Leftist Protestants Rally Against Israel

Not satisfied with the recent defeat of motions to divest from companies doing business with Israel and to ostracize Israel at their national forums, mainline Protestant church leaders sent a letter on October 8, 2012 to members of the U.S. Congress accusing Israel of human rights abuses, asking the U.S. lawmakers to “reevaluate unconditional” military assistance to the Jewish state, and calling for an investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act.  Such violations would render Israel ineligible for U.S. military aid. The letter also emphasized “a troubling and consistent pattern of disregard by the government of Israel for U.S. policies that support a just and lasting peace,” citing Israel’s failure to halt settlement activity despite repeated U.S. government requests.

The letter was signed by Rev. Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (USA); Mark S. Hanson, Presiding Bishop Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Bishop Rosemarie Wenner, President, Council of Bishops United Methodist Church; Peg Birk, Transitional General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA; Shan Cretin, General Secretary, American Friends Service Committee; J Ron Byler, Executive Director, Mennonite Central Committee U.S.; Dr. A. Roy Medley, General Secretary, American Baptist Churches, U.S.A.; Rev. Geoffrey A. Black, General Minister and President, United Church of Christ; Rev. Dr. James A. Moos, Executive Minister, United Church of Christ, Wider Church Ministries Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples); and others. The statement “urge[s] Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace.” It continued: “We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.”

This visceral contempt for the Jewish state, rooted in a secular leftist ideology mixed with a measure of replacement theology, prompted the writing of this hypocritical letter and various other attempts to boycott, divest, and place sanctions against Israel for alleged wrongdoings against Palestinians.  These church leaders, self-appointed “protectors” of human rights, have overlooked the endemic efforts by the Arabs/Palestinians to destroy the Jewish State through war and terrorism and the attempt at demographic warfare based on the claim of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees to Israel.  Additionally, they have ignored the pervasive teaching of hatred of Jews in Palestinian schools, mosques, and every outlet of Palestinian media.

Last week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published its report on abuses committed by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority against their own people in Gaza and the West Bank respectively.  The report highlighted the corruption of the judicial system in the Palestinian territories and the degree to which Hamas terrorizes the people living under its control.  Abiding the rule to never let facts get in the way, this report and others written throughout the years, did not alter the message or the fervency of the obsessive hatred for Israel of the above-mentioned church leaders.  Neither, it seems, are they bothered by the burning of churches and the intimidation of the few remaining Christian communities in the Palestinian territories by these allegedly “abused” Palestinians who are on a quest to establish another fanatical Islamist state.

That Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East whose laws ensure and protect the human rights and religious freedoms of its Arab (both Christian and Muslim) minority, is of no consequence to these church leaders.  Nor does it matter to them that the Palestinian Arab Muslim majority denies these same freedoms to their Christian residents.

Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, reacting to the letter by the church leaders, wrote,  “The blatant lack of sensitivity by the Protestant dialogue partners we had been planning to meet with has seriously damaged the foundation for mutual respect, which is essential for meaningful interfaith dialogue.” He added, “It is outrageous that mere days after the Iranian president repeated his call for Israel’s elimination, these American Protestant leaders would launch a biased attack against the Jewish state by calling on Congress to investigate Israel’s use of foreign aid. In its clear bias against Israel, it is striking that their letter fails to also call for an investigation of Palestinian use of U.S. foreign aid, thus once again placing the blame entirely on Israel.”

The Protestant leaders who issued this transparently anti-Israel letter knew full well that President Obama had overridden congressional restrictions to fund the Palestinians because of their refusal to negotiate with Israel. The Palestinians received $147 million in American taxpayer money last April, in spite of their direct defiance of the U.S. request not to go to the UN General Assembly seeking unilateral recognition of statehood as a way to avoid negotiating with Israel.  It is apparent that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in a peaceful solution, and it is amply clear that the radical Islamists of Hamas will never make peace with Israel for religious and ideological reasons.

A “just and lasting peace” is an imperative for all Israeli governments.  The Jewish state proved its commitment to such by returning the entire Sinai Peninsula (3 times Israel’s size) in return for peace with Egypt. It made land concessions to Jordan for peace, and unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.  This latest move resulted in a steady barrage of thousands of missiles from Gaza directly aimed at homes – with the clear intention to kill civilians, especially women and children.  Israel is a successful modern democracy facing failed Arab states and a Palestinian Authority that reject modernity, seeking to embrace and impose a fanatical and intolerant version of Islam.  

