Whether we look at last fall's terrorist attacks in the United States, the subsequent war in Afghanistan, continuing strife in the Middle East, or the ongoing war against terrorism, there is one clear common denominator. It is a small piece of property in the heart of Old Jerusalem. Traditionally called the Temple Mount, this 40-acre plot rises above surrounding streets and dwellings.Utter nonsense.
Who knows what Osama bin Laden was trying to do by committing acts of mass murder such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Afghanistan was already quite troubled even before 9/11. In 1978 a Communist government seized power in a military coup and since then Afghanistan has been constantly crippled by war. What did that coup have to do with Jerusalem?
Ogwyn talks of "continuing strife in the Middle East" and says it is because of Jerusalem. Really? That is such a terribly vague phrase it can be used to describe anything.
Ogwyn talks of "the ongoing war against terrorism" but how is that connected with Jerusalem? What does the Taliban have to do with Jerusalem? What did the Baathist regime in Iraq led by Saddam Hussein have to do with Jerusalem?
The paragraph quoted above is largely nonsense.
Much of the current news that you are hearing and reading traces back, in a modern sense, to a series of events that began 85 years ago, in March 1917.Ogwyn refers to a British military advance in March 1917 against the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
In the spring of 1917, when British troops began advancing from bases in Egypt toward Gaza, they set in motion a series of events that shaped the modern Middle East. In early November, prior to the actual British taking of Jerusalem on December 9, but with that objective clearly in sight, British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour sent his famous letter to Lord Rothschild announcing that the British government would look with favor on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. A mere 31 years later, the independent state of Israel was created.But the British did not approve of the State of Israel's proclamation of independence when it was made in 1948. Ogwyn does not mention that.
Ogwyn proceeds to describe events during British rule in Palestine leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
Several of these governments proved unstable from the start. But as difficult as the circumstances in Iraq or Syria might have been, the British found themselves in an impossible situation when they tried to mediate a long-term solution between the Jews and the Arabs regarding the future of the Palestine Mandate. As early as 1921, there were serious anti-Jewish riots rocking the country. The first large-scale Arab attacks on the Jews occurred in 1929, following a dispute involving Jewish use of the Wailing Wall. Such terrorist violence continued throughout the 1930s, but subsided during World War II when the British arrested several of the chief Palestinian Arab leaders because of their pro-Nazi sympathies. Strife flared anew following the war's end, culminating in May 1948. In that year, the British returned responsibility for the Palestine Mandate to the United Nations, which then authorized the establishment of an independent Jewish state. At this point, the Jews proclaimed the birth of the modern state of Israel.There is a lot to get through in that paragraph so let's break it down a bit.
But as difficult as the circumstances in Iraq or Syria might have been,There things were very difficult. Many in Iraq and Syria could not understand why they "needed" to be ruled over by British and French officials. At times armed revolts erupted in those countries that were suppressed by British and French authorities with much bloodshed. But these painful realities are just erased away by Ogwyn who refuses to talk about things. When whites repress non-white Arabs as was the case in inter-war Iraq and Syria Ogwyn sees nothing worth mentioning.
... the British found themselves in an impossible situation when they tried to mediate a long-term solution between the Jews and the Arabs regarding the future of the Palestine Mandate.This statement assumes the British were trying to find a solution. What if the British authorities viewed the division itself as the solution, from their perspective? Some writers, Jewish and Arab, have alleged that the British authorities exploited the division between the Jews and Arabs within Palestine to rule over that territory in a divide and rule strategy. With Palestinian Arabs and Jews in Palestine at odds with each other how could they unite together against the British?
As early as 1921, there were serious anti-Jewish riots rocking the country. The first large-scale Arab attacks on the Jews occurred in 1929, following a dispute involving Jewish use of the Wailing Wall.Indeed deadly violence against Jews did occur in these acts of violence. What is left unmentioned is that during these riots the British authorities tried to defend them.
