I took an Associated Press article from yesterday and backtracked a number of the issues and articles that were cited for background. I'll reproduce those below via links that will open in new tabs for your convenience.
Once upon a time, Jewish leftists could pretend that Zionism was acceptable. Now they have been disabused of that fallacy. Also once upon a time, anti-Jews could point to Jews as an amorphous group that taught "civil rights" in the US while being the opposite in Israel. Well, they can't make that case anymore. The "Jews" aren't an amorphous blob. Actually, they never really were. Right-wingers simply took advantage of the morally lax situation that the left had set up in Israel.
As I've said for many decades now and paid a heavy price for it but am being vindicated by God (yes, God), Zionism never should have been "rewarded" with such a curse: "Israel" (a misnomer).
You will note that the abuse of the Palestinians actually takes second place (in the minds of perhaps still a majority of Jews) to issues of how Jews are treated by Jews. I'm confident that, that this will change as more American Jews develop spine. It's happening.
When all is said and done, these articles are still very tame — way too reactionary. Only radicalism is going to save a Jewish people — the proverbial remnant. Bless them with the truth.
"The Top Ten Anti-Israel Groups in America." [Jewish] Anti-Defamation League. (3 pages)
As I've written many times before, one can't delegitimize what was never legitimate in the first place. Also, don't necessarily believe it when the ADL calls someone or group or thing "anti-Semitic." Zionism and Jewishness are two different things ethnically, religiously, and ideologically.
As of the date of this blog post, the main focus on the ANSWER site is anti-Libya bombing. I called for a non-violent approach and didn't think it wise of parts of the anti-Qaddaffi movement to take up arms, but one must remember that it was Qaddaffi who started murdering peaceful demonstrators in the streets of Libya. Even as I write this, Qaddaffi's forces are still shelling towns indiscriminately. He's reducing some to rubble. The idea that the West hasn't stepped in primarily to stop him from violently crushing the democracy movement is just plain wrong, and that's coming from someone who has been an ardent critic of the US on many fronts, as this blog site attests. I do not support what I call right-wing socialism — the violent dictator lording it over the masses under the cover of "socialism." I do support grassroots, consensus socialism — non-coercive socialism.
I won't link to all of the organizations and people mentioned by the ADL. Attempting to do so would delay the timely posting of this article. I encourage you to do Internet searches on the various groups and people though — who, by the way, for the most part have been mischaracterized by the ADL.
"Take Action Against the Delegitimization of Israel Today," by Nichole Hungerford. FrontPage Magazine. (2 pages)
Now, that post and site are insane. As of this writing, it has not been determined who killed the Jewish "settler" family. No doubt, there are plenty of Palestinians who deplore such killings regardless and even though Palestinians have been systematically brutalized, murdered, terrorized, falsely imprisoned, had their lands and home stolen and bulldozed, etc.
As it is, I'm certainly not convinced it couldn't have been a Jew who murdered them. It's not as if Jews never commit murder of Jews. The fellow settlers there and any of the Israelis with access to the by-pass roads could have done it and slipped away more easily than Palestinians. If it turns out to be a Palestinian though, it will be interesting to see if his innocent family was wiped out by the Zionists who didn't even blink about it.
Also, Rachel Corrie was not accidentally run over by the bulldozer. The operator knew damn well that she was out in front of that bulldozer. He drove over her anyway. Also, the "operation" was bulldozing a Palestinian home. Zionists usually bomb tunnels. Besides, we have the photos of Rachel's death. The bulldozer is clearly headed at the house.
Plus, the tunnels have largely been for purposes of bringing in basic necessities first and foremost. Without them, the Gazans would have starved under the Israeli blockades. As for weapons, well we saw how the Gazans' weapons faired against Operation Cast Lead. What are the Gazans going to do, break out of their open-air prison and storm Israel? Israel is an armed camp. You don't see the Gazans ever attempting such things. There have been glorified bottle rockets and worse, the occasional suicide vest. Anyway, if the Zionists hadn't stolen all the land that they have, the Gazans wouldn't be fighting back with what little they can bring to it.
