them in British favor.  [19] There came a time after WWII that the British decided their effort to be trustee was simply costing it too much.  They tried to obtain some funding from the United States, but the United States declined to do so.  Britain finally decided to abandon its trusteeship and guardianship in 1948.  On the abandonment of its trusteeship by Britain in 1948, political rights that were the "trust res" (the thing put in trust) devolved to the Jews as beneficiaries or wards of the trust and vested in them the political rights permitting them to exercise sovereignty.  These rights had survived the demise of the League of Nations by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter. [20]  It should be expressly noted that the Jews did not receive these rights from the Partition Resolution. By that time the Jewish population had increased significantly.  In 1947 the UN General Assembly had recommended that the Jews give up some of its rights in an attempt to avoid violence that had been threatened by the Arabs if the Jews were to reconstitute their state in Palestine.  The Jews agreed to give up some of the land over which they were to have political rights, but the Arabs rejected the recommendation and commenced a war.  It was by the Arabs starting a war that led to a Jewish population majority.  Some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled the country before even seeing an Israeli soldier.  The wealthy left first, at the first foreshadowing of war.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Mahmoud Abbas wrote this in the official organ of the PLO, “Filanstin”, most of the rest left at the request of the Arab Higher Committee that wanted to get them out of the way of the Arab armies in the surrounding states.  [21] Many left because of a false report that the Irgun had committed a massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, that the Haganah, their political enemies did not dispute. A BBC program based on an interview of an Arab radio commentator at the time revealed he had been pushed into designating a hard fought battle as a massacre so as to provide an excuse for the invasion of surrounding armies.  [22] Many Arabs local to Palestine left; some remained.  But those that left could not go back because the Arab Armies did not prevail In 1948 Israel declared Independence and vindicated its claim by force of arms against the assault of other Arab states surrounding it.  It established an orderly unified stable control of its territory except for Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem which had been invaded and occupied by the Arab Legion in the East.  This British supplied and led organization became the Army of Jordan. [23] In the South, the Egyptian Army was able to maintain its occupation of the Gaza Strip.  In 1920 the Ottoman Empire in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres,had ceded its sovereignty in Palestine, which had been undisputed for 400 years, to a Mandatory Power in trust for a National Homeland for the Jews. [24]  The Sevres Treaty was never ratified by the Turks who were concerned over Turkey’s boundaries in Europe and in adjacent areas in Asia, not in the Middle East and North.  But these issues were finally settled in 1923 in the Treaty of Lausanne that left the agreements in the Middle East unchanged. The trustee selected by the League of Nations at San Remo was Great Britain; the US had been another possibiility.  Sovereignty, i.e. political rights, over the other 99% of the lands captured from the Ottomans in the Middle East was allocated to Arab and Muslim majorities in some 20 areas such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq but as in the case of Palestine, in mandates of guardianship as the inhabitants had had no prior experience in self rule. While it was expected in 1920 that the Jewish Homeland would eventually become a state when immigration gave the Jews a majority of the population, at the time the Jews were incapable of exercising sovereignty although the "Jewish Agency" was exercising administrative authority of wide scope. End Notes 1.  Brand, Soviet Russia, The Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People, http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html 2. Newt Gingrich, Campaign speech, 2012 Republican Primary 3.  Brand, Was there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period? http://www.think-israel.org/brand.palnationalism.html [4] Danny Ayalon, Israel's current Deputy Foreign Minister, The Truth About the West Bank /News/News.aspx/145836 [5]  See the original documents in the Avalon Project at Yale University. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/versailles_menu.asp [6]The Balfour Declaration Text http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E210CA73E38D9E1D052565FA00705C61 [7] See the first two paragraphs of Article 22 [8]  Mueller, Editor, Churchill as a Peacemaker, Feith, p. 224 n. 36 citing Sir Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return, p. 111-12 [9]  Charles Hill, Trial of a Thousand Years,  World Order and Islamism [10] San Remo Convention Text of the Mandate http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention [11] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 36 [12] The Future of Palestine" by Musa Alami with a foreword by Mr. Alami.  Hermon Press, Beirut, London (1970) [13] Id [14] Id [15] Salomon Benzsimra, Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel, n. 68 See below [16] David Lloyd George, The Jews and Palestine, http://einshalom.com/archives/210 [17] Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, A history of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1983) p. 90-94 [18]  High Walls at 189 [19]  Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews,Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war,. . . http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_1/churchill_international_jews_and_the_holocaust.php [20]http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art80 [21] Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem  (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003)  [22]http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php [23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Legion [24] http://athena.hri.org/docs/sevres/part3.html

Early Roman Anti-Semitism

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11517#.T4rkAtlAa-U

Rethinking Early Roman Anti-Semitism

The Jewish Revolt that led to the destruction of the Second Temple is erroneously held to be the start of Roman anti-Semitism, while it is actually more of the same - the belief Jews are sinister, evil and threatening.
From Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
That anti-Jewish prejudice features among Latin authors of the early Principate cannot be doubted.
For example, in the Cena Trimalchionis, which is a part of the satirical novel Satyricon, written during Nero’s reign, two freedmen- Habinnas and Trimalchio- have a discussion on the slaves they own. The former mentions a particular favorite of his, but adds that his “duo vitia” (“two vices”) are that “recutitus est et stertit” (“he is circumcised- i.e. a Jew- and he snores”- Petronius 68.8).

