Years later I found another book by Hunt in the library and read it. I read it half heartedly. Since I believed that God was with LCG and not Dave Hunt I did not take so seriously. Any time he said something contrary to LCG's teachings I casually ignored it.
Let us now take a look at Dave Hunt's 2006 book, Judgment Day!: Islam, Israel and the Nations. Reading it now I saw that there are issues about this book that were not apparent to me when I first read it back when I was a believer in Armstrongism.
It is not the purpose of this post to critique what Hunt says is to occur in the future. Rather this post is to focus on what Hunt says about events past and present, not so much about future events.
Since Hunt never taught Armstrongism (and in fact taught against it as will be noted later) it is not the purpose of this post to convince anyone that the teachings of this book concerning the future are either right or wrong. But if such a teaching might have a negative effect today that will have to be mentioned. But discussions concerning events past and present will be discussed and assessed in this post.
Let us see what Hunt has to say.
Hunt, quite correctly, notes that there never were any "ten lost tribes." Rather those Israelites who were exiled by the Assyrians maintained their cultural identity and many later came back to the Holy Land gradually assimilating themselves with those associated with the southern kingdom of Judea. The previous unhappy division was healed and they became once again one people. This inspiring memory of what happened after Assyria's conquest of Israel is destroyed by British Israelism. (pp. 48-49.)
This may seem like a strange question to ask but Hunt has a rather peculiar definition of what is an Arab.
Although there are Arabs living in all of the Middle Eastern countries, and they are collectively referred to as "the Arab world," these neighboring nations that seek Israel's destruction are not primarily of Arab descent. The Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians are not Arabs, nor are the Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, et al. Only the Saudis are Arabs. (pp. 15-16.)Hunt is correct about the Iranians not being Arab. But as for the other countries it should be stated that the majority populations of those countries speak the Arabic language. How can they not be Arabs? They are Arabs. It is true that there are ethnic minorities such as the Berbers in Northern Africa but those nations are Arab nations. It is incorrect to insist that only the Saudis are Arabs.
In this book Hunt quotes WorldNetDaily ten times (pp. 23, 77, 91, 133, 150-1, 151, 154, 177, 197, 254). Another quote from WorldNetDaily's editor is on page 19 however Hunt cites another source in that instance. In all those ten quotes no doubt or skepticism is ever presented about WorldNetDaily itself. It would seem that Hunt trusts WorldNetDaily.
Although it is worth mentioning that Hunt's organization called out an editor of WorldNetDaily for teaching doctrines similar to Armstrongism as was reported at Banned by HWA back in 2012.
On page 19 it is asserted that Al Qaeda have nukes in America. Bear in mind the following words were published back in 2006.
[One writer] has been reporting for some time that Al Qaeda has nukes inside the United States. [Another man,] a former FBI consultant, says there is no question but that Al Qaeda has already smuggled dozens of fully assembled nuclear weapons into the United States. (p. 19.)It is now nine years since those words were published. Clearly they were wrong.
In 2011 the Center for American Progress released a report detailing various right wing foundations, persons and organizations dedicated to vilifying Muslims. The report called these persons and organizations as "the Islamophobia Network." They made a website (islamophobianetwork.com) detailing the connections of this network of persons and organizations.
The website lists five "misinformation experts" propping up this network, namely Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, David Yerushalmi, Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson. Hunt's book cites sources related to four of these men, namely Pipes, Emerson and (somewhat more distantly) Horowitz and Spencer. Another connection between Hunt's book and the Islamophobia Network is Walid Shoebat.
On pages 14 and 188 Hunt cites a 1994 documentary by one Steve Emerson. Emerson has a long career of vilifying Muslims. Infamously in 1995 following the Oklahoma City bombing Emerson blamed it on Muslims. Emerson was cited by the Center for American Progress as one of the main misinformers of the Islamophobia Network.
On page 146 Hunt mentions the tragic mass murder of a family of four by (Hunt alleges) a Muslim. According to footnote 2 on page 179 this particular information is cited from Jihad Watch, a web site operated by Robert Spencer. Spencer was trained in Catholic history. He is not academically trained in learning about Muslim history. Spencer has been identified as one of the main misinformers of the Islamophobia Network.
On page 147 Hunt cites one Walid Shoebat.
Former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, whose life was transformed by faith in Jesus Christ and who is now dedicated to exposing the truth about Islam... (p. 147.)Hunt fails to mention that there is widespread skepticism about Shoebat's claim to have been a terrorist for the PLO. The reader of Hunt's book is left ignorant of the controversy surrounding Shoebat.
Appendix B is an article sourced from Front Page Magazine, a right wing media outlet founded by David Horowitz (pp. 383-7). The article also cites Richard Pipes and denounces CAIR. Both Richard Pipes and David Horowitz have been identified as two of the main misinformers sustaining the Islamophobia Network by the Center for American Progress (as may be seen here and here).
Appendix C contains an article co-written by Richard Pipes (pp. 394-396).
Hunt has to a lot say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but he says very little about Palestinian Christians. Although the vast majority of Palestinians happen to be Sunni Muslim many Palestinians are Christians. They are rarely mentioned in Hunt's book.
