Jerusalem Summit: Neocon Conspiracy against the Muslim World

Dr. Habib Siddiqui

Posted Nov 20, 2005      •Permalink      • Printer-Friendly Version
Bookmark and Share

Jerusalem Summit: Neocon Conspiracy against the Muslim World

By Dr. Habib Siddiqui

Asian Summits (2004-5)

The first “Jerusalem Summit Asia” was held in the Philippines on the week of April 24, 2004 in a show of solidarity with Israel.[1]  A group of 200 Christian friends of Israel came from the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Burma, Thailand, India and Taiwan. They were met by members of the Knesset’s Christian Allies Caucus, notably MK Yuri Shtern (National Union).

A declaration passed by the evangelical members of the conference at the conclusion of the two-day meet called on their respective governments to move their embassies to Jerusalem, not to vote against Israel at the United Nations, and to scrutinize the financial aid their countries are providing to the Palestinian Authority.

As to why the Jerusalem Summit (JS) organizers are now reaching out to Christians around the globe, Dmitry Radyshevsky, the Jerusalem Summits Executive Director, explained: ғIsrael should not be obsessed with the support of Europe and the US. The effort to get the public support of Asia, Africa, and Latin America is of equal importance. These regions have a tremendous development potential, and their population first of all, Christians ֖ possesses moral clarity that draws distinction between the Good and the Evil in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This remark is almost incredible given the fact that for years the Zionist state has always behaved as a ԑrampart of the West against Asia, Africa and Latin America. Her voting records in the UN (e.g., Resolutions 3382, 3481, 3482, 3377, 3378, 3521, 3411G) speak volumes on issues that were important to those nations. The remark is equally offensive to other religions, as if they do not possess moral clarity for good and evil. It also epitomizes hypocrisy since it was the same Christian church that once persecuted Jews and presented our world with the Crusades, Inquisitions, slavery, pogroms and Holocaust that the Ashkenazi neocon - Radyshevsky - is now paying homage to.

On June 8-9, 2005 the JS co-sponsored, together with Tel Aviv University (TAU), a conference on the security, foreign policy and economic aspects of the relationship between India and Israel. Other co-sponsors were IsraelҒs business daily - Globes; the Israel Export Institute; and prominent Australian businessman Brian Sherman. The conference was held on the TAU Campus and the guest of honor was Jaswant Singh, who served as the Minister of Defense, Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Finance in the previous (Hindutvadi) BJP-led government of India. He is currently head of the Opposition in the Upper House of the Indian Parliament.

The conference agenda was divided into two portions with the morning session dealing with Security and Foreign Policy issues, and the afternoon session with Economic and Commercial Aspects. Among the Israeli participants in the morning session were member of the Knesset - Dr. Yuval Steinitz Chairman, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee; Maj. General (reserve) Giora Eiland ֖ Head of the National Security Council; Moshe Arens - former Foreign and Defense Minister; Shabtai Shavit former Head of the Mossad; Vice Admiral (res.) Alex Tal - former Commander of the Israel Navy; Maj. General (res.) Yaakov Amidror - former Commander of the Israeli Military Colleges; Prof. Maj. Gen. (res.) Isaac Ben-Israel - Tel Aviv University and former Director of Defense R&D Directorate in the Ministry of Defense; Mr. Itzhak Gerberg ֖ Former Consul-General of Israel in India.

Among the participants from India included Prof. P.R. Kumaraswamy of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The session was chaired by Dr. Martin Sherman, the academic director of the JS.

While most participants warmly commended the close and cordial relations between the two countries, a number of Israeli delegates raised two points of concern on Israeli-Indian relationship: (a) India’s voting record at international institutions particularly at the UN ֖ which, with the notable exception at the 2001 Conference on Racism in Durban, has been one of consistent support for anti Israeli resolutions, and (b) the close ties between New Delhi and Teheran.

In response to these concerns, Jaswant Singh stated that with regard to India’s posture at international forums, positive changes in improving Israeli-Indian relationship were underway. With regard to Iran, he asserted that India had no special military relationship with that country and that the ties with Iran mostly reflected India’s energy needs which have been growing rapidly in recent years. He reiterated that India would not sacrifice its wider national identity and interests for convenient sources of oil.

The afternoon session was chaired by Dr. Ora Setter, head of the Lahav executive program at TAU. The session featured a number of leading figures in the Israeli business world (who have had commercial experience with India) and members of relevant academic and public institutions.

