Porter Speakman organised the antisemitic Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 conference, at which PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was praised by the conference for giving evangelicals “equal rights”, when actually they do not have equal rights.

When pressed on this, Speakman conceded that actually,

Unlike traditional churches like the Greek Orthodox and Catholics, Evangelical churches in the Palestinian Territories are not officially recognized and therefore things like marriage documents are not considered legitimate by government authorities. They have the freedom to worship, but are not “official.”

Speakman then claimed,

The recognition does not depend entirely on the PA, and the input of the churches already recognized is as equally important. In addition, the congregational nature of the Evangelical churches and the absence of a recognized hierarchy complicate things.

Speakman shared out the blame for the subordinate status of Palestinian evangelicals, taking the blame off the PA to an extent.

Now Speakman has published an attack on Israeli lawyer Calev Myers of theJerusalem Institute for Justice, for calling on the EU to hold the PA accountable for human rights abuses it oversees.

Speakman dismisses Myers as a “pro-Israel supporter”, and juxtaposes Myers’ actions with the actions of the Israeli government:

Two ironic stories over the weekend dealing with how the Israeli government deals with human rights investigations on itself and how pro-Israel supporters praise others for looking into the PA’s record. Calev Myers, of the Jerusalem Institute of Justice traveled to Brussels on Thursday to hand the European Union a report urging future aid be based on the Palestinian Authority improving the human rights of Palestinians [...]

It won’t surprise you to learn, that Porter Speakman published this piece on the antisemitic Mondoweiss site.

Recently, Mondoweiss claimed the ADL’s campaigning against the Hitler-admiring antisemite Gilad Atzmon was “outrageous”, casting Atzmon as “truly controversial”, and “an outspoken critic of the lobby and all forms of Zionism”. Mondoweiss founder Philip Weiss has let Gilad Atzmon interview him about Jewish identity. Mondoweiss even urges you to see if someone has a Jewish name before considering whether to take their opinions seriously.

So why has Speakman chosen to attack Myers over his actions?

Calev Myers is a legal representative of religious minorities in Israel, and in this role his group, the Jerusalem Institute for Justice, has petitioned the Attorney General of Israel to disband Yad L’Achim. If you look at the goals of Myers’ organisation, you will read:

The Declaration of the State of Israel, signed in 1948, emphasizes freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture. However, many institutions in Israeli society do not support our forefathers’ commitment to protecting citizens’ rights and are guided instead by a blind devotion to maintaining an intolerant and religiously homogeneous environment. We at the Jerusalem Institute of Justice believe that a Jewish and democratic state is not a self-contradiction, but rather an attainable reality. Rendering its democratic values within the justice system, Israel has the power to reinforce tolerance, truth, ethics, and morality, which serve to strengthen the fiber of the nation. The Jerusalem Institute of Justice aims to create a better Israel for all citizens by advancing civil rights, freedom of religion and social justice. We believe that by strengthening Israel’s democracy, we are strengthening the legitimacy of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state

Myers admits that many Israeli institutions are far from ideal in providing religious equality and freedom for all – including Israeli Messianics and evangelicals. However, Myers is actively working to change this situation, via his legal challenges and projects.

Contrast this, with Porter Speakman’s deference to the PA in his recent articles and at Christ at the Checkpoint.

Yet Speakman does not acknowledge Myers’ criticisms of Israeli policies, instead portraying the exact opposite image of Myers as a blinkered nationalist.

Really, what possible lesson could Porter Speakman teach Calev Myers?

This is a cross-post from Louis Lapides.

Rich Stearns, president of Christian relief organization World Vision had spent a memorable meal with Palestinian Christians and 30 American pastors and church leaders in a cave west of Bethlehem.  After the half mile hike to reach his destination at the top of a hillside, he was greeted by a sign that read, “We refuse to be enemies.”

The West Bank section of land where this Christian gathering took place is a mere 100 acres.  However, its Palestinian residents, the Nassars have turned their property into an touch point for demonstrating to evangelical American Christians how unfairly Palestinian Christians are being treated by Israelis.

