So, what is a Jew if it is now Jewishness that is not DNA-based that rather matters? And if this new Jewishness is the basis, then what determines the right of return? What's the law of Israel in determining who gets to move to Israel? Isn't it still DNA-based? Isn't it direct descendancy? I hear "Jews" (difficult to define now according to them) say that anti-Semitism isn't being anti-ethnic anymore. It isn't being anti-Judaism either. It's being anti-Jewishness that I have yet to hear clearly defined. Is this being done to make Jews a moving target, or is it being done to make it easier to denounce anyone who questions whatever the Jewishness-people called neocons and Likudniks are doing or both? If they keep it up, they'll disappear themselves.
This Jewishness has a right to its own nation-state with very impenetrable boundaries and with two classes of citizens: Jewishness and other. Jewishness is first class. Everything else is lowest class. If Israel were to be "color blind," sooner or later Jewishness, that morphing thing, would become just level with those other citizens. There wouldn't be a caste system anymore in Israel. There wouldn't be a class-based, tiered citizenship.
What's WASPishness? Is it more equal? Is that what we WASPs are advocating? The so-called liberal Jews in the U.S. advocate that WASPs be equal. When it comes to Israel though, many of those same Jews say there is a different standard for those of Jewishness than for those of WASPishness. Those of Jewishness are to have their double standard fiercely defended by those WASPs.
How long is this supposed to go on? This is reverse-reverse discrimination with a twist. Consider the relative position of the Palestinian Arabs to see the point. The WASPs have been asked to apply affirmative action in the U.S. to help make up for historical difficulties placed upon minorities and especially the Blacks. However, where Israel is concerned, those same WASPs are being required to aid in the suppression of a group (Palestinian Arabs) that in the U.S. qualifies as a protected minority, although you'd never know it by the way the neocon Jews have managed to get the WASPs to agree to ethnic profiling and the like. I mean I went to church and school with Lebanese-American Christians. They were fine people. My best pre-school friend was Syrian. I'm I going to look upon them as ethnically inferior now just because some neoconservative says I should? It isn't going to happen.
I've also had close Jewish friends. They spent the night at my house, and I slept over at theirs. We went to each other's birthday parties. There was no issue. Fortunately for me, those particular people were not of this neocon mindset.
The same applies to Black friends and coworkers and Mexican friends and coworkers.
This neocon racism and ethnic bigotry is based upon lies.
The Big Media correspondents who breathlessly cover Obama at home and abroad are not stupid or ignorant people. They (or someone in their offices) all read Ha'aretz daily, and none are ignorant of the facts of Israeli apartheid. They are professionals who know their jobs, and their boundaries. Each and every one realizes it would be career suicide to directly or indirectly ask the proud son of black African and white American parents, accorded the rights of full US citizenship through one parent, how he can uncritically support an apartheid state in Israel which awards and denies a host of citizenship rights on ethnic and religious grounds, from property ownership, education and the freedom to live where one likes to separate license plates (enable police profiling at a distance), bans on new Palestinian wells, water and electrical use, to Jewish-only roads and Palestinian-only checkpoints. [and that's putting it mildly]
In this, it would be a mistake to believe that the Israeli tail is wagging the dogs of US presidential candidates and Big Media. The heavily militarized and nuclear armed state of Israel is entirely dependent upon US military aid, economic support, and political patronage. Israel is the direct recipient of more than six billion US tax dollars annually. Israel could not continue its brutal annexation policies, its militarized wall, its "settlement" of Palestinian lands or any of its other objectionable policies without the complete and bipartisan support of US ruling circles. For the US, Israel is a kind of offshore military base, a nuclear-armed white enclave in the middle of millions of brown people who sit atop a large share of the world's most accessible oil.
Obama (and Big Media) Turn Blind Eye to Israeli Apartheid
by Bruce Dixon
Black Agenda Report
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
It's not a dog and its tail though. It's all the dog. It's the Empire. Israel uses the U.S., and the U.S. uses Israel for shared empire. It won't last.
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)