Similarly, in Satire 3, the poet Juvenal, who lived during the reign of the Antonine dynasty at the turn of the second century CE, has a certain Umbricius complain that at Rome, the Jews have taken over the grove of Numa (a symbol of traditional Roman religion).

It has commonly been held that the Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE) marked a turning point in anti-Semitism among Romans. Namely, prior to the Jewish revolt, it has been widely argued that Jews were merely seen as silly rather than sinister or threatening in any way, with, for example, the dietary laws and prohibition against working on the Sabbath sometimes subjected to mockery.

However, I do not find such a view of Roman anti-Semitism tenable. In this context, an incident particularly worthy of consideration is a senatorial decree from 19 CE that ordered practitioners of Egyptian and Jewish rites to either abandon their religion or face expulsion from Italy.
The historian Tacitus (Annals II.85) provides further details:

actum et de sacris Aegyptiis Iudaicisque pellendis factumque patrum consultum ut quattuor milia libertini generis ea superstitione infecta quis idonea aetas in insulam Sardiniam veherentur, coercendis illic latrociniis et, si ob gravitatem caeli interissent, vile damnum; ceteri cederent Italia nisi certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent.

“And there was a discussion about the expulsion of the Egyptian and Jewish rites, followed by a senatorial decree that 4000 freedmen infected with that superstition and of suitable age should be brought to the island of Sardinia in order to keep a check on the activities of bandits there; and, if any of them perished because of the harshness of the climate, it would be a cheap loss; the rest were to leave Italy unless they abandoned their profane rites before a certain day.”

Not much different then from the decrees issued against Jews in the Iberian Peninsula after the completion of the Reconquista in 1492. The contingent of 4000 freedmen sent to Sardinia is also noted by Josephus and described as a unit of Jewish men only, rather than Egyptians.

The decree was brought on the Emperor Tiberius’ instigation. Josephus recounts an incident whereby four Jewish rascals had apparently persuaded a noble Roman lady who had converted to Judaism- Fulvia- to provide purple and gold for the Temple in Jerusalem, which they then took for themselves; whereupon Fulvia’s husband Saturninus informed Tiberius of the matter.
As for the practitioners of the Egyptian rites, Josephus notes that a noble lady called Paulina (married to another Saturninius) was seduced by a certain Decius, who employed methods of trickery in collaboration with priests of Isis in Rome.

Now, as Heidel convincingly argued in an article published in the American Journal of Philology in 1920, there is a connection between the cases of Fulvia and Paulina. The latter was guilty of “religious prostitution” in Egyptian rites, while the fact that Fulvia was asked to provide purple for the Temple at Jerusalem probably suggested to Tiberius that the Jewish rascals were seeking to make her a “temple prostitute”, a practice inconsistent with Jewish rites.
Nonetheless, if we accept these reasons alone as the justification for the senatorial decree, the harshness seems unbecoming of Tiberius’ characteristic moderatio at the time, which is evident, for example, in his speech to the Senate in 20 CE, urging the senators not to accept the accusations against Piso - who was accused of murdering the Emperor’s adopted son Germanicus, inter alia - as true without proper consideration of the evidence, just because of Tiberius’ grief over Germanicus’ death (Annals III.12).

In a similar vein, speculating on the possible influence of Aelius Sejanus, the Prefect of the Praetorian Guard who later became Tiberius’ “partner in labors” and then consul in 31 CE (only to be executed on charges of treason), is of little help in explaining the nature of the senatus consultum.

Had Sejanus played any part in the Emperor’s instigation of the senatorial decree, it would surely have been documented by Tacitus, who portrayed Sejanus as a reincarnation of the villainous Catiline  (Annals IV.1) and was eager to note any instances of the man’s perceived influence on Tiberius’ decision-making.

Instead, it makes sense to begin by noting, as Heidel did, that the decree effectively treats the Egyptian and Jewish rites as identical. The cases of Fulvia and Paulina must therefore have fuelled existing Roman prejudices and suspicions about Egyptian and Jewish religious practices.

The nature of these hostile attitudes can be ascertained from Virgil’s Aeneid, an epic poem written in the first century BCE to celebrate the founding of the Roman race by Aeneas, who was the reputed ancestor of Augustus - the predecessor of Tiberius - and the Julian line. The Aeneid’s influence cannot be overstated, since it became a school-text for educated Romans, and on graffiti at Pompeii and other sites, it is not uncommon to find single-line excerpts from the epic poem.

In an extended description of the Battle of Actium (31 BCE) as depicted on Aeneas’ shield, Virgil depicts the clash as an East vs. West conflict, with Marc Antony and Cleopatra representing the forces of the East that encompass nations like Indians and Arabs, while Augustus leads the armies of Italy. Of particular note are these lines (Aeneid 8.698-700):

omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis/
contra Neptunum et Venerem contraque Mineruam/
tela tenent.

