Tom Usher wrote or added | 'Put pressure on Hamas, not Israel' 'Peres tells Austrian chancellor: Terrorists now control the flotillas.'
Shimon Peres says that the Zionists left Gaza voluntarily. Ariel Sharon left Gaza so there wouldn't be any Jews there when he would go to bomb it. All the mainstream media back before Sharon had his massive stroke that was saying he was a peacemaker, all of that media was full of crap. There isn't a peacemaker bone in Sharon's body. He was interested in one thing only and that was to grab as much land as possible before the rest of the world would step in to stop the Zionists from grabbing and keeping more or rolling the Zionists back to some degree. That's all there is to that, and Shimon Peres knows it full well.
Peres says he doesn't understand the flotillas. He blames Hamas for Israel's land grabbing by terroristic and ethnic cleansing means. Where's the MSM (mainstream media) ever putting it to Shimon Peres about the terrorist history of Israel and all of the well-documented ethnic cleansing? Where is that MSM asking Peres why the Jews who call themselves Zionists shouldn't have to give back the land appropriated by lethal, inhumane, and inhuman illegal and unethical means?
Then the obfuscating old-liar goes on to say that "Terrorist organizations — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranians — have taken over the flotillas and are not interested in peace, they are looking for provocations and conflict." Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have not taken over the Free Gaza Movement, far from it. The Movement is growing such that many, many nations and groups other than Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran are in charge of the Movements efforts.
Regardless, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have perfect rights concerning the flotillas and in seeking the lifting of the blockade of Gaza. The blockade is illegal under international law for the very reasons I cited above: Zionist/Israeli terrorism and ethnic cleansing that clearly extend into war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even aspects of genocide. Their is no doubt whatsoever that Shimon Peres and his gang have systematically deprived the Palestinians of their basic human and civil rights as members of the human race. Yes, being a Homo sapien sapien gives one certain inalienable rights, as stated in the US Declaration of Independence. In addition, the same rights extended under that spirit and in the US Bill of Rights are by and large reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in most religions, including real Christianity.
I've seen repeatedly where the paid trollers of the Zionists, their trained hasbara, their false propagandists sent out to do everything to twist discussions into the ridiculous, have been saying that the American people would have to give back all the land to the American Indians. Well, certainly what the "Whiteman" did vis-a-vis the American Indians was in many cases reprehensible, but let us not forget that there were plenty of Peace Church members throughout who not only were Abolitionists but were also for fair and dignified treatment of their American Indian brothers and sisters, many who gladly joined the Christian Movement because they saw good in Jesus's teachings. More to the mundane point though is that the US government is routinely and correctly challenged on behalf of American Indians, who are legally entitled to enjoy all the rights and privileges of every other American citizen, regardless of ethnic origin. Clearly, the Zionist-Jews cannot make the same claim vis-a-vis the Palestinians, many of whom have given up violent struggle long since.
Also to the point is that America, while certainly being far from perfect yet, stands as the example to some extent in terms of written laws concerning indigenous people. There are reservations that were used to segregate the Indians; but today, show me where any Indian is any less protected by law* than any Jew in America. Technically, they have equal-protection rights along with members of all other ethnic groups. The same cannot be said in Israel about the Arabs or any other non-Jewish group.
Then the numbskull, Benjamin Netanyahu, is dragged into the article for more propaganda (perception-management) impact saying that "Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas, which want to return the world to the middle ages; which don't let their women dress, work or express themselves freely; whose women live in subjugation, and sometimes without basic rights and subject to violence — precisely those regimes are the ones organizing a boat of women as propaganda against Israel."
The women who organized the ship from Lebanon are a mixed group that includes Christians and secularists. They are not being organized by Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iran. Of course those groups want the blockade broken for a whole host of reasons. They are not a ideological or religious monolith though. More importantly, strict Muslims would forbid the mixed group of women to go. You will see by looking at the women that they don't all even wear headscarfs. Islamic women are not prevented from protesting in Palestine against the Zionists, but it is an entirely different matter for fundamentalist Muslim men to agree that a group of such women embark on a ship or large boat without any Muslim male relatives to sail from Lebanon to Gaza. That just doesn't sound consistent with their religious beliefs at all to me. I don't think Benjamin's handlers thought about that before having Benjamin spout off.
What is this Jerusalem Post site anyway? It's a propaganda format for racist Zionism, obviously.
So, Netanyahu's propagandists told him to say all that he did about Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran and their women and the women of the flotilla ship from Lebanon. Think about it. Netanyahu wants you to stop caring about the children of Gaza living under the Zionist dark and evil shadow because Islam doesn't let its women work in stripper bars or to earn a living as prostitutes. Well, no, that's not exactly what he said; but you can see how easily the propaganda can flow in the opposite direction using exactly the same off, half-truth logic.
It isn't off, half-truth logic though to say that Benjamin Netanyahu and the Jerusalem Post are more than suggesting that it is okay what Israel has done to the Gazans because many women in Iran and Lebanon and Gaza aren't allowed to act as if they are Americans or Israelis. All things American and/or Israeli aren't good though, which is not to suggest that all things Iranian or under Hezbollah or Hamas are good. The point though is that we aren't to wait for Hamas to become perfected before we, the world, treat Gazans as people with rights equal to those of the Israelis, including to get back things stolen in war and conflict. Afterall, the Zionists went after the Germans and Swiss for money and items confiscated during WWII. If there was anything just in that, then there is nothing unjust about the Palestinians right of return with full, equal political rights.
In looking at the US again, let us remember that the US is not a one-ethnicity-dominates-by-law state. Israel is. Israel is an ethnically based, nationalist state by so-called law. Is there any other on the planet?
I am not more of a citizen of the US than any American Indian citizen. Any American Indian citizen of the US has just as much right as I do under the law, including to have so many children that the American Indians could come to be the majority of American citizens, not that I advocate breeding like rabbits on this finite Earth. I don't. Of course, in China, where they have had a one-child policy, their leadership has had to practice it also and the law apparently has been applied regardless of tribe of origin. I know that limiting the number of souls one brings to this Earth is the responsible and unselfish thing to do, but that's a different article.
* not in practice but in writing that can be used to take their claims to the Supreme Court, where they might not get a perfect hearing but would certainly not be left in the Gazans' position
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)