Here is a video made three weeks by Porter Speakman Jr, director of pro-Palestinian Christian film With God on Our Side about Nassar family. This video was recently aired at the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference at Bethlehem Bible College in Bethlehem.

The Nassars claim they have owned the land since 1916, and according to international law, the territory does not belong to Israel, but to the Nassar family.  Currently, according to World Vision President Stearns, the parcel of land is surrounded by 50,000 Israeli settlers, “living on similar land confiscated from other Palestinian families.”

The Nassar family remain in a cave because, according to Daoud Nassar, the Israeli government has prohibited them from building structures on the land.

To demonstrate the unfairness of the Israeli government to Palestinian settlers, Stearns reminds readers of his blog, how difficult it was to scale the hill due to the barricades the Jewish government positioned to to close off the only access road the Nassar family has to their own property.

The History of the Nassar Controversy

Gush Etzion

In the World Vision post, Stearns points to 1991 as the time the Israeli government gave notice that they would annex the Nassar land as part of their plan to expand the neighboring Israeli Gush Etzion settlement.  In other words, while Israel recognizes the family’s property rights to some of the land, about half of the acreage is declared “state land.”

The controversy rages around the Israeli law that states Palestinian land that cannotbe legally documented back to the Ottoman Empire (The Turks) which would be pre-1917, can be confiscated. If a Palestinian family on the West Bank has lived on a parcel of land for “centuries,” says Stearns, and they lack proper documentation required to prove ownership of the land, the family will be booted out.

In 2002 the Nassar family, according to the Israeli newspaper HaAretz, appealed the 1991 decision, but was rejected even though “reliable proof was presented that the land was cultivated for decades”.

Nassar’s proof consisted of copies of land registration documents from the 1920s that bear the official stamp of the Israeli civil administration. The land was purchased by Nassar’s Lebanese grandfather in 1916.

According to CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) the military judge ruling in the trial rejected the challenge by Nassar refusing to accept a hand-drawn map as evidence.

Another issue with Nassar’s papers is that they had been honored by the Turkish, British and Jordanian rulers prior to Israel’s rule. Turkish or Ottoman rule ended in 1917, when the British conquered the entire region, By 1924 the area had already been under British rule for seven years. So the Turks could not have honored the Nassar’s 1924 ownership papers since they were not ruling at that time.

Shaul Goldstein, mayor of Gush Etzion, views the Nassar’s claim as another last ditch effort by Arabs to stymie the Jewish settlement effort.  Goldstein believes the disputed land has been declared state land and can be developed at the discretion of the Gush Etzion regional council.

Regarding the road built on Nassar’s property, Goldstein says that road did not infringe on Nassar’s property. Rather, the passageway carved up the hillside in the area that had been declared state property, and the road could have been built on an easier route, says Goldstein, but the Israelis chose to take a more circuitous route to avoid having to cut through Nassar’s land.  Stearns failed to report that because of the conflict over the land, the settlers decided to stop the road project “until the matter is clarified.”

The Symbol of the Nassar Family

One can only imagine how the Nassar family’s plight has been used as a symbol of mistreatment of  Palestinian families by the Israeli government.

His farm,  located on a hill next to the Neve Daniel settlement,  now called  “The Tent of Nations” has become an attraction for tourists from other countries who travel to Israel  on an “occupation fact finding mission”.

Now Daoud Nassar has taken his family’s plight into the spiritual realm which has captured the attention of American evangelical Christians.

“The Tent of Nations” is now a gathering place for Christians who seek peace in the Middle East and try to be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. Unfortunately, more and more Christian leaders and their flocks are being misled by the Nassars for lack of information.

Nassar’s claim “we refuse to be enemies” raises a lot of question.  As a Palestinian Christian he desires not to be enemies with Israelis. So how much has he reached out to Israeli families to befriend them?  On his website Nassar uses their slogan “People building bridges.”  But has he reached out to Israeli families or only to Christians to gain support for his cause against Israel?

