Does PCG's Joel Hilliker Dream of Finding the Ark of the Covenant?

Back in January 2015 PCG's Joel Hilliker wrote an article discussing the Tabernacle. He also seems to speculate that the Ark of the Covenant will soon be found.

Notice the prophecy in Jeremiah 3:16. This suggests that sometime soon, the ark will be discovered and put on display where people can “visit it.” Even so, not long after that, people will not talk about it anymore, or even remember it. The ark is just a symbol of God’s rule on Earth. But the time is coming when that rule will actually be here! You no longer need the symbol when the real thing manifests on Earth.

What an absurd fable this is. PCG will never find the Ark of the Covenant. PCG members are being filled with expectations that can never be fulfilled.

PCG's Joel Hilliker Condemns the "Savage World"

Back in January 2015 PCG's Joel Hilliker wrote an article discussing the Tabernacle. He also ridiculed churches for just letting the "savage world" into their sanctuaries.

This veil divided the sanctuary into two rooms. Veil literally means “to separate.” This modern age fails to even recognize the difference between holy and profane! Today’s churches invite the savage world right into their sanctuaries. But God not only distinguishes between clean and unclean, holy and unholy (read more in Part 7 of this series)—He even makes a distinction between holyand most holy! This thick curtain was a barrier separating God from the sinful Israelites and preventing them from viewing His glory. The presence of God was not open for anyone and everyone to see or enter anytime they felt inclined.

The world is "savage"? What venomous contempt this shows for the surrounding society outside of his PCG. It is quite simply shocking and shameful invective.

He does talk about the veil being torn during Jesus' crucifixion later in the article but this passage seems strikingly negligent of the traditional Christian teaching that this veil has now been torn away.

PCG's Joel Hilliker: God is the Law

Back in January 2015 PCG's Joel Hilliker wrote an article discussing the Tabernacle. He also said the following regarding the law.

Notice what was placed inside the ark in verse 16. That “testimony” was the Ten Commandments, also called “tables of testimony” (Exodus 31:18; 32:15; 34:29). Consider deeply: Within the holiest place on Earth, inside the holiest object in the holy of holies, the very symbol of God’s presence—you find God’s law! This was a physical copy of the law that represents God’s eternal spiritual law of love! That is who God is. It epitomizes what and how He thinks, how He lives. God is love—the law is love—God is the law! The law is what is in His heart—what is inside Him! That is a beautiful picture.

Then why does PCG bother to worship Jesus? Why not just keep the law?

PCG claims to be the only true religion in the world knowing "the truth" regarding Judaism, Christianity and other things. That is far from the truth.

It is a syncretistic religion which largely imitates HWA who took ideas from various sources he liked and created his own religion without properly understanding either Judaism or Christianity. PCG and the other COG groups continue to imitate HWA in their own ways.

PCG's Demonization of Hugo Chávez

PCG's 1% leans far to the right. So naturally they loathed President Chávez of Venezuela since he leaned to the left. PCG denounced him as anti-American, hating America, Washington, D.C. and President Bush, a socialist, a dictator and an enemy.

This post is not about assessing President Chávez and the situation in Venezuela. This post is about how PCG's responded to this particular politician and their negative response against him.

Perhaps what is most fascinating about PCG's condemnation of President Chávez is how unnecessary it is for PCG's dogmas. PCG has this elaborate (and nonsensical) prophetic scenario involving (inaccurate) British Israelism, stereotyped Germans, a sorcerous final Pope, the King of the South, the alleged coming collapse of America, a place of safety in Petra, etc, etc. But Venezuela has little to do with PCG's prophetic scenario. There is no need for PCG to fixate on this nation but they did so any way.

For whatever reason PCG's 1% did not seem to bother talking about Chávez until 2005. PCG seemed to fixate on Venezuela particularly in 2006-9. Even though he was still in power PCG seemed to somewhat lose interest in him from 2010 onward.

One anonymous article dated October 10, 2005 describes President Chávez as "an undersized bully with an oversized mouth" seemingly mocking him for being short. What an absurd and useless thing to say. It also implies that being of short statue is something to be ashamed of. It is shameful to talk like that about people's own bodies like that.

PCG's 1% condemn Chávez for saying harsh words against the United States and President Bush that PCG's 1% disapprove of. This is quite ironic considering that PCG's leaders constantly condemn the United States for not living up to their teachings and dogmas. PCG's leaders insist that some dire catastrophe will soon fall upon the United States because Americans do not live according to PCG's teachings. But when Chávez criticizes the US government or talk about President Bush in a harsh way suddenly PCG's 1% finds this offensive and they chose to loath and demonize him.

PCG's 1% also moans about the Venezuelan government trying to nationalize various companies complaining that the nationalization will hamper investments made by American companies operating there. One cannot help but wonder if someone in PCG has investments in those companies. Or if that is not the case PCG's 1% at least think that scare mongering about an investment not performing as well as it can is something that would attract attention from their predominantly American readers.

PCG's 1% also links President Chávez with various governments that PCG does not like such as Iran, China, Russia and Cuba. They also scare mongered that Venezuela might impose some kind of oil embargo against the United States. PCG's leaders had no idea that the price of oil would later go down.

In an August 2006 article Chávez is vilified as saving Castro's regime by providing oil to Cuba. This is an absurd claim. After the collapse of the Communist eastern bloc in 1989 Cuba went through a severe economic crisis called the "special period" and even that failed to cause the one party regime to collapse. To blame Chávez for saving Castro seems absurd considering the fact of the Castro regime's survival through the 1990s before the rise of Chávez.

And after President Chávez passed away on March 5, 2013 PCG's writers chose to speculate that his death would lead to closer relations between Venezuela and the Vatican. This indicates that at that time PCG's leaders were not particularly worried about Venezuela and instead scare mongered about the opposition's leader making Venezuela more aligned with the Pope.

PCG has mentioned in him in other articles but this selection should provide a fair overview of PCG's discussion of Chávez. Highlighted passages emphasize PCG's invective and their complains against him including nationalizing various companies and insulting President Bush.

Here is some of what PCG's leaders said about President Chávez. This list of quotes include quotes from articles by Gerald Flurry, Mark Jenkins, Ron Fraser, Brad MacDonald, Joel Hilliker, Robert Morley and Jeremiah Jacques.

*******

After years of relying on U.S. investors and consumers, Latin American nations are now looking at other interested parties. And if they respond to China’s interest anything like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has, the outcome for America could be devastating. After visiting China in December 2004, Chavez returned to Venezuela to declare a new energy partnership. ...
Although it will likely take a while for China to establish itself as a major player in Venezuela’s oil industry, the immediate issue that is truly worrying is the anti-American mindset behind Chavez’s newfound relations with Beijing. ... Venezuela is currently the fourth-largest supplier of oil to the U.S., and if anything, American demand for oil is likely to increase. Clearly, President Chavez’s newfound relations with China are more about breaking free of Venezuela’s reliance on America than needing to secure future oil exports. (China in U.S. Backyard, February 2005.)

Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, is an undersized bully with an oversized mouth seeking to exploit what little power he has in order to hurt as many Americans as possible. In the past few years, he has referred to President Bush as an imperialist who is planning to assassinate him, at least one expletive we won’t repeat here, and—most recently—“Mr. Danger,” although no one really knows what Mr. Chavez meant by that. These comments were mild compared to some of his statements about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. ...  In other words, if a country is an enemy of the United States, it is a friend of Hugo Chavez.
Now, when Hugo Chavez delivers his most important blow to date by selling off Venezuela’s U.S. Treasury bonds, he turns to Europe. To long-time readers of the Trumpet, this should come as no surprise, as we have been warning that Latin American resources would ultimately go to Europe—not the United States—for a decade. (Hugo Chavez Insults Starting to Sting, October 10, 2005.)

Venezuela, which has exported oil to the U.S. for years, now wants to award those contracts to China instead. Why would Latin America, which is right on the doorstep of the only superpower left in the world, go all the way across vast oceans to find alternate business partners? (Gerald Flurry, Daniel Unlocks Revelation, Chapter 2, 2005 version, p. 43.) 

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seeks to exploit what little power he has in order to hurt the American government. He is infamous for his name-calling and insults; lately, however, his moves have really started to sting.
At September’s end, Chavez announced that Venezuela had moved its central bank foreign reserves out of the United States—this just as America began to recover from the double-fisted attack of Katrina and Rita. All in all, he sold $20 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds and moved it to Europe. (From Insult to Injury, January 2006.)