Such terrorist violence continued throughout the 1930s, but subsided during World War II when the British arrested several of the chief Palestinian Arab leaders because of their pro-Nazi sympathies.So many things are whitewashed away in this sentence. Astoundingly Ogwyn neglects to even mention what is called the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-9. No mention is made of how it began as a general strike by many Palestinian Arabs. No mention is made that during the 1930s the British authorities chose to unleash the full force of repression upon the Palestinian Arabs.
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.)During British rule often the British police officers sometimes harbored contempt against the Palestinian Arabs as was all too common in those days. Here is a small sample of some of the attitudes present among British personnel stationed in Palestine.
Duff put it simply when talking about a Muslim Palestinian crowd disturbance in 1922: "Had our Arabic been better we might have sympathised with them; though I doubt it, for most of us were so infected by the sense of our own superiority over “lesser breeds” that we scarcely regarded these people as human." Police officers in vehicles would try to knock down Arabs, "as running over an Arab is the same as a dog in England except we do not report it." (Mathew Hughes, A Very British Affair?, pp. 23-24.)Sometimes Palestinian Arabs were used by British personnel as human shields.
For instance, it was common British army practice to make local Arabs ride with military convoys to prevent mine attacks. Often, soldiers carried them or tied them to the bonnets of lorries, or put the hostages on small flatbeds on the front of trains, all to prevent mining or sniping attacks. "The naughty boys who we had in the cages in these camps" were put in vehicles in front of the convoy for the "deterrent effect," as one British officer put it. The army told the Arabs that they would shoot any of them who tried to run away. On the lorries, some soldiers would brake hard at the end of a journey and then casually drive over the Arab who had tumbled from the bonnet, killing or maiming him.... (Mathew Hughes, A Very British Affair?, p. 19.)Ogwyn wishes to leave his readers blissfully unaware of such disturbing information.
But when whites repress non-white Palestinians Ogwyn sees nothing wrong with it. So the pain and suffering that Palestinian Arabs endured at this time is ignored with silence.
One would never know of these things reading Ogwyn's article.
Ogwyn is correct to note that Palestine was quite peaceful during World War II. But he refuses to give the Palestinian Arabs credit for this state of affairs instead insinuating that this happened because the British merely arrested some Palestinian Arab leaders. The British authorities did not just arrest some Palestinians. They unleashed a massive campaign of repression, often violent, during the revolt of 1936-9. About 5000 Palestinians were killed in those days. But Ogwyn whitewashes these problematic events away with silence. The Palestinian Arabs were our allies during World War II but Ogwyn refuses to give them credit for this.
Ogwyn did not notice this because he thinks Palestinian lives does not matter.
What is left unstated is that part of the strife was caused when some militants who dreamed of creating a Jewish state chose to launch an armed insurgency against the British to create a Jewish state. In February 1944 the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who would later become Prime Minister of Israel and meet with HWA) proclaimed the launching of an armed insurgency against British rule in Palestine. As the insurgency managed to keep itself sustained and by late 1947 Britain made the decision to leave Palestine with their Mandate set to expire on May 15, 1948.Strife flared anew following the war's end, culminating in May 1948.
In that year, the British returned responsibility for the Palestine Mandate to the United Nations, which then authorized the establishment of an independent Jewish state.As well as an independent Palestinian Arab state. In November 1947 the United Nations proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. But this particular partition plan was never carried out. Instead tensions reached a boiling point after he partition was proposed by the United Nations in November 1947 and the Israeli War of Independence began that month, not May 1948.
At this point, the Jews proclaimed the birth of the modern state of Israel.Why is Ogwyn trying to stereotype all Jews as though they all participated in the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948? That is not so. Rather some officials who happened to be Jewish and believed in the dream of a Jewish state chose to proclaim the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948.
And this proclamation was made one day before Britain abolished its Mandate over Palestine. But Ogwyn's (deliberately?) vague recounting of these events make it appear as though this declaration happened after the Mandate was abolished. It did not happen that way. The Mandate ended one day after the declaration.
Let us continue with Ogwyn's article.
