"On Amending W-4.9000 Regarding Marriage" dragging the State into the mire of an apostate church

Not now apostate but ...

As I read through Hudson River Presbytery’s overture 020, “On Amending W-4.9000 Regarding Marriage,” I was struck by the many confessional and biblical problems in the rationale section. The overture is asking that the words “man and woman,” be changed to “two people” in some cases and “the couple” in other places.

Also the line “Marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman” is to be changed to “Marriage is a covenant between two people (‘the couple’) and according to the state also constitutes a civil contract.” One further sentence that is extremely troubling is the change from “In the name of the Triune God the minister shall declare publicly that the woman and the man are now joined in marriage” to “In the name of the Triune God the couple are [sic] now joined in marriage.”

In the rationale there are at least four glaring confessional and biblical problems.

One problem is in the very first sentence of the rationale, “Marriage is beyond gender.” No, marriage is about gender, and Jesus allows his listeners to understand by basing his pronouncement about divorce on the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam and Eve. He goes to the original creation story, the first coupling, one man and one woman is God’s design. The two complement and complete each other, because of this they are helpers to each other. (Matt. 19:3-6)

Two other problems are biblical accounts that are misinterpreted. One is about Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch and the other is Peter’s vision of the unclean animals and his ministry to the gentiles in Cornelius’ home.

The rationale states:

“We join those in the early church by stepping into line behind people like Philip, who, in his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, was moved to overturn his previously narrow perceptions and prejudices and make the circle of God’s family much wider than his previous religious upbringing had allowed him to imagine (Acts 8:26-38) and Peter, who was given a vision that the lines he had previously drawn between clean and unclean were too narrow and had to be abandoned to embody God’s loving way (Acts 10:9-22).”

In fact, there are many problems with this statement. Philip did not overturn previous “narrow perceptions and prejudices.” Instead he was transformed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That meant that the laws that pertained to the temple worship in Jerusalem no longer applied to him or to any other who received the gospel. (Deut. 23:1) He had not let go of what was bad, narrow or could be called prejudice.

Philip was not free to sin nor was the eunuch. But now the eunuch could take hold of that promise in Isaiah 56:4-5. He is not given a name in Acts but remarkably from the Old Testament he receives a promise of “a name better than that of sons or daughters.” And it is an everlasting name. That is Isaiah, in Revelation the name expands to all (we are all, after all, eunuchs toward God since we are fruitless without him.). There we receive a new name that is Christ’s name. We are found in him. (Rev 3:12) We are transformed and made holy in him.

I have written in another place about Peter and his vision of the unclean food. In that text, after Peter has been shown a sheet full of unclean creatures and told to eat from them, he hears a voice telling him, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Now notice the words “What God has cleansed.” God has taken something that is ceremonially unclean and through the eternal Son’s fulfillment of the law, by a perfect life, death and resurrection, has made the unclean clean. But how does humanity become clean?

“They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7:14b)” Looking also at 1 Peter :18-19 as well as Eph 1:7-8a, we know as Christians that we are made new, whole and clean in Jesus Christ. And we are called to holiness. All of this is about “God’s loving way.” In love he gave the Jews the law that he might bring them to the promises of Christ. In love he gave his eternal Son that all of us might be clean and free. But he has not in his love called us to sin. As Paul writes, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

The last problem I see in this overture I believe forebodes serious events for the Church in the United States if it or others like it passes. It means the Church will lose her soul to both the culture and the State. She will certainly be denouncing both the Bible and the Confessions. It also means that orthodox pastors in the PCUSA will be put in dire straits.

The Hudson Valley Overture states that:

“In a state that already permits same-gender marriages or civil union, ministers and ruling elders would be relieved of the fear of ecclesiastical charges and would be able to respond equitably and pastorally to marriage requests by all, not just some, members of their congregations and to do so without fear of charges filed in ecclesiastical court.”

When I read this I am forced to think of Christians in so many places and so many ages who have not bowed before the unrighteousness of fallible rulers and laws. They have not rewritten their constitutions, Scriptures or Confessions in order to better conform to a decadent society. And in fact some of our confessions were written in just these kinds of circumstances. The Theological Declaration of Barmen is one.

Looking at the first part of Barmen the writers point out that the Church in Germany was being overtaken by “alien principles” and that if the principles were “held to be valid” the Church would cease to be the Church. (8.07)They go on in the body of the Declaration to insist that no government or ruler or anyone even in the Church could use the Church to proclaim another revelation.