The Venezuelan president’s hatred for Washington—especially U.S. President George W. Bush—is daily news. But what does it matter?
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela certainly does hate the U.S.—especially its president. A typical pronouncement: “The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush.” Despite Chavez’s public hatred for the U.S., despite his claim that President Bush is about to invade Venezuela, despite his threats to stop exporting oil to the United States, some analysts claim the Venezuela situation isn’t really a problem at all. (Is Hugo Chavez a Threat?, March 3, 2006.)

Last year, Beijing worked hard and invested billions to develop its interests in Latin America—to the detriment of the U.S. A simple reading of international headlines would tell anyone that the U.S. has two main opponents in Latin America right now: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the seemingly immortal Fidel Castro of Cuba. What might not be so evident is the support both countries have from China.
President Chavez has already signed deals to purchase long-range defense radars and a modern communication satellite from Beijing. The Venezuelan defense minister has signed a contract for three mobile air-defense radar systems, which will replace U.S. systems. More than simply providing technology for Venezuela, the Jamestown Foundation in Washington points out that these purchases will make Venezuela dependent on Chinese technology: “We can anticipate that Chavez will soon be buying Chinese weapons” (Washington Times, Nov. 20, 2005).
President Chavez also said he is looking to replace his American-made f-16s: “Maybe we’ll have to buy Russian or Chinese planes to defend ourselves,” he said, even adding that he might give China and Cuba some U.S.-made military jets to examine (ibid.). (Mark Jenkins, China’s Quiet War, April 2006.)

That is exactly the direction things seem to be heading. Consider Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Without this man’s support, Castro’s regime in Cuba might have collapsed by now. Having lost the Soviet Union’s subsidization of oil after the Cold War, Castro found relief from Caracas. Perhaps the best example of what is happening to Latin America as a region is embodied in this man who would remake Latin America in Cuba’s image.
President Chavez has made a point of putting his friendship with Castro in the public eye and painting the U.S.—especially its president—in the most wretched colors possible; a typical pronouncement: “The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush.” Here is another: “Jesus was the first socialist, and Judas the first capitalist.” ...
President Chavez was joined in his opposition of the ftaa by 30,000 protesters who showed up in Mar del Plata, where the summit was held. By the end of the first day, initially peaceful marches turned violent with a group of about 200 trying to break through the security cordon around the hotel where the heads of state—including U.S. President George Bush—were staying. Some threw rocks with slingshots; others burned American flags. Ever the diplomat, President Chavez held an anti-Bush rally. Police were forced to use tear gas to break up the crowd and arrested over 60 people. ...
But if Washington has any interest in improving its international reputation, securing its oil supply, or preventing future enemies from grabbing resources on which it relies, then President Chavez is more than simply a harmless annoyance. The rise of these types of socialist, Washington-hating leaders to power—along with Fidel Castro’s perpetual existence as a political figure—is another sign of how weak the United States has become, while other global powers, especially the European Union and the Russo-China alliance, grow exponentially stronger. (Mark Jenkins, Latin America Swings Left, August 2006.)

Commentators missed the real news in their observations on this EU/Latin America summit. They failed to see that despite the posturing of petty despots such as Chavez, Morales and their aging mentor, President Fidel Castro of Cuba, the trend is fixed. Inevitably there will exist a trade nexus between the European Union and Latin America. ...
All the pontificating and blustering of demagogues such as Chavez and Morales will pale into so much pallid stutterings in the mind of the masses when their papa speaks from Rome! And speak he will. That fact was made clear when Chavez visited, cap in hand, Pope Benedict XVI on May 11 at the Vatican. Not only did the pope extend additional time to get his points across to Chavez, giving him 15 more minutes than the standard 20 due such political leaders, but, as he turned to leave, Benedict broke protocol to personally hand him a stern letter counseling him to have second thoughts about the direction in which he was taking his country. ...
One thing will be different this time. It will be the German nation that leads the colonial putsch in Latin America, with the willing submission of its partner in Madrid, under the watchful eye of Rome. (Ron Fraser, The Religion Factor, August 2006.)

This is certainly the way Chavez sees it. In many ways, Venezuela has taken the lead in fostering an anti-American spirit in Latin America. Chavez rails against the U.S. at every opportunity and has made a point to cultivate relationships with other countries hostile to America such as Cuba and Iran. Chavez now claims the acceptance of Venezuela into Mercosur as “a victory against Washington’s ‘imperialistic’ economic plans for the hemisphere” (ibid., July 5). (Bloc Swinging Away From U.S., September 2006.)

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” appears to have become Venezuela’s new national motto. How much could Hugo Chavez hurt the United States?
It is increasingly obvious that Venezuela has no interest in improving relations with the United States. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seems determined to not only aggravate the U.S., but to build a global alliance to oppose American influence. And, as difficult as it may be to accept, his initiatives could do more damage than Americans would tend to believe. (Venezuela Allies With America’s Enemies, September 5, 2006.)

Ironically, Venezuela is both one of America’s largest suppliers of oil and one of its most dangerous enemies in South America. ... In his quest for the Council seat, Chavez has much support—particularly in the Arab world. Venezuela was recently granted observer member status in the Arab League. ... Perhaps this has something to do with his stance on Israel: During his tour, Chavez denounced Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon as “a true genocide.” ... Venezuela is certainly becoming a thorn in America’s side. However, the true irony in the story may not just be that America is relying on an enemy to provide its oil, but that the money Americans spend on that oil is being used to purchase weapons to threaten and oppose American influence. (Chavez Tours World to Boost Venezuela’s Profile, October 2006.)

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez had become the leading single financier for the moribund Cuban economy. Cuba’s deeply entrenched economic sickness, a leftover from the island dictatorship’s almost absolute dependence on Soviet Russia, made it easy pickings for circling vultures interested in taking over where Russia left off following the Soviet Union’s demise. Enter Chavez.
The Venezuelan leader plied Cuba with a much-needed resource: oil. Within two years of his election to the presidency, Chavez concluded a pact with Cuba’s President Fidel Castro, termed the Integral Cooperation Accord. This allows Cuba preferential terms on acquiring up to 53,000 barrels of oil, both crude and refined, daily, which total a third of the island’s estimated energy needs. This has led to Cuba accumulating a hugely inflated debt, due to its clearly apparent inability to pay. Although it is difficult to ascertain the current figure outstanding, these oil shipments from Venezuela, which have become a crucial subsidy to the Cuban economy, totaled $752 million just three years ago. In addition, Chavez, who controls the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, is making deals to reroute to China oil that his country is currently selling to the U.S.
Whether by design or circumstance, this huge indebtedness of Cuba to Venezuela has placed Chavez in a strong position to heavily influence the political outcome in Havana when the ailing dictator Castro finally yields his diseased body up to death. ...
With close ties to Venezuela, Cuba and China, Iran is progressively gaining influence on America’s southern doorstep. In May 2001, Cuba’s Castro and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei agreed that Iran and Cuba would join “hand in hand” to work to defeat America, according to the official Iranian news agency irna. During Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Venezuela last September, he signed a joint deal with Hugo Chavez to explore the Orinoco Basin, estimated to contain 230 billion barrels of extra-heavy crude oil. On that occasion, commenting on the increasing ties between Iran and Venezuela, Chavez declared that the two countries are “united now and forever with the Iranian revolution, which has proved to the world that it has become the fuel for revolution.” ...
Recently, a major television network refused to air one of our television programs unless we edited out key statements made by presenter Gerald Flurry about this very threat. Our editor in chief had the temerity to mention the possibility that Hugo Chavez might play a role in aiding the entry of nuclear terrorists into the U.S. With Venezuela already established as a prime transit point for illegal aliens seeking entrance to the U.S., this is a conclusion that any objective reporter, cognizant of the facts, could have drawn. To quote Mr. Flurry’s reaction from his Dec. 18, 2006, co-worker letter: “But people don’t want to face such unpleasant facts! Facing facts means we have to face reality, which this world doesn’t like to do.” (U.S. Enemies Align With Cuba to Claim Gulf Oil, January 3, 2007. Parts of this article are reused in Ron Fraser, Reaching Out to Our Enemies, April 20, 2009.)

