TURN ON THE LIGHT IN ISRAEL

"Is Israel finished? Five questions," by Shmuel Rosner (Chief U.S. Correspondent). Haaretz. May 02, 2008.

Jeffrey Goldberg's latest article in The Atlantic was not an easy read for a concerned Israeli. It started with the cover of the May issue, asking "Is Israel Finished?"

...

[Question from Rosner to Goldberg] 1. In your conversation with the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, he said that the success of the American Jewish community now is no proof that it will not face extinction in the future. His words: "Jews in Germany - and I don't draw any comparison at all - Jews in other parts of the world were very successful all their lives, and that didn't provide them with safety." You write that this was "a careless and cynical statement" but do not really explain why - is it because you do not believe such think is imaginable, is it because a Prime Minister should not be saying such things, is it other reason?

[Goldberg answer:] I find it impossible to believe that a serious man like Ehud Olmert could possibly believe that the situation of American Jewry is analogous in any way to that of pre-Holocaust German Jewry. There's nothing at all in history, or current reality, to suggest anything except that America is a second Promised Land for the Jewish people. This, of course, is a challenge to Israel-centrism. If America is a Promised Land, then why do we need the actual Promised Land?

I actually believe we need both, but I think the success of American Jewry tests the Zionist idea. If you go back to the speeches of the early Zionist Congresses, you'll see that even Herzl and his deputy, Max Nordau, saw America as a challenge to their idea. Nordau's role at these congresses was to report on the state of worldwide anti-Semitism, and so the delegates heard about France's endemic Jew-hatred, and Russia's pogroms, and so on. But when Nordau got to America, he described a country in which Jews were excluded from certain hotels. It wasn't his most convincing moment.

All that said, I think there's an important, and subtle, point to make, about the danger faced by Jews in America. It is not a physical danger, but a spiritual danger. America is safe for Jews, but not for Judaism. I'll take a spiritual threat over a physical threat any day, but this is still a serious challenge, and one I hope the prime minister of Israel would address. Olmert loses credibility when he suggests that America is susceptible to European-style anti-Semitism. It's simply not believable to most Jews who actually live here.

....

This is excellent. It points to two very important things: 1) Those calling themselves Zionists in the lead up to Israel declaring its independence in 1948 and afterwards were entirely wrong that Jews would automatically be negatively discriminated against relative to any other ethnic group no matter where they were to live except in their own Jewish-dominated homeland, and 2) The non-Christian brand of Judaism, namely the Talmudic, preached by anti-Christ rabbis, is on it's way down and out.

Jews are first and foremost an ethnic group. They are the direct descendants of Jacob and primarily those two tribes, Judah and Benjamin that held unto their tribal identity while the other 10 tribes were scattered abroad from the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Those 10 tribes assimilated into the rest of the nations, as DNA evidence will demonstrate. The remaining two tribes of course had already done plenty of intermarrying. Even Moses intermarried with an African. Of course, Joseph's two sons were half Egyptian. Why this doesn't matter to more self-styled Orthodox rabbis is something they aren't able to explain in light of current polling that shows so many in Israel have been and remain ethnically bigoted against Arabs for instance.

So, who is an ethnic Jew? More so though, the basis upon which the current state of Israel declared itself is not legitimate. The premises upon which Israel was founded are errors. Seeing this is the place where real repentance begins by Jews. Seeing the hypocrisy not just in others but in oneself is key. Taking the land by war wasn't right under Moses, and it isn't right now and never will be. It was a misreading of the spirit of God. It was confusing spiritual acceptance necessarily with acceptance of the real God.

Spirit over matter (literally and akin to mind over matter) can be turned to evil (selfish) ends.

Torah law and Talmudic law as unqualified by Jesus's New Commandment will not survive as the highest law in any land, because they are obviously less enlightened. That is becoming ever more clear and plain.

[Goldberg:] I also want Israel to fight its next war ? the war Iran and its local militias, Ham[a]s and Hezbollah, seem to desperately desire? with the support of the international community.

[The question marks are strangely place by American standards]
This is a terrible comment by Goldberg. You see the acceptance of war as the means to resolved conflicts. This is what is wrong with the false-brand of Judaism. It isn't a pacifist religion. He goes on to emphasize legitimacy. How can anyone call taking land by force legitimate? The only argument for it is the one made by Jabotinsky that Goldberg defeated above when he pointed out that America accepts Jews (under certain conditions).

Israel was created by force after wars of aggression and conquest had already been declared illegal. Of course, it isn't legitimate for people not to give and share (only the selfish make it difficult or in some cases even impossible). Can it really be said that the Arabs would not have just allowed the Jews to live in the area? Wasn't the problem that the Jews wanted self-rule on land they originally took by war and from which they were largely finally evicted by the Romans? Ought'n the history be a lesson that horning in breeds contempt at the least and usually counter-hostilities.

The Jews in Moses' time knew this. That's why they often wiped out whole small nations (families, tribes, city-states). They were warlike, as the U.S. has been extremely warlike by being duped by greedy and deceptive leaders.

We as human kind must overcome all of this war-mongering.

There doesn't have to be a war between Israel and primarily the U.S. on one side and Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas and other on the other. Only the evil, greedy ones will make it happen. If people will turn away from greed quickly enough, all the problems of the world will be avoided (including climatic). Blessed are the peacemakers even right up to the end of the old-flesh world.

Donate


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.