Because, “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scriptures is the one Word of God which we have to hear and have to trust and obey in life and death,” then we must “reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.” (8.11-12)

Finally they deal with the separate duties of church and state leaving the Church free to proclaim God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

“We reject the false doctrine as though the State, over and beyond its special commission [the task of providing for justice and peace], should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.” (8.23)

"We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission [“calling to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled”], should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.” (8.24)

The circumstances of this insistence that the church not proclaim what the State proclaims when it is not God’s Word is more clearly explained in the sermon on Barmen given to the Barmen Synod before the vote on it was taken. For this part of Barmen, Pastor Hans Asmussen stated:

“When the State proclaims an eternal kingdom, an eternal law, and an eternal righteousness, it corrupts itself and with it its people. When the Church preaches a political kingdom, an earthly law, and the justice of a human form of society, it goes beyond its limits and drags the State down into the mire with it.”[1] (Emphasis mine)

The latter part of Asmussen’s statement is exactly what this overture is doing. The Hudson River Presbytery is asking the Church to both preach and participate in a human form of justice that is contrary to Scripture. It is not a part of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ as he is known in the Holy Scripture. If the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) allows same gender marriage into her constitution and thereby into her churches she will cease to be the Church. And she will by her actions drag the State down into the mire she has created.

[1] “An Address on the Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation in the German Evangelical Church,” Pastor Hans Asmussen, Appendix VIII in The Church’s Confession Under Hitler, by Arthur C. Cochrane (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press 1961), 261.

Grabbed by the love of Jesus

I love the story that Andrew Purves tells about feeling that Jesus had grabbed him by the scruff of the neck as a mother cat does her kitten. In that case you go where the loving mother cat wants you to go. After reading a pastor’s sermon where he calls the redemptive story of Jesus’ death and resurrection a fiction made up by the writers of the New Testament, I thought of Purves’ story again. My first thought was to pray for this pastor that Jesus might walk into his life and grab him by the scuff of his neck and surprise him with salvation. And I have, and do and will.

But the next thought I had was how better to have the mother cat take you where there is safety in her care than to have the Lion grab you with finality and judgment. And my third thought is how all of us are so rebellious toward the goodness of Christ, even when it is gently placed like a cloak around our shoulders. Praise God for the great mercy and love of the Triune God, the Father who sent the Son, the Son who submitted his life for our sake, the Holy Spirit who woos and seals and walks us home.

"But Jesus called them to himself and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant. And whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:25-28)."

“A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis:” false beginnings, twisted thoughts- part 3

Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? And who may stand in his Holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood, and has not sworn deceitfully. (Psalm 24:3-4)

We are all longing for the peace of Jerusalem, but it cannot come twisted and incomplete.

Professors Nahida Gordon and Fredric W. Bush in the paper entitled “A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis combine the issues of the partition of Palestine and the Palestinian refugee problem with two of Israel's wars with the Arab nations. Their statements about Israel’s 1948 war for independence as well as the 1967 war Israel fought against Egypt, Jordon and Syria are incomplete and often historically inaccurate. Picture the Western Wall of Jerusalem taken by en:User:Chmouel,

The authors’ statement on the 1948 war begins with an explanation of the influx of Jewish European immigrants into Palestine. They write, “The Palestinians who in a short span of three decades saw the ethnic composition of Palestine change dramatically due to the British facilitation of immigration of Jews into Palestine objected to the partition plan." They go on to state simply and rightly that there was violence on both sides.

But the way the rest of the paragraph is written the implication is that the Palestinians became refugees during the violence that occurred between November 29,[1] 1947 (the date of the UN recommendation of the Mandate), and May 14, 1948 (Israel’s declaration of independence). There is a further statement that the Arab nations attacked Israel in order to save the Palestinian refugees from expulsion. Going even further is the thought that Israel was better prepared militarilythan the Arabs.

I have already answered these kinds of statements in a posting on the booklet, "Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace" published by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).[2]

Immediately after the UN announcement, Jewish people all over the world rejoiced. But by the next morning they would begin fighting for their lives. As Walter Laqueur, who is not a conservative, but an excellent historian, in his comprehensive book A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel, states:

"The next morning [after the UN Mandate announcement] the Palestinian Arabs called a three day-protest strike, and Jews in all parts of the country were attacked. On that first day of rioting seven were killed and more injured; the fighting continued to the end of the mandate. The next months, as chaos engulfed Palestine, were a time of crisis for the Jewish community. ...The most pressing task facing the Jewish population was to strengthen its defenses, since the Arab countries had already announced that their armies would enter the country as soon as the British left. Syria was not willing to wait that long: an 'Arab Liberation Army" inside Palestine was established in February with the help of Syrian officers as well as irregulars." (p. 583-84) (Emphasis mine)