“Heil, Hugo” cry critics of Hugo Chavez’s expanded power. On January 31, Venezuelan lawmakers gave the president the right to rule by decree for 18 months. With his new powers, Chavez can remake 11 broadly defined areas of society, ranging from the economy to the justice system.
Shouts of “Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!” filled a Caracas plaza after lawmakers turned over much of their authority to Chavez. ...
Chavez plans to use his new powers to impose policies he has talked about since coming into office. Last month he announced his intention to nationalize the nation’s telecommunications and electricity industries, in which American corporations have large stakes invested. Now he has the power to do so.
“Let it be nationalized,” Mr. Chavez said of CANTV, Venezuela’s largest telecommunications company, on January 9. “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized.”...
Chavez also plans to gain greater control over the oil industry. A day after he was given the new powers, he said he was ready to sign a decree to nationalize oil projects in the Orinoco basin by May 1.
Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and British Petroleum have invested billions into upgrading heavy oil in the Orinoco basin. Chavez stated that state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA would take a stake of “at least 60 percent” in those oil projects. Foreign oil companies have already agreed to higher taxes and royalty rates in the past to insure a future return on their investment, and most analysts believe the oil companies will once again comply. ...
Since his election in 1999, Chavez has talked the talk, but now he is really starting to walk the walk. The nationalizations show a significant shift in Chavez’s economic policies as he is actually taking control of industries he had earlier allowed to operate freely. These nationalizations will not only give him greater power to fulfill his anti-American policies, they also could inspire his friends in Latin America, such as Brazilian President Lula da Silva and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, to follow suit. (Hugo Chavez Assumes Dictatorial Powers, February 8, 2007.)

Given Venezuela’s questionable human rights record and President Chavez’s personal hatred for U.S. leadership, Secretary Rice was eager to promote a Bolivian representative for the vacancy. (Latin American Union Rebuffs U.S., Rewards Venezuela, June 12, 2007.)

Snubbing the U.S. is no new phenomenon for Chavez. Since coming to power in 1999, the Marxist leader has grown increasingly bold. In recent months, he has muscled out American oil companies and called the American administration imperial, genocidal, fascist and other epithets less fit to print. ... Chavez has justified his massive military expenditures by issuing a consistent flow of vituperative rhetoric against the Bush administration, insisting that Venezuelans are under constant threat of attack from the United States, a charge most recognize as groundless. Nevertheless, this argument provides Caracas a pretense for building a comparatively massive military—a pretense, ironically, that many poverty-stricken and suffering Venezuelans believe. Would that some of those billions were spent bolstering the nation’s sagging economy. (Venezuela to Purchase Russian Subs, June 15, 2007.)

Two huge American companies will leave lucrative oil projects in Venezuela, a victory for Hugo Chavez. On Tuesday, Venezuelan officials announced that Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips will abandon their lucrative oil projects in eastern Venezuela rather than sign a new contract ceding control of their operations over to state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela. The announcement signalled a victory for Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s staunchly anti-American president. ... The marginalization of these U.S. companies from Venezuala is another socialist triumph for President Chavez. Tuesday’s victory brought him two steps closer to the full nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry, and also gave him the satisfaction of striking at the United States, his greatest enemy. (Exxon, Conoco Abandon Oil Projects in Eastern Venezuela, June 27, 2007.)

Chavez’s dictatorial administration, his name-calling antics toward the Bush administration and his nationalization of oil companies in particular have caused concern in Washington. American companies have invested heavily in oil projects that have now been seized by the Chavez government or otherwise forced to conform to his wishes. The U.S. imports about 10 percent of its oil from Venezuela, but Chavez has indicated, often in colorful language, that he hates the U.S. and is much more interested in collaborating with the EU, Iran and China in everything from oil deals to nuclear development. Watch for U.S. influence and interests in Latin America to erode completely as the Monroe Doctrine for “The Other America” becomes history. (Chavez Calls for Changes to Consitution, August 16, 2007.)

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has a new business partner: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Thanks to a budding relationship between the two men, Caracas has agreed to cut fuel prices for London buses by 20 percent, and London has agreed to set up an office in Caracas to help with city planning, tourism and other areas where the UK capital city has special expertise. In essence, President Chavez is buying Mayor Livingstone’s support for $32 million.
In typical socialist fashion, the mayor, who is known as “Red Ken,” is using the funds to expand a city welfare program. Under the arrangement, about 1 million of London’s residents who are on income support will ride the buses for half price. (London and Venezuela Strike Bizarre Alliance, August 22, 2007.)

Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan government supplies more direct state funding to Latin America and Caribbean countries than the United States does, according to a recent Associated Press report. Although total American investment in the region far outstrips Caracas’s financial aid, Chavez appears to be using the statistics to advance his socialist, anti-U.S. agenda. (Chavez Challenging U.S. as Benefactor of Latin America, August 27, 2007.)

In his decade as president, Chavez has blasted the U.S. and the administration of President Bush, tied himself closely to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, paid a state visit to Saddam Hussein, met with Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, explored selling energy to North Korea, and strengthened his country’s ties with Iran. Look for Chavez to continue attacking the United States not only through vocal insults, but also, more dangerously, by reducing oil deliveries. (Venezuela to Tie More Oil to China, September 21, 2007.)

In his decade as president, Chavez has blasted the U.S. and President George W. Bush, tied himself closely to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, paid a state visit to Saddam Hussein, met with Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, explored selling energy to North Korea, and strengthened his country’s ties with Iran. Of all his attacks on the U.S., reducing oil deliveries could prove to be the most dangerous. (Venezuela’s Growing Oil Partner, November-December 2007.) 

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned on Tuesday that his country’s relationship with the United States could deteriorate even further if Sen. John McCain (R) is elected president. President Chavez has often expressed his boundless dislike for the current administration. Yet, he fears that Senator McCain might be worse. (The Week in Review, March 29, 2008.)

What is certain, and widely reported, however, is that Hugo Chávez has developed alarmingly close connections with Tehran and has transformed his nation into one of the Southern Hemisphere’s largest terrorist havens. According to [an] Latin American current affairs analyst..., Chávez has helped both Iran and radical Islam strengthen their presence in Venezuela and across the region. (Brad MacDonald, Is Chávez Helping Terrorists Go Nuclear?, May 2008.)

Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said the joint exercise was agreed to in July, but the timing of the announcement, Chavez’s virulent anti-Americanism, and Russia following through with the deployment in the middle of the Georgia crisis indicate the news is meant as a response to Washington’s deployment of warships into the Black Sea in support of Georgia. (Russian Navy Coming to Caribbean for War Games With Venezuela, September 10, 2008.)

China too has its thumbs in the Venezuelan pie. Venezuela is China’s seventh-largest oil supplier. In October, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez visited Beijing. There he agreed to double his country’s daily exports of oil to China to 200,000 barrels per day. This will likely come at the expense of Venezuelan oil exports to the United States. (America’s Enemies Flock to Venezuela, November 25, 2008.)

The Islamic Republic tries to send a suspicious package containing “nothing important” to Latin America.
The container was labeled “tractor parts.” But inside, Turkish customs officials found lab equipment for making explosives. The officials seized the shipment as it traveled through Turkey, en route from Iran to Venezuela.
“Experts from Turkey’s Atomic Institute determined there were no traces of radioactive material, but said the equipment was enough to set up an explosives lab,” said Suleyman Tosun, a customs official at the Mediterranean port of Mersin. ...
An anonymous Iranian official told the Associated Press that the shipment contained “nothing important.” (Iran Sends Explosives Lab to Venezuela, January 8, 2009.)

Last month, Russia let off a shot across President Obama’s bows when the chief of staff of Russia’s long-range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, told reporters that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez had offered “a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers.” Zhikharev also included Cuba as another option for hosting the long-range nuclear bombing planes. That ought to give the foreign-policy shapers in the new president’s cabinet a deal of food for thought! (Ron Fraser, Reaching Out to Our Enemies, April 20, 2009.)

The Israeli Foreign Ministry document states: “There are reports that Venezuela supplies Iran with uranium for its nuclear program. Bolivia also supplies uranium to Iran.” The report concludes that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is teaming up with Iran to undermine Washington. (Venezuela, Bolivia Accused of Sending Uranium to Iran, May 27, 2009.)

Now in Honduras, a “stand with democracy” means propping up South America’s false democracies—legitimizing Chávez, Castro, Correa, Morales and the lot. It means nullifying what are supposed to be the political checks on despotism—in this case a legislature and Supreme Court unanimously opposed to the president, with a military solidly behind them. It means trashing the rule of law. ...
Regardless, on Honduras, Mr. Obama’s “stand with democracy” aligns with that of Chávez. And Daniel Ortega. And the Castro brothers. And the Organization of American States (“which, by admitting Cuba, is no longer an organization of democracies and now, through its radical membership, tries to dictate how other countries run themselves,” says Investor’s Business Daily). And the United Nations, which invited Zelaya to attend as it passed a resolution calling for his “immediate, safe and unconditional” return to power. (Joel Hilliker, “Stand With Democracy” in Honduras, July 1, 2009.) 

