Tuesday, January 19, 2016

PCG's Favor for Prime Minister Netanyahu

PCG leans far to the right when it comes to politics. So naturally PCG wants the right to win in the United Sates, Australia and Israel. On January 4, 2006 Gerald Flurry blessed Netanyahu as his preferred politician in the eyes of PCG's followers on his recruitment TV broadcast, The Key of David. Since then PCG has viewed Netanyahu as their favored Israeli politician.

He has been mentioned numerous times within PCG's articles. Some of these articles were made by Gerald Flurry, Stephen Flurry, Joel Hilliker, Brad MacDonald, Dennis Leap, David Vejil, Callum Wood, Christopher Eames and Jerry Ozipko,

November-December 2007 Issue

Before January 2006

PCG mentioned Netanyahu in a June 1999 article mentioning the election of the Labor Party to power in the State of Israel. PCG is right wing so naturally they favored Netanyahu instead of the left wing Ehud Barak.
Now that hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been ousted, now that his critics got their wish on May 19 with the election of Labor Party leader Ehud Barak, the whole world will soon find out whether the “peace process” they’ve been envisioning will really work. ... Netanyahu did not achieve peace, but he did stave off a major Middle East explosion. (Dividing the Holy Land, June 1999.)
After the 1999 election Netanyahu no longer led Likud so PCG stopped paying attention to him. In 2001 the right wing Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minster. Since PCG is right wing doubtlessly they were in favor of the rise of a right wing government.

Exit Sharon, Enter Netanyahu

In 2005 Sharon left Likud and set up a new party, Kadima, as part of the fallout caused by his unilateral withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip. PCG viewed the withdrawal as an attempt to make peace. This is incorrect. Sharon's withdrawal was a cost cutting exercise, not a peace making exercise. If it was a peace making exercise then the Israeli government would have negotiated the withdrawal with the Palestinians instead of just unilaterally enacting this decision by themselves. Sharon's withdrawal allowed Netanyahu to regain the leadership of Likud.

On January 4, 2006 Ariel Sharon was incapacitated by a stroke and went into a coma. He never regained consciousness and died in 2014. Because of this Sharon was succeeded by Ehud Olmert.

Gerald Flurry Favors Netanyahu (January 2006)

Meanwhile in PCG's headquarters in Edmond, Oklahoma it came to pass that Gerald Flurry stated in a Key of David recruitment TV program that he believed that Netanyahu would return to power. This proclamation is dated in a 2009 article to January 6, 2006. (Unfortunately this TV broadcast does not appear to be presently available.)

As it turned out Likud was trounced in the election soon afterwards and Kadima won the election and Olmert assumed power.

This statement by Gerald Flurry is cited several times by PCG's leaders as late as 2011 so it is clear that in the eyes of PCG's 1% these were no idle words. This appears to be a "new revelation" that PCG would continuously promote from that time onward. Essentially in PCG's view these words anointed Netanyahu as PCG's favored Israeli leader in the eyes of their followers. PCG needed to present Netanyahu in this way to replace Sharon.

Netanyahu as Leader of the Opposition

In a March 2006 article Netanyahu was hailed by an anonymous PCG article as an "internationally recognized expert on terrorism".
Benjamin Netanyahu, opposition leader and chairman of Israel’s conservative Likud party, agrees with the defense officials. “[Hamas] is in cahoots with Iran, and both want to wipe Israel off the map,” the internationally recognized expert on terrorism told reporters in response to Olmert’s remarks. “Hamas is a strategic threat to the entire region. We are likely to find ourselves with a Hamas state that begins on the borders of Iraq and stretches to the outskirts of the Dan region, and to which all possible types of weapons will flow. … I know that my Likud colleagues and I will know how to deal with such a threat” (Haaretz, February 24). (Olmert Opens Door for Conservatives, March 6, 2006.)

PCG insists the world will soon fall apart. When Netanyahu says something similar PCG likes it.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli prime minister, may be elected again soon. He is saying we are already in World War III, and likens Iran to Germany in 1938, one year before World War II began.
That is how he evaluates world conditions today. Here is what Netanyahu said when Glenn Beck interviewed him on Nov. 17, 2006.... (Gerald Flurry, Two Minutes Closer to Midnight, March 2007.)