“All sorts of monstrous gods and the barking Anubis hold their weapons against Neptune, Venus and Minerva.”

It is clear that the gods of Egyptian religion (and perhaps Eastern deities more generally) are represented here as sinister forces that are naturally opposed to the gods of traditional Roman religion.

Hence, on the basis of conflation of Egyptian and Jewish rites, it seems reasonable to conclude that Tiberius and the Senate saw the Egyptians and Jews as somehow a malicious threat to Roman religion and morality in society. The link with Juvenal’s complaint nearly 100 years later about the Jewish takeover of Numa’s grove in Satire 3 could not be more apparent.

The cases of Fulvia and Paulina only vindicated that animosity in the Romans’ minds, and so the only appropriate solution for the Emperor and the Senate was to decree that the Jews and Egyptians in Italy should either convert or leave, with particular furor directed at the Jews, something that is illustrated by the forced conscription of 4000 Jewish men to deal with brigands in the harsh climate of Sardinia.

In short, the senatorial decree of 19 CE suggests continuity in Roman anti-Semitism rather than any crucial turning-point in attitudes because of the Jewish Revolt.

Translations of Latin text are the author’s own.

And Yehoshua Defeated Emperor Augustus

“Christianity was wrong about the solar system, what if it's wrong about something else too? (Brian Flemming's DVD “the God Who wasn't There”)
http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/gif/phys/kopernikus.jpg
circa 1580 Torun, Saint John Basilica, Ephitaphium
The law of the LORD [is] perfect, restoring the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7) http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r14310/Ptolemy/Images/Copernic/Vogel/g.jpg
l
Imagine this question. There was a human being in the first century who was called “Divine”, “Son of God' “God” and “God from God”, whose titles were “Lord:, “Redeemer”, “Liberator” and “Savior of the World”. Who was that person? Most people would probably answer: Jesus of Nazareth. And most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all these terms belonged to Caesar Augustus,. To proclaim them of Jesus the Christ was thereby to deny them of Caesar Augusts. (GOD & EMPIRE. Jesus against Rome then and now.
John Dominic Crossan.HarperSan Francisco 2007,28) Herod fortified Sepporis to be the ornament of all Galilee, and called it Autocratoris” (Jewish War 18:27). Autocrator is the standard Greek translation for the Latin imperator – the first title of the Imperator Ceasar Augustus and is best translated into English not just as Emperor but as “World-Conqueror” (ib.102). Ps 24:1: “There is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved than that of Caesar Augustus” (inscription on the coins of the empire). “The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it, the world and those who live in it.”Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal: “Israel’s existence as such has nothing to do with the Bible”. Professor Paul Merkley wrote wonderful book, “Those That Bless You, I Will Bless”

THE SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS (John 4:22) 'O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that prophets have spoken!...And beginning with Moses and all the prophets,He (Yehoshua) interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:25.27) But the Marcionite Prologue to Romans speaks of the unwary being lured by the false apostles(!) “in the Law and the prophets as opposed to “the true Evangelical faith.”The pseudo-apostles of Corinth are said to represent “the sect of the Jewish Law” (secta legis Judaicae)

Paul's worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist and human figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by the Syrian Marcion. In Dante's De Monarchia the divine predestination of the Roman people as the world ruling power is derived non from interpretations of the Hebrew prophets but from the genealogical tree of Aeneas and Creusa.In Ha'aretz's opinion: The Jewish religion is primitive and benighted and Israeli Jews exploit it to abuse others. Israel is an apartheid state. Israelis are driven by the Holocaust to wreak havoc on others. Israeli schoolchildren are inculcated with a ludicrous religion...http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11310#.T0lt-nkkifU
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154257#.T3OZpdkkifU
Mofaz Visits Kotel after Victory

Drawing the Battle Lines: Jupiter vs. Yahweh

The greatest Roman temple ruins lie not in Rome, but in the mountains of Lebanon. It was one of the wonders of the ancient world. Th enclosed squarish area, with some sides almost 2,500 feet long, measured over five million square feet. The temple proper was only the western most part of a four-part shrine to Jupiter which the Romans are believed to have started to build soon after they occupied the place in 63 B.C.E. In the Vedic pantehon Dyaus Pitar is the Sky Father, divine consort of the Prithvi and father of Agni, Indra (RV 4.17.4). Related names Dyaus Pitar appear in the Greek as Zeus Pater in Latin as Jupiter (from archaic Latin Iovis Pater, "Sky father"). Incidentally, Jove is the god of Virgil's heliocentric system and Dante describes him as “crucified for mankind.”
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/jupiterverospi.jpg
Jupiter enthroned
The Romans considered the site and its great temple as the ultimate attestations of the almighteness and supremacy of Jupiter. Calling him love, they inscribed upon the temple and its main statue the divine initials I.O.M.H. standing for Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus. The latter title of Jupiter stemmed for the fact that though the great temple was dedicated to the Supreme God the place itself was considered to have been a resting place of Helios. The belief was transmitted to the Romans by the Greeks, from whom they also adopted the name of the place Heliopolis. It is believed that so it was named by Alexander the Great.
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/olympians.jpg
Zeus, Hera, Apollo
The early Capitoline Triad of Roman state religion, comprised Jupiter, Mars and ,Quirinus (deified Romulus, Mars's son) who each possessed some measure of the divine characteristics essential to Rome's agricultural economy, social organisation and success in war. The standard term for Jewish religious practices in the Roman literature is suerstitio, which normally describes alien cults. Philo and Josephus try to win for it the much more prestigious classification of “philosophy.” Early man, as we find in the Assyrian Triad, had as its center the "perfect circle," representing to them God who is the center of all things. Pharaoh Akhenaten replaced all the then current symbols of the sun with one: a circle, and called it One.

According to the testimony of Laertius, Plutarch, Aristotle, and Galen, Pythagoras who, was the first to be called 'a philosopher' announced to the Gentiles his doctrine of the motion of the earth, of the sun in the center, and of systems in heaven. He informs them that the moon is another earth, and that the four elements, not to mention water, exist in the stars. It was the same solar religion of Pythagoras’s heliocentrism, which was embraced by Numa Pompilius considered his disciple. Pliny states that having been commanded by the oracle of Delphos to erect and dedicate a statue to the wisest of the Greeks, the Roman Senate dedicated a statue to Pythagoras and named him the most learned of the philosophers. Prophet Ezekiel Jews(8:16) who “bowed to the sun” turned into Jewish Pythagorean heliocentrists, the Essenes. These pious Jews, observing the solar calendar, while using the trench for defecation, wrapped their mantle around them “that they may not offend the rays of the 'deity'.” The modern heliocentrists also fight to reduce emissions of gases into atmosphere.
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/templeclaudius.jpg
Temple of the deified Claudius
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/claudiusjupiter.jpg
Claudius portrayed as Jupiter

Rome Becomes the Second (Whore) of Babylon

Early records mention the transference of pagan religion from Asia right to the city of Rome. The First Century book by Virgil, The Aeneid, in imperial times became a type of Roman "Bible." Prudentius, an ancient Roman himself, says that there wasn’t a single pagan deity that did not in the end find its headquarters at Rome. Attalus III, the Priest-King of the Chaldean Hierarchy, fled before the conquering Persians to Pergamos, and settled there. This same Attalus, "the Pontiff and King of Pergamos, died in 133 B.C. and bequeathed the headship of the "Babylonian Priesthood" to Rome...In B.C.E. 63 Caesar was made "Supreme Pontiff" of the Babylonian Order, thus becoming heir to the rights and titles of Attalus, Pontiff of Pergamos, who had made Rome his heir by will (testamentum)...So in AD 378 the Head of the "Babylonian Order" became the Ruler of the "Roman Church. It is from one of the Sun temples in Palmyra, Syria, namely from the temple of Bel, that the great image of Bel was removed and taken to Rome, where it was erected. This was done by emperor Aurelian of Rome, who was known as “the sun-emperor”.

Aurelian also took the image of Helios, another Sun-deity, from Palmyra, and erected it in Rome.. So, the worship of Bel, the founder of Babylon, eventually became established in Rome. No wonder that the Church Father Augustine candidly wrote that “Rome was funded as the second Babylon and as the daughter of the former Babylon.” Murphy-O’Connor of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem asserts that the Essene origins and, implicitly, the origins of Christianity should be traced to Babylonia during the Judean exile. Three of the principle elements of the Babylonian religion were fire, serpents and the Sun. The official papal title Pontifex Maximus, meaning "the Bridge-Builder" on the floor in St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican originates from Babylon.

Yehoshua vs The Babylonian Brotherhood
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/RomanEmpireTrajan117AD.png

But Jesus answered to the Pharisees, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” Mt 12: 38-39). The city of Nineveh, to which God sent Jonah, represented the quintessence of Babylonian solar paganism and the hostility to Judaism and the Jewish people...Yet in the Book of Jonah, we find God demanding that his servant Jonah go preach to the greatest of the persecuting enemies of the Hebrew people.

The same statement was included in Luke 11;29, followed in the next verse by an explanation (“For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineve, so will the son of man be to this generation”) Soon thousands of the pagans will be hearing the word of God and accepting it, even at Rome (the new Nineveh), the city that persecuted the Christians.. And the pagans had heard and accepted the word of god, just as it had been prophesied in the book of Jonah that they would. For any Jew, the preaching of the word of God to any non-Jew heralded nothing else but a (geocentric) revolution, opposed to perennial Sumero-Babylonian heliocentrism as presented in the diagram:http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sumeranu/sumeranu11_06.jpg
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/caligula3.jpg
Bust of Caligula looking demonic with yellow eyes!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Japanese_demon_mask.jpg
And Yehoshua asked him saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion, because many devils were entered into him. (Lk 8:30) Compare William Blake's Nebuchadnezzar with his Newton:
http://static.artbible.info/large/blake_nebuk.jpg
http://www.backtoclassics.com/images/pics/williamblake/williamblake_isaacnewton.jpg

Yehoshua vs.Augustus : the Roman Christos

The Oriental clergy … preached doctrines which tended to elevate sovereigns above mankind, and they supplied the emperors with a dogmatic justification of their despotism… [p. 54] The emperor is the image of the Sun on earth, like him invincible and eternal. [See No. 1345.] Source: Franz Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (reprint New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1960), pp. 53, 54.
Archaeologists have demonstrated that the word Christos, which we render Christ, has been found not only on Pagan temples, and used in relation to those who were said to be the sons of the pagan gods, but the term was also engraved on tombstones and other Pagan artifacts prior to the time of Jesus. In the Greek and Roman mystery religions of the time, the Christos was the Anointing of the Logos, and the Christian was the follower of the Anointed. In the writings of Clement of Alexandria we find it explained that: “Those who lived according to the logos, were regarded Christians, though they have been thought to be atheists; as Socrates and Heraclitus were among the Greeks, and such as resembled them” (Strom, bk. I, ch. XIX).
Julius Caesar became ‘God’ - Divus Iulius – on 1 January 42 BCE and his adopted son, Augustus became the ‘Son of God’ – Divi Filius – 15 years later.
As Octavian, the latter had been elected to the College of Pontiffs in 47 BCE and in January of 27 BCE, the Senate gave Octavian the new titles of Augustus and Princeps – that of Augustus was a title of religious rather than political authority.
On 6 March 12 BCE, he took up the position of Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of the collegium of the Pontifices, the most important position in Roman religion.
As Augustus, the emperor unified Church and State, and in a manner a mere king had not. It is this difference and how I interpret it that prompts these reflections.
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/augustuspontifex.jpg
Augustus as Pontifex Maximus
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/augustuscameo.jpg
Augustus wearing a rayed crown of the sun god indicating his deification
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/livia_augcameo.jpg
Livia holding the bust of deified Augustus
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/augustuscorona.jpg
Augustus wearing corona civica

The Pantheon was built as a temple to the gods of Ancient Rome by Marcus Agrippa, a friend of Augustus', in 27 BCE. The GEORGICA were written by Virgil in so called Golden Latin in 28 BCE. Is there an y logical link between these two events? In Georgica Virgil expressed the perennial Roman heliocentrism introduced by Pythagoras: Quid faciat laetas segetes, quo sidere terram vertere - Maecenas, ulmisque adiungere vitis conveniat ( “What makes the cornfield smile; beneath what star, Maecenas, it is meet to turn the earth and fasten vines to elms?) Georgica, 1-2, v.1-4. Were these poems inspired by the architecture of Augustus's Pantheon? We will never know because the building was destroyed by fire in 80 AD, and replaced with Hadrian's current construction. How the building was actually used is not known.

Hadrian's Pantheon is the best preserved of all Roman buildings, and has been in continuous use throughout its history. It is also the oldest domed structure remaining in Rome. The height to the oculus and the diameter of the interior circle are the same: 43.3 metres. Dio Cassius mentions that some people believed the name Pantheon (which is Greek for all gods) came from the statues of the many different gods which decorated the building, “but my own opinion of the name is that, because of its vaulted roof, it resembles the heavens.” The powerful image of the central source of sunlight surrounded by a series of concentric circles immediately evokes in memory the drawing in Copernicus's Revolutions: a series of concentric circles, the outermost being the “Sphere of the Fixed Stars,” with progressively smaller circles representing the orbits of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, with the dot of the Sun in the center. See the heliocentric architecture as depicted in the Roman Pantheon's dome:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-59397949/stock-photo-internal-part-of-dome-in-pantheon-rome-italy.html
http://gtsintsifas.com/uploads/The-Pantheon-Rome.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/romepantheon.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2121/2517606853_195bc51803.jpg
The Heliocentric Church of Doha
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkrape/3061545789/
The heliocentric Dome of the Vatican Museum

The French plagiarized the heliocentric diagram of Hadrian's Pantheon on the floor of their Pantheon: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Inside_the_Pantheon,_Paris_France_-_Alex_E._Proimos.jpg.

Heliocentrism became the philosophical religion of the revolutionary France as evidenced by the revolutionary calendar and its 'god' called Etre Supreme symbolized b y the eye of the Egyptian sun god Horus: http://lafautearousseau.hautetfort.com/media/01/00/1888759219.jpg
Etre Supreme: http://www.philosophe-inconnu.com/Etudes/Images_etudes/decret_etre_supreme.jpg

Yehoshua vs. Paul or Yahweh vs. Zeus/Jupiter

Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, and believed on Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24
In a letter to William Short, Jefferson wrote: “Christianity...has become the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

Before Pilate, Jesus says: “I was born to testify to the truth.” (John 18:37). What is truth?, asked Pilate. He knew that Jesus was a firm believer in geocentrism of the Hebrew Torah which is confirmed by the Gospel of Matthew where we read:”For he maketh his sun to rise...” (Mt 5:45). Like the prophet Isaiah, Yehoshua points to God as the ultimate Ruler of coelestial movements. “And this shall be the sign unto thee from YHWH, that he will do this thing that He hath spoken: behold, I will cause the shadow of the dial, which is gone down on the sun-dial of Ahaz, to return backward ten degrees. So the sun returned ten degrees it was gone down.”

Copernicus confirms the same divine causality of the coelestial movements, except that his god is not the Biblical Yahweh but the pagan god of Hermes Trismegistus, Sophocles:

Who Placed 'this Lamp/Visible God' Over There?
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/serapis_lamp.jpg
Lamp with Serapis

“In the center of all rests the Sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this from which it can illuminate everything at the same time? As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others, the mind, and still others, the Leader of the World. Trismegistus calls it ‘visible God’; Sophocles’ Electra, ‘that which gazes upon all things.’ And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars (like Zeu pater, Jupiter) which wheel around.”In Thomas Digges’ English translation of The revolutions the sun is “like the king in the middest of al who reigned and geeveth lawes of motion to ye rest.”
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/augustusjupiter.jpg
Augustus as Zeus
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/venus_jupiter.jpg
Jupiter rebuked by venus

Kepler replaced the divine ruling power of Copernicus's sun god with magnetic vertue:

Kepler asserts these Wonders may be done
By the Magnetic Vertue of the Sun,
Which he, to gain his End, thinks fit to place
Full in the Center of that mighty Space,
Which does the Spheres, where Planets roll, include,
And leaves him with Attractive Force endu'd.
The Sun, thus seated, by Mechanic Laws,
The Earth, and every distant Planet draws;
By which Attraction all the Planets found
Within his reach, are turn'd in Ether round.
— Richard Blackmore

I. Newton turned Kepler's 'magnetic vertue' of the sun into gravity but identified this force with the 'spiritual body' of Jesus Christ.

Who appeared on the Road to Damascus: Jesus or Dionysus?
http://www.leninimports.com/william_blake_the_conversion_of_saul_print.jpg

“At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining around me... And when we were all fallen to the earth I heard a voice speaking unto me...it is hard to kick against the goads” (KJV Acts 26:13-14). In Euripides the persecuted god is Dionysus, and his persecutor is Pentheus, king of Thebes. Just like Jesus, Dionysus calls his persecutor to account: “You disregard my words of warning ... and kick against necessity (literally 'against the goads') a man defying god”.The only peculiar thing is that Jesus should quote a Greek proverb to Paul while speaking Aramaic (“in the Hebrew language”) (Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting away Childish Things. . HarperSanFrancisko 1994, p. 163)

The god whom Paul worshiped as a Roman Citizen was Zeus/Jupiter: "For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among YOU have said,”For we are also his progeny.’"(Acts 17:28). This poet mentioned in the lecture/sermon delivered by Paul to Greek philosophers in Athens is Cleanthes who in his Hymn to Zeus proclaimed: "For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice, as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth." And Aratus in Phænomena (Natural Appearances) wrote: "For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus. Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring."

In Laws Plato also embraced a soul or souls as the cause of various phenomena: “Now consider all the stars and the moon and the years and the months and all the seasons: what can we do except repeat the same story? A soul or souls ... have been shown to be the cause of all these phenomena, and whether it is by their living presence in matter ... or by some other means, we shall insist that these souls are gods. Can anybody admit all this and still put up with people who deny that 'everything is full of gods'?” Indeed the Greek philosophers called this “Self” Auguides, the “Shining One.” It was believed to be a spark of the sun god imprisoned in the body, called by Platonists, a grave. Paul's spiritual, immortal body arises from dead matter by coincidence of opposites, the dogma that the being arises in the context of non-being. Nirvana means the certitude of personal immortality in Spirit. In the sacred Jaina books of Patuna, the dying Gautama-Buddha is thus addressed: “Arise into Nirvi (Nirvana) from this decrepit body into which thou hast been sent. Ascend into thy former abode, O blessed Avatar!”

The Message of the so-called Lord's Prayer

Paul left out a great part of the sentence of the inscription on the altar at Athens; he mentions only the last two words, which can also be found on the statue on Mars' Hill at Rome. The whole inscription on the Athenian altar runs thus: “TO THE GODS OF ASIA, EUROPE, AND AFRICA, TO ALL FOREIGN AND UNKNOWN GODS” (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly p. 292). That the original Greek text of Acts used the plural “gods” is shown by the marginal note to Acts 17:23 in the King James Version. But Yehoshua did pray “our Father” and not “our Fathers” (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11: 2-4)

The Passion Goes On
Science is the ground on which Jews and Aryans are going to stake their final battle
Fritsch's Beweismaterial gegen Jahwe is to “prove” that the real basis for the Old Testament is the destruction of the Indo-Germanic cultivators of the land by Semitic invaders. In Alfred Rosenberg's impenetrable The Myth of the 20th Century the Nordic blood constitutes that mystery which has supplanted and surmounted the Old Sacraments” Writing in 1881, Wagner suggest that Christ himself was not a biologically Jewish and that Aryan blood ran in his veins.
“These shall make war with the lamb, and the lamb shall overcome them...” (Rev. 17:14). Recall Jiddu Krishnamurti who was supposed to replace Yehoshua.
http://www.mygen.com/images/Phoenician_Sun_Priestess.jpg
The Phoenician Origin of Britons Scots and Anglo Saxons
Laurenece Augustine Waddel. 1924. He contended that the Phoenicians were Aryans – or Aryan leaders (like Prince Harry, maybe) and he traced them back to the British Isles.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg123iMQNg5AZRJ8q2uJV3qUVBC_ksZLUS4r2JpbSMODPVMTTALv_fpQ4T-LKaB9zCbrow5KhrD_kyo9yuUYo1tkWc3tZYcvPPsy0cpDpd0C_WiO2rFWmt-DM1uh4xHmM8vwghYQJcpR0w/s400/dawkins1.PNG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Ancient_Roman_Mosaics_Villa_Romana_La_Olmeda_007_Pedrosa_De_La_Vega_-_Salda%C3%B1a_%28Palencia%29.JPG

“Odium Humani Generis”
......if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm." Che Guevara. http://www.myspace.com/luciferhorus

A Quote from The God Delusion:
“The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a mysogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (obviously, he forgot a certain John Bull). Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desentisized to their horror.”
However, his credibility was undermined during a live interview on BBC radio last week when he was challenged by a Church of England clergyman to give the full title of Charles Darwin's seminal work, "On the Origin of Species." Dawkins hesitated before giving a slightly garbled version of the full title -- a humiliating moment for the man known as the "high priest of Darwinism." http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2012/02/23/high-noon-in-oxford-richard-dawkins-vs-archbishop-rowan-williams/
The Roman heliocentrism, in the imperial policy of the Roman emperors, was supposed to become one Global Religion of various peoples subjugated by their legions.

Let me quote here what has become known as Tacitus Fragment 2, preserved by the Christian historian Sulpicius Severus in his Chronica 2.30.6-7 (ca. 400-403 CE). This fragment gives the details of the debate within a high-level military council of war called by the Roman army commander Titus just prior to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in Jerusalem in 70, near the end of the first Jewish revolt against Rome. The debate was over whether or not the Roman army should destroy the Temple. For our purposes here, the last half of frag. 2 (= Severus' Chronica 2.30.7) is the most relevant because it specifically mentions "Christiani":(2.30.6) It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty. (2.30.7) But others, on the contrary, disagreed--including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the Jewish religion. Yehoshua clearly taught that the early chapters in Genesis are true (John 5:46,47; Mark 10:6; Luke 11:50,51) Encyclopaedia Britannica says in its biography of Darwin: “There was no place in Darwin's world for divine intervention …”

“A new covenant (written by Paul) has made the first obsolete.” Heb 8:13
Paul's Roman maxim: “Disce primum quod credendum est.”

In conversation with V. I. Arnold, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (March 1998), Pope John Paul II recognized that science alone is able to determine the truth, whereas religion, in the words of the pontificate, sees itself as better suited to evaluate the possible uses of new discoveries. (From a Letter of the Russian Academy of Sciences to V. Putin published in Kentavr, No. 3, pp. 1-2 (a popular-science supplement to Novaya Gazeta).[Russian version] Ch. Darwin argued: “If you wnat to get at the truth of the matter, you must turn to science: to the rational weighing of the evidence we obtain by careful observations of nature.”
http://christogenea.org/images/Christ%20Before%20Pilate%20-%20Bosch.jpg

Hadrian not only replaced the destroyed Jerusalem by Aelia Capitolina, but, on top of that, he abolished the name Judea and replaced it with Palestina and added it to Syria. In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine thus aryanizing it, because Philistines were Greek invaders into Egypt and Gaza region. During the next 2,000 years Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. During that rule, local Arabs were actually considered part of, and subject to, the authority of Greater Syria ( Suriyya al-Kubra). http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/1-Aelia-135.jpg
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=aelia%20capitolina

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3fLHiN1zW0W9Y7sgpig73flRuIv3SJPH_FDuQY71w51t3R8-umZ2yFxPxlqZI4PBO7EOoA-LnbGEUGAiEfK2ARBoPh-rWy0CvMX6BjSi8jSWFhwvHa3v_VnKbsJrU02fJ62A0S44CyOia/s1600/jp+ii+1958+o.JPG
K. Wojtyla ordained a bishop-imam in Cracow, 1958, to sabotage Islam.
http://www.earlychurchofjesus.org/images/pope%20kisses%20koran.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr4H487nfrRdTPD2xm9F01CtcmyAJEz_CQvmMR-2qsTmzTFF26vLBBIJ3VHbQwsNmDDdhEBgxkbMTOysoYhXeD5JPE4k9BBUznDLevRoUF4JrOCOAecN9Drxu2MbkF-sbNT_-hnv9Nm1UT/s1600-h/Muhammads+Views+of+Free+Expression.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWUHpLM6iNqy24f4ECEQ05Yx4nQSZ4NeUMUjaRfSXRXDDcZHvAqBrMvW0awKlcKi-9rDBp_mymyUKdJx9wPLLG_sWNmJ3ANFmDai8rU_zjArdlDI2YCBKYgqNfYbwwEXXhGVDm8mOQEP0l/s1600-h/Skull-hammad.jpg


In Jan. 1984, in his annual speech to the Vatican diplomatic corps, which the US ambassador W. Wilson attended the pope promoted an independent Palestinian state, which was already recognized by the East Germany! Behind the back of the Congress and the CIA, a new international intelligence consortium had been built in 1984. Guns, money, and agents were laundered through British intelligence to continue secret wars in Africa, Nicaragua, and the Middle East. There were whispers that the new operation was being run out of the White House itself. In the same year, 1984 The Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs was founded as a branch of the Presidency of Religious Affairs in Ankara. The headquarters are in Cologne Ehrenfeld. The Union proclaims: “The Palestinian Problem has a single solution: Turkish-Isalmic Union.”

http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/14665-christ-before-pilate-hans-multscher.html
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41148000/jpg/_41148206_ap_santapope203.jpg
Pope Benedict XVI's Camauro, a red velvet hat with white ermine trim used by popes at the 12th century matches the 'camauro' on Pilate's head.

“What was started at the Church Council at Nicea in 325 CE was duly completed in the concentration camps and crematories of Christian Germany where six million Jews perished.”(Shmuel Golding, (Anti-Semitism in the New Testament) http://www.discerningthetimesonline.net/harlot9.jpg
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/2532-the-holy-trinity-antonio-de-pereda.html
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/17923-holy-trinity-hungarian-unknown-master.html
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/1799-holy-trinity-pieter-coecke-van-aelst.html
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/7450-holy-trinity-sandro-botticelli.html
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/16252-the-gonzaga-family-worshipping-the-pieter-pauwel-rubens.html

On one of the German monument to Copernicus the following inscription is carved: Terrae motor solis caelique stator.((Kopernikus-Forschungen. Herausgegeben von Johannes Papritz und Hans Schmauch. Mit 59 Abbildungen auf 51 Tafeln und 2 graphischen Darstellungen. 1943 Verlag von S. Hirzel in Leipzig. (p.1). Jupiter was nicknamed 'Stator' by the Romans. According to a Polish saying 'Copernicus stopped the sun and moved the earth.' Well, Copernicus was ordained a Catholic priest in Cracow in 1502 and as such had the power to bind things in heaven and on earth...

Canst thou bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the bands of Orion? - Job 38:31
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/jupiter_stator.jpg
Temple of Jupiter Stator

Yehoshua vs. Opus: John Paul II&Y.Arafat

Chapter 34 of Deuteronomy describes how it was conceded to Moses on Mount Nebo to gaze upon the Promised Land, which he saw in its entirety. The look he was conceded was, so to speak, purely geographical, not historical. Chapter 28 of the same book presents a glance, not of geography, but on the future history in and with the land, and that this chapter offers a very different, much less consoling from a human point of view, perspective: “And YHWH will scatter you among all people, from one end of the earth to the other…And among these nations you shall find no ease, and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot” (Dt. 28:64ff)
“Even if you are dispersed to the ends of the heavens, from there will YHWH your God gather you and from there will He take you up. And YHWH our God will bring you to the Land which your ancestors have inherited, so that you may again take possession of the land where your ancestors once lived. And he will make you more prosperous and more numerous than your ancestors ever were.” (Dt 30:4,5)
One of the major components of Luke's portrayal of Yehoshua as a prophet is how he associates him with Old Testament prophets. He reads from the scroll of Isaiah, performs miracles like Elijah and Elisha, relates to Jonah, and is said to come in the spirit of Moses. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.” (Lk 4:18) Emperor Augustus would never proclaim good news to the poor/slaves. In Acts Yehoshua is clearly referred to as a prophet in the tradition of Moses (3:22-23; 7:37). When Yehoshua is tried and executed, he fulfills the ultimate role of the prophets whose words seldom please their hearers. The Roman altar on which he was sacrificed was adorned with swastikas... (Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, A History of Pagan Europe. London and New York, p. 55)

Roman Pytel, Ph.D.,poles4israel 03/13/12

Run and Hide, Helioleftists! « Blogs 4 Brownback See
Graphic Rendition of Copernicus's Pagan Religion published in Polish magazine Zycie in 1897
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgn5_7O8VzN_joBkj_ouOZbswsbw6IEsLFUZLo9cXsEtH-9UfzV6H7-uBQnYIxCHZtPzg_DNG_jQ3ZSTCQtfMevWFrHS2_uyUp8xK-kSBGXEvsh-g_WMpFg0NgEWsA8BDs3KgdZVWKtelI/s692/zdjecie.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75jXfkybEs
Religion is a manifestation of the beauty of Allah that surrounds everyone, that bestows happiness on everyone. It is a comfort, well-being, an abundance. The Darwinist-materialist system only brings suffering, fear and panic – Harun Yahya. ONLY 25% OF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN DARWINISM. http://harunyahya.com/en/Makaleler/12561/The_guardian:_Darwinism_in_Britain_has_collapsed!

In 1973, on the 500th birthday of Copernicus the Mongolian Post issued a stamp presenting to the world the epitaph portrait of Copernicus praying to the Jewish Savior from the St. John cathedral in Thorn (Poland). No other country, including the Vatican and Poland, put this portrait ever on a stamp. http://www.copernicus.net/images/copernicus/copernicus%20portraits/Bild3-jpeg.jpg