Iran and Venezuela signed three energy agreements on Sunday during a visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to the Islamic Republic. This was the seventh official visit to Iran for Chávez, as Caracas and Tehran continue to strengthen their relationship. (Venezuela and Iran Continue to Boost Ties, September 10, 2009.)

Could you imagine if Iran, a terrorist-sponsoring, vilely anti-American state on the precipice of attaining nuclear weapons, was situated just below America’s southern border?
Pretty soon you might not have to imagine it; Hugo Chávez wants to make it a reality. ...
But apparently there’s no reason to be worried about South America’s preeminent anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring nation acquiring nuclear technology: “We’re not going to make an atomic bomb,” Chávez said on state television last week. “We’re going to develop nuclear energy with peaceful purposes.” (Now Venezuela Wants to Go Nuclear, September 15, 2009.)

Venezuela is “carrying out the first studies” toward building a nuclear energy program, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced on September 27. “We’re taking on the project of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and they aren’t going to stop us,” Chávez told a news conference.
Venezuela also has a deal with Moscow for Russia to build a nuclear reactor in the country. Yet these are probably not the most concerning of Venezuela’s nuclear projects. (Venezuela’s Nuclear Projects, October 7, 2010.)

Most of China’s Latin American oil investments have been with Venezuela—a country that currently supplies the U.S. with 10 percent of its oil imports. “All the oil that China needs for the rest of this century is underneath Venezuelan soil,” stated Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez last December.
This statement is definitely an exaggeration, as China will require much more oil than Venezuela alone can produce. This, however, is all the more reason for U.S. citizens to be concerned. The anti-American Chávez has never been happy at the fact that he has to sell his oil to the U.S. in order to keep Venezuela’s economy afloat. He would be more than happy to redirect oil exports away from the U.S. and toward China if an opportunity presented itself. (China Moves to Secure Latin American Oil Reserves, March 1, 2010.)

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez picked a fight with the Vatican this week. The South American strongman ordered a review of Venezuela’s ties with the Catholic Church amid growing tension between his administration and bishops within the country. An accord with the Vatican gives privileges to the Catholic Church not enjoyed by other churches. Chávez challenged the pope’s authority, saying Benedict was the Vatican’s head of state but not Christ’s emissary on Earth. The leader of the Venezuelan Catholic Church, Cardinal Jorge Urosa, has been publicly critical of the Chávez government, most recently decrying the authorities’ handling of a corruption scandal over spoiled food. Chávez has accused church leaders, whom he has labeled as “troglodytes” and “cavemen,” of siding with the opposition. He said they should stay out of politics and stop trying to instill fear in people by calling him a Marxist. Chávez may be starting a fight he cannot win in the long run. (The Week in Review, July 16, 2010.)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has announced he is repatriating his country’s gold reserves from Britain, the United States and Canada. The move may be the largest gold transfer in modern history.
According to the Financial Times, Venezuela holds the world’s 15th-largest gold stockpile, most of which is stored at the Bank of England. Now, Chávez is asking for it all back—more than 200 tons’ worth. He has asked depositories in the U.S. and Canada to release smaller amounts as well.
That means over 17,000 400-ounce bars will need to be moved. ...
Although announcements from unstable leaders such as Chávez need to be judged with an amount of skepticism, there does seem to be a growing movement to repatriate national gold reserves from the gold centers in London and New York. (Robert Morley, Venezuela Asks for Its Gold Back, August 24, 2011.)

After that trip, American analysts expressed concern that Iran’s relationships with Chávez, Ortega, Castro and others threaten to upset and destabilize the Western Hemisphere. ... The Iran-Venezuela relationship has steadily strengthened since a 2006 bilateral trade agreements between Chávez and Ahmadinejad. In 2008, Tehran and Caracas signed 15 cooperation agreements in the areas of energy, construction and agriculture, and announced the creation of a shared bank. The relations between the two sides have solidified primarily due to their common antagonism toward the U.S. (The Unholy Union of ALBA and Hezbollah, April 20, 2012.)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez died on Tuesday afternoon after a long and difficult battle against cancer, leaving the world to wonder who will become the next leader of the oil-rich Latin American nation. ... During his long presidency, Chávez distanced the Venezuelan government from the Vatican, which caused Pope Benedict XVI to reportedly view Chávez as a dangerous man, and to express deep concern over Latin America’s slide to the left. (Jeremiah Jacques, Venezuela: What’s Ahead After the Death of Hugo Chávez, March 5, 2013.)

World leaders paid their last respects to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday. More than 30 political leaders were in attendance at Chavez’s funeral. Among them was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chavez reportedly succumbed to a respiratory infection after his two-year battle with cancer. The 58-year-old leader’s death has left the country in uncertainty. ... Venezuela is deeply divided, and Chavez’s death could usher in big changes for the government in Caracas. Under Chavez, Venezuela has distanced itself from the Vatican and grown close to Iran. (Hugo Chavez’s Death—a Turning Point for Venezuela?, March 14, 2013.)

PCG Ads in Britain (2012)

Here are some ads that PCG produced in Britain back in 2012.

Here is a PCG ad published in Sunday Express from February 12, 2012.

This ad starts with the following words: "Riots. Immigration. An enormous national debt and a tiny military." Is the reference to "immigration" an appeal to xenophobic fears of immigrants?

Here is a PCG ad published in Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Express in February and May 2012.

And so it can be seen that the quote from HWA's 1956 booklet, 1975 in Prophecy, had been used by PCG in their advertising as early as 2012. The source of HWA's quote is not stated in the ad.

PCG Leans Far to the Right

PCG tends to lean to the right. Further evidence of this may be seen in Dennis Leap's tweets concerning the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention. With the RNC he complains that the media act like snobbish bullies quick to find any fault. Then when discussing the DNC he implies that the media are trying to "control our thinking" seemingly by broadcasting it.

The news casters covering the RNC convention remind me of snobbish elementary school yard bullies finding fault with anybody over everything

— Dennis Leap (@DennisLeap) July 21, 2016

Gearing up for another media "control our thinking" week--the broadcast of the DNC!

— Dennis Leap (@DennisLeap) July 23, 2016

PCG's leaders live in an information bubble which happens to be quite strongly right wing.

I do not condemn PCG for being right wing but it is important to note that they are right wing since this explains so much of the political stances they choose to make.

PCG's Former Headquarters

Here are photos of what used to be PCG's Headquarters before they moved to their current location. Today it has nothing to do with PCG it appears.

At the current PCG Headquarters they have constructed a flowing waterfall. It would appear that they may have been imitating a feature of their former premises.

Here's another photo. Is that a rock garden in the photo?

PCG tends to say very little about themselves so it is hard to know much about their former premises. Such things do not tend to get mentioned in their recruitment writings.

PCG's Recruitment Trumpet Through the Decades

Here are photos that show the issues of PCG's recruitment magazine, The Philadelphia Trumpet.

This photo shows the January 2002 and September-October 2001 issues.

This photo shows all of the issues.

Stephen Flurry Compares Trump and Reagan

So the Republican National Convention in Cleveland nominated Donald Trump to be the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. PCG's Stephen Flurry decided to discuss this in a recent broadcast of his. (Stephen Flurry, Is Donald Trump the Next Ronald Reagan?, The Trumpet Daily, July 25, 2016.)

Scare Mongering About the Border

Stephen Flurry absurdly implies that the US government has neglected to make barriers at the borders.

Well they're building some big barriers around the Democratic Convention coming up tonight in Philadelphia. They've gotta do that to protect those attending at that the Convention. No need for barriers at the borders however. That's been the policy of the US government for now, I guess, for decades. (0-1 minutes.)

He implies that the federal government believes that there is no need for barriers at the border. This is complete nonsense. There is a border with Mexico already. It is well staffed and maintained. Airports are monitored. Passports and documents have to be presented before entering. How can Stephen Flurry say something like this?

Demonizing Muslims Again

Talks about violent incidents in Germany. Once again getting PCG members used to fear and loath Muslims. It is mentioned that two incidents were committed by Syrians and another was committed by a German-Iranian. PCG has a long history of demonizing Muslims. This continues that trend.

Turmoil in Democratic Party

Chuckles at the turmoil within the Democratic Party. (12 minutes.)

Speculates that Russians might have been behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails.

Moans that so many young Americans were attracted towards Senator Sanders. This is used to denigrate institutions of education outside of PCG's control.

Red Baiting the American Left

Stephen Flurry complains that Sanders has shifted the Democratic Party to the left.