In late 2007 Stephen Flurry cited his father's 2006 proclamation favoring Netanyahu. It is asserted that the State of Israel is fated to turn to the right. It is insinuated that the State of Israel turning right wing will prove that PCG's prophecies are true. But PCG is far right anyway so in one sense PCG is simply playing favorites.
My father stated on television in January 2006 that Benjamin Netanyahu might return to power in Israel. Two months later, his Likud party got trounced in parliamentary elections. Its 38 seats in the 120-seat parliament got slashed to just 12.
Today, however, Likud has revived—and Netanyahu, judging by recent public opinion polls, is first in line to succeed Ehud Olmert as Israel’s next prime minister.
How close are we to a rightward shift in Israeli politics? And should that happen, how will it impact the status of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the Jewish state? (Stephen Flurry, Can This Man Save Israel?, November-December 2007.)

In July 2007 Stephen Flurry mentioned a vote by Congress in 1995 to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. This shows how even while Netanyahu was the opposition leader he was still favorably viewed by PCG's leadership. This is because PCG leans far to the right in regards to politics. So PCG wants the political right to win in the United States, Australia and the State of Israel alike.
Around the same time, Capitol Hill in Washington was nearly as unanimous in its support for a united Jerusalem as was the Knesset. Toward the end of 1995, the House of Representatives voted 374 to 37 in favor of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by mid-1999. The Senate passed the measure by a vote of 93 to 5. Even though President Bill Clinton was against the move (and never followed through on it), the vote nevertheless signified overwhelming American support, not only for Jerusalem to remain united under Jewish control, but to serve as Israel’s capital—something the international community had never recognized.
When Netanyahu spoke before Congress on July 10, 1996, he thanked the legislators for their vote to relocate the embassy. Congress gave him a standing ovation after he dismissed Palestinian claims for control over parts of Jerusalem. Jerusalem will never be re-divided, Netanyahu assured his receptive audience: “We shall not allow a Berlin to be erected inside Jerusalem.”
How times have changed in 10 years. Today, Jerusalem is a city united in name only. (Stephen Flurry, Israel's Last Stand, July 2007.)


Here Stephen Flurry favorably mentions Netanyahu condemning the possibility of handing over East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of a two state settlement.
Benjamin Netanyahu pulls no punches when it comes to the proposed division of Israel’s capital city. Yesterday, in a private meeting with President Bush at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said, “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity.” (Stephen Flurry, President Bush, Benjamin Netanyahu and King David!, January 11, 2008.)
Netanyahu's name is mentioned twelve times in the article above.


Here Stephen Flurry sides with Netanyahu against President Bush regarding East Jerusalem.
After concluding his meeting with Netanyahu, President Bush wasted little time in revealing his strong opposition to the policies of Likud. At an afternoon press conference, the president said, “I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. … I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk.”
Quite unlike the Likud leader, President Bush is willing to divide Jerusalem, which is why he staunchly supports Ehud Olmert. At a dinner hosted by the prime minister the same day the president met with Netanyahu, President Bush referred to Olmert as a “strong leader.” This, of course, is the same Ehud Olmert who in June 2005 said, “We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies.” (Stephen Flurry, Advancing the “Freedom” Agenda, March 2008.)


Here it is mentioned that elections were to be held in early 2009. It is mentioned that Netanyahu opposes handing over East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. This effectively means PCG is favoring Netanyahu over Olmert and Livni.
Opinion polls indicate that the right-wing Likud party, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would emerge as the winner of the elections.
If elected, Netanyahu would put a quick end to Livni’s wish to carve up Jerusalem on the negotiating table. But if he backs away from concessions Olmert and Livni have already agreed to make to Mahmoud Abbas, Netanyahu’s hard-line stance could prompt Palestinians to rise up in protest. (Israel Heads for Early Elections, October 26, 2008.)


In December 2008-January 2009 the State of Israel led by Prime Minister Olmert launched a severe bombardment of the Gaza Strip that killed about 1,417 Palestinians including 759 Palestinian civilians according to Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. Many people all over the world, including many Jews, protested against the deadly bombardment. This bombardment happened while the US Presidency was in transition.

Prime Minister Netanyahu

After the bombardment the Kadima government lost power after the elections on February 10, 2009. The right wing Likud assumed power and Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel.

