Fundamental Human Rights

The Right to a Sustainable Future [Filtered & blocked by Google!]

Posts Tagged ‘AIPAC’

How Judeo-Christianity Killed America

Posted by terres on October 8, 2009

The Unacceptable Cost of Judeo-Christianity, Its Legacy of Pain

By Charles E. Carlson
October 05, 2009
We Hold These Truths

This paper explores how Christian Zionism is co-opted by a foreign lobby, AIPAC, and used to carry out Israeli objectives.  AIPAC and its powers were well documented in 1994, in One Nation under Israel by Andrew J Hurley, and published by We Hold These Truths. (2)

Southern Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell (died in 2007) may have been the first leader to recognize the potential for linking dispensational Christianity with Zionism and harness its combined power into a political movement with loyalty to the state of Israel as its primary and passionate mission. In the early 1980s, Falwell called his fledgling army “The Moral Majority.”  It was later referred to as the “Christian Right.”  Today the millions of people who have made the present state of Israel the centerpiece of their Christian religion have been given the name “Christian Zionists.” (3)

We Hold These Truths prefers to describe both the Christian Zionist leaders and their misled followers as “Judeo-Christians,” a broadly accepted term, to reflect the fact that the religion they are following is no longer traditional Christianity, but one into which Judaism was injected, producing a radically altered hybrid.

Essential facts about Christian Zionism

First: It must be understood what Judeo-Christianity  (also called “evangelicalism,” dispensationalism, or Christians Zionism) is: by any name, a 20th Century phenomena, an apostate-cult, meaning it practices, in part, a deviant path of following Christ, and it relies upon many varied human sources other than the traditional bible(s) for its theology.(4)(5)

Second: Judeo-Christianity ascribes holiness to a foreign political state, Israel, as though it was itself a god.  It placed political Israel on the throne along side of Jesus Christ, and, in so doing, its teachers ignore, if not annul, much of Jesus’ teachings. (1) (2) (3)

Third: Rank and file churchgoers and many lesser known Judeo-Christian pastors think of themselves as moral, even when they are actively contributing to immoral acts, such as supporting mass military assassinations in Gaza and the West Bank.  They do not consider these acts immoral because they believe events are ordained, or even demanded, by God.

Anger against Christian Zionists is misplaced, because they, too, are victims of their own acts.  They probably bring more suffering upon themselves and their families than any other middle class group.  Judeo-Christians parents rarely opposing any war that Israel favors, so it is quite likely more serve, and therefore more are killed in military combat, than for instance the sons of agnostics or other religious groups. We have yet to find reliable data to support this argument so it is offered strictly as this author’s observation and opinion based on many talks with parents and youths at churches where we have conducted vigils.

Finally, Judeo-Christianity is much larger than generally believed and is active in every state and community in the USA. The new CNN.com six-hour television feature, God’s Warriors, hosted by CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, [married to James Rubin, former Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department,] stated in the introductory segment:

“A recent poll found that 59 percent of American evangelicals believe Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.  She also asserted:  “The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believes God tells them to support Israel — more than six times the world’s Jewish population.”

Several Pew Foundation polls have supported this statement over the last four years, and in fact may suggest higher percentages than used by CNN. (6)

For these several reasons Judeo-Christianity can easily be used by its leader, and by the leaders of Israel, to carry out a political agenda that favors that foreign political state over and ahead of the interests of America, and ahead of the interest of any humans in the USA or any other country except Israel.  For the most part followers of the cult do not know they are being used. Without this understanding many are confused between Judeo-Christian religion and its political agenda.  Pro-Israel activists, including John Hagee, should rightly be registered as agents for a foreign government, so open are their objectives.,Some of our allies against serial wars attribute them to Israel, working through its agents and lobbies for the purpose of gaining US dollar support and creating chaos in the Middle East for its own benefit.

Much is finally being exposed about the powerful Israeli lobby led by The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  AIPAC’S agenda that calls for the USA to finance and bless its occupation of its neighbors, and eventually control the oil of the Middle East,  tactics that are contrary to American interests.

Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have written a powerful paper, The Israel Lobby, which tells us Israel has too much influence in US Foreign Policy.  Their paper has led to a soon to be released and much anticipated book that is making giant waves across the world even before it is printed, as Israel seeks to prevent its promotion. (7.Rapture ready video)

We Hold These Truths sees hope.   Educate the laymen within our own churches, especially mainline churches, can break Israel’s power-hold over our politicians, and it can restore others to follow Christ instead of Israel. More important, we see no other way to do it!

Without the voting support of church Israel’s well-established desire to see Iraq destroyed and its oil divided up resulted in the first gulf war in 1991 and the present contemplated devastation of Iran is nearly unstoppable.  AIPAC and many American businessmen have profit interests in war and campaigned for new wars as a matter of business, but it is the Judeo-Christians who have provided the grassroots clout to keep the War On Islam churning.*

The Dollar Cost of killing:

The occupation of Iraq paralyzed the oil production from the 2nd largest oil resource in the world. Before the occupation it did not cost $50 to fill the family car.  Before the occupation Christian Zionist children and grandchildren could afford milk at a cost per gallon less than diesel fuel, and truck drivers could afford both milk and fuel.  Before “wars” on Iraq, American industry was healthy and had not yet been shipped to China.

Our economic catastrophe is real, lead by the real estate and mortgage bubble. Why?  Because of the cost of a war is over $500 thousand million dollars, and most of the money has been printed, so it will have to be repaid in higher prices later on.  This judgment is like a foul smelling vapor that cannot be put back in the bottle.  I use the word “catastrophe” where others talk of “crisis” because crisis can sometimes be avoided and often leads to practical solutions. Not so with our “catastrophe.” We have passed the crisis stage years ago when we began serial wars for economic purposes, printing the money to pay for them.

There is no end to the amount of price inflation we can expect, food prices will surely be the next to skyrocket on our shopping list for reasons to be explained in our next issue.  Judeo-Christians as a group are most responsible for our dollar dilution because it is they that supported the wars for which all these dollars were wasted on killing people.

Christian Zionist leaders like Gary Bauer, John Hagee and Pat Robertson are not the only ones who believe the Christian Zionist vote controls the USA.  Politician Tom Delay who was an ardent supporter of every war against Islam, recently was quoted as saying at John Hagee’s Night to Honor Israel in Washington DC, that he not only “believes in the Rapture, I live for it” Too bad Delay left the world in such a mess just before his anticipated departure.(8)

Israel lobby harness Judeo-Christianity

Every politician in Congress and those competing for the presidency know George W. Bush became president because he and Carl Rove found a way to identify Bush with the Christian Right, but to get this blessing one must also be Israel blessed.   Even today 70% of Republicans support Bush and his war in Iraq because what is left of the Republican Party is predominantly Judeo-Christian.

The relationship between the Christian-Zionists leaders and AIPAC is simple and straightforward.  AIPAC pressures Congressmen in Washington to give Israel what it wants; the Christian-Zionist celebrities brainwash the laymen in hometowns to pressure the Congressmen at the polls, and the Congressman takes a junket to Israel and complies.  Congress is in the vice between the strongest lobby in Washington and the biggest lobbying voting block in the country.  Why would they listen to you or me?

Christians are deceived by Zionism

Misguided Christians have been used to fight and support war from the 11th Century Crusades to Iraq.  The names have changed but the message has not.  A Pope who called himself Urban II is said to have told the bishop and earls who were to lead the First Crusaders it was up to them to rid the Holy Land of infidels so “Jesus could return there.”  They passed this message on to the peasants who suffered and died for this false cause for the better part of 200 years. The result was the feudal system in Europe.

Judeo-Christianity, like Pope Urban II, teaches we all must honor Israel ahead of America, and even rebuild a temple there before Jesus will come.  The story has hardly changed in a thousand years.  Never mind the fact that Jesus did not seem to say anything like this. Urban II did not share his private economic dreams with the peasants, but he did tell the leaders of the Crusade that the purpose of holy wars was for the loot, and the Crusaders proved to be expert looters.

The leaders of the Christina Zionists, Hagee, Robertson, and a hundred more are the knights and barons at the head of the Crusades’ columns. Their loot comes in the mail and from credit card contributions from the peasant’s foot soldiers.