Shouts that many members of the Democratic Party are sympathetic to Sanders' views. (17 minutes.)

At one point he vilifies Senator Sanders' supporters, somewhat awkwardly, as "the radical left within the radical left party. The more radical left you could say." (18 minutes.)

Cites a red baiting article by Gerald Flurry which slurs the Democratic Party as being like the Communist Party imitating Senator McCarthy. (19 minutes.)

Complains that the "radical left" have been in control of educational institutions for the last two generations at least. This conveniently denigrates the competition to PCG's unaccredited college. (19-20 minutes.)

Talks about communism in order to demonize the Democratic Party. This is a typical McCarthyite tactic. (20-21 minutes.)

Insists no candidate can make America great again. (21-22 minutes.)

Talks about Reagan. He insists that he would be perfectly happy for America to be great again since he is himself an American but implies it cannot happen. PCG and the COGs have continuously insisted that the United States will soon be defeated and cast into exile by some European power since the 1930s. These dire predictions have always failed.

He states that he gets emotional hearing Reagan's speeches.

There is an ad complaining that the American society is no longer as religious as it should be. It advertise Gerald Flurry and Stephen Flurry's 1998 booklet, Character in Crisis, which was written in response to the impeachment of that time against President Clinton. That booklet was discussed in a previous post.

Brexit Discussion

Talks about the Brexit referendum. States that British stations did not approve at first but now that the referendum had occurred it was re-taped and broadcast in Britain getting over 200 responses.

Trump and Reagan Compared

Begins talking about Trump at the Republican National Convention. (27 minutes.)

Complains that the media describe Trump's speech as dark and scary. States that Trump's supporters saw no problem with Trump's speech. Cites an American Thinker post to essentially defend Trump's speech.

Mentions how some compare Trump with Reagan.

While comparing Reagan and Trump it so happens that Stephen Flurry often compares the Carter and Obama Administrations as being alike in being terrible and performing badly and disastrously. Considering how right wing PCG's 1% are it is not surprising that PCG's 1% would be so fervently opposed to the Carter and Obama Administrations alike.

Plays a recording of Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence comparing Trump with Reagan. (32 minutes.)

Stephen Flurry complains that the "more conservative wing" of the Republican Party has "been pretty much left out" by Trump. He includes Senator Cruz as part of this rejected faction. (32 minutes.)

States that Pence previously endorsed Cruz but is now with Trump. (33 minutes.)

The above comments seem to indicate that PCG now wishes Cruz was president.

States that "Make America great again" was derived from Reagan.

Seems to chide Trump for stating that he made deals making money.

Plays a recording of Trump promising to protect LGBTQ people from Al Qaeda like extremism and complimenting the Republican audience for applauding this statement. Stephen Flurry lightly chuckles about the Q part of the acronym, namely Questioning. PCG, like the other COGs, have a long history of demonizing such people. This has the effect of distracting their followers from the problems among themselves. (36 minutes.)

Plays a recording of Trump stating that he would stop companies from outsourcing their factories at the expense of American workers. Stephen Flurry condemns this as an over extension of Presidential power seemingly failing to understand how some American workers worry about losing their employment and would welcome someone trying to stop such thing. Stephen Flurry never had to worry about his factory shutting down. (37 minutes.)

(But on the other hand Trump on November 10, 2015 stated that wages for workers were too high.)

Plays a recording of Trump saying that he understands the system better than anyone else.

Condemns Trump's "arrogance" in claiming to be the only one who can fix the system. (39 minutes.)

Condemns Biden saying that an election is to save the world. Stephen Flurry condemns this. (40 minutes.)

Portrays Democratic Party presidential candidates as outlandishly promising to save the world and being compared to the Messiah. He mentions Biden, Obama and writers in the media in this matter. He condemns them saying only (PCG's) God can save the world.

Plays a recording of Reagan calling for the return to "traditional American values." (45 minutes.)

Plays a recording of Reagan to insist that when America is weak the dictators become emboldened. (50 minutes.)

Stephen Flurry shouts that Reagan promoted Americans working together by embracing traditional values instead of relying on the power of the state. (51-52 minutes.)

Plays a recording of Reagan holding a moment of silent prayer in his speech at the Republican National Convention. (53 minutes.)

Stephen Flurry says, "After that silent prayer God blessed America." (54 minutes.)

Stephen Flurry then reaches the point of this segment of the broadcast by saying that Reagan and Trump are very different from each other. The clear implication is that Stephen Flurry views Trump as unworthy of his support.

Mentions that Nancy Reagan met HWA once and mentions President Reagan's condolences to WCG after HWA's death in 1986. It is conveniently left unstated that Reagan belonged to a church which worshipped and Sunday which, according to PCG and the COGs, is the mark of the beast. (55-56 minutes.)

And the broadcast ends.

One wonders why he did not bother to talk about the last President Bush.

Today PCG's 1% do not like Trump and they have expressed their displeasure that he is the Republican candidate for the presidency. But it was not always like this. At first PCG's discussion of Trump seemed rather sympathetic as late as January 2016. But starting around March 2016 they turned against him. They don't like him anymore.

PCG Discussing Churchill's Fall from Power in 1945

Falk and Blondeau discussed Winston Churchill getting voted out of power in 1945 in the July 26, 2016 episode of PCG's Trumpet Radio Live.

They talk about how, they say, Britain turned socialist after the war by voting for the Labour Party.

They mention Churchill's controversial "Gestapo" comment directed against the Labour Party.

They discuss the paradox of the British public voting against the Prime Minister who led them through the war. Perhaps there were reasons why the British public reacted this way.

They praise Churchill's graceful acceptance of this electoral defeat. It is noted that he later returned to power. They muse on what might have been the state of Europe if he had been allowed to remain as Prime Minister at that time.

Notably the leader of PCG has no need to worry about an election that might unseat him. There are no elections in PCG. Instead they have one man rule.

Mothers of the Movement Speak at DNC

The mothers of African Americans who died in acts of violence spoke at the Democratic National Convention to endorse Hillary Clinton. Here is their speech.

Mothers of the Movement at Democratic National Convention (C-SPAN).

Reading Exodus by Leon Uris: Part 7

Continuing from Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6 let us continuing looking at the 1958 novel Exodus by Leon Uris. With the United Nations agreeing to partition Palestine in November 1947 tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinians allied with the surrounding Arab nations break out into war.

Gan Dafna Besieged

Mohammad Kassi sent his men to go to Abu Yesha to prepare to seize Gan Dafna.

The Arabs of Abu Yesha resented the presence of the irregulars. They had been neighbors of the people of Yad El for decades; their homes had been built by the Jews. They were not angry and had no desire to fight... (p. 491.)

So these people went to Taha to ask him to stop the irregulars. However Taha chose to be silent about these irregulars.

His silence sealed the fate of Abu Yesha, for the fellaheen [Palestinian peasants] were helpless without leadership. They quietly submitted to the occupation. (p. 491.)

Why would these Palestinians be "helpless without leadership"? Do they not have their own individual initiatives and interests that they pursue? This is a denial of the Palestinians' own initiative. This is an unrealistic stereotype of Palestinians.

Kassi's irregulars proceed to attack Gan Dafna while station in Fort Esther and Abu Yesha. Ari hoped that the Palestinians in Abu Yesha would turn against Kassi's irregulars. It is stated that the Palestinians in Gan Dafna had no desire to fight Gan Dafna and that some sent food to them but were caught doing so.

There was anger in Abu Yesha but it was no more than grumbling on an individual level. Then four Abu Yesha Arabs were caught by the irregulars running food up to Gan Dafna. [They were executed.] ... From that point on Abu Yesha was completely subdued. Ari had guessed wrong. (p. 491.)

With Gan Dafna besieged from Fort Esther and Abu Yesha all the inhabitants of Gan Dafna, even the children, rally together to fight the Palestinians and irregulars from outside Palestine seeking to dissolve by force the dream of a Jewish state.

Everyone knew his job. They switched onto emergency footing quickly and quietly. All children over the age of ten were assigned to an active part in the village defense. (p. 491.)

The shelling from Fort Esther continued for ten days inevitably claiming victims.

Gan Dafna drew its first casualties when a shell exploded near the entrance of a shelter and killed two children. (p. 493.)

The headquarters of the Haganah in Tel Aviv sent its recommendation that the children in these borderline settlements near the border to be evacuated closer to the sea.

On the one hand, the farmers would fight more fiercely with their children close by. On the other hand, massacre was a horrible specter to contemplate. (p. 493.)

Evacuation by sea in the event of complete defeat is viewed as a possibility too terrible to contemplate.