Instead Palestinians are simplistically stereotyped as Muslims thus averting the readers' attention away from what these Palestinian Christians have to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Hunt quotes a book by one Joan Peters entitled From Time Immemorial. It is quoted sixteen times (pp. 35 (thrice), 64 (twice), 95 (citing a quote from it), 104 (twice citing quotes from the book), 108, 109-10, 113-4, 114 (twice more), 115 (twice), 224, 249.)
At another point Hunt even calls From Time Immemorial a "monumental book" (p. 106).
However Hunt never gives the reader any indication that it is widely viewed as untrustworthy and discredited. Norman Finkelstein in his book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, condemned that book as a fraud with plagiarized passages.
Its reputation is so bad even Israelis will not use this book to support themselves. This may be seen in the following New York Times article.
So the book, according to this Israeli historian is "sheer rubbish" and yet twenty years later Dave Hunt should dare to present this book as evidence that the Palestinians' nationality is a "hoax." (Hunt, pp. 55-56.) Hunt says nothing about how disreputable Peters' book is. A reader would have no way of knowing how fatally flawed From Time Immemorial is.Yehoshua Porath, an Israeli historian of the Palestinian Arabs who teaches at Hebrew University, was asked in a telephone interview from Jerusalem about the book. ''I think it's a sheer forgery,'' he replied.''In Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon,'' the historian said. Mr. Porath described his politics as centrist. He has written an essay on the book for The New York Review of Books that will be published soon. (Colin Campbell, "Dispute Flares over Book on Claims to Palestine", New York Times, May 28, 1985.)
There is reason to believe that Hunt was well aware of the controversy surrounding From Time Immemorial. The evidence is that Hunt refers to Norman Finkelstein's book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Hunt has clearly read it. In the footnotes on page 281 Hunt cites quotations to pages 10 and 14 of Finkelstein's book. Finkelstein's book is mentioned on page 411 in the bibliography.
How could Hunt fail to notice that Finkelstein had scathingly condemned From Time Immemorial in an entire chapter of that book? But Hunt never mentions any of this. He gives no hint or indication that Finkelstein talked about From Time Immemorial. And Hunt certainly failed to respond to any of the serious criticisms Finkelstein had for From Time Immemorial.
Hunt should have argued with Finkelstein to prove him wrong and to prove that Finkelstein's condemnation of From Time Immemorial is wrong. Instead Hunt accuses Finkelstein of being inspired by Satan.
He [Finkelstein] argues that the very existence of a "historical homeland of the Jewish people" would render "the Jewish people 'alien' to every other state/territorial unit, thus sanctioning the claims of anti-Semitism." ... He [Finkelstein] doesn't recognize that his anti-Israel position is inspired of another being in whom he doesn't believe--Satan. (p. 278.)How is accusing an American Jewish academic of being inspired by Satan not anti-Semitic?
Admittedly Hunt tries to dull the severity of this accusation by then insisting that other people he disagrees with are also inspired by Satan.
I cannot help but wonder if the real reason Hunt treats Finkelstein in sich a way is because of Finkelstein's discrediting of From Time Immemorial. Is it possible that Hunt read Finkelstein and was furious that he should dare condemn a book Hunt seems to have liked?
The reader would have no idea that Peters' book was so utterly discredited or that Finkelstein ever talked about From Time Immemorial.
One thing that Hunt seems to find attractive with Peters' book is Peters' assertion that Britain sided with the Palestinians against those who would establish the State of Israel during the British mandatory period (1917-48). Hunt's use of From Time Immemorial to assert that there existed a British alliance with the Palestinians during the Mandatory period may be seen in the quotes on page 95.
Speaking in Cairo, Iraqi foreign minister, Fadel al-Jamali, declared: " ... Britain is a real friend of the Arabs." It was a friendship Britain carefully cultivated for selfish reasons at the expense of the Jews. (p. 95.)The quote cited as being from Peters' book. This is no mention of when the Iraqi Foreign Minister made this statement in Hunt's book.
But this assertion of a Palestinian-British alliance ignores many facts regarding Britain's rule in Palestine.
On December 10, 1918, soldiers from a New Zealand division went into the village of Surafind and massacred about 40 Palestinians in retaliation for the death of a soldier. General Allenby was furious about this terrible massacre and denounced those responsible as "cowards and murderers".
Furthermore, under British rule, the British authorities favored the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine by granting favorable economic concessions to them.
[There was] preferential economic treatment granted by the mandatory government to the Jewish community. It enjoyed concessions that the Palestinians could only have dreamed of. The British government encouraged the heads of the Zionist project to be self-sufficient economically and entrusted to them the natural resources of the land. In this way, the Zionist economy was segregated from the Palestinian one, as was the land and labour market, and a Jewish economic enclave was created. (Ilan Pappé, in Israel and South Africa, Chapter 2.)During the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-9 it was the Palestinians who endured the highest fatality rate. The British authorities focused the most of their repression upon the Palestinians instead of the Jews who lived there.
Despite the intervention of up to 50,000 British troops and 15,000 Haganah men, the uprising continued for over three years. By the time it concluded in September 1939, more than 5,000 Arabs, over 300 Jews, and 262 Britons had been killed and at least 15,000 Arabs were wounded. (1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine, Wikipedia.)In other words the number of Palestinian fatalities in the revolt was about 1700% higher than the fatalities of Jews in Mandatory Palestine at the same time.
