JERUSALEM (AFP) - Loathed or loved by many Israelis, Peace Now this week marks 30 years as a movement which has deeply influenced public opinion but not achieved its vision of peace with the Palestinians.
The group plans to celebrate three decades of activism and anti-settlement battles on Tuesday at a Tel Aviv square named after prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated after addressing a peace rally there in 1995.
...Peace Now, which calls itself Israel's oldest peace movement, has drawn hundreds of thousands of Israelis to its rallies, and some of its activists have gone on to win parliamentary seats.
It has also taken its campaign against Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank to Israel's highest court. The international community considers the settlements illegal and a key hurdle to Middle East peace.
"Peace Now was established to fight the settler movement," says Sammy Smooha, a sociology professor at Haifa University.
"It has provided information on settlements and demonstrated that they are counterproductive for Israeli security and the peace process."
The peace movement was a counterforce to hardline Jews who settled the West Bank and Gaza Strip after their occupation in the 1967 Middle East war.
RLCC Comment: Peace Now is wrongly accused of making things worse by getting Israelis out of Gaza. Peace Now wants to go much further than that, which makes a huge difference — not enough but still huge. They are for being much more decent to Palestinians. However, the two-state solution doesn't allow for a non-racist state of Israel.
What other nation-state gets to be based upon an ethnic group's permanent dominance? Basing higher legal rights on ethnicity is inherently evil. Such ethnic discrimination is illegal in the U.S., yet, so many Americans favor such discrimination for Israel. It's hypocrisy: A double standard.
If it's right for the Jews in Israel, then it's right for every other ethnic group on the planet. Each ethnic group need only violently assert itself to take over whatever land it covets and force out those who are already there. That's just might makes right. It's just Darwinism. It's just the law of the jungle. Is that enlightened? Hardly.
Yahoo! News: Mideast Conflict, April 7, 2008, 12:29pm, obtained via:
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)