Such interactions between India and Israel should not surprise anyone. India has long abandoned her progressive and anti-imperialist image. She established full-fledged diplomatic relation with Israel back in January 29, 1992. The Indo-Israeli civilian trade annually is now estimated at close to two billion dollars. Contacts at many levels have become quite common when BJP came to power in March 1998. The relationship became warmer after the 1999 artillery duels between Pakistani and Indian forces in Kargil.

Israel rushed to provide needed military technologies to New Delhi. Since then ties between the two nations produced a booming defense trade and rising commercial ties. In the summer of 2000, Ministers Jaswant Singh and L.K. Advani visited Israel, followed by India’s National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishras visit. In that visit, Singh attributed IndiaҒs decades-long Palestine policy to the Muslim vote-bank.ђ

Such trips by Indian government heavyweights to Israel were followed by two trips of Shimon Peres to India in August 2000 and January 2001. Sharon visited India in 2003. New Delhi was promised the Phalcon airborne early warning system and anti-ballistic missiles from Israel. Speaking to Atal Bihari Vajpayee (then Indian Prime Minister) and the assembled media, Sharon declared: “Today, Israel and India are embattled democracies and sharing values and the challenge of terrorism. United in our quest for life, liberty and peace, our joint determination to fight for these values can inspire our hope for a better future for our people.”

One may recall that before Sharons visit, Mishra spoke at the Annual Dinner held by the American Jewish Committee on May 8, 2003. There, explaining the basis for the warm relationship between the two nations, he too said, ғIndia, the United States and Israel have some fundamental similarities. We are all democracies, sharing a common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity.”[2] 

In 2003 and 2004, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) initiated a series of trilateral Indo-Israeli-US conferences on strategic ties. The Indian participants included Ram Jethmalani (former minister), B. Raman (RAW-chief), M.D. Nalapat (Times of India), Lt. Gen. R.K. Sawhney (Military Intelligence) and Jagdish Shettigar (PMs advisor). The US side included Stephen Solarz (former congressman and ambassador), Shoshana Bryen (JINSA) and Stephen Blank (War College) amongst others. The Israeli side included the chiefs of army, navy and air force; and also Shabtai Shavit Җ formerly head of the Mossad; Martin Sherman (JS academic director); Ministers Silvan Shalom and Uzi Landau. [3]

While India is now run by a Congress-led coalition, her foreign policy has not changed an iota from the courses set by the previous Hindu fundamentalist (Hindutvadi) government. This was demonstrated in her September 24, 05 voting against Iran in the AEA in Vienna. It is high time that the countries that once belonged to the non-aligned group take a hard look at Indiaђs reactionary role before they decide whether India can be trusted with a much coveted seat in the UN Security Council. If her inclusion would only strengthen the hands of hegemonic forces that already bully the UN agenda, there is no benefit in adding one more upstart willing to sing her masterӒs voice.

The JS organizers were also actively involved in shaping the agenda for the June 28, 2005 special session of the Knesset’s forum on so-called ԑnuclearization of Iran.
This is not surprising given the fact that Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives have already been lobbying for war against Iran and Syria.

The Second Jerusalem Summit Asia took place in Seoul, South Korea on August 9-13, 2005. It was hosted by the Kingdomizer Mission Alliance, the largest church in South-East Asia and attended by members of South Korean Parliament, Mayor of Seoul - Myung Buk Lee (the former president of Hyundai Corporation and the leading contender for national presidency), and dignitaries from the major countries of the region.
From Israel, the Summit was attended by Knesset members headed by Yuri Shtern, co-chairman of Christian Allies Caucus of Knesset, as well as the SummitҒs academic experts: Martin Sherman and Itamar Marcus. They spoke about the growth of IslamismӔ in Indonesia and Malaysia, South Koreas back-door neighbors.

At the end of the meeting, a resolution was passed that affirmed ғthe inalienableђ right of the Jewish people to the entire Holy Land and Jerusalem as its eternal capital.Ӕ The Summit adopted the “Jerusalem Accords” - a call on all Bible-believing Christians to demand from their respective governments to take three steps on behalf of Israel: (1) to move embassies to Jerusalem, (2) to resettle Palestinian refugees in the third countries, and (3) to condition financial aid to Palestinians on total cessation of terrorism and incitement.

The leaders of South Koreas Christians called on their millions-strong community to pray daily for the deliverance of Israel from the threat of terror and the right of Jews to live in all the parts of the Promised Land.

