Tom Usher wrote or added | First of all, not everyone on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla is or was a total pacifist. Their view of humanitarianism includes liberating a concentration camp called Gaza from the concentration-camp creators and maintainers: Zionists.
Second, the Zionists have zero rights over Gaza simply on account of the fact that the Zionist "state" only exists in the minds of the corrupt who accept Zionist lies about the history of Palestine and also accept Zionist terrorism, land theft, and war crimes: Zionist covetousness.
Third, Israel does not deliver either enough or the right things the Gazans need for a reasonable quality of life.
Fourth, "As for the PR war, even before Israeli forces boarded the Gaza armada, the Jerusalem Post reported, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told supporters, 'If the ships reach Gaza, it's a victory for Gaza. If they are intercepted and terrorized by the Zionists, it will be a victory for Gaza, too, and they will move again in new ships to break the siege of Gaza.'" No kidding? The reason that's true is because Zionism was and is wrong. If Zionism had been right or were right, Haniyeh's statement wouldn't be true. The world wouldn't back the end of the illegal siege of Gaza.
Fifth, who's a "terrorist"? Is Hamas a terrorist group while the Irgun and Stern Gang, which inevitably came out from Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Zionism, were or are not? If we can't have Hamas, then we can't have Zionism. We can't have Zionism; so it must go, and Hamas must convert too. That's how it is.
Sixth, "When journalists interviewed the brother of Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish American who was killed during the melee and whose body was returned to Turkey, The New York Times reported that the brother replied, 'We didn't expect him to come back like this. However, we were not sorry to hear that he fell like a martyr.' Be it noted, the usual way to become a martyr in the Middle East is to die while trying to kill other people. So spare me the 'humanitarian' conceit." You will note the typical Zionist twisting going on there where Debra J. Saunders conveniently assumes two things: 1) "the usual way to become a martyr in the Middle East is to die while trying to kill other people" and 2) that's what Furkan Dogan's brother was referring to. Everyone who is standing up to the murderous Zionists is a martyr under Islam. If the person is peaceful and still standing up to them and is likewise murdered, that person is still a martyr under Islam and also for peace. If the person is a Christian, he or she is also a Christian martyr. So, no, Debra, we won't "spare" you, but it's not humanitarian conceit. It's called truth.
Seventh, Americans and Europeans who boarded the flotilla did so because the Zionists are racist, fascists who never had a right to steal Palestinian lands, terrorize people, ethnically cleans Palestine, or conduct war crimes against all sorts of people. Also, the tunnels from Gaza are big enough to fit a nuclear weapon, yet Israel hasn't been incinerated yet by Hamas. Grow up, Debra. Your use of the terms "extremists" and "radical Islam" here is ridiculous. Who in the Likud is not an extreme Zionist? As for Islam and being radical, of course. Islam has a root (radical) belief system that includes liberating those who are oppressed under whatever, including Zionism. Now, you may have a valid objection to certain interpretations of sharia, but to insist that anyone who fights against Zionists is bad even while you hold that fighting, per se, is not forbidden, shows you are a shallow, disingenuous thinker.
"Other Israelis question the embargo itself. In banning the importation of such innocent goods as instant coffee, dried fruit and nutmeg, as well as the export of Gaza agricultural produce, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gambled that Palestinians would see no future in Hamas and turn on its leaders. That gamble has not paid off." Well, you get some credit for that.
"But then it's hard to win when there are so many guns pointed at your back, and you are held to standards not applied to the true despots of the world, who are not afraid to bite back." However, right there, you lose the credit you would otherwise have been able to hold. This is because you are a Zionist who thinks that Zionists had a right to do all the evil things I've mentioned above, which means you're insane – not knowing right from wrong.
"Think about it. A team of international investigators found that North Korea sank a South Korean warship in March, killing 46 sailors. But I don't think you'll see many American peace activists on a flotilla to North Korea." The Zionists didn't pick Korea but Palestine to steal. Also, you haven't convinced the whole world that the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship. It was reportedly a German torpedo, and the Zionist recently obtained German subs, no doubt with German torpedoes to fit. Considering that the regime you are defending used white phosphorus on the Gazans and then continued to deny it (some idiot Zionists are still going about the US denying it), why should anyone believe the Zionists about North Korea? I don't think the Zionists are necessarily more trustworthy than are the North Koreans. I think the North Koreans are rightly afraid of being devoured by the global Plutocrats who don't really give a damn about any nation-state but rather their own personal, private, special privileges that come from the Ponzi scheme of banksters (with a huge percentage of them being Zionists) giving them unGodly wealth, power, and control.
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)