"When people understand our claims to the land n [sic] by history, by military victory, and by UN mandate n [sic] they find it easier to speak up," says Unterberg. "And I will tell them even half an answer is better than perfect silence."

[Source: "Defending Israel on campus goal of high-school program," by Ellen Schur Brown. Cleveland Jewish News. May 13, 2008.]

That's in reference to training Jewish high school students to defend false-Zionism.

Let's take the claims to the land by 1) history 2) military victory and 3) UN mandate one at a time and in order.

Claims to the land by history:

  • The only full record is The Bible. The Bible's first five books are reputed to have been written by Moses, although there are plenty of those termed "biblical scholars" who dispute that. Even if we take those books, which the Jews and others call the Torah, literally, we are left with the question of the exact nature of the spirit or angel that moved Moses and his followers and disciples to take the land by force of arms.
  • Right now, any nation could say God has told our leader to wipe out other nations to take their land to occupy as our sole property. What nation doing that would not be condemned?
  • We have Jesus coming after Moses saying that the Jewish people were failing to see their own deep hypocrisy. I agree with Jesus. The Mosaic Law and the actions of the people of Moses ultimately don't jibe. They are inherently hypocritical for exactly the reasons Jesus pointed out.
  • There are Jews today who say that that doesn't matter. They say Jesus was wrong to apply the highest spirit of the law to all. However, the entire direction of humanity has been toward more and more human rights for all. It has been away from slavery. It has been decidedly moving away from sanctioning wars of aggression, notwithstanding George W. Bush's illegal, neocon wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia (so far). Of course, the neocon philosophy is rooted in Mosaic hypocrisy. The most strident and belligerent of the neocons are Jews after all.
  • The founding of the current state of Israel with the Jews declaring an independent state based upon Jewishness couldn't have come at a more awkward and telling moment in history for them. The Zionists had been pushing for it for many decades only to do it at the very moment in history when horning in and taking over land already occupied couldn't be worse and more glaring for the sheer evil of it.
  • What compounded the effrontery is the very fact that the people horning in and horning others out were just themselves subjected to horrendous mistreatment. Rather than learn the right lesson from that, which is don't be cruel or mean or superior, etc., they took the exact opposite lesson, which is to do anything and everything to stake out territory both physically and psychologically, stating that if we go down (Jews) again, we're taking the whole world with us.
  • Claims to the land military victory:

  • After WWII, there just isn't any right to land taken in war.
  • There really never was such a right. Only people were stupid enough to think there was. Now people aren't being so stupid.
  • Who's buying the argument that Israel won the land by warfare and therefore deserves to keep it? That argument is dead on arrival. If it isn't, then anyone can just make war on Israel to take the land right on back (no holds barred; all's fair in war). More than that, anyone anywhere can just take anything he or she can, because under the neocon, false-Zionist philosophy "might makes right." Only it doesn't.
  • Power isn't inherently a force for good. There is such a thing as evil power. Hitler was at one point in a very powerful position. He over estimated his power, but he was still much more powerful than were the Jews at the time, at least militarily. He wasn't more powerful morally though.
  • Now Israel is powerful militarily, since it reportedly has nuclear weapons. The Israel of today could take the Germany of WWII. We all know that. But that doesn't make Israel more moral than Jesus who was a total pacifist.
  • A claim to land on account of military victory is the argument put forth by people with extremely low moral IQ's, frankly. No truly moral and intelligent person would want to associate himself with such sheer lack of reasoning.
  • Claims to the land by UN mandate:

  • The powers that "gave" Palestine to the Jews were all colonial powers. What right did they have? They didn't have the right to become colonial powers in the first place.
  • Sure, there was a vote in the UN, but it was the result of arm twisting just as such votes are often now.
  • Look at the bribery and threats George W. Bush used to get his way to illegally steal Iraqi's oil and hang Saddam Hussein in a kangaroo court design to shut him up before he could testify to the world all about U.S. duplicity in the Iraq-Iran War and the Iraqi gassing of civilians, etc.
  • A UN mandate under the circumstances at the time wasn't worth the paper on which it was written. The UN didn't own Palestine to give it to others.
  • The toughest guy on the block doesn't have the right to give other people's houses away just because he can beat them up if they disagree. That's not righteousness. There's no God in it. It doesn't matter how much the bully says God's telling him to do it, God isn't telling him anything. It's all in his imagination. He's been led astray by evil in his own heart and mind. He sick, broken, defiled, and needs mental/spiritual help.
  • If you people are going to fill a bunch of high school Jews with the nonsense I read in your article, you're only going to make matters much worse for those kids. If you think that teaching them to get in other people's faces who are "leftists" sticking up for oppressed Palestinians, you're sadly mistake and terrible role models.

    By the way, there are plenty of rightist who also hate what you're doing. Libertarians don't like your philosophy. They are every bit as anti-neocon as are the leftists. The Paleoconservatives as they are called don't like what you're doing at all. Most liberals (not socialists), but mixed-economic social liberals as they're viewed are moving toward standing up to the racism of the Apartheid promoting Jews. Plenty of Jews are being counted among them too.

    Listen, don't think for a moment that support for human rights for Palestinians means that once the Palestinians are being treated fairly that they will be given even an inch to retaliate against any Jews anywhere. This movement isn't about anti-Semitism. This movement is about consistency. That's the direction.

    If the Jews in current Israel want to survive there in peace, they need to make friends with the Palestinians. The fastest way to do that is to just treat them well. The Arabs in Palestine aren't some unfeeling, unreceptive sub-species. If they are treated fairly and with decency, they will respond in kind. There will be those who will have a harder time softening their hearts after so many decades of abuse, but if the Jews will be consistent in treating the people well, things will work out. That's the prophecy.


    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.