Future Summits:

The JS organizers are planning to hold its first European summit in Odessa, Ukraine on January 28-30, 2006. The theme of the proposed summit is ғNew Europe. [One may recall that on 22 January 2003 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld chided France and Germany as ԓOld Europe for not supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq.] [4] The organizers are preparing a White Paper on the need of a neo-conservative revival in Europe. This will be a collection of articles by leading European neo-conservative scientists, public and Christian leaders on - what the neocon organizers of the Summit call Ԗ (1) the necessity of bringing together the constructiveӔ forces of Europe to resist the dying-outӔ of Europeans, the de-Christianization of Europe, and radicalizationӔ of its Muslim population. The organizers will explore the feasibility of revival of Judeo-Christian values in Europe.Ӕ

Needless to say that Islam has long replaced Judaism as the second largest religion in Europe. So, by de-Christianization,Ӕ what the neocons mean is the growth of Muslim population there. It is another scare tactic, adapted from Nazi hatemonger Julius Streichers anti-Semitic work, only scripted now by neocon bigots, to arouse European Christians against European Muslims. [5]

Funny that the JS organizers are all agog to claim Israel as a model of Judeo-Christian values, while it is not. Recently (October 23, 2005) Gideon Levy of Haaretz newspaper wrote: “For nearly five years, the basic freedom of movement has been denied to 2.5 million residents in the West Bank. ҅ Most of the roads in the West Bank are desolate, with no people or cars. On days [Shabbat] and hours when the settlers are not traveling on them, they become ghost roads.  If you strain your eyes, you will notice at the sides of the road the traffic lanes assigned to the Palestinians: pathways through the terraces winding up the hills, goat paths on which cars are sputtering, including those carrying the sick, women in labor, pupils, and ordinary citizens who decide to place their life in their hands in order to travel for two to three hours to reach the neighboring village.” Are these Judeo-Christian values that these neocons want to revive in Europe against immigrants or people of color?

The organizers are also planning a summit in South Africa to be held in early 2006 in cooperation with International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) and Bridges for Peace. This would be kind of a political coup dŒetat for the supporters of Zionism for there never was a country more supportive of the (former) South African apartheid regime and racism than Israel. Israel opposed the rightful cause of the Black people of South Africa and Namibia. She opposed granting of independence to colonial countries, and the importance of universal realization of peoples to self-determination. She voted NoӔ in the UN for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights.

Israels stance against de-colonization (UN Resolutions 3481, 3482, 3382), along with its stance in favor of racism (UN Resolutions 3377, 3378) clearly set her apart from the more progressive forces of the world.  So, in November of 1975 when the 30th session of the General Assembly of the UN considered and adopted its historical decision that ғZionism is a form of racial and radical discrimination, it did so for the right reason. It is a disgrace that this historic decision was later reversed at the behest of ZionismԒs powerful allies in the west.  Truly, the declaration that Zionism constitutes a national liberation movementђ would have sounded preposterous and grotesque to the ears of its founders and early leaders who looked at themselves as pioneers in a movement of settler colonization in western Asia and openly described them as such. [6]

It is worthwhile quoting here Stefan Goranov who stated, “Zionism is essentially a modification of Gobineau’s racist views, according to which mankind is divided into three basic races. The most inferior is the black race, closely followed by yellow race. The white race is the most superior.”

Concluding Words:

Ariel Sharon and his fanatic supporters dont want to negotiate the fate of Jerusalem. They want to keep the city as the undivided capital of the rogue state. [7]  The Zionist organizers of the Jerusalem Summit are in cahoots with Sharon to achieve that goal. In that process, they are also true to their Straussian root, displaying no qualms about exploiting religion to sanctify their evil agenda. To them, religious zeal is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. [8]  And who could be more zealous to ґrestore the Kingdom to Israel than the Bible-thumping evangelical Christian fanatics and (millennium/dispensation) fundamentalists? [9]

Likud partyҒs tie with the Christian Right is an old one, dating back, at least, to May 1977 when Begin was elected prime minister of Israel. A 1977 full-page advertisement that appeared in major U.S. newspapers read: “The time has come for evangelical Christians to affirm their belief in biblical prophecy and Israel’s divine right to the land.  We affirm as evangelicals our belief in the promised land to the Jewish people . . . . We would view with grave concern any effort to carve out of the Jewish homeland another nation or political entity.” The ad was financed and coordinated by Jerusalem’s Institute for Holy Land Studies, an evangelical organization with a Christian Zionist orientation. The advertising campaign was one of the first public signs of a Likud-evangelical alliance.