The evacuation of the children was a doubly painful thing for these pioneers, for it became symbolic of further retreat. Most of them had fled from former horror to come to this place and their farms were the last line of retreat. Beyond Palestine there was no hope. (p. 493.)

Nevertheless the children were evacuated.

Nationalist Faith 

Worried about the children being evacuated Kitty and Jordana share their worries about the children with each other. Eventually Jordana ends up talking about faith.

"I have been telling myself over and over that they are going to come through all right. Then I began thinking of the thousands of things that can go wrong."
"It is impossible not to think about it," Jordana said, "but it is in the hands of God now."
"God? Yes, He does special things here," Kitty said.
"If you don't get religion in Palestine, I doubt that you'll get it anywhere," Jordana said. "I cannot remember the time that we have not lived on faith. We actually have little else to sustain us."
Coming from Jordana Ben Canaan, the words sounded strange, yet--not strange at all. On the surface Jordana did not appear to harbor a deep faith ... but what else could give her the power to exist under this constant tension if it were not faith? (p. 497.)

Nationalist Archaeology

Kitty and Jordana continue their conversation. Jordana ends up talking about archaeology. The author makes Jordana cite the archaeological remains of Jews living in Palestine as a reason why Jews must live on this particular land.

[Jordana:] "...We went out on an archaeological expedition together into the Negev Desert. We were trying to find the exact route of Moses and the ten tribes in the in the Wilderness of Zin and Paran."
[Kitty:] "I hear it's pretty desolate out there."
[Jordana:] "No, actually there are ruins of hundreds of Nabataean cities. The cisterns still have water in them. If you run in luck you can find all kinds of antiquities."
[Kitty:] "It sounds exciting."
[Jordana:] "It is, but it is terribly hard work. David loves digging for ruins. He feels the glory of our people all around us. Like so many others ... that is why the Jews can never be separated from this land. [Jordana states her hope that she and David will graduate from Hebrew University,] ... and then we shall excavate a big, big Hebrew city. ..." (p. 498-9.)

This is nationalism. Nationalism never existed before the present modern era. The Jews of the Biblical era did not have nationalism. The dream of a Jewish state only began in the modern era. It only began to arise as a political movement from around the 1880s partly in response to deadly anti-Semitic pogroms in the Russian Empire.

Before the modern era Jews lived all over the world but they did not have nationalism so they had no particular longing to migrate to the Holy Land. Their homes was wherever they happened to live. Even when in 1292 King Edward I viciously expelled Jews out of England ethnically cleansing the Kingdom, in that severe and horrifying distress those innocent Jews did not think to migrate to Palestine and set up a Jewish state there. Instead they mainly moved to the Netherlands and France. They did this because the dream of nationalism never existed among them. Instead the dream of creating a Jewish state did not take root among any large section of the Jewish community until the 1880s. Nationalism is a modern idea.

The author then has Jordana suggest that those who grew up in Palestine among the Yishuv are incapable of living anywhere else.

It seems that we sabras are a strange breed made for fighting. We cannot adjust to living in other places. They all come back to Palestine sooner or later--but they grow old so quickly here. (p. 499.)

This is a vague statement which is difficult to verify. It cannot be literally true.

The Battle of Gan Dafna

The Arab militiamen then advance to attack Gan Dafna. The cataclysmic and harrowing battle begins. The initial attack is repulsed. After this Zev Gilboa advances against the Arab militiamen but he is fatally wounded by gunfire. Zev is unable to return to his comrades and is unable to walk being trapped within barbed wire. Seeing this Ari throws a couple of grenades to Zev. When the Arab militiamen arrive to the wounded Zev he blows himself up to get the militiamen.

Arabs Slurred as Superstitious

One minor character, Yarkoni, is described as fighting elsewhere. While his exploits are described Palestinians and Arabs in general are vilified and denigrated as superstitious people.

Yarkoni had lived in Morocco and he knew his enemy. The Arab was a superstitious man, with an unnatural fear of the dark. Yarkoni used the darkness like extra troops. The Palmach night patrols, merely by shooting off firecrackers, kept the Arab population in a panic. (p. 509.)

Also note how Palestinians, Moroccans and the Arab militiamen are equated as being part of the same people. Alleged behavior among Moroccans is used to explain alleged behavior among Palestinians and Arabs from the surrounding nations fighting the Yishuv.

The Palestinian Refugees

Pages 510-1 contain a fictionalized account of the Davidka being used. It is noted that its loud noise intimidating the Palestinians and the Arabs who fought the Yishuv. It is notably triumphalist written with a flavor of humor that the other side would probably not appreciate.

The Arabs quaked in terror as the Jews revenged some of the hundred years of torment. (p. 512.)

On the third day of battle Ari spreads a rumor among the informers insisting that the rain was caused by the Yishuv using a nuclear bomb. This rumor caused many of the Palestinians of Safed to flee for their lives.

The Little David roared and the rain turned to a deluge and the panic was on. Inside of two hours the roads out of Safed were clogged with fleeing Arabs. (p. 513.)

These were fleeing Palestinian civilians. These Palestinian refugees hoped that once the war ended they would return home. After the war ended in 1949 the Israeli government refused to let them return. This remains the case to this day.

Ari's men were thrown off the Acropolis by irregulars and a handful of angry Safed Arabs. He [Ari] lost heavily but the Safed population continued to run. (p. 513.)

Those Palestinians of Safed were angry because they were being thrown out of their homes. No wonder they were angry.

Despite just previously stating that some of the Palestinians of Safed were fighting the Palmach personnel earlier, the Palestinians of Safed are slurred as cowards unwilling to fight for their land.  

Now those who had for decades tormented and murdered the Cabalists in wild mobs had their chance to stand and fight, but they fled in the face of the Jewish wrath. ... When he [Ari] arrived he was astounded to discover that the Arabs had abandoned the Taggart fort, a position it would have been impossible to take. With the fort in his hands, the conquest of Safed was complete. (p. 513.)

... the stampede of Safed's population had opened a new and tragic chapter--it began the creation of Arab refugees. (p. 514.)

Meaning Palestinian refugees. The fighters from other Arab nations could merely go home to among the various Arab countries after the war. But the Palestinian refugees who wanted to return home after the war were not allowed to return by the Israeli government.

It is mentioned that a plane piloted by South Africans and Americans surreptitiously sent arms to the Yishuv at a rendezvous point that was carefully hidden after receiving the arms. (p. 514.)

At that point a fantastic events took place. The Arabs suddenly announced, to the general astonishment, that the entire population wished to leave. The procedure followed the curious pattern of Safed and many of the villages. It was a strange spectacle to see whole Arab populations stampeding for the Lebanese border, with no one pursuing them. (p. 515.)

There was nothing mysterious about this mass flight. The Palestinians were afraid of the forces of the Yishuv and fled to protect themselves. Furthermore in real life many of the Palestinians were forcibly expelled by the forces of the Yishuv. The expulsion of Palestinians from Ramle and Lydda being but one example. Regardless of the precise circumstances the Palestinian refugees fled they were restricted from returning to their homes by the Israeli government after the war ended.

Fall of Beth Ha-Arava

Beth Ha-Arava, a town of the Yishuv near the Dead Sea, is mentioned. An allusion to the legend of the "empty land" is made.

When the Jews came to this place no living thing had grown in the alkaline soil in all of history. .... they built a modern farm. (p. 517.)

In actual fact most towns of the Yishuv were built on inhabited land that had been purchased. Often such land was purchased by the Jewish National Fund.

Beth Ha-Arava was quite isolated from the rest of the Yishuv so the town fell to the Arab Legion and they were expelled. (p. 517.)

Independence

The Israeli Declaration of Independence is described. (pp. 517-20.)

During the declaration it is mentioned that the new State of Israel "will safeguard holy places of all religions" (p. 519). Actually during the Israeli War of Independence many Palestinian Christian churches were desecrated and sacked by the armed forces of the Yishuv.

At times the Yishuv's victory over the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab nations is presented as inexplicable. But elsewhere one factor in the Arab nations' defeat is alluded to, namely lack of coordination.

If there was a master plan there was no master commander, for each Arab country had its own idea of who should run the armies and each Arab country had its own idea of who should rule Palestine afterward. (p. 520.)

There was no miracle victory in 1947-9. The Yishuv were more able to coordinate themselves and work together to defeat the Palestinians and hold back advances by the surrounding Arab nations. The Arab nations had to move their forces over long distances to reach the battlefield. The Yishuv were close to the front lines and could quickly protect their positions.

