Sunday, May 19, 2013

Sunday, May 19. 2013

"Church of Scotland Report Challenging Jews’ ‘Divine Right’ to Palestinian Homeland Unchanged" by Stuart Littlewood:
"The report's key conclusion remains that "the Church of Scotland does not agree with a premise that scripture offers any peoples a divine right to territory”. At least they stand firm on that.

They also recap on what they already believe, and here's where disagreements might flare up. For example…

·       “Israel is a recognised State and has the right to exist in peace and security.”

Yet Israel's right to exist seems somehow inconsistent with the Church's statement that scripture does not bestow a divine right to someone else's land. Even if the Church believes that the UN's 1947 Partition Plan was morally and legally right, what does it say to the Jewish terror groups that were driving Palestinians from their homes before the ink was dry and before the state of Israel was declared? What about the hundreds of towns and villages not even allocated to the Jewish state in the UN Plan but erased by Israel in order to implant itself. What about the systematic ethnic cleansing and the criminal occupation of additional Arab territories in the 1967 war? Perhaps the Church should remain silent on the 'right to exist' question, at least until Israel declares its internationally recognised boundaries and halts its illegal expansion."
and:
"Central to the Church’s discussion is this excellent passage…

“To Christians in the 21st century, promises about the land of Israel shouldn't be intended to be taken literally, or as applying to a defined geographical territory; The 'promised land' in the Bible is not a place, so much as a metaphor of how things ought to be among the people of God. This 'promised land' can be found or built anywhere.”

The report’s key conclusions appear the same as before. Christians should not be supporting any claims by any people to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory… It is a misuse of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) and the New Testament to use it as a topographic guide to settle contemporary conflicts over land.

And regarding Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory the Church remains committed to the following principles (previously set out and agreed by the General Assembly):

That the current situation is characterised by an inequality in power, therefore reconciliation can only be possible if the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the blockade of Gaza, are ended.

The Church of Scotland condemns violence, terrorism and intimidation no matter the perpetrator

The Church of Scotland affirms the right of Israelis and Palestinians to live within secure and fixed boundaries in states of their own.

The Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are illegal under international law.

The Church of Scotland should do nothing to promote the viability of the illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

That human rights of all peoples should be respected, and this should include the right of return and / or compensation for Palestinian refugees.

That negotiations between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority about peace with justice must resume at the earliest opportunity and the Church of Scotland should continue to put political pressure on all parties to commence such negotiations, and asking all parties to recognise the inequality in power which characterises this situation.

That there are safe rights of access to the sacred sites for the main religions in the area.

This stance seems pretty robust to me, and the Church’s support for refugees’ right of return is very welcome. However it also raises questions. Why, having already emphasised that the crisis in the Holy Land is characterised by "an inequality of power", call for the two sides to be thrown together again in fruitless negotiations? Negotiate what? Freedom? Is that negotiable? The return of stolen lands and property? Is that negotiable? These matters are already decided by international and humanitarian law and numerous UN resolutions waiting to be enforced. How can the Church approve so-called 'negotiations' while one party is still under illegal occupation with a gun to his head? What justice is likely to come out of that? The Church does urge the UK Government and the European Union "to do all that is within their power to ensure that international law is upheld", but that surely must come first, rather than relying on discredited talks."
"From Al Jazeera to Columbia University: Joseph Massad’s obsession with Israel" Quite silly all around, but the Stormfront discussion it refers to is simply excellent (and note that they point out that Massad is largely full of shit, which of course opens up the question of why Zionism can't be uniquely EVIL in itself, without riding the coattails of National Socialism), particularly the pipeline post.

Speaking of being full of shit:  "Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be"  Note how deeply rotten and dangerous this argument is.  What Jack London and Henry Ford knew, and what people should know now, is that there are lots of sound reasons to be uniquely suspicious of Jewish finance capital.  There are no comparable reasons to be suspicious of Muslims (except, of course, where Muslim capital is used for Jewish ends, i.e., current Qatari financing of 'al Qaeda' in Syria).  The comparison is just another Jewish trick to protect the bad guys and endanger Muslims, and is a good window on the deep problems of lite Zionism.

The misuse of the 'anti-Semitism' slur and similar stunts predates the ADL:  "100 Reasons Leo Frank Is Guilty".  Note the concerted propaganda effort solely on the basis that the accused was 'one of us'.

And speaking of Syria:  "Insight: Syria's Nusra Front eclipsed by Iraq-based al Qaeda"  In other words, if you think the heart-eaters are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.  Note:
"With Assad gone it will be easier for Al Qaeda in Iraq to use Syria and the surrounding region as a base for future operations, which will not only be of concern to Syria’s neighbors (perhaps most notably Israel), but also Europe and the U.S."

These would be the people for which we can thank Colonel James Steele.

"Ignatieff:  'We have a duty to intervene in Syria'"  Not only is Iggy the essence of pure distilled evil, his misguided political holiday in Canada has left him out of the loop (embarrassing).  It is not 2001 any longer, and the Jewish billionaires who now run things are now much more cautious than the Jewish billionaires who were running things back when Iggy was a star of academia, and one of the monsters behind 'responsibility to protect'.  Here's hoping Susan Rice's return is derailed by the Benghazi conspiracy.

To wash the Iggy out of your mouth:  "The Syrian Crisis: The Option" by Jeremy Salt (I think we all know what 'friends and allies' means):
"There are other more likely answers to ‘what will happen’. This is that the  Syrian army will eventually drive the surviving ‘rebels’ out of the country and Bashar will come out of this  more popular than ever because he saw off the greatest challenge to the Syrian state in its history.   Elections will be held in 2014 and he will be elected president with 75 per cent of the vote. This at least is what the CIA is predicting.

Erdogan came to Washington also wanting Obama to ‘do more’,  but clearly the US president does not want to do much if anything more. The Turkish media reported that Obama said Assad ‘must’ go but this was not what he said.  He chose his words carefully. In his press conference with Erdogan he did not say that said Assad ‘must’ go but that he ‘needs’ to go and ‘needs’ to transfer power to a transitional body. The difference is all-important. Personally, Obama will not want to end his presidency stuck in an unwinnable and unpopular war, one, furthermore, that could quickly shift from regional to global crisis. A recent Pew poll shows that the American people have had enough of wars in the Middle East and the talks between Kerry and Lavrov indicate that this time, having allowed the Geneva agreement of July, 2012, to fall flat, the US is serious about reaching a negotiated end to this crisis even if others aren’t.  If there is any danger of the US position being derailed, it will mostly likely arise within the ranks of its friends and allies."
blog comments powered by Disqus