One would never know of such things reading Hunt's book.
Hunt even asserts (without supplying even one footnote to establish this inflammatory allegation) that the members of the PLO today work for the British.
Today, many PLO agents continue working for the British secret service. (p. 127.)Hunt fails to provide even one footnote to substantiate this inflammatory accusation.
I advice much caution regarding this assertion.
Hunt claims that the Palestinians' own nationality is "an outright hoax."
There are those today who call themselves "Palestinians" and claim that they descended from a Palestinian people who lived for thousands of years in a land called Palestine. In fact, that claim is an outright hoax. Yet the world accepts this lie as the basis of a false peace that they have been attempting for years to force upon Israel. (pp. 55-56.)Nonsense. The Palestinian people are as real as any other people.
It is an insult to the God of Israel and to His chosen people to call the promised of Israel "Palestine"! (p. 67.)That whole territory was all called Palestine until 1948. The naval ensign of Mandatory Palestine had the word "Palestine" written on that flag.
|Naval Ensign of Mandatory Palestine (1927-48)|
Is that flag insulting God and Jews? What nonsense.
British ruled Mandatory Palestine issued passports with the name Palestine on it. They were given to Palestinians and Jews alike.
Were those who had these passports (Palestinian, Jew, etc.) insulting God and Jews?
One of Israel's most prominent newspapers, The Jerusalem Post, was originally named The Palestine Post. Were the people who worked for The Palestine Post insulting God and Jews?
It is absurd to claim it is somehow blasphemous to call that land Palestine, especially considering that the land was named Palestine until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The "Palestinians" claim that all of the land belongs to them and that Israel is therefore occupying their land and must be removed. This defiance of God cannot continue without His righteous judgment falling upon the perpetrators! (p. 71.)
The secular world can justify its attitude because "Christians" say that those Jews in Israel are there illegally, and they're not God's chosen people after all, for that honor belongs to the church. (pp. 302-303.)These statements obscures the fact that no nation on Earth recognizes Israel as sovereign over the territories acquired after the Six Day War of 1967. (Except the State of Israel. And even then Israel only annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, not the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or the Sinai Peninsula).
It is illegal in international law for a state to acquire territory by force. The international community concluded that the territories acquired after by the State of Israel after the Six Day War (Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, East Jerusalem) were acquired by armed force and therefore no state on Earth recognizes the State of Israel as having any right to rule those territories. Consequently the international community (every nation state on Earth except the State of Israel) does not recognize those territories as belonging to the State of Israel but rather as territory occupied by the State of Israel.
Currently 160 UN member states recognize the State of Israel. All of them only recognize Israel's right to rule the land it had before the Six Day War. The rest of that territory is regarded by those 160 UN member states as occupied land that does not belong to Israel. Hunt never explains this fact.
Now there are many laws to govern how a state may govern occupied territory. One of these laws is that it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer members of its population into occupied territory. Consequently it is illegal under international law for the State of Israel to let Israeli citizens to settle in the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and even East Jerusalem. This is the view of all 160 UN member states that recognize the State of Israel including the United States. Thus when Palestinians call for the settlers to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem in one sense those Palestinians are merely calling for Israel to obey international law just like everyone else. (More on this matter may be seen in Beyond Occupation (2011).)
Incidentally this is the same reason why the international community in general does not grant diplomatic recognition to Northern Cyprus (except Turkey), Morocco's control over Western Sahara, North Somalia's de facto independence from Somalia, Transnistria's de facto independence from Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh's de facto independence from Azerbaijan, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia's de facto independence from Georgia. Nation states tend to be quite reluctant to recognize the changing of borders unless they are mutually agreed by those concerned. This same rule applies to the territories acquired by the State of Israel in 1967. Nation states do not want to give any other nation state a precedent to alter borders by military force.
Part of the appeal of the two state solution is that it would allow Israel to withdraw from occupied territory which no nation on Earth recognizes as rightfully belonging to Israel. The international community already recognizes the land controlled by the State of Israel in its internationally recognized territory, namely the 1949-1967 border, as opposed to territories acquired after the Six Day War which is regarded as occupied territory by every government on Earth except the State of Israel.
We now continue with Hunt's book.
They claim to be the children and grandchildren of Palestinians who were descended from the "original Palestinians" and who were alledgedly driven from their homes, businesses, and farms by the Israelis in the 1948 War of Independence. Backed by world opinion, the United Nations, the EU, and most world leaders, they demand a return to their native "Palestine." (pp. 75-76.)It is a fact that about 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from Palestine during the Israeli War of Independence. Estimates of how many Palestinians fled Israel vary between 530,000 according to some Israeli authors to as high as over 935,573 according to UNRWA.
Statistics for refugee figures have been as high as 935,573 according to UNRWA registrations, to as low as 530,000 according to some Israeli sources. The British Foreign Office estimated the total number of refugees to be 810,000 in February 1949 and then issued a revised estimate of 600,000. The UNCCP Technical Office gave a figure of 760,000. The US government estimated a total refugee population of 875,000 as of 1953. [It states elsewhere that the consensus figure is now about 750,000.] (Beyond Occupation, 2011, p. 292.)The presence of these refugees was imposed upon the surrounding Arab nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Jordan occupied West Bank and the Egyptian administrated Gaza Strip. Naturally those expelled Palestinians tried to return home but the State of Israel, with few exceptions, denied them permission to return. The surrounding Arab states did not ask for these Palestinian refugees to be among them so they were not integrated into society. The surrounding Arab states also demanded that the State of Israel let the refugees return. The State of Israel has not done so to this day.