Is he taking advantage of what appears to be an unfair situation to persuade evangelical Christians into supporting him. Daoud wants Christians to meet him as a real person rather than allow American Christians to stereotype him as a terrorist because he is Palestinian.

Stearns asks whether the American church has turned a blind eye to the persecution of Palestinian families like the Nassars?

The Truth Behind the Nassar’s Demolition Orders

In a June 2010 report from Missing Peace, “Demolition Orders and Co-Existence in Gush Etzion”, Daoud received nine demolition orders from Israeli authorities.  He claims “[Israel] is attempting to break his spirit, he is determined to to fight and conquer this (Israeli) evil.”

The statements and claims of Daoud Nassar call for further investigation. So Missing Peace contacted the Civil Administration in Israel, the mayor of Gush Etzion, Shaul Goldstein, as well as Palestinians living near Gush Etzion and the Nassar family. As a result of their investigation, it appears a lot of important information is missing from Nassar’s claims.

First, the demolition order was delivered to Daoud Nassar on May 28th, 2010.  But the Israel Civil Administration (ICA) argues that the demolition only referred to illegal structures. So the demolition order, according to Nassar, had to to with adding of a structure with a solid roof. Nassar had built those structures adding to legally existing structures without obtaining a permit. So the demolition orders he has received were in fact the result of a court order handed down in 2006 in which the illegal structures were to be removed

Second, Nassar is not the only one receiving demolition orders for illegal building.  ICA officials issue between 10 to 15 demolition orders to Gush Etzion weekly, according to Mayor Goldstein.  He just wants Nassar to follow the  example of other inhabitants of Gush Etzion, to contest the demolition orders.

In addition, Goldstein rejected Nassar’s claims that Israeli settlers are treated differently from Palestinians by the ICA.  Goldsterin cited examples of Gush Etzion settlers who had to demolish structures in the absence of a permit.   In addition, Shaul Goldstein added that demolition orders have been issued to the outpost Sde Boaz adjacent to Neve Daniel.  So where is the basis of Nassar’s claim that he is being treated differently simply because he is Palestinian.  The Missing Peace  article also goes into greater detail on the legality of the the claims of Palestinians farmers who claim land in Derech Avot.   If the lands are state lands, their authorization will be considered but if the buildings are situated on private lands, the inhabitants will be subject to having their demolition orders executed.

The Truth About Nassar’s Bridge Building to Israelis

Nassar invites American Christians to his “Tent for All Nations”,  supported by groups from Germany and Switzerland, but it appears representatives from one nation in particular are missing from his inclusive list – Israel.  When questioned by Missing Piece about his relationship with Israelis, Nassar said “he had few or no affiliations.”  Rather, he mentioned that he was engaged with problems on a regular basis with Jewish people in his proximity. Yet when investigated further, these run-ins with nearby Jews dated back to incidents in the 90s and an incident during the Second Intifada in 2002.

Under his website banner of “Bridges to Peace,” Nassar has leaked out to various Christian websites stories about harassment and violence against his property committed by Jews in Gush Etzion. Oddly enough, the Mayor of Gush Etzion claims to have no knowledge of these incidents. Instead, tens of Palestinian farmers work their land in the fields in the same area without any reports of violence or harassing incidents.

Nassar speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he speaks about Israelis and Palestinians meeting to learn more about each other.  Yet in his own backyard, he has failed to practice such acts of peaceful co-existence.

Is Nassar pulling the wool over the eyes of American Christians who travel to Israel to hear the Middle East conflict from the Palestinian side?  Could it be that evangelicals are being hoodwinked by Palestinian propaganda perpetrated by the Nassar family in order to lure evangelicals away from supporting Israel.?

Nassar has limits his contacts to people who are pro-Palestinian and with those who are opposed to the “occupation.”  Jesus had much to say about religious people who only had contact with people just like them (Matthew 5:46-48)  Nassar appears to be dishonest when he claims he wants co-existence and an end to the enmity between Palestinians and Israelis.