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein writes, “In 1948, after the UN Partition went into effect, five Arab armies attacked the fledgling State. Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League announced, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[3]

The point here is that the Arab nations attacked because they did not agree that there should be a Jewish State. (And here is an additional thought, Arab anti-Semitism goes back centuries, it did not suddenly appear with the birth of Israel.)[4]

It is also important to note that Israel was not prepared militarily as were the Arab nations. Once again, as Laqueur puts it:

"While Britain continued to supply arms to the neighboring Arab countries, and America had declared a general arms embargo, the Jewish forces had great difficulty in obtaining supplies. By February the Arab forces were on the offensive throughout the country. While they did not succeed in capturing Jewish settlements, they all but paralyzed the traffic among them, and even Jerusalem was about to become a besieged city. The Jewish relief force sent to the help of the Ezion settlements had been wiped out to the last man, a terrible loss by the standards of these days." (p583)

Bush and Gordon make short work of the 1967 war. They write, “In June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. At the end of six days, Israel had taken the Gaza strip and the Sinai from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan from Syria.” The authors then go on to write about the United Nations Security Council and resolution 242. This is shoddy historical writing. It leaves the reader without any understanding at all. Perhaps the authors did not know the circumstances of the Six-Day war.

The history is complex but includes bombardments from Syria, an Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran so that Israel had no route to Asia. The removal of UN peace keepers by Egypt and threats from several Arab States including this from the Voice of the Arab Radio Station, “As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.”[5]

The story is far more complex than I have written. Please see the article “The 1967 Six Day War” , at the Jewish Virtual Library. There are many complex problems between Israel and Palestine. When institutions such as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and committees such as the Presbyterian Middle East Study Committee attempt to help sort out the needs of each nation and yet begin with so much one-sided misinformation they eliminate from the discussion all of those who care about truth. And then peace can never come.


[1] The paper at one point refers to the 29th, at another point to the 19th, the 29th for the UN’s recommendation is the correct date.
[2] See More from the Presbyterian Israel/Palestine Mission Network's booklet Steadfast Hope The IPMN is advised by some of the same leadership as the Presbyterian Middle East Study Committee. Their views of Israel and Palestine are usually the same.

[3] A Rabbi Reflects on the Horizons Study of Joshua - Part I See also Richard Kraus, “The Roots of Anti-Semitism.” This paper disproves that the State of Israel is the sole cause of Arab anti-Semitism.
[4] See again “The Roots of Anti-Semitism.”
[5] See The Jewish Virtual library, Michael Bard, “The 1967 Six Day War.”

Reading the Rest of the Story:

Part 1.

Part 2.

Where is Your God?

"My tears have been my food day and night, while all day long they say to me, 'Where now is your God?'" (Psalm 42:3)

"Where is your God? People ask us the question in a doubting or mocking way. Death and sin, want and war, as well as bravery, power, and honor-that is what people see. But where is your God? We need not be ashamed of the tears we shed because we do not yet see God, because we cannot demonstrate God's presence to our sisters and brothers. Those are tears that flow for God's sake and that he records in his book (Ps. 56:8). Where is your God? What can we answer? We can only point to the person who in life, death, and resurrection proved himself to be God's true son. In death he is our life, in sin our forgiveness, in distress our helper, in war our peace. 'You shall point to this person and say: that is God' (Luther)."

"Lord Jesus, when I am tempted, because I cannot see God and his power and love in this world, let me firmly look upon you, for you are my Lord and my God. Amen"

All of the above is from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, (Sermon for the 6th Sunday After Easter, June 2, 1935-"found in a collection of sermons from Finkenwalde.") from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Meditations on the Word, Tran. & Edited, David Mcl. Gracie, 2nd edition (Lanham: A Cowley Publications Book 2008) 56. Picture by Stephen Larson

Our hope: the death and resurrection of Jesus

I have been reading about the horrific crash in Kentucky in which eleven people were killed. Now the news is saying the van belonged to a Mennonite church going to a wedding in Ohio. That is so sad but they are Christians and with the Lord. Praise God for his resurrection. Their Pastor Leroy Kauffman stated to the Associated Press, “"We're experiencing a lot of heartache and a lot of sadness, but with that a hope," Kauffman said. “We know where these people are going, they were all saved Christians and walking with the Lord."

Because this has touched me very much yet reminded me that this coming week is given over to the mourning and yet rejoicing of Jesus' death and resurrection for our sakes I thought I would place a video of music sung by a Mennonite choir.