In the July 2009 issue Stephen Flurry and Brad MacDonald wrote an article that presented Netanyahu as warning the world about Iran. What Netanyahu says about Iran is quite similar to how PCG has demonized Iran since 1994 so it is no wonder that PCG would favorably note Netanyahu's following words.
Benjamin Netanyahu is on a mission. Over the next several months, Israel’s new prime minister aims to convince world leaders of the imminent danger Iran poses to Western civilization. Shortly before he was sworn in on March 31, Netanyahu told the Atlantic that besides fixing the economy, Washington’s other primary imperative must be to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” Netanyahu said of the Islamist theocracy.
Should the Obama administration fail to stop Iran, Netanyahu said, Israel might be forced to preemptively strike the Islamic Republic. (Stephen Flurry and Brad MacDonald, What Will Trigger the Next World War?, July 2009.)
At one point in the article a non-PCG writer is quoted saying that considering the dire results for Likud in 2006 none could have foresee then that Netanyahu would lead the next government. Then is quoted to insist that PCG accurately foresaw 
Actually, shortly before those 2006 elections, as our regular readers know, our editor in chief mentioned on his weekly Key of David television program that Benjamin Netanyahu would likely return to power in Israel because of the prophecy in Zechariah 14:2. He said half of Jerusalem is “going to be taken by force, and you need to realize that. Now, that might also indicate that the Likud, or the conservative party, will get in power” (Jan. 6, 2006). (Stephen Flurry and Brad MacDonald, What Will Trigger the Next World War?, July 2009.)
It is mentioned that Netanyahu was opposed to handing over East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as part of a two state settlement.
In sharp contrast to his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu campaigned for prime minister on keeping Jerusalem united. At a campaign stop at the Regency Hotel on Mt. Scopus, Netanyahu said, “If we gave up half of Jerusalem, there would be an Iranian base right near this hotel.” (Stephen Flurry and Brad MacDonald, What Will Trigger the Next World War?, July 2009.)
Currently 160 nation states recognize the State of Israel. These 160 nation states view East Jerusalem as territory occupied by the State of Israel because it was acquired after the Six Day War of 1967. These 160 nation states only recognize the State of Israel's right to rule its 1949-1967 borders.

Netanyahu's name is mentioned twelve times in the article above.


Here Stephen Flurry once again presents the prospect of the State of Israel turning to the right as a sign that PCG's prophecies will soon come true. He also seems to allude to Gerald Flurry's pro-Likud proclamation of January 2006.
Compare that with where we suddenly are today. The conservative Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s prime minister again. In his much-anticipated response to President Obama’s Cairo speech, Netanyahu left the door cracked open for the development of a Palestinian state, but only if that state is demilitarized and its leaders recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. Netanyahu added, “Israel needs defensible borders and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel .…”
As our regular readers know, we have been expecting this harder-line stance to emerge in Israel. With Israel’s new government unwilling to compromise on Jerusalem, and expectations growing among Arabs that a sovereign state is in sight, the stage is now set for Zechariah 14:2 to be fulfilled. (Stephen Flurry, Five Prophecies to Watch, August 2009.)


By December 2009 the PCG leadership were growing frustrated that Netanyahu did not appear to be as hard line as they had hoped. This is a rare criticism of Netanyahu by PCG.
For some years it looked like the Middle East peace process was dead. Now the corpse appears to be sitting upright again.
Benjamin Netanyahu—the conservative, the hawk, the man whom a weary Israeli public elected to guarantee their security—has taken two extraordinary steps that contradict his own long and feisty public history. In June, he endorsed the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Then last month, he announced a 10-month freeze on building Israeli housing in the West Bank. (Joel Hilliker, What Is Benjamin Netanyahu Thinking?, December 23, 2009.)
But despite this criticism Hilliker tries to excuse Netanyahu by saying that he has taken these measures only because he is under so much pressure.
Benjamin Netanyahu is no fool. He knows the notion that “Palestinians deep down really want peace with Israel if the terms are right” is a lie. ...
So why pretend a negotiated peace is possible?
The fact that Netanyahu is taking these steps goes to show the enormous pressure he is under. (Joel Hilliker, What Is Benjamin Netanyahu Thinking?, December 23, 2009.)


Here David Vejil insists that the United States and the State of Israel will soon split apart.
The Obama administration’s treatment of Netanyahu and even the sentiments expressed by Emanuel in his meeting with Dayan point to the imminence of that break in U.S.-Israeli relations. (David Vejil, White House Fed Up With Israel and the Palestinians, January 13, 2010.)