The Deir Yassin Massacre 

The infamous Deir Yassin massacre is alluded to in this fictionalized massacre.

Then the blackest blot on the Jewish record occurred. The Maccabees were given the high Arab village of Neve Sadij to hold. In a strange and inexplicable sequence of events a panic broke out among Maccabee troops and they opened a wild and unnecessary firing. Once started it could not be stopped. More than two hundred Arab civilians were massacred. With the Neve Sadij massacre the Maccabees, who had proved so valuable, had fixed a stigma on the young nation that would take decades to erase. (p. 523.)

This is a fictionalized account. Most likely it alludes to the Deir Yassin massacre of April 9, 1948 which occurred before the Israeli declaration of independence.

The Yishuv's Triumph

An ambush against Syrian soldiers in Dagania A is mentioned that successfully repulsed them never to return. (p. 524.)

It is mentioned that a rifleman shot down an airplane belonging to Syria in Ayelet Hashahar. (p. 525.)

It is stated that some in Lebanon were sympathetic to the State of Israel.

The Lebanese, mostly Christian Arabs, had some leaders who were sympathetic to Zionism, and these people had little desire to fight. (p. 525.)

French officials had drawn up Lebanon's borders to make sure that there would be a Christian majority there hoping to use them to rule over the diverse people of Lebanon. Long after the novel was published the State of Israel would invade Lebanon and ally themselves with allies from among the Lebanese.

It is stated that Ari mastered how to wage war against the Palestinians and the Arab armies.

He evolved a "defense-offense" plan: those settlements not under direct pressure organized offenses and took objectives rather than sitting and waiting for an attack. (p. 525.)

It is stated that Ein Gev was compelled to live their lives underground due to Syrian bombardment. (p. 525.)

It is mentioned that a ship embarking from Italy to send arms to the Arabs is cunningly sabotaged by Barak Ben Canaan. (pp. 527-30.)

The Destruction of Abu Yesha

Later Ari meets Avidan who used to be the leader of the Haganah. They discuss the war situation. During their dialog it is implied that Palestinian villages in Nazareth and the Galilee region were spared because they were Christians and willing to live in peace with the newly established state created by the Yishuv.

[Avidan:] "If we take Nazareth I think we've got it all. We'll have the whole Galilee then, all the roads from east to west."
[Ari:] "What about the Arab villages in the area?"
[Avidan:] "Mostly Christian, as you know. They've already sent delegations down here to see us. They've asked Kawukji to leave. At any rate, they're not interested in fighting."
[Ari:] "Good." (p. 531.)

Avidan orders Ari to capture Abu Yesha. (p. 532.)

Ari objects saying he knew the people of Abu Yesha since he was young and that he is persuaded that they are not a threat. Avidan does not share Ari's optimistic view. Avidan insists that the Palestinians have given him no choice but to expel them refusing to take responsibility for his orders of expulsion.

We've begged the Palestine Arabs a thousand times to stay out of this fight. No one wants to drive them from their homes. Those villages that have shown loyalty have been left alone. But the others have left us no choice. (p. 533.)

And so Ari Ben Canaan, Ben Ami and Yarkoni plan for "the removal of Abu Yesha as an Arab base." (p. 533.) In other words the Palestinian village was to be destroyed. 

It is mentioned that Arab positions were quickly seized by Ari's fighters. It is mentioned that the Palestinians and Arabs there fled to Lebanon. (p. 535.)

David Ben Ari takes command of the destruction of Abu Yesha. (p. 536.)

There follows a violent battle to clear out the Palestinians holding out in the village of Abu Yesha. All the Palestinians there, about 100 of them, are killed in the battle. Seventeen Palmach soldiers are killed in the battle. (p. 536.)

Ari is reluctant to do so but he orders the destruction of Abu Yesha.

"What is going to become of their fields? ... What will become of them ... where will they go ...? ... Is the house by the stream?"
"No," David said. "Try to remember it as it was."
"What will become of them? They are my friends." ... [David states that he would give the order if Ari would not do so. Then Ari announced he would do it. And so Ari] looked at the village for the last time. "Destroy Abu Yesha." (p. 537.)

With the buildings demolished it is less likely that the Palestinian refugees who had fled earlier would be able to return to their homes. Those Palestinians became refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. They were citizens of Mandatory Palestine but now that Mandatory Palestine no longer existed they were rendered stateless. They made it clear that they wanted to return home but the Israeli government refused to let them return.

The Battle of Jerusalem

Meanwhile war erupted in Jerusalem. The commander of the Palmach forces there not only fought against the Palestinians and the allied Arabs from the surrounding nations, but were hampered by the fact that the ultra-Orthodox Jews wanted nothing to do with the creation of a Jewish state and made their feelings clear .

He was further burdened by the fact that a large part of the population, ultra-Orthodox and fanatical Jews, not only refused to fight, but obstructed the efforts of the Haganah to protect them. (p. 538.)

It is mentioned that the forces of the Yishuv were sustained by finding ancient cisterns. It is implied that the discovery of these cisterns was miraculous.

Cisterns two and three thousand years old were known to exist under Jerusalem. The Jews located them, tore the covers from them and discovered that, as if by a miracle, they still held water. Until emergency pipelines could be built, these ancient cisterns were all that kept the Jews from dying of thirst. (p. 539.)

David Ben Ami is moved by the situation in Jerusalem and proposes making a sixteen kilometer route that bypasses Arab held Latrun to send supplies to the forces of the Yishuv in Jerusalem. His girlfriend, Jordana, begs him not to go and fight the war in some other ways. David does not listen her and he volunteers to carry out his proposal.

Jordana becomes very worried about her beloved David. She is then told that David died in battle after leading a charge in an attempt to capture Mount Zion. (p. 545.)

The Akiva (Altalena) Affair

The Altalena affair of June 1948 is alluded to in the novel. A jurisdictional dispute arose between the Israel Defense Force, formerly the Palmach, on the one hand against the Irgun who are represented by the Maccabees in the novel. The Irgun had acquired their own arms and it was being delivered on the ship, the Altalena. The IDF insisted that these arms should be handed over to them as the militias of the Yishuv had to now unify themselves. The Irgun refused to accept this and insisted on keeping their arms and distributing them to Irgun personnel only. As the Altalena approached the shore the IDF decided it was unacceptable and attacked the Altalena. Seventeen Irgun personnel and three Palmach personnel were killed in the battle. The Irgun got the message and merged with the Israel Defense Force.

In the novel this affair is related in a fictionalized story in which the ship is replaced by a plane named the Akiva. The Palmach sent fighter planes which shot the plane down. (pp. 546-7.)

The Maccabees (Irgun) Assessed

With the end of this fictional Akiva incident the author seems to sum up his opinion of the Maccabees possibly revealing his views of the Irgun. The author assesses that while the Maccabees' attacks were effective against the British they were unable to forge among themselves the discipline necessary to triumph in a full scale war as opposed to the Palmach.

Once the British were gone, terror tactics lost their usefulness and the Maccabees appeared unable to accept the discipline that a field army required. (p. 547.)

The author writes that the Maccabees were only able to accomplish one prominent victory, namely at Jaffa. The massacre in Neve Sadij (the fictionalized Deir Yassin) is mentioned.

Their massacre at the village of Neve Sadij remained as the one great black mark against the Jews. (p. 547.)

We cannot blame all Jews for what happened in that massacre. Those who committed it are responsible.

In fact there were other killings committed by the forces of the Yishuv. The King David Hotel bombing for instance which was mentioned earlier in this novel. It seems strange that the bombing seems to be overlooked in this passage. Of course there were other incidents as well as is seen here and here all of which are ignored in the statement above.

The author seems to share his assessment of the Irgun here.

After the Akiva incident they remained as an angry, defiant, political group whose basic tenet was that force conquered all problems. (p. 547.)

At first the State of Israel was ruled by left leaning parties. After the election of 1978 the heirs of the Irgun, namely the Likud party led by Menachem Begin, was elected to power and since then Likud has been in power most of the time in the State of Israel.

Israeli Victory

The flawless Ari appears again. He leads an IDF attack against the forces led by Kawukji in the north.

With the fall of Nazareth the hostile Arab villages in the central Galilee collapsed and Kawukji led a flight to the Lebanese border. The Israelis commanded the entire Galilee and all its roads. (p. 548.)

And it was not only those who took up arms against the Yishuv who fled. Many Palestinians fled as refugees over the border in Lebanon. Many others also fled to Syria, Jordan, the West Bank occupied by Jordan and the Gaza Strip administered, but not claimed by, Egypt. They were citizens of Palestine but Palestine no longer existed as a political entity. The Palestinians wanted to go home. The Arab nations wanted the Palestinians to return to their homes. The Arab nations did not ask to have all these Palestinian refugees to have fled to them for protection from the forces of the Yishuv. But the Israeli government would not allow them to return even after the war ended.

