Tom Usher commented or added the following:
"Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah praised Hamas on Friday for the West Bank shooting attacks which left four Israelis dead and two injured on two consecutive days, saying 'this is the way to free Jerusalem and Palestine.'" http://www.haaretz.com/new
No, it is not the way! He is completely wrong. It's the path to destruction and division. The house divided cannot, and will not, stand.
He further said, "Palestine from the sea to the river is the property of the Palestinian nation, of the Arab and the Muslim, and no one has the right to relinquish that land, not even a drop of its water." If you listen closely, you will hear the Arab Muslim equivalent of the Zionist voice there. He's talking Arab and Muslim, as if there aren't Arab Christians and Arab secularists and as if Palestine cannot be the open place I describe below. Ownership and possession are two different things, and Nasrallah knows that. The land is the rightful inheritance of the whole of humanity as one family.
It is true that people should not horn in to horn out others, as the Zionists have done. It is also true that no one living on the planet right now knows the full history of that land concerning who horned in even before the Israelites did under Joshua. We have the Biblical account starting with Abraham, but it doesn't tell the complete history of the region. Who was there first and why should that one have a right to preclude brothers and sisters? We know the name of the land was Canaan, after Noah's offspring; but we know little else even as we don't know what each and every term means in the Noah account. Certainly every species at the time of "the flood" was not fitted into Noah's ark.
Let the family known as humanity be decent to itself for once. Let's raise the standards. Let's aim higher. The current situation is devolutionary.
Look, Hamas is both right and wrong. It is right that the US and Zionists should not be holding talks with Abbas without Hamas. Obama's team is marginalizing the Gazans who have suffered the most in the region. Obama and Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should have told the Zionists in the US and Israel and elsewhere that it is necessary that Hamas be brought into the discussions. A brave and intelligent President of the US would have stood up for what is right and not what is merely and short-sightedly expedient for November votes or campaign funds and good press from the Zionists. A good President would make the news that the Zionists could not ignore or twist. He would take it to the people of the whole world who would listen and respond and support. Obama though is not that leader. Neither was George W. Bush. Neither would John McCain have been.
For some time now, people have been telling Hamas that the right road is the road of peace. If Hamas would stop using violence (Qassam Brigades) to upset peace negotiations but would rather seek peace and seek inclusion in the discussions, then the rest of the peoples of the world could get behind Hamas much more so than they can now.
Hamas' violence is playing right into the hands of the Zionists, who need US and European backing with Russian and Chinese semi-cooperation, to continue down the path of solidifying the Zionist Project as a Jewish state where non-Jews are even less than second class citizens.
Hamas needs to aim for one state that is fair to all and that is not either Jewish (religious or ethnic) or Muslim controlled but rather allows each religion and each ethnicity to live in relative peace with no ethnic or religious favoritism. If the Jews or Muslims want to be segregated by choice within that "state," then that would be their choice.
Hamas needs to put the Zionists on the spot concerning the historic land theft and what those Zionists are prepared to do about it. If the Zionists refuse to discuss the issue, Hamas needs to take it's complaint to the court of world public opinion and to make calls for more freedom flotillas and land convoys and boycotts and divestments and reasonable (non-collective punishment) sanctions. That's the high ground that people will get behind in huge numbers that the Zionists will not be able to withstand.
If on the other hand, Hamas resorts to indiscriminate violence against "settlers," even if those settlers are wicked which clearly they have been, Hamas will lose the support of the Non-Violence Movement and all the goodwill that had been built up recently with the flotillas and convoys.
As it is, the Mavi Marmara generated huge publicity but at a price. There are many of us who will not support armed conflict. We won't support it because the non-violent road has shown its ability to get more backing than the armed way. The videos and stories about Zionist oppression and lies have garnered the most support for the Palestinian cause, not violence or calls to violence.
The fastest way to give real power and authority to Abbas is via Hamas instigated violence.
The timing of Hamas attacks on the settlers is undeniably linked with attempting to undermine Abbas' talks with Netanyahu. Those attacks have come at a greater price than Hamas realizes. It was an error. The smart thing to have done instead was to pose the question through as many outlets as possible:
"When will we, Hamas, be included in the talks? We are the elected representatives of the people. They chose us in free and fair elections. We have been keeping the peace as much as can be reasonably expected. We have still been enduring Zionist oppression but have acted in self-restraint. The Zionists have sent in more bulldozers and tanks and killed Gazans while we have not killed Zionists in retaliation.
"We have been given no good or valid reason as to why we have not been included in peace negotiations. Sinn Fein was included in Northern Ireland peace negotiations before the IRA renounced the right to self-defense and armed struggle for civil and human rights. Why are we treated differently?"
Now those questions would haunt the world if Hamas were to push it while being as non-violent as they could manage. Killing settlers as happened several days ago and in the manner it did only weakened Hamas in the world — where it counts.
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)