"When millions of people erroneously believe that they are a nation, conduct themselves like a nation and fight like a nation - well, then they are a nation."

when does a national minority have the right to secede and establish a nation-state of its own? If the Kosovars have this right, why not the Basques in Spain? The Corsicans in France? The Tibetans in China? The Tamils in Sri Lanka? The Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria? The Luo in Kenya? The Darfurians in Sudan?

That is a subject best left to professors of political science. Reality has its own language. No one case is the same as another. There is no international tribunal to decide, according to established standards, who has this right - and who does not. The matter is decided in practice: when a particular population is determined to achieve independence at any cost, and when it is ready to fight and sacrifice for its independence - then they have the "right" to independence.

Apparently, a paradox. A small state, even a medium-sized state cannot maintain real independence in a world that is inevitably moving towards globalization. States like Germany and France are compelled to transfer large chunks of their sovereign powers to regional super-states, like the European Union. The French economy and the German army are subject to Brussels more than to Paris and Berlin. So what is the sense in creating even smaller states?

The answer lies with the power of nationalism, which is not decreasing, but rather the opposite. One hundred or two hundred years ago, Corsica could not defend itself. To be secure, it had to be part of the French kingdom. The Basque homeland could not sustain an independent economy and needed to be part of a larger economic unit, like Spain. But today, when decisions are made in Brussels, why should Corsicans and Basques not have their own states and be separate members of the EU?

That is a world-wide tendency. Separate nations do not unite in new states, but on the contrary, existing states break up into national components. Anyone who believes that Israelis and Palestinians will unite tomorrow in one state does not live in the real world. The slogan "two states for two peoples" is relevant today more than ever.

So Israel, approaching its own 60th anniversary, should recognize the Republic of Kosovo and wish it well.

RLCC: This is a very strange attitude coming from a peace activist: "...when it is ready to fight and sacrifice for its independence - then they have the "right" to independence." What does he mean by "fight"? This is as saying that rights are determined by violent might. It sounds like social Darwinism to me. Don't the physically weak have as much right to family or tribe and lands as the physically strong?

If this might-makes-right is right, then Hitler was right up to the point that the Soviets and Americans and others were more right by being able to defeat him and the leftists and Gypsies and homosexuals and Jews and all the others who were killed by Hitler were just too weak to deserve their so-called rights.

The rights of people are not properly determined according to the terms laid out above by Uri Avnery. Rights themselves need to be defined and qualified. The right of people is to be unselfish. Everything else fails in the end.

This is Semantical Theology that is not yet taught in the mainstream. It will be though.

As for nationalism as a trend, when the Berlin Wall came down, it was assured that nationalism would increase because it had been held down so much. Nevertheless, the trend is also that after people get that out of their system and then look around, they see that peaceful cooperation is the right path forward. Unity is right, and the only true unity is exemplified by Jesus.

The only problems since then have been with non-adopters and those who fall away. We need to come together in the Christ-spirit. We need universal repentance. Only that will save. God saves. God anoints. God is one in us and we in God.

What the Serbs did to the Kosovo Muslims was wrong, the U.S. bombing of Serbia was wrong, and what the Muslims did in retaliation was also wrong. It has been wrong all the way around.

Also, it is very clear that there is much more going on concerning this recent declaration of independence than is being discussed in the Western mainstream media. The common people are just pawns on the imperial chess board. The greedy at the top want more. They will break up things and recombine ad nauseam to become richer in mammon and material possessions, etc. They know and knew that gas and oil and other things are in the ground. They don't want the Russians and Russia's allies to dominate since they are less likely to allow Western oligarchs to gain all at the expense of all the rest.

Originally from Gush-Shalom on February 23, 2008, 11:11am


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.