Once again Gerald Flurry's pro-Netanyahu proclamation of January 2006 is alluded to in this article by Joel Hilliker.
An Israeli election was scheduled for March 28, 2006. Based on the biblical evidence, Mr. Flurry believed Netanyahu’s Likud party, then performing poorly, might bounce back and take the election. ...
As it turned out, that prediction was not fulfilled at that time. The Israelis went on to elect the dovish Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinians became preoccupied with infighting. Tension over the fate of the Holy City gave way to other, more immediate concerns. (Joel Hilliker, Once Again It's All About Jerusalem, May-June 2010.)
In other words Gerald Flurry's original prediction favoring Likud failed miserably. But as the situation changed this January 2006 blessing was reused to portray Gerald Flurry as a man able to see the future. The opportunistic nature of reusing this blessing is ignored.


In this 2011 article discussing the mass murder of five Israeli settlers in the West Bank Joel Hilliker once again asserts that the State of Israel turning to the right is a sign that PCG's prophecies will soon come true.
These moves are widely seen as an indication that Netanyahu does not plan on making any far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians. No doubt, they are a hardening of the Israeli government’s position. Our editor in chief [Gerald Flurry] has forecast just such a trend within Israel for over five years. ... Netanyahu’s intransigence in the face of remorseless butchery of Jews should come as no shock. (Joel Hilliker, ‘This Circle of Horror and River of Tears’, March 16, 2011.)
In PCG's writings "forecast" is often used as a euphemism for prophecy.


PCG is right wing so this causes PCG to favor the right wing Netanyahu and oppose the left wing Obama.
Continue to watch the U.S.-Israel relationship closely. The Netanyahu-Obama relationship is clearly at a low point. And looking at some of the likely developments coming in the Middle East, including the possible declaration of a Palestinian state in September, the relationship will no doubt be severely tested in the coming months. (Brad MacDonald, Is President Obama Breaking the Brotherhood?, May 26, 2011.)

On October 18, 2011 Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was returned by Hamas in a prisoner exchange for the release of 1,027 mostly Palestinian prisoners after being held hostage since 2006. PCG bewailed the supposed weakness Israel showed with this prisoner exchange.
Now it is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has grown tired of fighting to win. In 1995, Netanyahu wrote that “prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief.” Worse still, he wrote, lopsided swaps only encourage the “blackmail they are supposed to defuse.”
Last week, however, Netanyahu described the lopsided swap as one of the most significant accomplishments of his prime ministership. “It is difficult to see the miscreants who murdered their loved ones being released before serving out their full sentences,” Netanyahu confessed. But this was the “best agreement” Israel could achieve, he said. And there was no guarantee, he went on to say, that the deal would hold in the future. (Stephen Flurry, Israel's Road to Ruin, October 28, 2011.)

In November 2012 the State of Israel led by Prime Minister Netanyahu launched a severe bombardment of the Gaza Strip that killed about 158 Palestinians. According to a United Nations preliminary estimate 103 of those Palestinians were civilians. Many people all over the world, including many Jews, protested against the deadly bombardment.


In this 2013 article PCG complains that the Israeli election did not go as far to the right as PCG wanted. PCG favors a shift to the right within the State of Israel in order to proclaim that their prophecies will soon be fulfilled.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hopes for a right-wing government were dashed last Thursday as the last votes were tallied for the Israeli election. The elections were forecast by many to produce a right-wing governing coalition. As the final votes were counted, it was clear that the choice of the Israeli people told a different story. The Likud-Yisrael Beitenu alliance headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu did not gain the overwhelming victory it had hoped for. (Callum Wood, Israeli Election: What Happened to the Swing to the Right?, January 28, 2013.)

On October 1, 2013 a book discussing the rise of the right within Israel was published. Among many things mentioned in this book is the fact that some Israeli news reporters nicknamed Netanyahu the "Scaremonger-in-Chief".
Netanyahu's knack for leveraging the fear and trauma of the Jewish public into votes [in the 2009 elections] earned him a new nickname among the Israeli press corps: "Scaremonger-in-Chief." (Max Blumenthal, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, Chapter 3, p. 9.)
Maybe that's why PCG likes Netanyahu.

Netanyahu: The New Churchill and Moses

In time it came to pass that President Obama decided that it was necessary to establish an agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program so he proceeded to launch negotiations with Iran for this purpose. It became more widely known that back in 2003 Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei had made a fatwa banning the possession of nuclear weapons as un-Islamic.