Human cost to the Judeo-Christian families

Church-going Americans are not only going in debt for war, they supply their sons and daughters to be killed and maimed in the contest.  Celebrity Zionists beat the drums for war that Israel wants, but I have not heard of Hagee’s or Farwell’s son enlisting, or any of the congressmen’s children.  The scorched foot soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan include a disproportionately large number of Judeo-Christians, who we believe, often enlist because mom and dad raised him in the Judeo-Christian church where volunteering is considered noble, even today after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.  Their youths are taught that if we honor Israel we earn blessings for America from God.  It is these young men who pay with shattered bodies and broken minds for the free junkets to Israel taken by a reported 80 Congressmen in August 2007.

“Where are you going, Young Fellow My Lad,
On this glittering morn of May?”
“I’m going to join the Colors, Dad,
They’re looking for men, they say.”
“But you’re only a boy, Young Fellow My Lad,
You aren’t obliged to go.”
“Well, I’m seventeen and a quarter, Dad,
And ever so strong, you know.”

Recently I was introduced to a sandy-haired, smiling 26-year old with a crushing handshake.  But he walked haltingly on two steel legs and his hip joints are also man-made so terrible were his wounds in a rocket attack in Iraq. He talked of friends who have died.  He was 17 when he enlisted and the army is all he knows, he would go back to his unit.  It did not surprise me when this clean cut young American told me he is a Southern Baptist…every bit a gentleman, he looked and acted the part.  He confided that his mother has recently become adamantly against the War (though he did could not bring himself to engage in “political talk”).  I know that this mother must be thinking… if only she had been pro-peace before her young son enlisted seven years ago.

We Hold These Truths has hear other stories from boys with a Judeo-Christian upbringing whose parents did not know they needed to guard their children from recruiters.  We owe it to every Judeo-Christian to tell them about the cost of our serial wars against Islamic non-enemies.  The giant Israeli Lobby does what it wants in its own interest…in Israel’s interest and they will not stop no matter what we do.

We must blame those who have influence, the Christ follower who mistakenly listens to the celebrity Christian leaders, and who are themselves victims. What has the Judeo-Christian movement given back to America?  Is has sacrificed the value of loving your brother as yourself, as Jesus demanded…even loving your enemy.  It has left in its place a legacy of hatred, war, violence, and diluted money, all in the name of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament.  This can and must be changed from inside these apostate churches and media sources.

We need to appeal to the sense of morality of Judeo-Christians.  Its members are directly responsible for the three current crises in American culture, these being the War, inflation and the break down of morality that always accompanies war.  They do it for only one reason; they are led into following an apostate Christianity that started only about 100 years ago, first legitimized by Cyrus I Scofield. (1)(5)

We concluder there could have been no Shock and Awe or war of occupation in Iraq were it not for the Christian Zionists’ zealous campaign to destroy Muslim nations. The now publicly acknowledged War on Islam is in fact already 17 years old.  Project Strait Gate was started to challenge it in its very lair.  Jesus and his disciples took their arguments to the temple and the synagogues.  We are doing the same.

What is the matter, Young Fellow My Lad?
No letter again to-day.
Why did the postman look so sad,
And sigh as he turned away?
Well, I hear them tell that we’ve gained new ground,
But a terrible price we’ve paid:
God grant, my boy, that you’re safe and sound;
But oh I’m afraid, afraid.

ENDNOTES:

War! War! War!  By Robert W. Service, poet of the Alaskan gold rush, who served as an ambulance driver, but refused to enter combat in World War I.
This story originally published as:  “The Unacceptable Cost of Christian-Zionism” by same author, 2007, ( (http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1697)

(1)     Scofield Reference Bible Audio Visual, Charles Carlson ( http://www.whtt.org/show )
(2)     One Nation Under Israel, Andrew J. Hurley, AIPAC power and Israel’s history ( http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php?id=28 )
(3)     Forcing God’s Hand, Grace Halsell, describing authors Junket with Falwell to Israel ( http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php?id=28 )
(4)     God’s Wrath On The Left Behind, Lisa Ruby, an evolution of the Left Behind Series ( http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php?id=28 )
(5)     The Final Apostasy, by Gordon Ginn, Ph.D., a deeper look at the abuse of Scripture ( http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php?id=28  )
(6)     Pew Foundation asks what White Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants and Catholics believe about Israel (Pew http://eshop.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=1389 )
(7)     The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, http://eshop.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=885
(8)     Rapture Ready, Mike Blumenthal at CUFI Washington DC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