Gush Etzion’s mayor recalls co-existence projects in Gush Etzion where Israelis and Palestinians worked together on a daily basis.  One example of this co-existence occurred in Beit Sakariyah, a Palestinian village located among the Israeli villages of Gush Etzion.  There Palestinians are employed by Israelis at a garage and gas station in the area.

Even during the Second Intifada Israeli residents of Efrat, the largest settlement of Gush Etzion, assisted Palestinians with clothing and food.  Nassar confessed he had no connection with this co-existence between Arabs and Jews in Gush Etzion.

According to Mayor Goldstein, “the actions of some peace activists and reporters have served to inflame tensions and undermine the efforts to build coexistence with his Arab neighbors.”

From the above statement it appears Nassar is misleading fellow non-violent peace activists to disregard laws and to test the Israeli ruling authorities for the sake of gaining publicity. Nassar’s behavior as  Christian is  confusing.  I wonder if he  possesses any desire to demonstrate the spirit of Christ to his Israeli neighbors or is he using the dispute over his land as an excuse to influence Christians to turn their backs on Israel?

The Solution to End Nassar’s Conflict with Israelis

Nassar spoke to  representatives from Missing Peace and sought their advice as to what he should do about the demolition orders.  He was advised to replace the corrugated iron structures with reed mats. These types of structures are permitted to be built without having to gain permission from the ICA. Consequently, Nassar would be able to maintain the use of the land.

CAMERA reports that under the laws of the West Bank, the family never actually owned the land in question. In fact, the land laws are not even Israeli but were passed on to Israel by previous rulers. The land laws are based on the Ottoman Land Code, and Israel was and is obligated to obey them under international laws (Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1947) to maintain the legal system in the territories, and to respect the laws in force in the country.

Under the Ottoman Land Code, there are  two major categories of land including mulk “property”, which is private land,  There is no need to cultivate such land to keep rights over it.  So if the Nassar land is private, there was no need to cultivate it. But since they cultivated the land as a proof of ownership, they are suggesting the land is not private at all but belongs to the state.

The other category of land is  miri, state land in which individuals gain limited rights by consistent cultivation. But the rights of such land is in no way equal to the rights to what is called private property. It is conditional ownership held by grant from the state.

What Nassar owns is land that is property of the state, and only reverts to the state if there is a failure to cultivate the land  So the Nassar family never really owned the land in the first place, but held limited rights granted by the state as long as they cultivated the land.

This law has worked in the favor of the Palestinians since 1967.  Since that time Palestinian farmers have been able to register state land in their own names in light of their own cultivation of the land.

Summary of Nassar’s Claim to Conflict with Israelis

It’s not hard to see that Nassar has omitted important information in his statements about the demolition of his property by Israelis. In addition, he or his attorney Jonathan Kuttab, failed to explain the application of the Ottoman Land Code as it applies to the Nassar property.

Nassar would rather have American evangelical pawns believe untruths in order to gain their support than to tell them the truth.

Nassar’s Christian claims to desiring peace with Israelis lack substance and evidence. His proclamations of love for his enemies is absent in his actions.

As a Jewish person I have to ask why Christians who visited the Nassar family near the Gush Etzion settlement, did not also spend time visiting Israeli families to hear “the other side.”  To return to America and repeat the falsehoods perpetrated by Daoud Nassar is deliberately distributing misinformation and contributing towards the deligitimization of Israel in Christian churches.

What I find most offensive is the fact the Nassars, as Christians, make no statements condemning the evil and terrorism that exists among their own people.  Not a word spoken about Palestinian terrorism, suicide bombings, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the PLO or the al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades. Where is their Christians conscience against Palestinian terrorism against Israelis? Do they feel it is justified?

The Nassar family leave us with more unanswered questions than giving us answers to our many question about the Middle East conflict.