However back in 1994 PCG's Gerald Flurry had dogmatically proclaimed that Iran would be the King of the South fated to unite the Middle East and be an adversary against the United States until they are destroyed by a future European superpower. If peace should be established between the United States and Iran it would be that much harder to convince people of this 1994 dogmatic proclamation. Therefore PCG constantly opposed the negotiations and the eventual agreement with Iran.

At this point PCG begins to describe Netanyahu in adulatory ways. Netanyahu is described by PCG as a modern day Churchill, a modern day Prophet and even a modern day Moses. This kind of adulation towards Netanyahu appears to have started in response to fears that an agreement with Iran would be made. 

As part of PCG's opposition to an agreement in late 2013 Gerald Flurry glowingly described Prime Minister Netanyahu's opposition as "probably the most powerful speech ever heard in the United Nations."
On October 1, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered what was probably the most powerful speech ever heard in the United Nations. It was a dire warning of the clear and immediate dangers posed by Iran. He said Iran’s new president, Hasan Rouhani, is fooling the world with soft words—while fanatically working behind the scenes to obtain the nuclear bomb.
This warning should have left the ears of the world burning. It should have pricked the conscience of the Israeli people, as well as the international community. Shamefully, it did not. ...
At least Netanyahu can see that Iran is a danger to the world, and he is trying to do something about it. What a stark contrast to the U.S., which half-heartedly addresses the danger with meaningless statements that leave the U.S. frail and its enemies emboldened! (Gerald Flurry, The Powerful Speech the World Ignored, December 2013.)


While PCG made dire pronouncements about the United States and the State of Israel becoming disillusioned with each other because the Canadian government happened to be right wing PCG chose to favor the Canadian government when Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Canada in January 2014.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Harper as a friend for combating anti-Semitism and taking a strong stand against Iran.
At the official welcoming ceremony, Netanyahu remarked, “I have to say, Stephen, that you are a great friend of Israel and the Jewish people. I’m not just saying that. I mean that deeply from the bottom of my heart, and I speak for all of the people of Israel.” (Jerry Ozipko, Canada’s Prime Minister Given Hero’s Welcome in Israel, January 23, 2014.)


In July-August 2014 the State of Israel led by Prime Minister Netanyahu launched a severe bombardment of the Gaza Strip that killed 2,251 Palestinians according to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. About 550 of those Palestinians were children. Many people all over the world, including many Jews, protested against the deadly bombardment.

During the bombardment IDF soldiers advanced into Gaza partly in order to destroy tunnels that went into Israel. 66 IDF soldiers were killed. Some of them were engaged in missions trying to destroy Hamas' tunnels. It should have been readily apparent that Hamas would simply rebuild the tunnels once the battle was over unless the political situation was somehow drastically changed. No such change came and Hamas began rebuilding the tunnels after the war ended. IDF soldiers were sent into deadly missions and gained so little. Will anyone within the political-military leadership of Israel will held accountable for this?

One reason why the death toll was so high for the Palestinians of Gaza was that since 2006 rules regarding the use of weapons in populated areas had been gradually relaxed.
The unprecedented number of Palestinians killed in the 2014 war in Gaza was linked to changes in the military rules of engagement regarding civilian protection measures by Israel's army, a London-based NGO said this week.
In a new report entitled 'Under Fire,' Action on Armed Violence found that Israel has "gradually relaxed" rules regarding the use of unguided high-explosive weapons in populated areas, greatly increasing the risk to Palestinian civilians. ...
The safety distance for firing artillery shells near civilian infrastructure was reduced from 300 to 100 meters in 2006, and AOAV [Action On Armed Violence] says there was no evidence to suggest it was increased again during the 2014 war. (Charles Hoyle, Israel shelling in Gaza war unprecedented despite inaccuracy, Ma'an News Agency, April 3, 2015.)


In October 2014 PCG published an article by PCG's Christopher Eames that presented Netanyahu as a wise man warning about Iran who is foolishly ignored by the rest of the world.
Will anyone listen to Netanyahu? Probably not. Not while Iran is being led by the deceptively peaceable and word-wise Rouhani, whom Netanyahu addressed last year at the UN as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Rouhani himself was a major player in negotiations for Iran’s nuclear program in the early 2000s, and was criticized by Olli Heinonen, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for using the nuclear talks to “buy time to advance Iran’s program.” Rouhani is not like his loud and brash predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He knows how to buy time putting on a show.  (Christopher Eames, Netanyahu and the Islamic State … of Iran?, October 5, 2014.)
Netanyahu's name is mentioned eleven times in the article above.


