Obviously the NYT editors do not think it is “pointless” to discuss land grabs when the Russians do it. It is only pointless when the Israelis do it.
It is also interesting that the editorial board suggests in what direction the subject should be changed: towards the “major international challenge” of Ukraine. I am not sure the board thought this suggestion through. After all, what is the core Western complaint about happenings in Ukraine? It is the Russian land grab in the Crimea as well as the alleged threat of more such moves in eastern Ukraine. Yet just how different is Russian behaviour in this regard from that of Israel in the West Bank and Golan Heights? Obviously the NYT editors do not think it is “pointless” to discuss land grabs when the Russians do it. It is only pointless when the Israelis do it.
The article is right to chastise The New York Times; however, Lawrence Davidson (the author) is missing some points too. He posed the question: "...just how different is Russian behaviour in this regard from that of Israel in the West Bank and Golan Heights?" Well, vastly.
Russia has the backing of the vast majority of Crimeans, who voted, via a free and fair process, to join Russia. On the other hand, is there even one Palestinian Arab in Gaza or the West Bank who wants Jewish rule over them? The difference couldn't be more striking and relevant.
The US administration definitely shouldn't move on to simply ignoring Zionist crimes against Palestine. What should happen is that the US, NATO, etc., stop all of the Cold Warrior crap and rather focus on real problems, such as Zionist/Israeli/Jewish war crimes and illegal occupations and control ...!
Europeans of mixed extraction (hardly purely Jewish or even close to it; many without a trace of, or with barely a trace of, ancient Israelite DNA) literally horned their way into Palestine and simply took over, took vast portions of the land by force of arms. They did that after the land grabbing by Germany of WWII had been so roundly decried.
The Zionist point the finger at the US and it's expansion into Native American/American Indian lands, but who's saying that the US government was correct in its treatment of the Indians? I'm not. Are American Indians second-class citizens forced under law to agree in writing that the United States of America, founded by Anglo-Saxons (which it was), is an Anglo-Saxon state and always will be? No. The United States is called a melting pot. What is Israel called, and why the double standard?
Oh, the Zionists say that Jews have been persecuted so much down through the ages that they must have a "Jewish" state at the expense of the Palestinians, whom many of the Zionists have claimed, and still do, aren't really a people, that the place where Israel now sits was "a land without a people for a people without a land." Old maps and other materials and data, however, show quite clearly that Palestine was inhabited by tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs before the Zionists started moving in. Fact: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is vastly better documented than what the Zionists milk as the "Holocaust," as if what happened to the Europeans claiming Israelite extraction (even if the Zionists were telling the whole truth, which they are not) is worst than what happened at the hands of the Bolsheviks (extremely top-heavy with "Jews") and the Maoists.
I doubt that anywhere near the number of Jews died at the hands of the Nazis than non-Jews died at the hands of the Bolsheviks via forced starvation via forced collectivization of Kulak farmlands and hard-labor camps and fake psychiatric institutions all designed to eliminate any resistance to the dictatorship of those Bolsheviks (it was not a democracy). It was a one-party, totalitarian, brutal dictatorship largely conceived by, and run by, "Jews."
Imagine the White Americans claiming that the area now constituting the United States was uninhabited before the settlers moved there and that there were no American Indian nations. Yet we put up with this garbage from the lying Zionists while the US administration guns for Vladimir Putin instead. Why? The answer is Zionism and Neoconservatism (I'm not aware of any neocons who aren't Zionists — Jewish, self-styled Christian, or otherwise) have occupied the US government and is largely determining the foreign policy of the US against the best interests of the American people as a whole and the best interests of the entire planet.
The Zionists want control of Russia. There's no doubt about it. They'll take it via US proxy.
The US administration is going along because the US administration is stupid, has historically been ethnically prejudiced against Russians (and Slavic peoples in general whom they consider generally inferior, a remnant idea left over from the British Empire and various Germanic tendencies), and remains religiously bigoted against Russian Orthodox Christianity.
The US would be vastly better off partnering with the Russian people than with the war-criminal Zionists who've set up an Apartheid system in Palestine.
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)