The self-styled Zionists called Palestine, "A land without people for a people without land." However, Palestine had people, plenty of people. Of course, certain Talmudic and Torah Orthodox Jews don't consider Palestinians as "people." They think, only the "race" known as the Jews are deserving of being on top and being served by all other nations of the world. Such egoism they hope will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It won't be, at least not in the way those egoists falsely imagine.
The only way of being on top is by serving all. That's Jesus's version of Judaism (Christianity), the religion of the God of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Melchizedek, Noah, Enoch, Adam (literal or figurative), and others.
According to Israeli historian Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion said in 1937, "I support compulsory transfer" but not, "but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war." Morris says that the early Zionists did not in general seek complete transfer of Palestinians from the state of Israel.
Well, there is no doubt that people play their cards close to their vests. Stealth is a way of life in this unworthy (untrustworthy) worldly world.
On the surface, the false-Zionists concealed their intentions. Having the political majority in Israel be Jews had to have been the intention of nearly every Herzl-Zionist. How else could they have that but via transfer or extermination of many Palestinians?
Who would just go peacefully without having it in the back of his or her mind to get back at the perpetrators and predators? Many of the Palestinians just aren't disposed to accepting their lot since they believe that lot was fabricated by self-styled Zionists out of a tissue of lies. How true.
Benny Morris though has said about the transfer, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands." Well, I ask, what omelet? Morris and those who use this expression are equating Israel with an omelet that the reader is expected by Morris to consider something desirable.
What does "breaking eggs" mean? It means breaking Palestinians. Dirtying one's hands is the blood, sweat, and tears of Palestinians. Robbing a people by force of arms of their lands and homes is not going to result in something desirable on the divine level. Reaching people with the truth of the rightness of unselfishness as taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ is though.
Building Empires on war rather than cooperation never lasts. It didn't last for the Israelites or any other Empire in history. It won't last for the Americans. America universally must turn, repent, and work to atone.
The US has put everything into the military method of building Empire. It makes weapons and ammunition. However, it isn't using up equipment and ammunition fast enough to create enough work to raise the living standard of Americans. Besides, how much of the industry has been off-shored? Once upon a time, the US became the Arsenal of Democracy. It came out of the Great Depression by among other things, putting everything it had into "the war effort." It manufactured not to stockpile and not to just have cost-overruns, but to win. There were profiteers of course.
The dollar has nearly collapsed. Increases in US manufacturing, due to US goods suddenly having become much less expensive to buy overseas, have barely registered relative to the steep economic decline.
The US doesn't make things anymore. It gambles with marked cards that end up being discovered by others who will eventually leave the game and the US behind or become angry and fight or both.
That's the big-bully Empire backing Israel. What's Israel going to do once the US is gutted, cozy up to the French and Germans? It's time for both the US and Israel to change course from militarism to decency.
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)