Mirrored at: Information Clearing House

Related Links:

Must Read Links

Serial Wars

Advertisements

Posted in biblical prophecy, Christian Right, dispensational Christianity, Gary Bauer, Israel, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Pew Foundation poll, Tom Delay | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

US academic and cultural boycott of Israel

Posted by terres on January 30, 2009

U.S. Academic Boycott of Israel

For first time, U.S. professors call for academic and cultural boycott of Israel

01.29.2009 | Haaretz
By Raphael Ahren

In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, a group of American university professors has for the first time launched a national campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

While Israeli academics have grown used to such news from Great Britain, where anti-Israel groups several times attempted to establish academic boycotts, the formation of the United States movement marks the first time that a national academic boycott movement has come out of America. Israeli professors are not sure yet how big of an impact the one-week-old movement will have, but started discussing the significance of and possible counteractions against the campaign.

“As educators of conscience, we have been unable to stand by and watch in silence Israel’s indiscriminate assault on the Gaza Strip and its educational institutions,” the U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel stated in its inaugural press release last Thursday. Speaking in its mission statement of the “censorship and silencing of the Palestine question in U.S. universities, as well as U.S. society at large,” the group follows the usual pattern of such boycotts, calling for “non-violent punitive measures” against Israel, such as the implementation of divestment initiatives, “similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.”

The campaign was founded by a group of 15 academics, mostly from California, but is, “currently expanding to create a network that embraces the United States as a whole,” according to David Lloyd, a professor of English at the University of Southern California who responded on behalf of the group to a Haaretz query. “The initiative was in the first place impelled by Israel’s latest brutal assault on Gaza and by our determination to say enough is enough.”

“The response has been remarkable given the extraordinary hold that lobbying organizations like AIPAC exert over  and over the U.S. media, and in particular given the campaign of intimidation that has been leveled at academics who dare to criticize Israel’s policies,” Lloyd wrote in an e-mail to Haaretz Monday. “Within a short weekend since the posting of the press release, more than 80 academics from all over the country have endorsed the action and the numbers continue to grow.”

Asked if the group would accept the endorsement of Hamas supporters, Lloyd said, “We have no a priori policy with regard to the membership or affiliation of supporters of the boycott so long as they are in accord with the main aims stated in the press release.”

He argued that, “on several occasions Hamas has sought direct negotiations with Israel, a pursuit that constitutes de facto recognition of Israel, and has openly discussed abandoning its call for the destruction of the state of Israel conditional on reciprocal guarantees from Israel.”

Lloyd wrote that to the best of his knowledge, all supporters of the anti-Israel boycott were also opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Asked if logic wouldn’t dictate that he and his colleagues boycott themselves, he responded, “Self-boycott is a difficult concept to realize. But speaking for myself, I would have supported and honored such a boycott had it been proposed by my colleagues overseas.”

Durban bred, British approved

The idea of an academic boycott against Israel originated in 2001 at the “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa. A first attempt to implement a boycott was undertaken by British professors in the wake of Israel’s 2002 Operation Defensive Shield and the Jenin massacre claim. Since then, British academics tried several times to establish boycotts, with the latest such effort failing because legal advisers a few months ago pointed out that academic boycotts are discriminatory and thus illegal. Yet, analysts say that another British boycott campaign is to be expected in the follow up of Cast Lead.

In the U.S., on the other hand, only a few professors have supported the idea of an academic boycott. In 2006, the American Association of University Professors declared its objection to the British boycott, saying members, “especially oppose selective academic boycotts that entail an ideological litmus test.”

In 2007, nearly 300 university presidents across the United States signed a statement denouncing the boycott, under the motto “Boycott Israeli Universities? Boycott Ours, Too!”

First indications that the climate might change in light of the Gaza operation could be seen earlier this month when the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario proposed, “Israeli academics be barred from speaking, teaching or conducting research at the province’s universities unless they condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza,” as the Inside Higher Ed Web site reported.

Not a mass movement

Israeli academics are hesitant to sound the alarm bells in light of the recent development. “One has to look at this with some degree of caution,” said Gerald Steinberg, the American-educated chair of Bar Ilan University’s political studies department. “Yes, the organization’s declarations are coming from the United States, but this is not at all yet a mass movement.”