The Arab states immediately responded with an attack on Israel. The combined populations of the Arab League nations outnumbered Israel many times over. But in a dramatic series of events, the Jews fought the Arab League to a standstill and established an independent state. Nevertheless, when the war ended, the "Old City" of Jerusalem was in Arab hands. Jews were then barred from access to the Temple Mount. Nineteen years later, in June 1967, all of this changed during one of history's most remarkable weeks. Surrounded by hostile states, and fighting against overwhelming numbers, the Jewish state expanded its borders eastward to the Jordan River, re-taking Jerusalem and conquering Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights. The Arabs, who had previously rejected Israel's right even to exist—and therefore all attempts at partition of the land—now demanded that the international community make Israel give back all of the territory conquered during the June 1967 "Six Day War," and return to the status quo.Let's break this paragraph down a bit.
The Arab states immediately responded with an attack on Israel.This response by the Arab states was also prompted in part by news about the Deir Yassin massacre of April 9, 1948 in which about 100 to 120 Palestinians were killed after a village near Jerusalem had been seized.
The combined populations of the Arab League nations outnumbered Israel many times over.So what about the number of the population. This is a red herring. That does not win wars. What were their armies like? Could the Arab nations coordinate themselves to wage war effectively? Could the Arab nations get their soldiers over there to fight the Israelis? Could they maintain the supply lines to sustain the war effort? If soldiers from two different nations were near each other who gives the commands? As it turned out the Israelis were able to mobilize their forces and defeat the surrounding Arab nation states and the Palestinian Arabs.
But in a dramatic series of events, the Jews fought the Arab League to a standstill and established an independent state. Nevertheless, when the war ended, the "Old City" of Jerusalem was in Arab hands. Jews were then barred from access to the Temple Mount.Astoundingly Ogwyn makes no mention that the Israeli fighters expelled about 750,000 Palestinian Arabs out of Israeli territory. Numerous acts of violence occurred in that war. Naturally with an event of this scale estimates of just how many Palestinians were expelled from Israeli territory vary.
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.)Of course these 750,000 Palestinian Arab who been cast out of Israeli territory yearned to return to the land and houses they had fled. But the Israeli government decided that they were not to be allowed to return. With their political and social institutions devastated by this expulsion the Palestinians hoped that the surrounding Arab nations would later defeat Israel allowing them to return.
As for the Palestinians who managed to stay in Israeli territory (sometimes by accident) they were placed under Israeli military rule until 1966.
But Ogwyn never discusses this. He refuses to even allude to these 750,000 Palestinian refugees. Because Ogwyn viewed Palestinians as "not white" like himself he did not care that they were cast out of their homes and that they were forbidden from going back.
Nineteen years later, in June 1967, all of this changed during one of history's most remarkable weeks. Surrounded by hostile states, and fighting against overwhelming numbers, the Jewish state expanded its borders eastward to the Jordan River, re-taking Jerusalem and conquering Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights.The Israeli government chose to attack first. They had the advantage of surprise. The fact that Israel was surrounded by hostile nations meant little when those nations were as ill equipped to deal with Israel's armed forces. The fact that there were "overwhelming numbers" on their side meant little once the Israeli jet fighters succeeded in crippling the air forces of their enemies. The State of Israel was well equipped to gain this victory.
But Ogwyn is quite misleading when he says the State of Israel "expanded its borders eastward to the Jordan River". The State of Israel did annex East Jerusalem. The international community did not recognize Israel's control over any of the territory acquired in the Six Day War. As far as every national government on Earth except Israel is concerned the State of Israel only has the right to rule over its 1949-67 borders. This includes East Jerusalem.
Furthermore Israel did not annex the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Instead they were placed under military rule under the jurisdiction of the Coordinator of Governmental Activities in the Territories (COGAT) which is part of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were placed under military rule in 1967. None of this is explained by Ogwyn.
Also Israeli rule over the Sinai Peninsula later gave much grief to the Israeli people. Egypt was determined to regain the Sinai Peninsula and they tried to negotiate its return. These negotiations got nowhere. The State of Israel would not leave the Sinai. In 1973 Egypt went to war to regain the Sinai. After enduring this severe attack Israel negotiated with Egypt and returned the Sinai Peninsula.
Ogwyn then gloats that his side won.