Although the "Palestinians" pretend to be interested in negotiations brokered by Western powers to make "peace" in exchange for Israel giving up additional land, their ultimate aim is to possess all of Israel. (p. 79.)These words show that Hunt has no interest in peace between Israelis and Palestinians since he confidently insists that the Palestinians are lying.
The "Palestinians" are mere pawns of the Arabs. (p. 80.)Not only is the Palestinians' nationality denied but their own agency to effect matters for better or worse is denied. Instead they are vilified as "pawns of the Arabs" so that the reader will think that any act the State of Israel commits against the Palestinians is actually against the surrounding Arab nations. It is often not the case.
When the revolt was finally crushed in A.D. 135, the Roman conquerors angrily renamed the land of Israel, Provincia Syria-Palestina, after Israel's ancient enemies, the Philistines. From that time forward, all those living there were known as "Palestinians." (p. 82.)Sounds like Hunt is saying the Palestinian people has existed since A.D. 135 here even though he insists elsewhere that there is no Palestinian nation or any Palestinian people in existence.
There is no reasoning with terrorists. Force is all they understand. Without question, the premier terrorist of recent years was Yasser Arafat, not Osama bin Laden. (p. 87.)In this book Hunt seemed to me particularly fixated upon Yasser Arafat as the most terrible terrorist despite the rise of Hamas as a major rival to Arafat's Fatah and the emergence of Al Qaeda terrorists. It should be noted that Hunt held to this view even in the aftermath of 9/11 and in spite of the terrorist acts Hamas has committed over the years.
Arafat ran ... the territories the PLO has been given by Israel like the Royal family runs Saudi Arabia. There is no freedom. ... Voting is a joke. (p. 88.)In 2006 (apparently shortly after the printing of this book) elections were held among the Palestinians and Fatah lost power to Hamas. Power was then transferred to Hamas. Now it must be stated that relations between Fatah and Hamas soon deteriorated into a brief civil war in 2007 but it cannot be denied that the votes of the 2006 elections in fact effected a transfer of power. We can argue that it was a bad choice but it was a choice which was ever so briefly honored among the Palestinians. Voting in Palestine in 2006 was no joke.
Britain, in exercising its mandate, had given the Arabs many independent states, from Egypt (1922) to Saudi Arabia (1931) to Transjordan (1946). (p. 94.)How paternalistic these words are. The agency of the Arabs in making their own decisions is denied and erased with these words. The people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Transjordan liberated themselves by making it clear to the British authorities that they wanted to be independent just like Britain herself.
Considering that Hunt lives in a nation that liberated herself from British rule after a War of Independence it is ironic that Hunt seems to not notice that the peoples of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan would share the same longing for independence.
Indeed, the entire Arab world had sided with the Nazis against the Allies, while Jewish volunteers had fought in the British army... (p. 95.)Nonsense. Britain was in control of Egypt and Mandatory Palestine during World War II. Yemen, Oman, what is now the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain were firmly aligned with Britain during the whole course of World War II. In Iraq there was indeed a brief revolt against the British that was partly incited by the Nazis and accompanied by deadly anti-Semitic pogroms against innocent Iraqi Jews. This revolt was eventually suppressed. So this assertion that "the entire Arab world had sided with the Nazis against the Allies" is simply not true.
On pages 100-101 Hunt says that after the Israeli War of Independence the State of Israel wanted the Palestinian inhabitants within its territory to remain and build the State of Israel together. But in actual fact many of those 750,000 Palestinians who had been expelled and/or fled for their lives, often having nothing but what they could carry, wanted to return to their homes after the war. Many of these Palestinians were Christians. The vast majority were refused permission to return. The State of Israel blocked those Palestinians' ability to return. The State of Israel continues to do so to this very day.
In contrast, no Jew has such rights in any Arab or Muslim country. In fact, a Jew isn't allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia. Contrary to the claims that put the blame on Israel, the truth is that it was the Arab military command that told the Arabs to get out. (p. 101.)Not true. This is much evidence to suggest that did not happen. Norman Finkelstein in his book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, presented evidence in Chapter 3 that actually the Arab leaders wanted the Palestinians to remain where they were during the Israeli War of Independence.
However Palestinian society had been severely weakened following the harsh repression that occurred in the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-9. During the course of the 1947-9 war Palestinian society collapsed and vast numbers of Palestinians, (about 750,000) fled in fear and panic regardless of their leaders' commands to stay at their homes.
The fact that Finkelstein wrote of this in contradiction to Hunt's portrayal of events is never mentioned in Hunt's book.
Afterwards Hunt talks of Jews who fled to the State of Israel following Israel's founding. On page 56 Hunt says that there were 856,000 Jewish refugees from the Middle East who fled to Israel. Hunt says that is more Jews than the Palestinians who fled Israel. But in fact the numbers are fairly similar. Estimates of how many Palestinians fled Israel vary between 530,000 according to some Israeli authors to as high as over 935,573 according to UNRWA. The consensus figure is now 750,000. So that figure is not quite so large a difference as Hunt makes it out to be.
