Arab Israelis' status on 60th anniversary of Israel's establishment
Tehran, May 10, IRNA

Arab Israelis-60th Anniversary

Israel is celebrating 60th anniversary of its establishment under such conditions that a 5th of its population, merely due to their resistance against plots hatched by Zionism to deport entire Arabs remaining there after 1948 occupation, still enjoy least level of civil rights, have lowest possible political participation and live at lowest social status.

The Arab Israelis on the verge of the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Jewish government are still not benefitted from an annual budget to meet their least natural demands, just like all those sad 60 years behind.

According to Muhammad Barakah, the leader of Hadash Party and that party's representative at the Parliament (only Arab at Israeli parliamnt throughout its history), in Israel's 2008 Budget Bill, that is the most unprecedented budget in the history of that regime, the Arab Israeli's share is merely a bit over 4% (Yideot Aharonet, Dec.

18, 2007).

That is while the Arab Israelis comprise 20% of Israel's population.

Sixty years of forced coexistence between the Arabs and the Jews in occupied territories in 1948 has led to transferring the anti-Arab tendencies of the Israeli government to the society as well, since the level of discrimination observed against Israel's Arab citizens finds wider dimensions with the passage of each new day.

Israel's Civil Rights Association that was established in the year 2007 on the verge of the International Human Rights Week in a recent report announced that some 50% of the population of Israel are opposed to the idea that the Arab and Jewish Israelis should enjoy equal civil rights, while 78% of them are opposed to the idea that Arab political parties should have representatives at government bodies. (Ha Aretz, Dec. 9, 2007).

Furthermore, talks on giving away Israel's Arab residing regions to the Self-Rule Palestinian Authroty (PA) in return for keeping the Zionist townships within the West Bank during the course of the past few months in Israeli media, press, and political circles, which was initially denied as rumors, was finally vastly confirmed as true by Deputy Israeli Prime Minister Haim Ramon (Arwatz Shwa, Dec. 17, 2007).

The fact that such an idea has hit the minds of Israeli leaders revels that the Zionist regime fears lest the Jewish identity of it would be weakened in the future, and thus, efforts aimed at ratifying a new constitution in which a solid Jewish nation would need to be mentioned would be put at stake has arouse no certain objection on the part of the Western human rights groups thus far though.

All the same, the contents of this law, and the definitions included in it can very well revel the real nature of the Zionist regime and its Western supporters, particularly the arrogant US administration and some European governments.

4% for 20% is terrible. Also, "some 50% of the population of Israel are opposed to the idea that the Arab and Jewish Israelis should enjoy equal civil rights, while 78% of them are opposed to the idea that Arab political parties should have representatives at government bodies." Now that too is very revealing. How can Americans who claim to be so much for democracy and equal rights, etc., support this in good conscience?

I'm not for the current systems in Israel or the U.S., but those in the U.S. who claim the American system is so great have no business supporting Israel's current regime. It's doubly hypocritical. It's hypocritical on the level of Christian principles (hypocritical in the way Jesus pointed out), and then it's hypocritical in how inconsistent it is with American's own written values in its Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and particularly its Bill of Rights. Also, the Israelis aren't even living up to their own Constitution, which has statements exactly opposed to what they are doing. Lastly, it is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning which the U.S. and Israel have bound themselves, along with each and every one of the other members states of the United Nations.

When are the nations going to live up to their own declarations?


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.