1. CATC releases a replacement theology-driven manifesto mentioning Messianic speakers Wayne Hilsden, Richard Harvey and Evan Thomas, implying that the conference had agreed to the manifesto.
2. CATC alters its manifesto, and acknowledges that it was only endorsed by the conference organisers.
3. Sami Awad then claims that Messianic speakers were given full input and opportunities to edit manifesto.
4. Wayne Hilsden publicly calls on Sami Awad for an explanation, saying that he did he not see the document at all, and it was not shown to him at the conference. This implies that Sami Awad’s story is not correct.
5. It is understood that Richard Harvey did not see the document either.
6. Based on this information, Israel Today posts that Wayne Hilsden and Richard Harvey were used as “fig leaves” for CATC2012.
7. Wayne Hilsden contacts Sami Awad and then declares that Sami Awad was actually correct, suggesting that Awad would explain himself in public soon.
8. Sami Awad says nothing more publicly of the manifesto.
9. It is believed that Evan Thomas, David Loden and Lisa Loden were the Messianic leaders who had access to the manifesto.
10. Evan Thomas says he made grammatical changes to the manifesto, without suggesting any theological changes.
11. Messianic participants at CATC then release a joint statement, in which they say that “some of us” had the opportunity to edit and input into the document, without specifying who exactly was involved in the process. In this statement, participants repeat the aims of the conference and claim not to have been compromised by CATC at all.
12. Despite not having seen or agreed to the CATC manifesto before its release, Wayne Hilsden and Richard Harvey attach their names to the Messianic statement which revealed that Messianics did have access to the manifesto, without specifying which Messianics.
13. In the statement, it emerges that part of CATC involved suggesting non-violent “resistance” tactics to the Hamas government in Gaza.
14. Despite admitting they had an opportunity to edit the manifesto, the Messianics CATC delegation attempts to distance itself from the manifesto that they themselves contributed to.
15. Stephen Sizer links to the Messianic statement on his blog, as does the official CATC Twitter account.
16. Stephen Sizer then posts a video of Evan Thomas praising CATC as “of the highest standard”.
17. Stephen Sizer is criticised by the Council of Christians and Jews, and by the Bishop of Manchester, for posting racist anti-Semitic content on his Facebook wall.
18. Rather than providing clear and helpful theology, Messianic leaders involved with the CATC2012 are rapidly causing confusion amongst the wider Messianic community, as the sequence of events is not very clear and appears contradictory, depending on which CATC participant you talk to.
19. The question on everyone’s mind: will Evan Thomas, Richard Harvey, Wayne Hilsden, David & Lisa Loden and Dan Juster have any more to say about the confusing CATC2012 manifesto?

Messianic speakers at Christ at the Checkpoint, Wayne Hilsden, Richard Harvey and Evan Thomas have written a joint statement on their role in the replacementist conference manifesto.

Hilsden, Harvey and Thomas note:

Also on the agenda was promotion of non-violent resistance to the administration of Gaza and the West Bank, and the development of Palestinian Evangelical Christian theologies.

What is promotion of non-violent resistance to Gaza? Who runs the administration of Gaza? Hamas.

Bear in mind that two of the conference organisers, Stephen Sizer and Sami Awad, appear to defend unequivocally the Gaza flotilla, sent in May 2010 by the Turkish Islamists IHH. Stephen Sizer has told Malaysian TV:

Getting behind the flotilla is a fantastic way [that] people here in Malaysia can help. Getting relief supplies into Gaza, breaking the siege. It embarrasses America and it embarrasses Israel. The ordinary human beings are willing to risk their lives to sail supplies into Gaza.

Here is what Sami Awad – another Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 speaker – had to say about the flotilla, in the week after the event, in an article about “nonviolence“:

“The world woke up Monday morning to a shocking and tragic scene, as Israeli commandos launched an unprovoked raid on a flotilla carrying nonviolent activists attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

It is true that the flotilla was carrying “ordinary human beings” and “nonviolent activists”. However, the flotilla also carried violent and racist activists linked to a jihadist group. This was surely worthy of a mention, from people who claim to oppose violence and racism in all forms, and are organising a conference about finding solutions to violence and racism.

