Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, resigned as president from the Institute for Nonviolence he founded in 1991 and made public apologies he should not have.

"Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence," by Arun Gandhi. January 7, 2008.

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience — a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit — with many deadly snakes in it — and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

Larry Fine, head of the Jewish Federation of Rochester, called the posting "reprehensible." Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called it "shameful that a peace institute would be headed up by a bigot."

"One would hope that the grandson of such an illustrious human being would be more sensitive to Jewish history," Foxman said. ("Gandhi grandson leaves peace center," by Ben Dobbin. Associated Press. January 25, 2008.)

Where's the consensus Israeli/Jewish sensitivity for the Palestinians or the Lebanese?

I will say that it was more than the "warped mind of an individual" that caused Nazism. There were many warped minds. Gandhi is correct though that people don't like it when some ethnic groups count for more than do others. Publicly available polling data shows that by a wide majority, Israelis consider themselves superior to and more valuable than Palestinians and Arabs. That cannot be disputed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Here is the bigoted Anti-Defamation League calling Gandhi a bigot for his almost perfectly accurate assessment. How hypocritical is that? Here's Gandhi rightly upbraiding, rebuking, reproaching Israel, and what's the reaction? Instead of standing corrected and repenting, they shoot the messenger, as usual, as all Machiavellians do.

Israel reputedly has the fourth or fifth most powerful military on the planet. It has hundreds of nuclear weapons. It has a hugely disproportionate representation in the U.S. government and in the U.S. in general and in many other nations and financial institutions and major corporations. How many of the world's billionaires are Jewish while Jews are about 0.227% of the world's population? There are an estimated 60 Jewish-American billionaires. It is a huge seller of weapons internationally. It constantly stomps on Palestine and the Palestinians. It constantly pushes the Palestinians off their own lands (stealing their land). It has made Gaza into a concentration camp. It has created Apartheid Israel. It dropped millions of cluster bomblets on Lebanon with George W. Bush's okay. Without any evidence, the Neocons and Likudnics are pressing hard for making war on Iran and a string of other nations around the planet, but Abraham H. Foxman has the nerve, the gall, to call Gandhi a bigot and to demand an apology from him.

Of course, the Jewish Lobby jumped on the University that was hosting the Institute for Nonviolence to intimidate them into pressuring Gandhi to resign for speaking truth to money. It's as if people should have apologized to the Afrikaners during South Africa's apartheid years or apologize to then Alabama governor George Wallace for calling him a racist when he called in 1963 for "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

An ethnically segregated society is exactly what the Jews in Israel are building. It is exactly what the American people condemned in the U.S. and South Africa. Americans, not all, but most, once led the way in enlightening the world.

"America, America, God shed his grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea." That brotherhood is supposed to include ethnic Arabs, Jews, Germans, Black Africans, and on and on, covering every ethnic group on Earth.

Foxman should be the one apologizing to Gandhi, the Palestinians, and all Arabs on behalf of the state of Israel and the Jewish people.

Gandhi apologized for not making clear that he wasn't lumping together all Jews. Oh, only an idiot would have thought he was. In fact, anyone who claims to have taken it that way has made that claim absolutely false-heartedly. In fact, Foxman knows and knew full well that there isn't a racist or ethnically bigoted bone in Gandhi's body. Sure Gandhi is prejudiced. He's prejudicial toward peacemakers and lovers. So is God. That's why he's non-violent. The Israeli state sure isn't. It's highly militaristic.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.