Site such as FrontPage Magazine always act as if the Zionist can do no wrong no matter how evil their acts. Even though the Zionist have been stealing land outright for decades now, it is always someone else's fault. Anyone who calls stealing stealing is "demonizing" Israel. Well, you can't demonize a demon-possessed entity. What are land-thieves, good guys? They aren't good guys in my book.
Note that the article calls the illegally settled/colonized lands "disputed territories," as if the Zionist land-thieves have any legal right to the occupied lands at all. I'm for the one-state solution and have been for quite awhile now. I'm for the full right of return for the Palestinians. If the Zionists don't like that, tough.
Notice that the article says "help to avert the self- destruction of the American Jewish community that obsessive pursuit of diversity, tolerance and dialogue portend." I believe in people's right to associate or not in terms of their "private" communities, but the Zionists are saying that it's right to steal the land upon which to do that. This is completely ignored in the article. It's preaching to the Zionist choir, but that choir is dying on the vine and will dry up and fall away.
"Documentary sparks uproar at Jewish film fest," by Matthai Kuruvila. SFGate. (2 pages)
Quakers "virulently anti-Semitic"? That's laughably stupid — utterly ignorant or a very lame attempt at psychological manipulation. Only idiots or know-nothings think the Quakers are anti-Semitic. The Quakers are a Peace Church and anti-racist.
"The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," by Peter Beinart. The New York Review of Books.
"...fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal." True. That article is a bit naive but very welcome relative to the hideous FrontPage Magazine article covered above.
To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, it's worth considering the case of Effi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank. "We'll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system," he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu's Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu's special emissary for overseas "campus engagement." In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government's behalf. The group that organized his tour was called "Caravan for Democracy."
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam's views. In his youth, he briefly joined Meir Kahane's now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israeli soil. Now Lieberman's position might be called "pre-expulsion." He wants to revoke the citizenship of Israeli Arabs who won't swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed Israel's 2008–2009 Gaza war from running candidates for the Knesset. He said Arab Knesset members who met with representatives of Hamas should be executed. He wants to jail Arabs who publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day, and he hopes to permanently deny citizenship to Arabs from other countries who marry Arab citizens of Israel.
You don't have to be paranoid to see the connection between Lieberman's current views and his former ones. The more you strip Israeli Arabs of legal protection, and the more you accuse them of treason, the more thinkable a policy of expulsion becomes.
When you couple all of that with the creation of some 800 thousand permanent refugees in 1948-on, you see that ethnic cleansing is still very much the policy of the Zionists.
The reason I said the article is naive is because Zionism at its inception was racist. Its founding "light," Theodor Herzl wrote his glaringly racist ideas in his published diary. Few Zionists have bothered to read it. Others have sought to cover it up. Word has been getting around though, thanks to the Internet, which so far, has been a leveling device. Watch the fascists do everything they can to change that though.
"Our brothers, ourselves: Will American Jews be able to continue to support Israel if it maintains its current political, social and religious orientations? Yes - and no - it depends on whom you ask," by Noam Sheizaf. Haaretz.
"In the past, you could say to liberal friends who criticized Israel 'What would you do if you were in their place?'" says Alterman. "After all, no country would agree to undertake security risks [like] those that are required from Israel. But in recent years it's more and more difficult to say it. It's much more complicated to justify the raid on the Turkish flotilla, or the way Israel handled Gaza, or the attacks on human rights organizations. It looks like we we're reaching a point where liberal American Jews will be forced to choose between their values and their emotional attachment to Israel. And many, alas, are going to stick with their values. There's a sense of failure of an idea with regards to Israel. This is something very painful for me to say."
Well, we all should grow up. People are not only disillusioned about Israel as Jews, but people are disillusioned about America as Americans. America must change and so must Israel. That's the point. Not talking about it doesn't help. Being too pained by it to not discuss it is just compounding the problem.