Although in the beginning the relationship was not without trouble, over time the relationship has only become stronger, especially since NetanyahuŒs election in 1996.
An April 10, 1997, a New York Times ad Titled “Christians Call for a United Jerusalem” misleadingly claimed: “Jerusalem has been the spiritual and political capital of only the Jewish people for 3,000 years.” Citing Genesis 12:17, Leviticus 26:44-45 and Deuteronomy 7:7-8, it spoke of Israel’s biblical claim to the land. The ad was signed by Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network; Ralph Reed, then director of the Christian Coalition; Ed McAteer of the Religious Roundtable; and Falwell, among others.

Voicing one of Netanyahu’s themes, the ad asked that Israel “not be pressured to concede on issues of Jerusalem in the final status negotiations with the Palestinians.”
While the U.S. and European governments in 1997 were pressing Netanyahu to negotiate with the Palestinians, the latters public relations specialists developed another strategy involving the cooperation of Christian Zionist organizations in Jerusalem. The initial phase of this strategy - launched in an October 22, 1997 report on Israeli Radio (Kol Israel) News - claimed that the Palestinian National Authority (PA) was persecuting Christians. Two days later the Jerusalem Post published an article charging that, according to a new Israeli government report “the few Christians remaining in PA-controlled areas are subjected to brutal and relentless persecution.”

Palestinian Christian leaders were quick to respond to such allegations. Hanna Nasser, a Christian mayor of Bethlehem said: “Our churches have complete freedom, and I’ve never heard that they’ve been under pressure.” Mitri Raheb, pastor of Bethlehem’s Lutheran church, challenged the Israeli report as pure propaganda. He noted that while Bethlehem was under Israeli occupation, his house had been robbed and his car stolen twice; but “there have been no robberies since the Palestinian Authority has taken over. On the contrary, there is a greater sense of security now than there was under occupation.”

In May 1998, Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding and Open Doors International sent a 14-member team to the Holy Land to investigate those allegations of persecution. The investigative team found “disturbing indications of political motivations behind [the] recent publicity about Christian persecution.”

Unfortunately, such findings did not chill the warm relationship between the Likudniks (both within and outside Israel) with the Christian Right. Needless to say they needed each other for similar goals. In the post-Clinton era, under the direction of Carl Rove and neocons working within the White House, this relationship has only solidified.

Giddy with excitement to expedite FukuyamaҒs flawed clash of civilizations,Ӕ the neocon organizers of the JS have also been reaching out to non-Muslim countries, especially the bigoted elements with records of deep intolerance against their Muslim minorities.

Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, and Likudnik neocons control America! 

My wish is their fantasy and conspiracy against the Muslim world will fail as did the Confederates in the Battle of the Trench in utter disillusionment and humiliation.

November 9, 2005



2,  See this authorҒs article Semantics of Common VisionӔ for a detailed analysis on this subject.

3.  Kokhaviv publications: Israel Archives.

4.  BBC News, 23 January 2003.

5.  See, Daniel Pipess vilification in November 8, 2005 issue of the FrontPageMagazine on the riots in France. See, also Steve EmersonҒs interview with the Washington Time, November 9, 2005.

6.  See, The Zionist Movement by I. Cohen.

7.  See this authors article: ғThe Case of Jerusalem the Holy City֔ for details on this issue.

8.  Michael Ledeen, who is one of the foremost theorists of the neoconservative movement today,  says, ItӒs been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes Gods approval.  Our side refers to a ғcrusade; theirs to a ԓholy Jihad.  Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.Ԕ

9.  In Luke’s account of the ascension, the disciples ask Jesus, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom to Israel?” The question illustrates the early church’s fascination with Israel and its prophetic role at the end of history—a fascination that continues to this day. Reflections on the end times draw on the Book of Daniel, Zechariah 9-14, Ezekiel 38-39 and various apocryphal books, as well as Matthew 24, the early Pauline letters (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 5:1-11) and the Book of Revelation. (See Donald Wagners article ғEvangelicals and Israel: theological roots of a political alliance,  The Christian Century, November 4, 1998, pp. 1020-1026, for an excellent review on this subject. Wagner writes: ԓThe establishment of Israel in 1948 gave dispensationalism new momentum. The restoration of a Jewish nation was taken as a sign that the clock of biblical prophecy was ticking and we were rapidly approaching the final events leading to the return of Jesus.  When Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war; dispensationalists were certain that the end was near. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham’s father-in-law and editor of Christianity Today, wrote in July 1967: “That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives the student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.”Ŕ)