Political Zionism is shorthand used today to refer to Herzl and his followers who arranged for the creation of the current state of Israel.

Right now, there is a historian in Israel name Benny Morris who has written in ways designed to expose certain political-Zionists atrocities. In some of his research and work, he has apparently admitted to having made some errors. A case in point is discussed by Efraim Karsh in his article, "The Fight Over '1948'," (The New York Sun. May 1, 2008) which is a book review of sorts of Benny Morris's book entitled, "1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War."

Efraim Karsh explains how Morris used a mistranslation of David Ben-Gurion's October 1937 letter to his son into English. The English was given as, "We must expel Arabs and take their places." The Hebrew, according to Karsh, says, "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption — proven throughout all our activity — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."

Karsh wrote about Morris's writing that he, Karsh, "was taken aback by the systematic falsification of evidence aimed at casting Zionism as 'a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement ... intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs.'"

The fact is that, as I written often on this website, both sides are to blame. However, regardless of the degree to which Morris may have made errors, the "facts" on the ground speak for themselves. Jews did horn in under Ben-Gurion. Terrorist acts were perpetrated by various Jewish (so-called) groups against both non-Jews and Jews alike. Palestinians were driven out in terror.

That said, it doesn't mean that the Palestinian version is pristine or that any of the various versions in any of the surrounding states is pristine. In which states is there pure unselfishness and a pure desire for truth rather than to further oneself or ones group even at the expense of truth?

One is not to kick oneself for having read and believed Morris. Learning to read everything with the understanding that errors can and do occur is only enlightening.

What is Karsh's point? What is his motive? Is it pure? In reviewing Morris, he gives Morris nothing. He gives the Palestinians nothing. He makes no criticism of the actual fruits of the current state of Israel by which we know that tree and its root.

If Karsh seeks to exonerate that current Israel, which is under the political (false-hearted) Zionists, he is sadly mistaken. From his lack of looking at the errors on all sides, he appears to be attempting just that: Exoneration. It won't stand up. It has no legs! We only need look at the fruit.

We only need look at the fruits of Islam as taught by Mohammed and as written in the Qur'an to know that tree and its root as well.

Then we need only look at Jesus's fruit and his tree and root by comparison to see that Jesus's way is the only right way forward.


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.