Thousands of Arab refugees did return to their homes and businesses in Israel. (p.115.)Hunt was talking of not just any Arab refugees, but of Palestinian refugees. This may be well be true for some. But the vast majority of those Palestinian refugees who fled in 1947-9 were forbidden by the State of Israel to return to their homes. This condemned them to a condition of statelessness.
The surrounding Arab states saw no reason why they should have to bear the burden of absorbing these refugees that the Arab states had not asked for so the Palestinians were never integrated into those nations. Both the Palestinians and the Arab states called for the Palestinians to return to where they lived before the 1947-9 war. The State of Israel to this day has not allowed the vast majority of those Palestinian refugees to return.
One memorable account of how these Palestinians were expelled by those who created the State of Israel may be found in the 1949 Israeli novella Khirbet Khirzeh by S. Yizhar. This novella, originally written in Hebrew, well describes what happened in those days. Hunt's denigration of the Palestinians serves to obscure what happened during the Israeli War of Independence (1947-9).
Hunt has redefined the word "Islam" in this book and has changed its meaning. Normally Islam refers to the religion of Muslims. By this I mean any and all Muslims, whether Sunni, Shia or whatever other variety there may be. There is a wide range of diversity of attitudes and opinions regarding many things among the Muslims themselves.
But Hunt has in this book redefined "Islam" to refer to a specific type of what he regards as being "true Islam". Any other form of Islam is denigrated by Hunt as not a true version of Islam. Hunt as given himself the authority to define what is Islam and what is not Islam among the Muslims.
The fundamental problem of Islamophobia is to assume that Muslims are united in beliefs and actions. It is true that there are over a billion Muslims. But are they united politically? Can these one billion Muslims act together on anything?
Muslims are divided into many nation states. These nation states contend and strive with each other as other nation states do. And even within these nation states there are innumerable differences and political factions. So how can one talk of "Islam" doing this or that as though all Muslims are united in belief and action when they are not?
But Hunt has fallen into this error. In this book he constantly talks of Islam as though it is one thing that acts coherently. "Islam" is written of as though it had the will of one man. Consequently the nuances to be found among Muslims are ignored or minimized by Hunt in order to insist that Muslims collectively act as a hostile and unified political force.
On page 135 Hunt complains:
... the U.S. Postal Service issued a 34-cent Eid stamp at the annual Islamic Society of North America's convention in Des Plaines, Illinois. Such gestures of goodwill and appeasement only encourage Muslims in their determined conquest of the world... (p. 135.)These words shows how Hunt assumes that Muslims will act in a certain hostile manner to even such a friendly gesture such as producing a commemorative stamp.
Did Bush really imagine that his sincere gesture of goodwill would be accepted by Muslims around the world and make them more kindly disposed toward us? (p. 136.)Should President Bush have not even tried to gain goodwill from Muslim communities? This once again shows how Hunt assumes that Muslims will act in such a hostile manner.
In Chapter 7 (pp. 145-180) Muslims are simplistically stereotyped as terrorists. Appointing Muslims to positions of authority or offering words of friendship and respect are absurdly denigrated as somehow "rewarding" or "appeasing" Muslims. But we must be careful to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy. We can not blame Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11 as though it is their fault.
The 1990 murder of Israeli Knesset member Rabbi Meir Kahane in Manhattan by Egyptian terrorist El Sayyad A. Nosair.... (p. 146.)Hunt mentions that Kahane was a member of the Knesset and a rabbi. These facts are true. But Hunt fails to mention that Kahane was an extremist. Kahane's political party was so extreme that the Israeli authorities banned it. The infamous Baruch Goldstein, the mass murderer of Hebron, was a follower of Kahane. Kahane's name is not even mentioned in the index. While his violent death is to be regretted like any act of violence let us not blind ourselves to facts the way Hunt seems to do so here. The reader is left ignorant of Kahane's baneful influence upon Israeli society.
On page 152 Hunt insists that the strict way of life in Saudi Arabia is a representation of true Islam. But in actual fact many Muslim majority nations behave quite differently to Saudi Arabia. For instance Saudi Arabia banned women from driving cars. No other Muslim nation on Earth follow this terrible discriminatory practice. It is neither fair nor accurate to present Saudi Arabia as an example of (Hunt's narrowly defined) "true Islam" in practice when every other Muslim majority nation differ on this discriminatory practice.
It is considered honorable for a Muslim to lie to non-Muslims in order to promote or defend his faith. (p. 154.)This allegation has often made against Muslims in general by various demagogues characterized as Islamophobic.
Hunt condemns CAIR on page 173. A negative fixation on CAIR is quite frequently found in the writings of those generally deemed Islamophobic.
After that chapter Hunt complains about criticism of the State of Israel's practice of demolishing houses as punishment.
Repeatedly Israel has been taken to task for "overreacting" to suicide bombing, for pursuing terrorists into PA territory, and for destroying the houses from which terrorists have operated. (p. 185.)Hunt makes it appear as though criticism of house demolitions are merely a criticism of over reaction. What Hunt fails to mention is that house demolitions are widely condemned and judged to be illegal according to international law as it is defined as constituting collective punishment that penalizes those who presumably had nothing to do with any act of violence.