The Arabs, who had previously rejected Israel's right even to exist—and therefore all attempts at partition of the land—now demanded that the international community make Israel give back all of the territory conquered during the June 1967 "Six Day War," and return to the status quo.What Ogwyn neglects to mention is that every government on Earth except Israel do not recognize Israel's right to rule any of the land acquired after the Six Day War. This includes East Jerusalem. So it is not just that the Arab states wanted their land back but the international community legally recognized their claims as well.
Furthermore the victory of 1967 led to another problem for the State of Israel. After the Six Day War the Palestinian refugees who had been yearning to return to the land controlled by the State of Israel since their expulsion in 1947-9 were forced to face the fact that the Arab states were unable to implement their return. Many of the Palestinians began to organize themselves and planned to fight the State of Israel themselves. The Palestinian militia, Fatah, fought an armed battle with Israeli soldiers in Karameh, Jordan on March 21, 1968. The Israeli soldiers failed to seize the town and withdrew after Jordanian soldiers intervened. Fatah gained much prestige, donations and willing recruits from this battle. Fatah soon took control of the PLO. The humbling of the Arab nations in 1967 led directly to the rise of Fatah and Yasser Arafat.
But Ogwyn ignores these problems concerning Israel's victory in 1967.
After this Ogwyn talks about Arab nationalism and discusses Nasser.
Dramatic changes have taken place in the Arab world since the end of World War II. In 1952, the Egyptian monarchy headed by King Farouk was overthrown. This led to the emergence of a man who became the world's most visible symbol of Arab nationalism until his death in 1970—Gamal Abdel Nasser. He seized control of the Suez Canal from the British in 1956, and nationalized it. Additionally, he fought and lost two wars with Israel, in 1956 and 1967. His implacable hatred of the Jewish state, and of the Western powers, never cooled. His rise to power was a harbinger of things to come. In the years following Nasser's rise, other younger Arab leaders overthrew monarchies and embraced the concept of socialist dictatorship, as well as the goals of the destruction of Israel, the banishment of British and American influence from the region, and the establishment of some type of pan-Arab union.Curiously Ogwyn never talks about Sadat, the Yom Kippur War or of Egypt regaining the Sinai Peninsula. It is almost as though he could not admit that Israel could be bested by non-whites.
Egypt and Syria in 1958 actually formed a union called the United Arab Republic, which lasted for about three years. In 1963, under Nasser's leadership, another failed attempt at union occurred, this time including Iraq along with Egypt and Syria. These attempts at an Arab union represented the second of what have been three approaches to restoring the glories of a pan-Arab empire.
Ogwyn says that Arab nationalism has gone through three phases since World War I. A monarchical phase, followed by a socialist, pan-Arabist phase, followed by a fundamentalist phase.
The first efforts started in the waning days of Turkish rule, and were carried out by two men who began their careers as traditional Arab sheiks, but who each aspired to be king over an independent Arab empire. Neither Hussein nor his rival, ibn Saud, were able to bring such plans to fruition in the 1920s. In the years after World War II, a different type of Arab leader appeared on the scene—rising to power through coups while still junior army officers. ...
This "second wave" of Arab leaders had sought to overthrow their predecessors, disillusioned with the failed attempts to restore Arab glory. Today this pattern is repeating itself, as a "third wave" of leaders is sweeping across the Middle East. Rejecting both the capitalism of the West and the discredited Marxism of the former Soviet Union, these would-be "third wave" leaders have emphasized a fundamentalist brand of Islam that leaves no room for compromise.
Ogwyn summarizes this article with the following paragraph.
The strife over the "city of peace" occurs because the nations of the world are unwilling to accept that the Creator God is the final arbiter of what belongs to whom. Orthodox Jews assert that Jerusalem was given to them by God, to be the eternal and undivided capital of Israel. The Arab world sees Israel's Jews as infidels in their midst, and sees a Jewish-controlled Jerusalem as an affront to rightful Arab glory and dominance. Additionally, the Vatican has put forth its own plan calling for an international city under papal oversight. Most of the secular world does not really care who gets Jerusalem, but just wishes that the problem would go away. However, this problem will remain in the forefront of world affairs—until the feet of Jesus Christ stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4), and He settles the issue once and for all.Let's break this down a bit.