In February 2015 PCG published an article condemning the United States for not keeping the State of Israel informed about every detail of the negotiations with Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been one of the most vocal critics to a deal with Iran. This is understandable; Iran’s leaders call for Israel’s destruction on a near-daily basis. In the midst of nuclear negotiations in November 2014, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a nine-point plan for destroying Israel.
But Israel’s opposition to a bad deal has only served to draw the ire and condemnation of the liberal government in Washington. U.S. President Barack Obama has been angered by Netanyahu’s criticism, seeing it as a countermand to over a year of negotiations. (Callum Wood, Israel Kept in the Dark During Nuclear Talks, February 26, 2015.)


On March 3, 2015 Prime Minister Netanyahu went to a joint session of Congress to condemn the negotiations with Iran. This speech was covered by PCG with Gerald Flurry devoting three videos discussing Netanyahu's speech.
  • Web Exclusive: Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress, March 6, 2015.
Meanwhile outside of PCG's information bubble it was noted in Israeli media that Netanyahu asked for the speech to be postponed three weeks thus making this speech occur just two weeks before the Israeli elections. Furthermore the speech took place in a time slot that made for poor ratings in the United States. But in Israel his speech was timed in a prime time slot just two week before the elections.


In July 2015 Dennis Leap wrote an article in which he gushes that Netanyahu was like a modern day Churchill warning the world about the Iranians. 
When I watched Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu give his short but impassioned speech before the United States Congress on March 3, I could not help but think of Churchill. Others thought the same way. ... Can we see that Mr. Netanyahu is walking in Churchill’s shoes? He is facing a mind-bending crisis: the nuclear destruction of his nation and people at the hands of Iranian thugs who will never recant their plans to erase Israel off the map.
Like Churchill with the Nazi threat in the 1930s, Netanyahu can see that once Iran gets the bomb, it is sure not only to destroy Israel, but also to ignite World War III. The survival of every man, woman and child on this planet is under dire threat. The tragic history of the 1930s is repeating itself. Top leaders in America and Britain are balking, scoffing and stopping their ears to Mr. Netanyahu’s pleas for a better Iranian deal. And with nuclear bombs on the table, this world may never have the opportunity to repeat the history of the early 1940s. (Dennis Leap, Churchill on Moses, July 2015.)
Netanyahu's name is mentioned fourteen times in this article.

This article is filled with adulatory coverage of Netanyahu's opposition to the United States' negotiations with Iran.

Netanyahu's efforts failed and the agreement was made.


In late 2015 relations deteriorated between Israelis and Palestinians. A wave of violence began around October 1, 2015 which so far has killed about 160 Palestinians and about 25 Israelis. It was initially sparked off partly by tensions regarding access to Al Aqsa Mosque. More Israelis were visiting it and even surreptitiously praying there contrary to the Israeli agreement made in 1967 allowing only Muslim prayer there. At the same time many Palestinian Muslims were being blocked from entering their own place of worship by Israeli authorities. A police crackdown against Palestinian Muslims who had organized themselves to oppose these visits by Israeli Jews in September further escalated the situation. While tensions over Al Aqsa was an initial cause the cycle of violence took on a self sustaining life of its own.


On October 20, 2015 as the situation was gradually deteriorating Netanyahu made a speech to the World Zionist Organization in which he asserted that a Palestinian mufti gave Hitler the idea to exterminate the Jews. This was nonsense of course. So it is no surprise that many people called out Netanyahu for this serious error. Even PCG grudgingly conceded that maybe he went too far.

But PCG chose to 'defend' him by lambasting Palestinians as murderers who hate Jews downplaying any responsibility Netanyahu had for saying such an incorrect thing. It ignored the worry that some expressed that talk like this would incite violence against Palestinians.
The mufti met with Hitler in November 1941. By that point, the killing of Jews had already begun on the eastern front. But the “final solution” wasn’t made official until two months after the mufti’s visit with Hitler. So whether or not the conversation between Hitler and the grand mufti happened exactly the way Netanyahu says .... 
Netanyahu may have overstated his case about who came up with the idea—but the undeniable fact is that both Hitler and the grand mufti embraced the final solution and worked to exterminate Jews in Europe and the Middle East. (Stephen Flurry, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Grand Mufti: What Is the Real Controversy?, October 23, 2015.)
If the intention was to learn instead of defending a right wing politician who is favored by PCG it would be quite apparent that the conversation mentioned never happened.