On page 185 Hunt complains that the State of Israel is being unfairly criticized for building the wall. It is not mentioned that the International Court of Justice ruled that the wall was illegal according to international law in 2004.
The State of Israel's decision to ignore this ruling contributed to Palestinians issuing a call for people to boycott, divest and sanction the State of Israel on the one year anniversary of the International Court of Justice's legal ruling in 2005. That occurred as a direct result of the wall's construction. Had the State of Israel adhered to that ruling perhaps that call for boycott would have been avoided and the State of Israel could have saved themselves from that protest campaign.
On page 185 Hunt mentions a belligerent statement from a PLO official. But only when you look at the footnote (p. 213, footnote 8) it is mentioned that the words cited date from the 1970s. The possibility that things may have changed since the 1970s does not appear to occur to Hunt.
Yet the United States, UN, and EU remain silent concerning the Islamic Curtain, even though it is more vicious and impenetrable than the Iron or Bamboo Curtains ever were. (p. 186.)This is nonsense. There is no such thing as an "Islamic Curtain". This is just demonization of Muslims and a crude attempt to demonize the Muslim world as being the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.
Hunt cites a 1994 documentary by Steve Emerson (pp. 14, 188). Steve Emerson is cited by the Center for American Progress as one of the main "misinformers" of the Islamophobia Network.
Hunt insists that Muslims cannot be integrated into mainstream society.
It is nearly impossible for Muslims to be integrated into society as other immigrants have been, because Islam does not allow any distinction between religion and the state. (p. 191.)Similar accusations were made against Catholic immigrants back in the day. Such words inspire unnecessary fear. There is a wide range of diversity among Muslims. Of course Muslims can be integrated into society. Indeed, in many ways, they already are. Although without question there are many problems that must be addressed, not the least of which is the problem of hostility towards Muslims in general, which is often called Islamophobia.
Hunt's insistence on stereotyping Islam in a simple manner and in viewing Islam as hostile and united political force leads to the following bizarre false equivalence concerning the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-8.
In the last chapter, we made brief mention of the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, both Muslim countries. They used one thousand tins of poison gas on one another. Many thousands of young boys were sacrificed to clear mine fields for the troops following them (and were deceived into doing so by Islam's promise of Paradise with unnumbered dark-eyed virgins for those who die in jihad.) (p. 193.)It was Iraq, not Iran, that used chemical weapons. Many of the components necessary for making those chemical weapons were imported from overseas. Iran was perfectly capable of reproducing those weapons but Khomeini decreed such weapons to be contrary to Islam and because of this fatwa Iran never made chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
It was the religiously inclined Iran, not Iraq, that used young soldiers to manually clear mine fields.
By stereotyping Islam as some simplistic Wahhabi like movement and refusing to note the numerous political factions that composes the political landscape of the Middle East Hunt has made these errors. This is the result of relying on simple stereotypes to make judgments regarding a vastly more complicated region of the world.
On pages 202-4 there is a section entitled "What's wrong with multiculturalism?" In it are the following words:
Students are being taught that the values America has stood for over the centuries, rather than something to be cultivated and preserved, are something to be embarrassed about and actually to be despised. ...
This brought an invasion of Eastern gurus to the West and resulted in the New Age movement, where anything is okay except saying that something isn't okay. To celebrate the new broadmindedness, public schools (especially universities) began to glorify anything African or "native," no matter from where. White skin was out and color was in. White was ugly and wicked, black was beautiful and could do no wrong. Business and commerce, which had built our civilization, were damned for destroying the earth. Environmentalism, no matter how extreme and destructive in its own peculiar way, was the new darling. It is in this context that Islam and Muslims have gained an admiration that they do not deserve. (p. 202-203.)To put it politely many would disagree with this description of what has been happening since the 1950s. To condemn injustice such as racial discrimination is not in any way an attempt to make whites "ugly and wicked" but an attempt to address injustices in society so that we can all live together in peace and happiness.
It is strange that Hunt chose to describe Native Americans as ""native"" considering that it is a fact that the Native Americans arrived in the United States long before the arrival of Europeans. They are called Native Americans because they are the native inhabitants of the land.
On pages 209-10 Hunt writes favorably of Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician.
Geert Wilders, one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands has warned that "the country's democracy is under threat and [has] called for a five-year halt to non-Western immigration." ... Wilders' own life has been threatened many times for speaking out about the danger that Islam poses to his country and to all of Europe. (p. 209.)Hunt has some words of criticism for Wilders. That he is too kind towards Muslims in Hunt's opinion.
Even Wilders still imagines that the problem is radical Muslims. Those who have begun to speak out and cal for action against the growing terrorism in Europe must be willing to admit that Islam itself is the problem. Until then, they will be tilting at windmills and missing entirely. (p. 210. Emphasis in original.)
While referring to the riots in France in 2005 Hunt insists that Muslims having difficulty gaining employment qualifications is (here it comes) because they are trying to take over the country.
