That's "mo" for momentum. That's, because the false-Zionists were wrong on every front. They were looking for a kind of nationalism at exactly the time when that kind of nationalism was about to hit the skids in the eyes of Americans.
Israel is losing traction fast and is skidding off the path. It's founding was based upon wholly illegitimate constructs.
Americans had to rev up anti-racist sentiments to justify much of the anti-Nazi campaign. Americans had to build up the idea that nation-states built upon one "pure" ethnic group are contrary to the "right" American experiment.
Ironically, it was many of the Jews in the U.S. who drove much of the anti-Nazi rhetoric and propaganda. They made sure that anti-Semitism was from then on to be seen as anti-American. They made sure that they drove home the point that a nation can't be based upon ideas of "superior" rights of one ethnic group over another. However, the false-Zionists deny the equal rights of Arabs in Palestine/Israel, and everybody knows this.
The Afrikaners attempted to hold onto their dominance based upon the superior rights of the Whites over the Blacks in South Africa. The Whites in America, including the vast majority of Jews, clamped down on the Afrikaners until the world made it clear that those Whites would have to relinquish all racist control.
The false-Zionists in Israel now face the exact same logic and morality used against the Afrikaners. Trying to point out differences between South Africa and Palestine/Israel will not remove the operative points.
Also, how else could America justify the Civil War, which so many in the U.S. claim was a war to end slavery when in fact it was a war to maintain and further Empire. Ending slavery sounded better. It went over better on account of the fact that it is better.
So right after WWII fought against the most pernicious form of nationalism, the Jews do the unthinkable. They file into Palestine and drive out those who were already there. They do it on the basis of ethnicity. They do it for nationalism (not the anti-imperialism variety), which was then repudiated.
The whole Zionist project was fatally flawed from the start. It just wasn't and isn't the right way to go about obtaining a home — taking someone else's who hadn't done anything against you and taking it by force and bloodshed and death.
So, Olmert's fear is coming true. The Palestinians are asking for their moral and legal right of return and for equality and democracy with Palestine/Israel being one state with pretty much the U.S. Bill of Rights and many other anti-Zionist documents as the model.
Frankly, the Jews should jump at the opportunity. Contrary to being eaten alive by the Arabs, they'd make tens of millions and even billions of friends they've never had before in their entire history.
Understand that the false-Zionists brought this upon themselves.
The RLCC (Real Liberal Christian Church) doesn't hold with coercion. We don't think people ought to be forced to live with others with whom they don't wish to live. However, we also don't hold with people who steal other people's homes and lands and force those others into refugee status in their own land or in other states.
See: "Israel's twilight years," by Khaled Amayreh. Palestinians are increasingly rejecting the crumbs of a two-state solution in favour of justice for all in a single state, Palestine, writes Khaled Amayreh in Ramallah. AL-AHRAM. May 15 – 21, 2008.
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)