The Ni'lin popular committee has released a message to the international community in this demonstration which contain that in this demonstration we are showing the world that we are not against the Jewish as many people are misunderstand us because israel tries to say that we the palestinians are hating the jewish,but in fact we are only against the colonization on our lands, we are defending our dignity,our lands and today we are protesting in solidarity with one of the israeli peace activists who lives in israel and refuse the israeli occupation on the palestinian lands.
via Ni'lin Village Shows The Solidarity With The Israeli Peace Activist Jonathan Pollak,And One Demonstrator Got Shot In The Foot In The Weekly Demonstration Against The Annexation Wall 21.01.2011. | Ni'lin Village.
I've done a little work before encouraging the people of Ni'lin to take such steps.
Here's more of what they could do:
Keep issuing official statements about not being ethnic bigots. That will separate you from the Zionists (who are at best ethnic bigots).
Make a formal statement that you would allow people of various religions to live in Palestine without being subjected to sharia. That will go a very long way to giving your movement the upper hand in the international debate over Palestine. It will help you to defeat the arguments of the so-called Christian Zionists in America, who give Israel so much support because they claim that all of you are "Islamists" who would be oppressive of other religions rather than treating them as having equal rights to practice and promote their various religions (within reason — you aren't going to be expected to allow a religion that eats children for instance — that's an extreme example, but you get my point).
You should stand against blanket anti-blasphemy laws and especially anti-proselytizing laws. You should also state that you are against women being forced to wear religious clothing. I don't think anyone would say that you don't have a community right to forbid indecency, but many people in the West are genuinely concerned that women are forced to overdress.
I realize these are difficult issues for you and pale in comparison with what the Zionists have done (ethnic cleansing, land theft, war crimes, etc.), but I really believe you need to address them with an eye to taking away all reasonable arguments against you.
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)