Muslims' refusal to be assimilated into the community around them causes their lack of qualification for jobs. They attempt to create eventually a Muslim state as Islam requires. Until each Western country demands that immigrants conform to its national rules, the situation not only in France but elsewhere will only become worse. (p. 211.)That is an absurd assertion. People want to advance themselves by gaining employment. It is absurd to portray higher rates of unemployment as evidence that those Muslims are trying to take over society and create "a Muslim state". That is not how conquest happens. Those Muslims in France are not trying to conquer France. This paranoid accusation is not true.
Hunt also condemns Israeli politician Shimon Peres. He is characterized as overly eager to make peace with the Palestinians.
What madness! He [Shimon Peres] has eaten those ridiculously irrational words and gotten indigestion from them many times since. (p. 240.)
Here Hunt fear mongers about the children of Muslims.
Every child in Palestinian, Syrian, Egyptian, et al., schools knows this "new policy" is a lie. They are all taught to hate and work toward the destruction of Israel. There are literally millions of youths in madrasas in Pakistan and elsewhere whose education is aimed toward, and whose greatest ambition is, to become suicide bombers. (p. 254.)Children are children, whether Muslim or not. We all know how often children choose to ignore what their elders tell them to do. Why does Hunt assume that somehow this is not the case among some Muslim children?
Hunt insists on stereotyping Islam as inherently violent and expansionist in nature. As part of this stereotype Hunt mocks attempts by Muslims to persuade follow Muslims not to fall under the influence of Al Qaeda-like extremists.
... we have an organized effort ... to say, "It ain't so folks; Islam is, and always has been, solidly against suicide/homicide bombers!" (p. 254.)But suicide bombing only began to be used in the 1970s. Hamas began using suicide bombing in 1993, about seven years after its founding. Following the massacre in Hebron by Kahane follower Baruch Goldstein in 1994 Hamas began using suicide bombers against civilians. Suicide bombing did not even exist until the 1970s. That inconvenient fact appears to have escaped Hunt's notice.
Is this all part of a new disinformation program aimed at relaxing the West for the final take-over? Time will tell. (p. 258.)There will be no "final take-over" by Muslims in the West. It is paranoid nonsense to insist that Muslims are plotting to unleash some kind of "final take-over" in the nations of the West. It is not going to happen. It is not right to portray such a thing as a plausible possibility as insinuated above.
Anti-Israel ecumenical seminars and conferences (their "ecumenism" embraces everyone except Jews and evangelical Christians) are frequently in progress somewhere in the world. (p.301.)That seems like quite a subjective statement to make.
Moreover, at the very heart of Islam is a determination to destroy Israel, which, if it could be accomplished, would prove the Bible false, including its promise of the Messiah. (p. 340.)How is it possible that "at the very heart of Islam is a determination to destroy Israel" considering that the State of Israel only existed from 1948 onward? What was Islam doing all that time (A.D. 610-1948) when the State of Israel did not exist?
(Before getting into this sensitive and tragic topic it needs to be mentioned that it is not the purpose of this post to tell people what to think about this terrible incident in which 34 Americans violently died. Rather the purpose of this post is to note how Hunt discusses this.)
On pages 245-248 Hunt discusses the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israeli forces during the Six Day War which killed 34 American personnel.
Hunt confidently asserts that the USS Liberty was deliberately targeted and attacked by the State of Israel's military. He is utterly unconvinced of the assertion that the USS Liberty was mistaken "for a hostile Egyptian ship." (p. 246.)
The Israelis ... must have had an urgent security reason for attacking this American ship and incurring the wrath of their only ally and chief supporter. Obviously, the White House must have been caught betraying Israel or it surely would not have accepted Israel's contrived excuse that it mistook the Liberty for a hostile Egyptian ship. Clearly there was a mutual cover-up originating at the highest levels of the Israeli and U.S. governments. (pp. 246-247.)Hunt asserts that the USS Liberty was helping the Arab nations that fought in the Six Day War.
Or was the real disgrace a U.S. betrayal of Israel to curry Arab favor, and that was the reason for the cover-up? There is no other rational explanation. (p. 247.)Hunt's curious anti-British perspective also appears while discussing this deadly sinking of the USS Liberty.
It [the USS Liberty] began to sweep Israel, sucking in every Israeli military communication and relaying it all to the British Secret Service's giant electronic listening post on Cyprus, which had the capacity of filtering, decoding, and analyzing the mass of electronics the Liberty was accumulating. This was then transmitted to the Arab armed forces, giving complete maps of every Israeli military movement in advance. (p. 245.)I have no idea if this is true, or even partially true. I advice much caution regarding this assertion.
While discussing this deadly incident he cites a Stars and Stripes article from January 16, 2004 and page 422 of Abba Eban's book, Personal Witness. These footnotes may be seen on page 260. That is all the evidence Hunt presents to back up his assertion regarding that tragic incident.
Appendix D (pp. 397-401) contains comments with an individual who witnessed the disengagement from the Gaza Strip by the State of Israel in 2005. The anonymous individual who is interviewed notes that the Israeli settlers in Gaza were not ultra-Orthodox. Of course not. Those persons are national religious Israeli Jews.