The strife over the "city of peace" occurs because the nations of the world are unwilling to accept that the Creator God is the final arbiter of what belongs to whom.There are problems because they do not belong to LCG?
Orthodox Jews assert that Jerusalem was given to them by God, to be the eternal and undivided capital of Israel.It was actually the right wing Likud Party government led by Menachem Begin that proclaimed Jerusalem as the eternal and undivided capital of the State of Israel. The fact that Ogwyn labels this as the position of Orthodox Jews exposes his superficial understanding of these matters.
The Arab world sees Israel's Jews as infidels in their midst, and sees a Jewish-controlled Jerusalem as an affront to rightful Arab glory and dominance.Ogwyn ignores the issue of Palestinians yearning to return to where they were expelled in 1947-9.
Additionally, the Vatican has put forth its own plan calling for an international city under papal oversight.The COGs love to bring up this proposal in order to justify their scare mongering against the Pope and their dire predictions of the Pope uniting Europe into a military superpower.
Most of the secular world does not really care who gets Jerusalem, but just wishes that the problem would go away.How does he know that? That seems awfully cynical.
However, this problem will remain in the forefront of world affairs—until the feet of Jesus Christ stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4), and He settles the issue once and for all.In other words he insists that the people of Jerusalem are doomed to face strife and turmoil for all time until Christ returns. This rips away peoples' hope that something can be done about it. This has the effect of making people give up any hope that something can be done about it and just put up with the turmoil and violence until Christ returns.
Ogwyn then insists that some Arabs are descendants of Esau.
Many writers have described the conflict in the Middle East as strife between two brothers, Isaac and Ishmael, but this is only partially true. While it is true that much of the Arab world claims descent from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, there is another component in the Middle East mixture. Isaac also had two sons, Jacob and Esau. While Ishmael may have taunted and picked at Isaac (Genesis 21:9), we are told that Jacob and Esau struggled from the time they were in their mother's womb (Genesis 25:22). Esau deeply resented and hated his brother and planned to murder him (Genesis 27:41). ...Ogwyn gives no evidence to back up these speculations.
Where are the descendants of Esau today? Most are still in the Middle East. The modern nation of Yemen, for instance, takes its name from Teman, the grandson of Esau, and is still called by that name in Hebrew today. Many of the remnants of the Amalekites are found among the Palestinian population, as well as in parts of Libya. Yet another Edomite colony is centered in the Basra region of Iraq, which takes its name from ancient Bozzrah, the capital of Edom.
The COGs have traditionally identified Turkey as being the heir of Edom. The COGs traditionally taught that Turkey was fated to be annihilated by (the COGs') God during the second coming in revenge for some future betrayal of the United States, Britain and the State of Israel. Curiously Ogwyn tried to change that doctrine in this article. Perhaps he also believed that the Turks are Edomites but if so he said nothing about it in this article.
Ogwyn ends this article with the following words.
While there remains much blood to be shed over Jerusalem, the "city of peace," Bible prophecy also shows that, ultimately, Jerusalem will be safely inhabited, no longer in fear of terrorist attacks or invading armies (Zechariah 8:3-8). A new world government, administered by the glorified Christ assisted by the resurrected saints, will be headquartered in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2-4; Daniel 7:18). Prejudice against the Jews will then vanish, and formerly antagonistic nations will come up to Jerusalem as pilgrims to worship the God of Israel, to do homage to the Messiah and to observe God's festivals (Zechariah 8:22-23; 14:16). Then, and only then, will the conflict over the "city of peace" finally cease forever.In other words Ogwyn predicts dire horrors and bloodshed supposedly unstoppable and inevitable to be Jerusalem's lot until Christ's return. The people of Jerusalem should apparently just accept this violence and bloodshed until Christ return.
There is no need to accept Armstrongism's insistence that bloodshed and violence are to afflict the Holy Land continuously until Christ's return. They have made many false prophecies. They cannot see the future. Let us not listen to Ogwyn's terribly flawed advice.