“A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis:” false beginnings, twisted thoughts- part 2

One of the more interesting books I have read this year is Jacob’s Legacy: A Genetic View of Jewish History by David B. Goldstein. He is "professor of molecular genetics and director of the Institute for Genome Science and Policy’s Center for Population Genomics and Pharmacogenetics, Duke University.”

Goldstein along with some of his peers has traced the history of several Jewish groups using genetics. All of the stories are amazing, engrossing and, well, scientific. And one story in particular is helpful to one of the subjects I will write about in this posting. It is the question, “are the Jewish immigrants to Israel linked in any way to ancient Israel?”

This is an important question and although it comes later in the paper entitled “A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis, authored by Professors Nahida Gordon and Fredric W. Bush, it is a question which I believe sets the outcome for several arguments about Israel’s right to exist. And that is an existence questioned in the paper they offer to the 219th Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly.

Stating that the Israelis are claiming their right to the land due to their return after 3000 years, the authors of the paper write:

“The Israeli ‘narrative’ claims that they are uniquely the descendents of the Jews from Palestine. Scientific inquiry into this claim is complex with varying opinions on the amount of admixture of Jews from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East with gentile ancestors. Some research appears to indicate that they, along with the present day Palestinians of Christian and Muslim faiths, all share very similar genetic associations and represent the descendents of people of Palestine from 2,500 to 3,000 years ago. Other research supports the contention that there is more admixture with European gentile populations, particularly among the Ashkenazi Jews. Clearly to state that present day Israelis are returning after two or three millennia to their ancestral home in Palestine and that they uniquely are the descendants of the Jews of Palestine is not supported by scientific evidence.” (Emphasis the authors)

So what does this paragraph actually say? The authors are giving the reader a choice: choose to accept that Jewish European immigrants’ ethnic makeup is predominately European and hardly connected to ancient Israel or choose to accept that all of the Jewish immigrants from all continents share with all other ethnic groups of Palestine an equal or unique relationship to the ancient Jews or ancient Israel.

First of all I just have to ask, would any of the radical Muslims, like Hamas, accept an idea that they are related to the ancient Jewish people?

But to be serious, of course the Arabs and the Jews are cousins, their genetics have some similarities, but that does not mean that the Palestinians share in any kind of direct line to ancient Israel. But this is where some of the genetic work of Goldstein and his colleagues help. And this particular genetic link is simply amazing.

Although the temple no longer exists so there is seemingly no need for a priest to offer sacrifices, still there are male Jews who still claim that priesthood. As Goldstein puts it:

“Although the Jews have had no high priest for almost two thousand years, there are still individuals who consider themselves to be Cohanim, directly descended from one of the many priests who served in the temple in Jerusalem.”[1]

He goes on to ask the question:

“The presence of Cohanim today is a powerful testament to the enduring abilities of the Bible and oral tradition to shape the modern world. But how is it that nearly two thousand years after the Cohanim lost their jobs in Jerusalem, there are still priests around to perform ceremonial duties?”[2] [Remember the Cohanim is an inherited position]

To follow the trail Goldstein and the other scientists take is too long for a blog posting but the outcome is important. Tracing the Cohanim’s genetic trail and the time periods for various mutations, the professors take the priestly line back almost 3,000 years. Goldstein writes:

“When the last figure had been entered, we were stunned into silence. ‘We are in the first Temple,’ I said eventually. We were both quiet again for a time. When we accounted for the ‘hidden’ mutations in the microsatellites, the figure we got is about three thousand years before the present, or right about the time that Solomon is thought to have been building the Temple in which the priests would serve.”[3]

Goldstein covers other research, including Jewish groupings found in India. And he tries to connect the Ashkenazi Levites with the ancient peoples of Kazaria but is unable to do so. But the point is the Jewish immigrants do have a unique connection to ancient Israel. But more than that, they are a nation now, a Jewish nation. And even better, they have the faithfulness of God whose gifts and calling are irrevocable. (Romans 11:28)

I will deal with authors Bush and Gordon’s views of the 1948 and 1967 wars in my next posting. I am putting a video below that is the beginning of a movie “The Forgotten Refugees.” Although I have put up most of the videos connected to the movie before I believe it is relevant to this subject and will lead into my next posting.

[1] David B. Goldstein, Jacob’s Legacy: A Genetic View of Jewish History, (New Haven: Yale University Press 2008) 22.
[2] Ibid., 23.
[3] Ibid., 37-38.