History shows that Jewish “settlements” have never been an impediment to peace.  Israel proved it in 1982, when Prime Minister Menahem Begin, himself a resident of Yamit, a Jewish ”settlement” town in the Sinai, was dismantled as part of the peace treaty with Egypt.  Likewise, Israel dismantled numerous settlements in the Gaza Strip. Interesting to note also, that international law never forbade Jewish settlement in western Palestine (West Bank).  “The Mandate for Palestine” issued by the League of Nations laid down the Jewish legal right — under international law — to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. Fifty-one member countries — the entire League of Nations — unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

The United States, not a member of the League of Nations, unanimously endorsed the mandate for Palestine on June 30, 1922 in a joint resolution of both U.S. Houses of Congress: “Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” and “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”

Before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank (the Etzion Bloc was destroyed by Jordan), and for the first 10 years of the so-called occupation there were almost no settlements in the West Bank, and no calls for an independent Arab Palestinian state.  Furthermore, when the Arabs were presented with an opportunity to trade land for peace following the Six-Day War, they rejected it – issuing their infamous “Three No’s” at a summit in Khartoum.  No recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel and no negotiations with Israel.

The claim by these aforementioned church leaders that Jewish settlements pose an obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the so-called “peace process,” thus enabling the Palestinians to reject compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish State.

It is the meddling of these Protestant church leaders and their one-sided anti-Israel posture that fuels the fires of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Puder's article is amusing. How could anyone be "satisfied" with a recent defeat of one's motions? Certainly Keystone Pipeline is not satisfied with it. Rachel Neuwirth wasn't satisfied until she could use David Yerushalmi's lawfare to censor her critics with Hasbara bulldogging. Here, Mr. Puder is just plain livid that a broad spectrum of heroic Protestant Christians have come forth with fortitude to write some good, strong letters to Congress challenging the legal basis of Israel's rental warmongering. In America you are not allowed to buy beer with welfare checks. With America you are not allowed to use military aid to blatantly expand your country and drop white phosphorus on children.

    Mr. Puder is so extreme in his ire that he is even willing to pull Abe Foxman out from under the bus. He also says "History shows that Jewish 'settlements' have never been an impediment to peace" which either a lie, really bad comedy, or a feeble gamble that his readership is ignorant. I make note of his open contempt for America, Protestants, peace, and our foreign aid laws.

    • Larry

      History shows that you are an unrepentant anti-semite of the darkest sort.

      Happy eternal nakba worm castings.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        I wish I could give you more than one thumb up.

        • Kufar Dawg

          I'll second that Roger.

    • Omar

      Flipside, why do you keep annoying us with your totalitarian propaganda? The fact is that Jewish settlements in the West Bank aren't a real problem at all. You view settlements as a problem for the same reasons as the Islamists. West Bank settlements are a problem only because the Islamists are racists, bigots and are intolerant with anyone and anything that is not their kind. That's the reality.

      • Schlomotion

        "The fact is that Jewish settlements in the West Bank aren't a real problem at all."
        I will remember this argument on the day that I am openly rebuked by the state for hand-building a residence on land that I own, not on the necks of a family with a meager olive grove. When I am openly vilified for denying the state full and ample opportunity to beancount my purchases of block, of board, or nail, I will remember the argument that a corporation building a colony with Las Vegas gangster money and shooting the prior inhabitants in the face isn't a real problem at all, but owning your own actual land and doing things with it is an affront to society.

        • Omar

          Schlomotion, you make no sense at all.

          • Glennd1

            If you actually knew the history of the settlements you would easily understand what he's saying. You trumpet your ignorance with such comments.

          • Omar

            You again? You're just another person who supports Schlomotion/Flipside's nonsense on the Middle East conflict. Both of you are the ignorant ones. The Islamists want world domination. That's the reality.

          • George_Babbitt

            Saying 'both of them' automatically starts to recognize that they are not fringe in their beliefs.