Netanyahu's name is mentioned twenty-three in the article above.


In January 2016, just eighteen months after the 2014 bombardment, it was reported that Hamas had rebuilt their tunnel network spreading from the Gaza Strip. It should have been readily apparent that Hamas would rebuild the tunnels once the war ended unless the political situation was somehow altered. Will anyone within the political-military leadership of Israel be held accountable for IDF soldiers, unique individuals, apparently dying with so little gain from it? With the Israeli-Egyptian blockade in place it is practically certain that another war will erupt unless the political situation is changed.


And so it is clear that PCG has viewed Netanyahu quite favorably, especially since Gerald Flurry gave his blessing to Netanyahu in the eyes of his followers back in January 2006. Choosing to favor Netanyahu in this way makes it harder for PCG to notice any potential problems that may occur contrary to PCG's narrow view of world affairs.

PCG's favor towards Netanyahu is yet more proof that PCG leans to the right even though PCG sometimes asserts otherwise.


  1. Replies
    1. I will say that what happened on the Mavi Marmara was very terrible and shameful. May justice soon prevail regarding that terrible loss of life.

      I will also state that PCG supports the State of Israel partly because they think the Jews are white like the predominantly white PCG. This may seem beneficent at first but it insinuates that Jews are only respectable because they are white and that view is profoundly wrong and racist.

      PCG's British Israelism says white Americans are descended from the Biblical Israelites but genetics prove that is not the case. Since this is so this means that British Israelism is stealing the distinctive cultural identity of the Jews. British Israelism is theft.

      The Jews' distinctive religious and cultural identity is precious to them and it should be respected. Falsely claiming that Americans and British are descended from the Biblical Israelites is stealing their cultural identity for oneself. Britsh Israelism is theft.

      British Israelism encourages people to view people through simple stereotypes. Certain people are favored. Certain people are not favored. And so we were blinded from seeing that all are human beings are just like ourselves. We need to learn that all people are precious and beautiful as anyone else. British Israelism is an inherently racist doctrine and we need to get rid of its influence upon us.

      I remember awhile ago I remembered this article PCG made about this mass murder of five Israelis in 2011. A ghastly violent attack. It is good to condemn violence. And it hit me that they were not sad that five precious and unique individuals had been killed. They were sad that five white individuals had been killed. If they had been Palestinians would PCG have cared about it? This attitude is wrong. Rather everyone is as precious and wonderful as anyone else. Racist thinking like that must be opposed.

      And this sort of selective thinking blinds PCG to things that might be wrong in Israel. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that there is a problem. Insisting that all is well and that those calling attention to problems are just "biased" is no way to solve problems. A true friend would bring attention to problems in the hope that it will be solved.

  2. People like those in the PCG are the type that would participate in genocide in my opinion.

    The attitude that 'white is right' is prevalent in the ACOG's due to director Armstrong and those minnions who obeyed the directors discourse and instructed the other actors in the troupe to parrot the role as instructed.

    Not exactly a Broadway show or Hollywood production, but an exercise in the type of hate where the actors know not the truth or the way of righteousness, love or peace, but the ways of a ignorant, dead senile old raciest sob who inflicted his opinions on the whole nation of Armstrongism. A mini Adolf if you will.

    1. I will say it is very unfortunate that PCG's leaders choose to be so selective in their affections.

      Back in March 2013 Joel Hilliker wrote the following describing a speech President Obama while he was visiting the Holy Land.

      "[Obama's] words characterized the Palestinians as yearning for peace through negotiations with Israel, if only Israel would cooperate. They ignore several pressing realities: that the Palestinian children of which the president speaks are being raised on virulent Jew hatred..."

      At first glance it may seem he is condemning the parents. But when I came upon these words it hit me: These words are vilifying Palestinian children.

      My word. That's pretty messed up saying little kids of a certain people are filled with hatred.

      I would condemn similar words if he or anyone else said this about any other children, Palestinian, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, white, black, anyone. Children are children.