“A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis:” false beginnings, twisted thoughts- part 1

A Review

The paper A Plea for Justice: A Historical Analysis, offered among other papers by the Presbyterian Middle East Study Committee was written by two members, Professor Nahida Gordon and Professor Fredric W. Bush. They state in their opening paragraph that they take “sole responsibility” for the contents of the paper. However in the recommendation paper all of the members ask the 219th Presbyterian General Assembly under VIII to receive “A Plea for Justice.”

Additionally in the paper “Human Rights Update 2010 Recommendation,” produced by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, the members of that committee answer a request from the 218th GA to “Identify Violations of the Civil Rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and Other Areas of the World, Along with Other Incidents of Violation of Religious Freedoms” by pointing to “A Plea for Justice.” So not only are the two members of the MESC responsible for the paper two whole committees, the MESC and the ACSWP, are responsible. And this is a horrific paper.[1]

The paper begins by referring to the Armenian genocide and focuses on those refugees who fled to Palestine. They are contrasted with the Jewish refugees who fled Europe after the Holocaust. According to the paper while the earlier Armenians lived peacefully beside their Arab neighbors the new Jewish immigrants “took the land of Palestine from a majority of its inhabitants at gunpoint.” (emphasis mine)

And while the author’s acknowledge that some Jewish people had lived in Palestine continually and paint a picture of constant peaceful relations among all of the peoples until the “European immigrants arrived,” as usual, the story is not so simple.

An example of part of the true story includes the town of Hebron where Jews had lived for hundreds of years. As new immigrants, probably from Eastern Europe, became a part of that community in 1929 a horrible massacre of at least sixty-seven members of the Jewish community occurred. The whole Jewish community was forced to leave and was unable to return until after the 1967 war.[2]

Another example that cannot be so simply put:

“In February of 1920 a party of Arab raiders suddenly attacked the Jewish Settlements of Tel Hai and Metullah in the extreme north of the country. … This sent a shock through the Palestine Jewish community, but it was only a foreshadowing of things to come. On April 4, an Arab procession for the festival of Nebi Musa—the Prophet Moses—in Jerusalem deteriorated into an anti-Jewish riot that lasted three days. Synagogues were desecrated and burned, property destroyed, six persons killed, and two hundred wounded.”[3]

Ronald Sanders, author of The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine, goes on to tell of the secret Jewish defense group that was then formed. And some of these kinds of defense forces would commit their own atrocities. But it cannot all be laid at the feet of “European immigrants.”[4]

The authors of “A Plea for justice: A Historical Analysis “go on to write about the Balfour Declaration and the mandate of Palestine insisting that Britain and the United States violated international laws. Among other things they point to article 22 of the League of Nations and point V of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations fourteen points.

They also point to the General Assembly’s Declaration on the principles of International Law. Using this complaint they go on to refer to the Israeli ‘occupation’ in terms of the whole of Palestine, inferring that the occupation they are concerned about includes the State of Israel.[5] They write:

“The occupation of Palestine began in 1922 by the British and continued in May 14, 1948, to the present time by Israel when unilaterally, it declared itself a state.”

The paper hardly commences, but by page three has already given a false history of Israel’s beginnings and declared that the occupation includes all of what is the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. There is no footnote here as in another paper. This is in your face anti-Zionism, the kind that can be equated with anti-Semitism. The authors do not agree with the idea that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

This is part 1 of a series I am writing; I will next look at the author’s views of the 1948 war, the 1967 war and what they believe about the true identity of Jewish immigrants from Europe!

[1] I have a posting on this paper at, The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy: Ignoring Christian persecution, maligning Israel

[2] For a very good over view of this incident, which includes some kind and caring Arab citizens go to the Jewish virtual Library at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html

[3] Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1983), 653.

[4] Ibid.654.

[5] Most of the references used in this section are taken from books by anti-Zionist and anti-Israel Arabs and Jews. One author in particular, Alfred Lilienthal, who is a Jewish man, is an interesting person who has even been cited by David Duke. To read an eye opening exchange in the Senate about an Arab boycott, in 1965, of all Israel products and businesses and any company that had a Jewish person on staff with references to Lilienthal go to http://abacus.bates.edu/Library/aboutladd/departments/special/ajcr/1965/Export%20Regulation.shtml A foot note to him is, "The American-Arab Association for Commerce and Industry [part of the boycott] has about 100 company members, many of whom do business in both Israel and the Arab States. Alfred M. Lilienthal, the association's secretary and counsel, is a lecturer and journalist whose vehemently anti-Israel views are well known."