The author boasts that Israeli forces had the ability to sweep into Beirut and Damascus.

With Kawukji banished, the Jews [the State of Israel's military forces] pulled back to their own borders, although there had been little to stop them from going clear to Beirut and Damascus. (p. 549.)

That is not a miracle victory. That statement indicates that the State of Israel was militarily superior compared with the surrounding Arab nations.

The Egyptian front in the south collapsed and turned into a rout. During one truce a certain Egyptian officer named Nasser managed to escape encirclement by Israeli forces. (p. 550.)

As the Israeli military advanced into the Sinai the British insisted that they remain in what had been Mandatory Palestine.

In warning, the British sent Spitfire fighters into the sky to gun the Israelis. It seemed only fitting somehow that the last shots of the War of Liberation were against the British. The Israeli Air Force brought down six British fighter jets. (p. 550.)

After the Arab nations were defeated by the newly established State of Israel the Arab nations' governments were discredited and lost respect from their peoples. In 1952 the King of Egypt was overthrown in a military coup. The author compares those who took over in Egypt as being like Nazis even though the Egyptian people did not commit the genocide of the Holocaust.

Farouk was thrown out of Egypt by a clique of militarists who spoke the pages of an Arab Mein Kampf. Intrigue and murder, the old Arab game, raged at full force. (p. 550.)

And so Arabs are once again stereotyped in this novel as being violent. As though violence had not broken out in other nations as well.

What About the Palestinian Refugees?

But while the State of Israel emerged militarily triumphant and had succeeded in carving out their position as an independent state politically there were still problems to deal with. About 750,000 Palestinians had been expelled by the forces of the Yishuv and these Palestinian refugees demanded that they be allowed to return to their homes in the land now ruled by the State of Israel. The Arab nations did not ask for these Palestinians to come into their lands since their homes were in what had now become the State of Israel. The Arab nations insisted that the State of Israel should take responsibility for casting these Palestinians out of their homes and let them return. What would the Israeli government do about this? How is the author of this novel going to respond to this situation?

The Arab people of Palestine had long ago accepted the return of the Jews and were prepared to live in peace and benefit from the progress which had been brought after a thousand sterile years. (p. 551.)

This belittles the Palestinians who lived there in the thousand years before Jews, mainly from Europe and Russia, began to migrate there. Palestine was the home of its people. To say that they were "sterile years" is a slur against the people who lived there.

While it is well known that there was a Jewish presence there in centuries past these Jews from Europe and Russia had never lived there before. They had no previous connection with the land of Palestine within living memory. But the Palestinians had lived there since birth.

The author asserts the Palestinians were maliciously misled by their leaders into having irrational fears of the Yishuv.

They were victimized by racist polemics and filled with a fear of a militant "Zionism" that never existed. Arab leaders exploited their ignorance for their own willful purposes. (p. 551.)

The expulsion of about 750,000 Palestinians out of the newly established State of Israel in 1947-9 confirmed the worst fears of the Palestinians. The Palestinian refugees who desperately tried to rebuild their lives where they had sought refuge in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and elsewhere needed no polemicist to be scared of the State of Israel. That they were expelled from their homes and that the Israeli government refused to let their return to their homes after the war was more than enough to confirm their fears of the State of Israel. They spoke out to the Arabs of the surrounding nations to try and go home in the land now claimed by the State of Israel.

The author then tries to address the issue of the Palestinian refugees who had been expelled by the State of Israel and who yearned to return to their homes.

The aftermath of the War of Liberation involved one of the thorniest dilemmas of the century--the Arab refugee problem. More than half a million Palestine Arabs had fled from their homes to neighboring Arab states. All discussion of the disposition of these people became bogged down in furious arguments, accusations, confusion, nationalism, and incrimination. The issue became so involved and mired that it turned into a political time bomb.

Barak Ben Canaan was called upon once more to serve his country. The government of Israel asked him to make a complete study of this apparently insolvable situation. He made a painstaking investigation and his findings filled several hundred pages. In a short summary, Barak shed light on what appeared to be a hopelessly confused problem. (p. 551.) 

So the author writes Barak's response to this issue which is referred to as "one of the thorniest dilemmas of the century", "this apparently insolvable situation" and "a hopelessly confused problem."

The author's Barak complains that the neighboring Arab governments are complaining about the Palestinian refugees.

[Barak Ben Canaan's report:] The Arabs have gone to great lengths to describe the plight of these war victims and to keep the refugee camps as working models to demonstrate to the world Jewish cruelty. Indeed, those who visit these wretched souls are certain to be touched by their plight. The Arabs would have the world believe that the Palestine Arab refugee is unique. (p. 552.)

Those refugees wanted to go back to their in the land ruled by the State of Israel. Barak responds to the Palestinian refugees' earnest desire to go home.

[Barak Ben Canaan's report:] ... it is inconceivable that Israel could even consider resettlement of a hostile minority, pledged to destroy the State. (p. 553.)

In other words the Israeli government does not want the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. This is not complicated. This is the important phrase. The rest of this section merely expands upon this statement.

[Barak Ben Canaan's report:] There is much lush, fertile, and empty land in the seven million square miles of the Arab world. The Tigris-Euphrates Valley, one example, has some of the richest unused land in the world. It is inhabited by a handful of Bedouins. This section alone could take not only the half million but ten million others as well. (p. 553.)

So not only was Palestine supposedly empty, the author seems to think parts of Iraq is empty as well. Iraq is the home of ancient civilizations such as the Sumerians, the Akkadians and the Babylonians. Iraq was continuously inhabited since Biblical times. How can the author imagine that a land like that could be empty? There was no empty land in Iraq or Mandatory Palestine.

The author has Barak deny that the Palestinian refugees had any love for the land they lived on, the properties they owned, the land they were born in. It is insisted that if they loved their land they would not have left. In fact they were expelled and forced to leave by the forces of the Yishuv.

[Barak Ben Canaan's report:] The Arabs argue that the Palestine refugees hemselves do not want to be resettled but want their farms in Palestine back. This is sheer nonsense. The Arabs have cried crocodile tears over the great love these poor fellaheen have for their lost homes. ...

If the Arabs of Palestine loved their land, they could not have been forced from it--much less run from it without real cause. The Arabs had little to live for, much less to fight for. This is not the reaction of a man who loves his land. A man who loves his land, as the Arabs profess, will stand and die for it. (pp. 553-4.)

The author has Barak ridicule the Arab governments for claiming that the State of Israel had expansionist intentions.

[Barak Ben Canaan's report:] The Arabs tell the world that the State of Israel has expansionist ideas. Exactly how a nation of less than a million people can expand against fifty million is an interesting question. (p. 554.)

On October 29, 1956, two years before the novel's publication, the State of Israel advanced into the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and in just nine days seized control of it. In this conflict the State of Israel was allied with Britain and France and those governments wanted to punish the Egyptian government for nationalizing the Suez Canal. The State of Israel occupied the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula until March 1957 only withdrawing due to political pressure from President Eisenhower. Israel's military was clearly far superior to Egypt's forces.

Furthermore the author himself denounced the United Nations' partition plan as "an abortion" of a plan (p. 448). Clearly the author thought the Yishuv should have been allowed to rule over more of Mandatory Palestine.

Also the author boasted that the forces of the Yishuv could expand into Beirut or Damascus (p. 549). This statement that the State of Israel did not have expansionist intentions is hard to take seriously even when this novel was first published.

And after the novel's publication the State of Israel advanced into the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula in the Six Day War of 1967. The State of Israel was persuaded to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after enduring the Yom Kippur War. The rest of the land acquired in 1967 remains under Israeli occupation to this day regardless of the views of the majority population in those lands. Then in 1982 the State of Israel advanced into Lebanon and ruled over parts of southern Lebanon until 2000. 

The author then has Barak offer to make the Arabs civilized like themselves. This statement accuses Arabs of being uncivilized.

[Barak Ben Canaan's report:] Israel today stands as the greatest single instrument for bringing the Arab people out of the Dark Ages. Only when the Arab people get leadership willing to grasp the hand extended in friendship will they begin to solve the problems which have kept them in moral and physical destitution. (p. 554.)

It is the Arab people who will advance themselves. They do not need outsiders to do it for them. This is true with any other people as well.

At this point book 4 of the novel ends.

To be continued...