Jonathan Rynhold, who also teaches political science at Bar Ilan, explained that boycott movements are rare in America, “because the U.S. has much stronger political culture and laws about freedom of speech than the UK. In America, there is stronger sense that one should be able to think and say whatever one wants.”

“What they’re trying to do,” Rynhold continued in his analysis of anti-Israel boycotts, “is blurring the distinction between criticism of Israeli policies and criticism of Israel’s existence. Their game is to move the liberals, who accept Israel’s right to exist and don’t think Israel is wrong every time but criticize Israeli policies as and when they think it’s right, and turn them into radical left-wing critics [who believe] Israel is racist in its core and everything it does is wrong.”

Rynhold and Steinberg said that the new U.S. campaign is a clone of its British predecessors. The two professors, who were both born in England, speak out of experience. When the original boycott movement arose – initially attacking only Bar Ilan and Haifa University – they were among the co-founders of the International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom, which was fighting the boycott but ultimately folded for lack of funding. Although none of the previous boycott efforts were successful, Steinberg is concerned about every new round. While he said that it’s too early to predict the impact of the U.S. boycott, he sharply criticized the Israeli government and local universities for their handling of the previous boycott.

“The government and the universities have completely neglected not just the academic boycott but in general this kind of soft war,” he said. “The military prepared to go into Gaza for two and half years. But in terms of the boycott movement, both the ministry of education and the foreign ministry – which had pledged support for the existing anti-boycott frameworks – completely failed to prepare their own portfolios for this.”

“The battle is just beginning now,” Steinberg added. “The main response will have to come from American academics who find this kind of bias to be unacceptable and will fight it. But for those of us in Israel who are interested in helping to be a catalyst in that process, the funding has been completely cut off. There was the naive view that having won a few battles in Britain meant the war had been won.” Yet, giving the boycotters too much attention might be counterproductive, Steinberg emphasized.

Effective counterattacks need to be prepared, he said, “but at the same time we must not overreact and provide stimulation and amplification to this process – that is precisely what they’re seeking.”

Other pro-Israel advocates are less hesitant and soft-spoken in their assessment of the U.S. boycott.

“The usual anti-Israel suspects in U.S. universities may sign on to the petition, but it won’t amount to much,” predicted Mitchell Bard, executive director at the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, which seeks to strengthen the pro-Israel camp at American colleges. “If it becomes a widespread effort, I’m sure some effort will be given to countering it, but it is out of touch with the mood in the country,” he said. “Israel has near record high support, [U.S. President Barack] Obama has just taken office with a positive message and the focus will be on moving the peace process forward, not sideshows by anti-Semites and cranks among American pseudo-academics.” Copyright the author or news agency.

Related Links:

Posted in educators of conscience, Gaza massacre, Jenin massacre, Operation Defensive Shield, U.S. invasion of Iraq | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Promised Land?

Posted by feww on November 8, 2008

Obama, Emanuel and Israel

By JOHN V. WHITBECK

(Counterpunch) In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin’s Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after “a Lehi combatant who was killed” — i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir’s terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

In rapid response to this news, the editorial in the next day’s Arab News (Jeddah) was entitled “Don’t pin much hope on Obama — Emanuel is his chief of staff and that sends a message”. This editorial referred to the Irgun as a “terror organization” (a judgment call) and concluded: “Far from challenging Israel, the new team may turn out to be as pro-Israel as the one it is replacing.”


Rep. Rahm Emanuel (left) is declaring his support for Sen. Barack Obama after months of remaining neutral. Now that Emanuel is unleashed, he can help shore up support for Obama in the Jewish community. (Image AP/Chicago Sun-Times). Image may be subject to copyright.

That was always likely. Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as “a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning“, and America’s electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president’s declaring his country’s independence from Israeli domination.

Still, one of the greatest advantages for the United States in electing Barack Hussein Obama was the prospect that the world’s billion-plus Muslims, who now view the United States with almost universal loathing and hatred, would be dazzled by the new president’s eloquence, life story, skin color and middle name, would think again with open minds and would give America a chance to redeem itself in their eyes and hearts — not incidently, drastically shortening the long lines of aspiring jihadis eager to sacrifice their lives while striking a blow against the evil empire.
The profound loathing and hatred of the Muslim world toward the United States, which has always had its roots for America’s unconditional support for the injustices inflicted and still being inflicted on the Palestinians, can fairly be considered the core of the primary foreign policy and “national security” problems confronting the United States in recent years. Why would Obama, a man of unquested brilliance, have chosen to send such a contemptuous message to the Muslim world with his first major appointment? Why would he wish to disabuse the Muslim world of its hopes (however modest) and slap it across the face at the earliest opportunity?

