Israel, U.S. to coordinate on boycott of Durban II conference
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: UN, Durban II, Israel, U.S.
Israel and the U.S. decided a few weeks ago to boycott the Durban II conference scheduled for early 2009 and likely to harshly criticize Israel's human rights record unless they receive firm guarantees that the event will not turn into anti-Israel festival.
The September 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa had been slated to deal with racism and xenophobia, sponsored by South Africa, the UN Human Rights Commission and the UN non-aligned states a body dominated by Arab states.
The conference was attended by official government delegations, as well as non-government organizations who dictated a hard anti-Israel and anti-Semitic line.
The attacks on Israel included accusations of apartheid, that Zionism is racism, and that the Holocaust is not a unique event but similar to other events in history.
Delegates also said Israel was "born in sin," the result of ethnic cleansing of Arabs and that in the present, it is committing genocide against Palestinians.
U.S. and Israel's representatives walked out of the conference in protest at these attacks.
"We are concerned this time too there will be criticism and an anti-Semitic attack," a Foreign Ministry official said. "What can you expect from a conference whose organizers include Cuba, Iran and North Korea."
On Wednesday, many major U.S. newspapers ran an advertisement signed by 25 public figures including former politicians, religious leaders and intellectuals, calling on the government to boycott the conference. Signatories included Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, former CIA chief James Woolsey and law professor Alan Dershowitz. The signatories called on Rice to announce a boycott of the conference, denouncing it as a platform for anti-Semitism "slated to encourage hatred of Israel and the U.S."
"This is another example of how a UN-sponsored conference to fight racism and xenophobia is about to become an arena for extreme political Israel-bashing, while ignoring areas in the world where racism, religious persecution and intolerance of foreigners, are rampant." ....
Was it anti-Semitic? How could it be anti-Semitic when the Arabs are Semites? It couldn't have been anti-Semitic. It wasn't anti-Jewish either. It was anti-false-Zionism. False-Zionism is anti-peace. It is militant. It is anti-Christ, because for one, it is militant. All things militant are anti-Christ by definition. Christ is the prince of peace and only peace. He is not Mars the false god — the god of war the militarists worship as one of their gods often along with mammon and various gods of unrestrained sex and other gods.
Let's see. Israel is an apartheid regime, obviously. False-Zionism is racist. Polls in Israel show that the vast majority of Israelites are ethnically bigoted. They say it themselves. They believe they are superior and all Arabs are inferior beings. Many Israelites believe that only Jews as only they defined Jews are even human beings. They believe they are a distinct race of beings — a different species. Well, with that attitude, Jesus called them serpents and the brood of Satan. That's apt. The holocaust was terrible, but we've seen that those who allege certain numbers refuse to allow historians to dig. We've seen official Polish numbers change by the millions. Also, there have been other terrible atrocities down through history. How many American Indians were exterminated during the European's invasion of the Americas? That doesn't lessen what was done to Jews. Also, Israel was "born in sin." Its founders used deliberate acts of terrorism including against Jews in order to wear down the British and the rest of the world. Those founders were designated as terrorists by the mainstream in the U.S. That was before so many Jews in the U.S. had hoarded up so much mammon that they subsequently used to buy often controlling interests in so many strategically placed corporations. The founders of the current state of Israel did execute their stated policy of transfer, which is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing of Arabs. It's a fact. The current policy of Israel toward the Palestinians is to commit genocide if the Israelis don't get their way that is all the land with the Palestinians moved out of the country. Why has the U.S. government taken such a mistaken position regarding all of this? In the final analysis, the reason is money.
Alan Dershowitz called for the creation of warrants to torture people. That's deranged. Yet these people are invoking his name as if he's a moral authority one should follow. There are issues concerning the others as well that I won't go into here though for the sake of time.
Racism, religious persecution, and intolerance of foreigners are rampant in Israel. The polls show the racism. The tactics show the racism. The results show the racism. Christians aren't allowed to proselytize. Telling people in Israel that they ought to believe in and follow Jesus is punishable by a five-year prison term. How's that for religious persecution. Why didn't the U.S. stand with Apartheid South Africa? Well, in fact it did under Ronald Reagan who was a known racist. It wasn't until the people turned up the pressure enough that the U.S. finally got around to boycotting the racism and fascism in South Africa. What's different about Israel? Half the population of New York City wasn't Afrikaner. The Afrikaners didn't have forty billionaires running major corporations. They hadn't been subjected to the Nazis, so there wasn't sympathy endlessly to play on asking everyone to look the other way while those who were tortured and executed do their own dirty work.
So, according to them, what I've just written makes me an anti-Semite. However, I'm not. No amount of calling me an anti-Semite will make me an anti-Semite. I stand totally against lumping people together according to DNA and labeling them as thereby deserving less or as being inherently inferior or any of the other things racists claim against whole ethnic and racial groups. No, racist and ethnic bigot applies more often to those who point and call out anti-Semite at anyone who says the Zionism of Jabotinsky is sheer evil, which it is, just as was Nazism. If they don't like hearing it, let them change from being it. The Nazis didn't like what was being said about them either and either did the Afrikaners. Well, most Germans and Afrikaners have come around to a better mentality and policy. It's time for the Israelis to also. That's the way of it. It's the truth: The whole truth. There's nothing false in it.
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)