IHH is one of the world’s biggest and keenest supporters of Hamas. Many people still think that the IHH are simply “Turkish aid workers”. They are not. They are funders and lovers of jihad. IHH flotilla participants carried weapons on the flotilla ship Mavi Marmara. Flotilla participants also chanted songs, calling for the murder of Jews.

Let’s be clear – when people speak of recommending non-violent resistance tactics to Gaza’s adminsitration, they mean giving advice to Hamas.

Remember, non-violent resistance does not exclude violence – rather it is meant to complement violence. Here is CATC2012 speaker Ben White on non-violence as “popular struggle”, and violence:

Popular struggle, like violent resistance, is not an end in and of itself; it is a method, a strategy. It is the end goal, decolonization and liberation from occupation and Zionist apartheid, that is ferociously opposed by the self-declared international guardians of the “peace process” and their friends in the Palestinian elite. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Hamas themselves strongly consider using non-violence as well as violent tactics. They oversee the administration of Gaza, to whom CATC2012 recommended non-violent resistance.

How did the Messianic speakers at CATC2012 react to this? According to their statement:

We did not feel compromised in any way, but were able to freely express our own points of view, and were treated with respect.

They continue:

The conference organisers have issued a manifesto affirming their aims and positions, which was commended to the conference participants at the end of the conference. Some of us were shown this statement during the editorial process, out of respect and appreciation for our involvement, and out of acknowledgment of the bridges that were built during the conference. While a few of us offered advice on the composition of these documents, we do not in fact endorse all the points that were finally presented. Nor were we asked by the organizers to endorse them.

If a few offered advice on composition of the document, how can they then disassociate from the points of the document that they had an opportunity to fully edit and contribute to?

According to Sami Awad, Messianic leaders had a full opportunity to edit and input into the document.

According to Evan Thomas, he made some grammatical changes to the manifesto, without actually suggesting any substantive changes to the manifesto itself.

Here is Evan Thomas praising CATC2012 to Stephen Sizer (whom today has been called out by the Bishop of Manchester for posting racist web links). Thomas says:

 ”the conference has been probably the highest standard that I’ve ever intended, both in form and in content”

Furthermore, the Messianic participants wrote that:

The aims of the conference organisers were clearly stated on their website

Despite the conference aims being different in English and Arabic.

The Messianic participants at Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 now appear to be covering up, rationalising or explaining away the extremism and racism of the conference, so as not to look too bad by association.

This is a losing game for everyone involved, and must stop. Now.

Dexter Van Zile writes:

A week after Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told an audience of Evangelical Protestants from across the world that his government respected the rights of its Christian minorities, officials from the Palestinian Authority have informed Bethlehem pastor Rev. Naim Khoury that his church lacked the authority to function as a religious institution under the PA.

The church can still gather to pray, for now, but the PA’s decision conveyed on Saturday will have a real impact on the members of First Baptist, which endured numerous bomb attacks during the First Intifada.

“They said that our legitimacy as a church from a governmental point of view is not approved,” said Khoury’s son, Steven, who serves as an assistant pastor at First Baptist. “They said they will not recognize any legal paper work from our church. That includes birth certificates, wedding certificates and death certificates. Children are not even considered to be legitimate if they don’t have recognized paperwork.”

The irony, Steven said, is that the PA’s announcement comes right after the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference. This conference, which took place from March 5 through March 9, 2012 was a gathering of approximately 600 Evangelical Protestants from across the globe (mostly from the United States) to discuss the theology of Christian Zionism, which some Evangelicals believe increases the prospect of violence in the Middle East and gives support to Israeli policies that they do not like.

During the opening night of the conference, Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad told the assembly that his government respected the rights of Christians. Palestinians celebrate religious holidays together, PA officials attend Christmas celebrations and even attend Midnight Mass for Christmas, Fayyad said.

“This is what it means to be a Palestinian,” Fayyad said, adding that the PA feels a deep sense of responsibility for the holy places and will allow unfettered access to places of spiritual significance in areas under its control.

Nevertheless, there is a sense among Christians in Bethlehem that anti-Christian animus has gotten worse in the city over the past few years, Khoury said. “People are always telling them, ‘Convert to Islam. Convert to Islam. It’s the true and right religion.’”