        • bkopicz

          It sounds like Schlomotion as an ingrown hair growing up his @ss. Troll take your meds

        • Bert

          Schlomotion is both demented and ignorant. King David ruled a Jewish state from Jerusalem over 3,000 years ago. Mohammed arrived 1,600 years later and began a campaign of terror, conquest with the brutal imposition of Islam. Muslim invaders still occupy about 10 million square miles. Muslim terrorists invaded the land of Israel in the year 638, about 1,600 years AFTER King David ruled in Jerusalem. Muslims still occupy all of Israel including Gaza, pre-'67 Israel with voting rights, the so-called West bank and of course the artificial, illegitimate, entity of Jordan. Muslims conducted the biggest land grab in human history and want to continue their theft until the entire world is one giant caliphate under brutal Sharia law. They even admit to this goal.

          • George_Babbitt

            Yes, King David ruled 3,000 years ago. And how many times has God sent invading armies to wreck the land of David because the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews had broken yet another covenant and instead clung to sin-loving ways??? Let us count the ways; Assyrian;Hittite;Grecian;Persian;Babylonian;Roman;Islam;German and the list will go on till the day that they stop cling to their sin-loving hard-hearted ways and accept Christ.

        • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

          Schlomotion
          "I will remember this argument on the day that I am openly rebuked by the state for hand-building a residence on land that I own, not on the necks of a family with a meager olive grove. When I am openly vilified for denying the state full and ample opportunity to beancount my purchases of block, of board, or nail, I will remember the argument that a corporation building a colony with Las Vegas gangster money and shooting the prior inhabitants in the face isn't a real problem at all, but owning your own actual land and doing things with it is an affront to society".

          Unless you make your accusations against Israel a bit more specific, one cannot possibly answer to you, at least not without making lots of assumptions concerning what exactly you mean. Emotion-laden arguments and rhetoric tend to obscure the issues to be debated.

          I can only respond to the "openly vilified" you wrote, presumably referring to the Palestinians of the West Bank.
          I do not know exactly how you mean this "vilified".
          But i certainly know that if there has been a people that has been vilified in the world's public opinion consistently throughout their history, these are the Jews, and more recently the Israeli Jews.
          For the second part of my claim you don't have to take my word for it. Just have a look at the international Media (the "New York Times", "The Guardian" and the BBC are notable cases of Israel-bashing journalism).
          In the arena of the international community it is indeed a battle of David vs Goliath: Israel against the whole world.

        • Glennd1

          They just get crazier and crazier, don't they Schlomo? Forget everything else on this issue. People who cannot see that the "settlements" are immoral, theft, illegitimate, and a provocation that actually invites and JUSTIFIES violence against the armed "civilians" who invade those lands, well, then those people are not dealing in reality. They simply want to give the Jews the land "from the river to the sea" (not only Palestinians chant that), and just don't care about Palestinian rights. Fair enough – but that makes them immoral cretins. And they can't face the truth, but won't change their positions, so they get forced to make inane statements like this.

          Me? I'm anti-Zionist and anti-Islamist – how any thinking American can be otherwise is a mystery to me.

          • Glennd1

            And just in case I wasn't clear, I believe shooting "settlers" on sight is morally justified. You shouldn't invade other people's lands and steal their homes, they have the right to kill you to get rid of you. If the same happened in my little town of Nelson NH, some Zionist just built on my land I would shoot them if they wouldn't leave. You know the Zionists would – could you imagine if Palestinians tried to do the same? The Zionists would mow them down like tall corn.

          • Omar

            The so-called "Palestinians" are an invented people (Newt Gingrich is right). Palestine is not even an Arabic name. Palestine is a Latin name meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors who had red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). Palestine is the name of the geographical region that consists of Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. Anyone who lives in those places is a Palestinian, regardless of characteristics. The Israelis and Jordanians are Palestinians. In 66 AD/CE (about 600 years before Islam was established and the Arabs started migrating towards the Holy Land region), the Romans conquered the Holy Land region( where the Jews have lived in continuously for over 3,000 years) and renamed the region "Palestine". Why are Jewish settlements a problem? There are over a million Arabs living in Israel. Arabs living in Israel have more rights and liberties as Israeli citizens than people living in other countries in the Middle East. Jewish settlements in the West Bank are a problem only because the Islamists there are racists and bigots who cannot anyone who is not their kind. Instead of complaining about Israel, why don't you denounce the despotic regime in Sudan. Sudan has a racist, sexist, Islamist military regime that behaves worse than South Africa's former apartheid regime. The Islamist regime in Sudan has actually committed genocide against its black population. Remember Darfur? Yet you don't denounce the Islamist regime in Sudan because you view it as a "progressive" state and an advocate of so-called "social justice". Instead of criticizing democratic Israel, criticize actual despotic regimes.