A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming — the naming as “Special Envoy for Middle East Peace” of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off “think tank”, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Nevertheless, since it is almost always constructive to seek a silver lining in the darkest clouds, a silver lining can be found and cited. For decades, the Palestinian leadership has been “waiting for Godot” — waiting for the U.S. Government to finally do the right thing (if only in its own obvious self-interest) and to force Israel to comply with international law and UN Resolutions and permit them to have a decent mini-state on a tiny portion of the land that once was theirs.

This was never a realistic hope. It has not happened, and it will never happen. So it may well be salutary not to waste eight more days (let alone eight more years) playing along and playing the fool while more Palestinian lands are confiscated and more Jewish colonies and Jews-only bypass roads are built on them, clinging to the delusion that the charming Mr. Obama, admirable though he may be in so many other respects, will eventually (if only in a second term, when he no longer has to worry about reelection) see the light and do the right thing. It is long overdue for the Palestinians themselves to seize the initiative, to reset the agenda and to declare a new “only game in town”.

Furthermore, in February, Israel will elect a new Knesset. Bibi Netanyahu, who, most polls and coalition-building calculations suggest, is most likely to emerge as the next prime minister, has one (if only one) great virtue. He is absolutely honest in not professing any desire (however insincere) to see the creation of any Palestinian “state” (whether decent or less-than-a-Bantustan in nature) or to engage in any talks (even never-ending and fraudulent ones) ostensibly about that possibility. His return to power would definitively slam the door on the illusion of a “two-state solution” somewhere over an ever-receding horizon.

This would constitute a blessing and a liberation for Palestinian minds and Palestinian aspirations. Their leadership(s) could then return, after a long, costly and painful diversion, to fundamental principles, to pursuing the goal of a democratic, nonracist and nonsectarian state in all of Israel/Palestine with equal rights for all who live there.

This just goal could and should be pursued by strictly nonviolent means. If the goal is to convince a determined and powerful settler-colonial movement which wishes to seize your land, settle it and keep it (eventually cleansing it of you and your fellow natives) that it should cease, desist and leave, nonviolent forms of resistance are suicidal. If, however, the goal were to be to obtain the full rights of citizenship in a democratic, nonracist state (as was the case in the American civil rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid movement), then nonviolence would be the only viable approach. Violence would be totally inappropriate and counterproductive. The morally impeccable approach would also be the tactically effective approach. The high road would be the only road.

No American president — least of all Barack Obama — could easily support racism and apartheid and oppose democracy and equal rights, particularly if democracy and equal rights were being pursued by nonviolent means. No one anywhere could easily do so. The writing would be on the wall, and the clock would be running out on the tired game of using a perpetual “peace process” as an excuse to delay decisions (while building more “facts on the ground”) forever.

Democracy and equal rights would not come quickly or easily. Forty years passed between when, on the night before his assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King cried out that he had been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land and when Barack Obama was elected as president of the United States. (The Bible suggests a similar waiting period in the wilderness for Moses.) Forty-six years passed between the installation of a formal apartheid regime in South Africa and the election of Nelson Mandela as president of a fully democratic and nonracist “rainbow nation”.

While it may be be hoped that the transformation would be significantly quicker in Israel/Palestine, it is clear that many who already qualify as “senior citizens” will not live to see the promised land. However, if the promised land of a democratic state with equal rights for all is correctly and clearly perceived and persistently and peacefully pursued, there is ample reason for confidence that Israel/Palestine will one day experience the tearful exaltation of a “Mandela Moment” or an “Obama Moment”, restoring hope in the moral potential both of a nation and of mankind, and that the Jews, Muslims and Christians who live there will finally reach their promised land.

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, is author of “The World According to Whitbeck”. Copyright author/Counterpunch. See Fair Use Notice.

Related Links:

Posted in Dennis Ross, Irgun, Israel, Menachem Begin, palestine | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »