WASHINGTON – A group of about 150 Christian clergy, leaders, and Congressmen have signed a pledge to support persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

Meant as a stance of solidarity with Christians in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, the pledge was entered into the congressional record by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.).

"Now facing an existential threat to their presence in the lands where Christianity has its roots, the Churches in the Middle East fear they have been largely ignored by their coreligionists in the West," reads the pledge in part.

"American religious leaders need to pray and speak with greater urgency about this human rights crisis."

Many of the signatories gathered at the Cannon House Office Building on Wednesday morning to speak about the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Middle East.

Congressman Wolf, who co-chairs the bipartisan Religious Minorities in the Middle East Caucus with Rep. Eshoo, gave the opening remarks.

"I regularly meet with beleaguered Christians from this part of the world … In the face of this violence, Christians are leaving in droves," stated Wolf.

"The resounding theme that emerges is quite simply a plea for solidarity, and an appeal for help. Where is the West they wonder?"

In an interview with The Christian Post, Wolf called the pledge "the beginning" of "all the different denominations" coming together to tackle this issue.

Wolf has sponsored legislation to create a Special Envoy on Middle East Religious Minorities, which has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, only to stall in the US Senate.

"Hopefully it will break away the hold that is in the Senate so that we can pass the bill in the Senate," said Wolf to CP.

"Every person running for office, Republican or Democrat, really ought to be able to say what are they going to do to help out with regard to the persecuted church."

Slated to retire from Congress this year, Wolf also told CP that he believes "there'll be many" to fill his shoes on this issue in Congress and that he will continue to pursue the issue after retirement.

In recent years, political and social upheavals in the Middle East have led to a surge in the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim nations.
Various human rights groups have pointed to the increasing number of Christian refugees leaving the Middle East, many from communities that have existed since the days of the Roman Empire.

Nations like Egypt, Iraq, and Syria have seen their Christian populations plummet amid the outbreak of violence from Islamic extremists.

The signers and speakers included representatives from the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, and assorted Protestant churches. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, gave remarks on the need to not be silent.

"I often ask how is it that things like this can happen? Who is it that there can be concentrated continuous, persistent acts of violence directed against groups of people?" said Wuerl.

"The answer keeps coming up. It happens because of the silence around it. It takes place because so many others are simply silent."

In addition to Wolf, Eshoo, and Wuerl providing comments, other speakers at the Cannon building included Dr. Jerry Johnson, president and CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters; His Eminence Metropolitan Methodios of Boston, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; Nina Shea, director and senior scholar at the Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom; Rev. Canon Dr. Andrew White, chaplain at St. George Anglican Church in Baghdad; and Dr. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Anderson told CP that his organization was involved because "religious liberty has always been a priority for the National Association of Evangelicals."

"The first step is raising awareness and in a competitive world where there is so many things going on its such a challenge to get people's attention," said Anderson.

"I think if we can do that, then that can lead to other steps, like a special envoy, like encouraging other governments. If evangelicals raise the issue, then the government will also raise the issue."

TEL AVIV, Israel –  Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was sentenced on Tuesday to six years in prison for his role in wide-ranging bribery case, capping a stunning fall from grace for one of the most powerful men in the country.

The Tel Aviv district court handed down the punishment in the Jerusalem real estate scandal case related to Olmert's activities before becoming prime minister in 2006. Tuesday's sentencing followed a guilty verdict that was handed down by the same court in March.

The 68-year-old Olmert, who stood stoically in the courtroom in a navy blue shirt, has insisted he is innocent and that he never took a bribe.

Olmert's spokesman Amir Dan said he would appeal both the verdict and the sentence to Israel's Supreme Court.

"This is a sad day where a serious and unjust verdict is expected to be delivered against an innocent man," Dan said, shortly before sentencing.

According to the verdict, millions of dollars illegally changed hands to promote a series of real estate projects, including a controversial housing development in Jerusalem that required a radical change in zoning laws and earned developers tax breaks and other benefits.

At the time, Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem and was accused of taking bribes to push the project forward.

Olmert was forced to resign as prime minister in 2009 amid a flurry of corruption allegations.

At the center of the case was the Holyland housing development, a hulking hilltop project that Jerusalem residents long suspected was tainted by corruption.

The case broke in 2010 on the strength of a businessman, Shmuel Dechner, who was involved in the project and turned state's witness. Dechner died last year from an illness.

The indictment against Olmert laid out one of the largest corruption scandals ever exposed in Israel.

It accused Olmert of seeking money, through a middleman, from Holyland developers to help out his brother, Yossi, who fled Israel because of financial problems. According to the indictment, Yossi Olmert received about $100,000.

Ehud Olmert was also accused of asking the middleman to help out city engineer Uri Sheetrit, who also had money woes. Sheetrit later dropped his opposition to the broad expansion of the Holyland complex, which burgeoned from a small development into a massive, high-rise project that sticks out from its low-rise neighbors. According to the indictment, Sheetrit received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes.

Among those also sentenced on Tuesday was Sheetrit, who was sent to prison for seven years. A series of other former government officials, developers and businesspeople were sentenced to terms of between three to five years.

Judge David Rozen ordered all those sentenced to appear before the prison service on Sept. 1.

Two weeks after the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation deal, the PA agrees to transfer 3,000 security forces to Gaza.

It’s a homecoming of sorts. Almost seven years after the terrorist organization Hamas violently ousted Fatah, the political party that rules the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian media reported on Sunday that 3,000 Palestinian Authority police officers will join the Gaza government’s security forces.

Two weeks ago, the two rival Palestinian groups agreed to form a unity government within five weeks and hold a national election after six months.

However, the Hamas Fatah reconciliation already looks tenuous given the political factions’ long history of enmity, as well as very different ideologies vis-à-vis Israel.

Can a Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation Survive?

Despite the recent unity deal, Hamas recently stated that it will not disarm its military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. A Hamas official also negated any possibility that the Qassam Brigades would merge with the Palestinian Authority’s security forces.

“Dissolving the Qassam Brigades is out of the question, and those asking for that are dreaming. The Hamas Fatah reconciliation will not be at the expense of the military wings of the resistance, which represent the national army of the state of Palestine. Handing over Qassam weapons is impossible and nonnegotiable,” a Hamas official told theAl-Monitor news website.

Another sticking point in the Hamas Fatah reconciliation is the Hamas group’s continuedrefusal to recognize Israel. Last week, a number of Hamas officials rushed to clarify their movement’s rejection of Israel following indications by PA leaders that Hamas would abide by previously signed agreements.

The fundamentalist Hamas organization refuses to renounce using force against Israel and is classified as a terrorist organization by, among others, the United States and the European Union, due to its many attacks against Israeli civilians.

In contrast, the secular Western-backed Fatah seeks to iron out a deal with the Israeli government that will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza, Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

Since Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, numerous Hamas Fatah reconciliation attempts have been made. Despite a number of agreements, those attempts have not been successful.

On April 23, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh announced they had agreed to a Hamas Fatah reconciliation. As a result, the peace talks between Israel and the PA collapsed, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that the talks are “essentially buried” if Abbas follows through with his commitment to reconcile with Hamas.

Written by Gidon Ben-Zvi
Staff Writer, United with Israel

Jonathan S. Tobin 05.01.2014 

The day after J Street failed in its bid for admission to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the backlash about the vote is growing. The group that represents the largest denomination of American Jewry, the Union of Reform Judaism, is demanding that the Conference change its one group, one vote policy while also openly threatening to leave the umbrella group. An official of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly is also demanding changes. Meanwhile liberal commentators are blasting the Conference for its 22-17 vote to deny entry the left-wing lobby and making extravagant claims about this vote symbolizing the growing alienation of the Jewish establishment from the wishes of most of those it purports to represent.

Which means that, all things considered, it was a very good day for J Street. As I predicted yesterday before the vote was held, a defeat at the Conference was the best possible outcome for the left-wing organization that came into existence not to fit in and cooperate with existing Jewish groups and coalitions but to blow them up. The negative vote enables J Street and its various left-wing sympathizers to play the victim and boosts their agenda to first delegitimize groups like the Conference and AIPAC and then to replace them.

But while it is understandable that the Reform and Conservative movements would join the lament about J Street’s defeat in order to assuage some of their liberal constituents who support the left-wing lobby, they should be careful about advancing any agenda that could undermine umbrella groups like the Conference. While such organizations can seem at times to be irrelevant to the day-to-day business of American Jewry, they still serve a vital purpose. If the non-Orthodox denominations help J Street destroy them, they will soon learn that not only will it be difficult to replace them but also they and their constituents will not be well served by the politicized chaos that follows.

Only hours after their defeat J Street was already attempting to make hay from the vote with a fundraising email sent out to their list. It read, in part:

“Thank you, Malcolm Hoenlein and the Conference of Presidents.”

Yesterday’s rejection of our bid to join the Conference validates the reason for J Street: those claiming to speak for the entire Jewish community don’t in fact represent the full diversity of pro-Israel views in our community—or even its prevailing views.

Thus despite J Street leader Jeremy Ben-Ami’s public expression of disappointment about the vote, the group was clearly prepared all along to exploit a rejection to further their campaign to brand both AIPAC and the Conference as out of touch. J Street came into existence hoping to do just that, but over the course of the last five years failed miserably to do so. Though J Street’s raison d’être was to serve as a Jewish cheerleader for Obama administration pressure on Israel, it has little influence on Capitol Hill and has even, to its dismay, sometimes been repudiated by a president it supports unconditionally. Thus it hopes to use this incident to gain more traction against mainstream groups.

But those, like Haaretz’s Chemi Shalev, who are using this vote to bash pro-Israel groups should be asking themselves why so many members of the Conference which already includes left-wing organizations like Americans for Peace Now and Ameinu would vote against adding one more to their ranks. The reason is that many centrist groups clearly resented J Street’s unwarranted pretensions to speak for American Jewry and to undermine the broad-based AIPAC.

The Conference was created to provide a way for a diverse and cantankerous Jewish community a single structure with which it could deal with the U.S. government. The point was, though its members have often disagreed and true consensus between left and right is often impossible, the Conference still provides Congress and the executive branch an address through which they can reach a broad and diverse coalition of Jewish organizations. Adding one more on the left wouldn’t have changed that but unlike other left-leaning groups, J Street has never had any interest in playing ball with rivals or allies. Its purpose is not to enrich and broaden that consensus but to destroy it. And that was something that groups that had no real ideological fight with J Street rightly feared.

Moreover, the arguments that only groups like J Street can speak to Jewish youth are also easily debunked. Rather than seek to bolster the efforts of pro-Israel groups on American campuses, J Street’s cohorts seem more interested in making common cause with anti-Zionist and pro-BDS groups than in standing together with the courageous Jews who are resisting the boycotters.

But if the Reform and Conservative movements aid J Street in this effort what follows won’t aid their cause. If the formal structures of American Jewry split between those backed by the centrist establishment and the J Street-led left, this won’t advance the cause of Israel or the interests of American Jews. Dividing the Jews in this manner will only serve the cause of those who wish to wage war on Israel’s democratically elected government and to widen the splits between Jerusalem and Washington. That isn’t something that any group that calls itself “pro-Israel” should want. Non-Orthodox Jews who wish to bolster the position of their members in the Jewish state should also be especially wary of anything that will make it harder to make their voices heard in Jerusalem.

Whatever one may think of the Conference or of its decision to play into J Street’s hands with this rejection, the notion that including the left-wing group would strengthen Jewish unity or the community’s outreach to youth is a myth. J Street may have failed miserably in its effort to defeat AIPAC in Washington, but its campaign to trash the pro-Israel consensus and replace it with one that seeks to undermine the Jewish state is still very much alive.