          • George_Babbitt

            I haven't seen the 'American-Sudanese-Political-Action-Committee" involved in U.S. politics in some time, I had forgotten to re-up my anti-Sudanese membership card as I though they had stopped meddling in our affairs.

          • George_Babbitt

            Too bad that the international community and the United States doesn't recognize the 'Stand Your Ground' laws that are becoming quite common in the U.S.

        • Drakken

          I have noticed that for all your pro-pali propaganda, that you still don't have the balls to go there and fight for your pali-savage riends? Why is that? You still haven't answered that question for the rest of us infidels? Come on puzzy, put your money where your jihadist loving mouth is.

          • George_Babbitt

            For one, the Zionist-Military-Industrial complex that they have control of which as they have demonstrated many times in the past as they covertly relied on U.S. military might to triumph during the Arab-Israeli wars, even going so far to shoot up an American Navy ship in the process because it might have seen to much and it wasn't part of the maneuvers.

        • Zionista

          keep on stewing in your bitter jealousy, loser – you seem to live for posting your boring rants – get a life little girl!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I will remember this argument on the day that I am openly rebuked by the state for hand-building a residence on land that I own"

          You are either confusing soveriegnty with property ownership or simply accepting lies because OPEC has so much influence in spreading them even before the anti-Semites get involved.

          Same old story, taken in by lies.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          The murder 50,000,000 Hindus over 1,400 years by Islamists prove that Islam is at war with people all over the world.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Hey Sharia-moron, why don't we talk about land swaps for the land the Jewish people formerly owned in Soddy Barbaria. You remember, Khybar and Medina, the places the Jews owned until mohamMAD stole them from the rightful owners. Why don't we talk about just compensation for the territories lost there?

    • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

      Schlomotion
      " Israel's rental warmongering".

      Do many warmongers cede land to their enemies UNILATERALLY, despite being infinitely stronger than the enemy?
      Because that's what Israel did in 2005, when it surrendered Gaza to the Palestinian terrorists.

      "With America you are not allowed to use military aid to blatantly expand your country".

      The 2000 Israeli peace offer to the Palestinians included all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank, an offer that the Palestinians refused. Clinton blamed the Palestinians for the impasse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Territory).

      The tiny 6% of one of the disputed territories that Israel sought to keep doesn't exactly point to an expansionary policy, does it?

      " and drop white phosphorus on children".

      No such thing has happened as a matter of Israeli policy: Israel does NOT target civilians. It is the moral responsibility of the Palestinian Hamas not to hide among Palestinian civilians.
      Then again, the Palestinians don't seem to love their children very much, at least not as much as they hate the Jews.

      "[Mr Puder] also says "History shows that Jewish 'settlements' have never been an impediment to peace" which [is] either a lie, really bad comedy, or a feeble gamble that his readership is ignorant".

      I belong to the category of ignorants, so could you please explain to me why the PLO (the Palestinian former terrorist organization formed in order to annihilate Israel) was formed in 1964, i.e. BEFORE there were any Jewish settlements? As we know, Israel came to occupy the West Bank in 1967, in the context of a defensive war.

      Because this shows that what the Palestinians really wanted was not settlement activity to stop (given that there were no settlements at the time), but to annihilate Israel.

      • Glennd1

        But of course, it's a principle of international law that one cannot gain territory via conquest – or are you so frikking ignorant as to how the world works that you don't even know that? So, "giving" back Gaza was no act of generosity.

        As for your targeting, and dead children comments, you do realize that since the start of the second intifada that Israel has killed far more civilians and children than Hamas, yes? That is just a straight up fact. The excuse that "they didn't mean to" is getting very old, I mean, the Zionists make the same excuse for their ethnic cleansing between '47-'49 – which is even less believable (if that is actually possible). You don't have morality, truth or evidence on your side.

        The only moral position for an American to take is to oppose Zionism and Islamism. We have no dog in the Jewish fight for a homeland – it's irrelevant to the U.S.

        • Omar

          There was no ethnic cleansing in Israel during the '48 war. Why don't you talk about the violent, anti-Semitic riots that took place in Hebron in 1929, almost two decades before modern Israel formed. What you really want in the Middle East is a "society" where women are treated as chattel, where homosexuals are lynched from cranes for being homosexuals, and where Jews and people of other faiths (as well as non-religious peoples) are not allowed. What you want is an Islamist-dominated Middle East where Sharia is the law of the land. Quit supporting tyranny.