This is the second time the church has been told it is operating without PA sanction, Khoury said. Other churches in Bethlehem are left alone, said Khoury, who suggested that the church’s love for both the Jewish and Arab people and its belief that both can live in the land in peace may have played a role in the PA’s decision. Prior to the PA, the church, which was founded in 1980, never had a problem with its paperwork, Khoury said.

“We believe it’s people who don’t like what we’re doing and the message we offer,” he said.

The church’s message of reconciliation flies in the face of the propaganda that permeates Palestinian society. Muslim clerics routinely offer up anti-Semitic rants on PA television and so-called peace activists have turned the concrete sections of the security barrier in Bethlehem into a canvas for their propaganda, which in some instances proffers a troubling fatalism to its viewers.

For example one section of the security barrier near the Alrowad refugee camp in Bethlehem depicts two Palestinian youths throwing rocks and another  being arrested by Israeli soldiers. Alongside the image, the artist has written in French and English the phrase “We can’t live, So we wait for death.”

Khoury said the Palestinian Authority needs to treat all sects with equality and respect their rights. “The First Baptist Church in Bethlehem has demonstrated its value to the community over the years and proven itself to be a law-abiding church,” Khoury said.

Khoury said he will speak to members of Congress in the United States to draw attention to what is happening to First Baptist in Bethlehem.

“We did let them know that we’re not going to go quietly on this,” Khoury said. “We want our church to be fully recognized equally with all the other recognized denominations. Our church deserves the right to be equally recognized amongst all the other recognized denominations in the PA.”

Joann Magnuson, a long-time observer of Christian communities in the West Bank, said she has known the Khourys for at least 15 years.

“I know them to be serious Christians, busy caring for their flock and preaching the gospel of love and forgiveness,” she said. “It’s seems more than coincidence that the Christ at the Checkpoint conference ended and now the Khourys are being targeted.”

At the time of publication the PLO Mission in Washington, D.C. has not responded to The Algemeiner’s request for comment on these allegations. This story will be updated as information allows.

Back in December, I wrote about how Christ at the Checkpoint 2012 programme director Stephen Sizer was proud of inviting Richard Harvey to CATC 2012, despite the fact Sizer has publicly implied that Harvey is guilty of heresy, in a previous article, which Sizer has not apologised for. This struck me as odd.

My conclusion at the time was this:

Richard Harvey’s presence at the conference appears to be a fig-leaf, for the anti-Jewish racism of this conference – at which the likes of Sami Awad, Ben White and Stephen Sizer will be present. Yet the question remains - Does Stephen Sizer think Richard Harvey is a heretic? If so, then the only conclusion, is that Sizer values the public image of the Checkpoint conference, over his theological misgivings about Richard Harvey. But then that does not bode well for a conference ostensibly about finding a just, peaceful, non-heretical theology for the Middle East.

Now CATC has released a manifesto promoting replacement theology. The accompanying statement claims:

A unique aspect of the conference was the presence and presentations by members of the Messianic community including Richard Harvey, Evan Thomas and Wayne Hilsden, who provided an integral contribution to the dialogue.  [...] The Statement and Manifesto were presented to the conference participants on the last day but were only agreed on and endorsed by the Conference Organizers.

This statement heavily implies that Richard Harvey and Wayne Hilsden were aware of the conference manifesto, given that they are publicly named here. However, Wayne Hilsden has publicly stated that he had no knowledge of the CATC manifesto.

Wayne Hilsden was absent on the last day of the conference, having left in the morning – by contrast Richard Harvey delivered his paper on the last day of the conference. Was the manifesto really presented to participants on the last day when Harvey was present? Or even, was the manifesto presented to participants after Harvey had left – perhaps during the farewell session?

I find it very unlikely that Richard Harvey had any knowledge of the CATC manifesto either. However, given that he has publicly been implicated by CATC with this manifesto, it will be interesting to see whether Harvey will distance himself from the manifesto in a public way, as Hilsden has done.