The problem with Israel doesn't only center around the peace process and the occupation. For many, internal developments in Israeli society are actually of greater importance. Liberal U.S. Jews are disturbed by the persecution of human rights organizations, the separation of women and men on buses in Jerusalem and local rabbis' declarations: No fewer than 1,000 American rabbis signed a protest letter in response to the prohibition by Israeli religious figures against renting apartments to Arabs. Two other subjects that have gained considerable publicity among U.S. Jews receive almost no attention in the public discourse in Israel: the Conversion Law, which would grant a monopoly on conversions to the Chief Rabbinate, and has already created a feeling in Reform and Conservative communities that they are being left out; and the arrest, most notably a year and a half ago, by the Jerusalem police of members of Women of the Wall, who wanted to pray with a Torah scroll, as is customary in their own congregations, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
Avigdor Lieberman as 'pure evil'
"Some Israeli groups have no respect for American Jews," says journalist Eric Alterman. "There are things that people here find hard to accept: the arrests of the Women of the Wall, Israel's attitude to the Reform and Conservative movements, or the religious rulings against renting houses or marrying Arabs. If there's one thing that shocked American Jews it was the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. He is a racist; he does not believe that Arabs should have same rights as Jews. And now he is the face of Israel."
Many liberal Jewish spokespersons would agree with that sentiment. Indeed, more than any other person, Minister Lieberman seems to have become a symbol of everything that puts Jews off vis-a-vis present-day Israel. J Street distributed a video clip devoted entirely to Lieberman and his opinions, and Peter Beinart devoted a substantial part of his article in The New York Review of Books to Lieberman.
"One of the only subjects that even many conservative Jews agree on is the lack of affection for Avigdor Lieberman and the politics he represents," claims researcher Joel Schalit. "He's Faust. He's everything that is bad in Jewish politics for American Jews, even if they aren't really capable of separating it into components. His political image is threatening, and they see in him something of the racism of the U.S. South.
They are right, and Netanyahu knows it but does nothing to counter Lieberman because Netanyahu actually agrees with Lieberman.
"Do American Jews still like Israel?," by Shmuel Rosner. The Jerusalem Post.
"...only 28% of American Jews define themselves as 'Zionists.'" You'd never think that though from the mainstream media. That's changing too though. The non-Zionist Jews are tired of being browbeaten by fascist-leaning Zionists or Zionists who lie about war crimes and about settlements, etc. Who can blame them?
It appears more and more obvious that more American Jews are Americans first and should say so openly. It would help everyone if they were to do that. It would cause Israel to become more realistic. They'd have to look around and think more about how to get along.
For far too long, they've thought they have America by the nose to loose upon anyone that those Israeli Zionists want bullied. Well, non-Jewish America is waking up to that and wants no part of it anymore. We don't want to watch anymore Cast Leads or cluster bombings of Lebanon.
What we want is for the Arab democracy movements to prevail. I want them to prevail. I want them to prevail but through peace, not war. Israel's land-grabbing and then attacking those who struggle is not conducive to change through peace. The sooner the American Jews see that and act accordingly by telling the violent Zionists in Israel that they do not have the liberal American Jews' support the better.
"," by Jay Lindsay. Associated Press.
Well, what will come out of that visit? They could learn as much by reading these articles and thinking long and hard. Unfortunately, what they'll hear are a bunch of lame ideas for how to attempt to manipulate and twist various messages and ideas; but people are seeing right through all of that. They're seeing through it almost automatically now. It's not taking much effort anymore for the general public and youth to be very skeptical (if even receptive at all) of Israeli messages.
I'm not on board with the mainstream American Jewish liberalism anymore. I was once. However, I'm even farther away from Zionism now than ever. I'm not keen at all on the current self-libertinism. Nothing good will come out from that libertinism. It never has. However, I'm also totally sour on coercion. I realize the world hasn't caught up with me. I was born before my time, as they say. Actually though, I see it as my time now to be speaking out as I am spending out the seeds.
I thought the demonstrations in Libya would go bad right from the start, although I understand fully why people tried them. Qaddaffi is such a nut and had already said that he would react very poorly. Violence apparently was anticipated by some of the hardcore demonstrators. Their Islamic upbringing and beliefs "allowed" them to imagine that fighting for their cause is good and just even though killing is not what one wants done to one. It's not the Golden Rule. It certainly isn't the New Commandment, which is the highest law there is: "as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." — Jesus (John 13:34).
...a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. — John (1 John 2:7-11).
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)