"These were not the ultra-Orthodox, who are just waiting for the Messiah to return. These Jews believe in the Bible and the God of Israel, but they believe that you also need to work the land. These people are hard workers who think that if Israel has all of the Promised Land, the Messiah will come sooner. And even though the Gaza Strip is small, it's still a piece of the land [of Israel], and for them, it's just a disaster to give up any part of it.... (p. 398.)The disengagement is also discussed on pages 228-232. In that section Hunt quotes a letter by Benjamin Netanyahu which condemns the disengagement and announced his resignation as Minister of Finance (pp. 229-230). (For whatever reason there is no footnote citing where Hunt acquired this letter.)
From the moment you [Prime Minister Sharon] presented your disengagement plan to me, I told you I was against a unilateral withdrawal in which Israel would receive nothing in return. (p. 229)The disengagement was "a unilateral withdrawal". To make peace one must at least talk to the other side. That did not happen with the decision to implement the disengagement. Instead the Sharon led government of the State of Israel unilaterally decided to take the Israeli soldiers and Israeli settlers out of the Gaza Strip. The disengagement was not a peace making exercise. It was a cost cutting exercise.
But little did Hunt know the disengagement indeed proved to be a disaster. For the Palestinians. In the toxic relations between the Gaza Strip and its occupier, the State of Israel, the vast majority of fatalities have been endured by the Palestinians in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is still occupied by the State of Israel to this day.
Hunt insists that a third temple will be built before Christ's return. But while HWA maintained that such a temple might be built by Israeli Jews on the other hand Hunt insists this third temple will be built by the European Antichrist.
Most Israelis, whether religious or secular, are as determined to see the Temple rebuilt [This is inaccurate.] as the Muslims are to prevent it--even to the point of denying that a Jewish temple was ever there! The Bible [as interpreted by Hunt and many Christians happen to disagree with this assertion] declares that it will indeed be rebuilt. (p. 340.)This is complete nonsense. The vast majority of Israeli Jews have no interest in constructing a third temple. Those who do call for such a thing to be done are a small bunch of extremists among National Religious Israeli Jews. Hunt is projecting his fantasies upon those Israeli Jews.
At least Hunt, unlike HWA, is a bit more specific on this topic. He states that this third temple will be created by the Antichrist.
In Hunt's eschatology the Antichrist fulfills the roles of both the European dictator and the final Pope (false prophet) while Armstrongism maintains that there are two separate individuals fated to do these things. Armstrongism tends to assume that others are fated to create a Third Temple.
It should be stated that such speculations that a third temple would be constructed contributed to inspiring one Denis Michael Rohan to commit an arson attack against Al Aqsa Mosque that, among other things, destroyed a priceless artifact dating back to the era of Saladin. This ghastly act of vandalism nearly provoked a Palestinian intifada eighteen years before such a thing would actually occur. That man was influenced by HWA.
It is also to be noted that in all of Hunt's speculations about a future Third Temple there is no mention or acknowledgment of the tragic events of October 1990 in which at least sixteen Palestinians violently died during protests against an attempt by third temple extremists to lay a corner stone for a third temple. In all the 456 pages of this book this terrible tragedy is never even acknowledged.
And at present the Holy Land is wracked by a wave of terrible violence that seems to show no sign of ending at present. To a great extent it was started by frustration that some Palestinians were being banned from entering Al Aqsa Mosque while at the same time some Jews were allowed by the Israeli government to visit it, some of those Jews even praying there contrary to the agreement the State of Israel made which forbade Jews praying in there.
Speculations regarding some future third temple fail to help solve the severe problems in the Holy Land at present. It is not helpful in regards to the current situation.
May peace soon come to the Holy Land.
Hizbullah is based in Lebanon, mainly southern Lebanon because it happens to be a Shiite Lebanese party and the population of southern Lebanon are predominantly Shiite. It is true that they are supported by Syria but Hizbullah is headquartered in Lebanon, not Syria.The Islamic terrorist organization Hizballah [Hizbullah] (Party of Allah), headquartered in Syria ... (p. 85.)
The average Westerner imagines that terrorism is something new that began in the 1990s with the Intifada in Israel... (p. 125.)The first Intifada began in December 1987, not "the 1990s" as incorrectly implied above.
... the land lay barren for centuries before the Jews' return leading to Israel's rebirth in 1948.... (p. 275.)This is not true. The Holy Land was continuously inhabited. It was never a barren land or an empty land or sparsely populated at any time for millennia. It was continuously inhabited by people.
Intifada--Uprising of Palestinians against Israel instituted by Arafat in December 1987. (p. 406.)It is not true that the first Intifada was "instituted by Arafat" as Hunt maintains here. Rather the first Intifada was started by acts of mass protests by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Arafat and those with him then based in Tunis found themselves compelled to somehow respond to what was happening on the ground in the Holy Land.
Having read this book again I am compelled to say it is Islamophobic. I have no joy in saying this. I was never a follower of Dave Hunt. In fact I only heard about Dave Hunt because LCG's writings cited him in an anti-Catholic article. But considering the simplistic way Hunt portrays Muslims I can come to no other conclusion.
Reading this it is saddening to see Hunt present to his readers ideas and stereotypes that are simply untrue. It is saddening that he chose to ignore criticism by other authors of what he wrote and simply ignore them. Readers deserve to know that some of the information presented in this book is wrong or at least slanted to an unrealistic degree.