Where your charity money goes... you won't like it!

While Christians are massacred in Baghdad and are being driven out of the Middle East, others who call themselves Christian see fit to demonize Israel and fund terrorism. They do this with your money. Find out the charities to avoid. 

I make no apologies for all the links. This is part of my contribution towards raising awareness of what is really happening.

The massacre in Baghdad as reported by the BBC here and Google for more information.

The excellent Danny Ayalon on the decline of Christians in 'Palestine' and a potted history of the name of Palestine, see below.

Blogger Edgar Davidson has a jaw-dropping report on the Charity 'War on Want', see here . Read it all, especially if you are British.

Robin Shepherd of 'thecommentator' has an article in his online journal about the same subject. He names a range of charities and their funding sources. Perhaps non-European readers should look at their charities more closely.

There is also an excellent article by Steve Apfel on 'Borrowing Jesus' - like this: -

It makes an interesting contrast to what Danny Ayalon has to say. I know whom I believe.

According to Daphne Anson, this temporary wall in London cost several thousand pounds.

You can read more about this expensive obscenity in another excellent piece by Robin Shepherd. He gives links to a video publicising the stunt and to a letter protesting it.

 I wonder how much good could have been achieved if the money spent on this stunt had gone elsewhere?

Hadas Fogel, three months old, was killed by terrorists on March 11, 2011. The terrorists confessed that they left the Fogel home after murdering Hadas’ parents and two sleeping brothers but returned to murder Hadas when they heard her start crying.

I finish with a quote from Robin Shepherd.

To abuse that most admirable of Christian traditions, and turn Christmas into a message of hate, is not just anti-Semitic; it is the grossest of insults to Christians as well.

Bad Israel - was it ever any different?

It was and you will be surprised at my authority who says so.

Esteemed Blogger and friend of The Almond Rod, Daphne Anson, has just posted a long article , and well worth your time reading, on an organisation called CAABU (Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding). I was particularly taken with the words of one of its founders, one Christopher Mayhew, when he summarised how Israel was seen in 1974. I quote from Daphne's post below.

I'm drafting the next in my series on my journey in Christian Zionism. His summary, although from an opponent, is enlightening and shows that my memory of how things used to be is not faulty.

In the following words, Christopher Mayhew (1915-97; created a life peer as Baron Mayhew in 1981),a  Labour MP until 1974, and from then a Liberal, began a speech on 27 July 1977 in a committee room at Westminster to mark the tenth anniversary of CAABU's foundation. 

"Those who founded CAABU, at a meeting here in the House of Commons ten years ago, took on a formidable task - to challenge the deeply held beliefs about Palestine of the overwhelming majority of the British people.

An opinion poll just published by the Sunday Times had shown that only 2% of the British people supported the Arabs.  It was almost universally agreed that the 1967 war had been planned and started by the Arabs with Russian support; that the Arabs were racialists who aimed to drive the Jews into the sea; that the Palestinian refugees had left Israel in 1948 and should resettle elsewhere in the Arab world; that the refugee camps were kept in being by the Arab Governments as a political weapon against Israel; that Israel, a small country surrounded by numerous enemies, had no designs at all on Arab territory unless, reasonably enough, to secure her own security; and that, in general, after the appalling sufferings of the Jewish people, Israel was entitled, on moral, legal and historical grounds, to the wholehearted support of the civilised world.

To make things worse, these opinions were shared at that time by almost all newspaper proprietors and editors, almost all the directing staff of the BBC and ITV, almost all MPs, and almost the entire publishing and film industries.

They were also supported, with enthusiasm and sincerity, by the great bulk of Britain's large, lively and influential Jewish community, many of whose members were totally dedicated to Israel's cause and were willing to make great sacrifices of time and money to support it.'

The British? Museum. Still rewriting History.

WorldNetDaily correspondent Pamela Geller has just caught up with Daphne Anson and Ian G of  TheAlmondRod.

Prior to my blog appearing, Daphne kindly posted an account of my email correspondence with The British? Museum.
http://daphneanson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/timeline-palestine-is-british-museum.html

In an article which references Bat Ye'or, Ms. Geller  has documented further examples of the Museum's departure from scholarship and rationality.  http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/dangerously-rewriting-history/

In Daphne's blog you can read the Museum's justification of  the use of the term 'Palestine' to describe the Land at a time when  the PA did not exist.

"I am sorry to hear that you did not find the exhibition engaging. In archaeological and Egyptological discourse, ‘Palestine’ (and ‘Syro-Palestine’) refers to an area (broadly from the north of Sinai to Kadesh, and from the Mediterranean to the current Jordan border), not a present or past state. Similarly ‘Nubia’ is an area that overlaps the boundaries of several historic polities, including today. “Israel” is generally used to refer to the modern state, and “Israelites” as the group of people first mentioned in ancient texts on the stela of Merenptah in the 13th century BC. There is no reference to Arab peoples, or the Palestinian Authority in the exhibition, which would of course be inappropriate given the timeframe covered. Please accept our apologies if the wording has caused any offence. Neal Spencer, British Museum"

And from my reply,

 I don’t accept that Palestine is a scholarly term, in common scholastic use and (especially since 1947), referring to a particular or general area. You draw its border at the Jordan, but the British Mandate included Trans-Jordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan) and I have maps that include what is now part of Syria. In other words, the term you are using as a general scholarly term is, in fact, politically defined.

On the time-line Palestine is used to refer to Canaan in 2055 BC. The area you define as Palestine would not include parts of Canaan!

It’s just too confusing.

Which is my point. It would have been simple to include a foot-note explaining where Nubia and Canaan were. In the case of Canaan; Israel, the disputed territories and part of Jordan. In the case of Nubia; parts of Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan.

In the meantime, your exhibition states that Palestine existed in 2055 BC. At best, this is poor scholarship, bad teaching and dangerously ignorant of politics. At worst, it is collusion with those who seek to eradicate Israel ‘from the River to the Sea’. ” (broadly from the north of Sinai to Kadesh, and from the Mediterranean to the current Jordan border) “.

It is not a matter of offence to me. I am not a Jew or an Israeli. It is a matter of scholarly accuracy and, also, sensitivity to the current and volatile situation in the Land." 

There is much more to read at Daphne's blog  and at Ms. Geller's article. 

You can find an account of 1001 Muslim inventions - sort of -  here .