          • Glennd1

            Omar – What's pathetic about you is that I've already responded to you in the past. You already know that i'm anit-Islamist and anti-Zionist. Your harebrained assumption that it's axiomatic to support Zionism if you oppose Islamists and Jihadists is only true in the bubble of places like FrontPage, sadly, Jihad Watch and the Glenn Beck radio show. All of your attempts to paint me as a supporter fo the Islamists are lies. I do not think the U.S. should actively support the Palestinians or the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact, I think we should be very clear that we will oppose them

            One can do that and not support Israel. As for the attack in Hebron – yes, so, what? If you read my comments, you'll know that I claim a state of war existed for much of the 50 yrs preceding 1948. You, of course, choose to pick Arab violence instead of Zionist violence, which was ample. But you aren't a seeker of truth, you are a seeker of power for your cause. Know this, you actually damage the fight against Islamists with your Zionist support.

          • Omar

            Why do you keep calling them "Palestinians" as though there are an ethnic group. Palestine is a geographical region, not an ethnicity nor a nationality. Anyone who lives in the former Palestine mandate (Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan) is a Palestinian, regardless of characteristics. The Israelis and Jordanians are Palestinians. I already mentioned that Palestine is a Latin name (not Arabic) meaning Philistines, who were Greek sailors with red hair (the Philistines were not Arabs). "Palestinian nationality" was made in the Soviet Union in 1964 (16 years after modern Israel formed), when the KGB created the PLO in order to discredit Israel's right to exist. That's the reality.

        • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

          Glennd1, here is the first part of my reply (for some reason the system wouldn’t take it if I didn’t split it)

          “But of course, it's a principle of international law that one cannot gain territory via conquest”

          But Gaza was acquired in a defensive war, and legal experts disagree as to whether land acquired in a DEFENSIVE war can be legally occupied.

          “or are you so frikking ignorant as to how the world works that you don't even know that”?

          Yes, I am an ignorant in matters of international law, but it is reassuring to have such a legal expert as yourself to enlighten me.

          “So, "giving" back Gaza was no act of generosity”.

          Really? And what sort of act was it exactly? Legally, the right of Israel to withhold Gaza is defensible. And of course, there was no one who could force Israel to give it back if Israel didn’t want to.
          Sounds very much like generosity to me – unless of course you have some other explanation for the Gaza gift to Palestinians.

          “As for your targeting, and dead children comments, you do realize that since the start of the second intifada that Israel has killed far more civilians and children than Hamas, yes? That is just a straight up fact”.

          Yes, and it is attributable to the fact that Hamas terrorists are using their children as human shields. What is the Israeli Army supposed to do? Abstain from killing the terrorists which are firing rockets against Israeli children? Don’t the Israelis have a moral duty towards their own children first? Or are they supposed to value more the life of the Palestinian children?

          Hamas has not managed to kill as many Israeli children as they want because they are not equipped with radars and stuff like that. If they were, trust me, there wouldn’t be left alive a single Israeli kid – or adult for that matter.

          “The excuse that [the Israelis] "they didn't mean to" is getting very old”

          It is not an excuse, it is a moral argument, and its age does not really matter. What matters is that acting in self defense and doing everything conceivable to protect the enemies kids bestows on the Israelis the moral justification of their actions.

          “I mean, the Zionists make the same excuse for their ethnic cleansing between '47-'49 – which is even less believable (if that is actually possible)”.

          The Israelis found themselves in a defensive war in 1948, as soon as they declared their independence. Many of the Palestinians that left their homes did so on orders of the Arab armies that were invading Israel in order to annihilate her (they didn’t want the palestinians in the way). The Palestinians that left voluntarily, thinking that they could come back after the other Arabs had exterminated the Jews, count as “ethnic cleansing”?

          “You don't have morality, truth or evidence on your side”

          Israel has both morality and truth on her side.
          The morality stems from the fact that she has always found herself in self defense, and in recent times she takes all precautions not to hurt civilians (in the operation Cast lead she was throwing flyers from airplanes and making telephone calls to warn Palestinian civilians to vacate so as not to get harmed by the imminent Israeli attack on terrorists and terrorist infrastructure).

          As for the evidence which are purportedly not on my side, I find it strange that you didn’t bother to cite ANY evidence whatsoever to prove your claim that Israel targeted civilians in the operation Cast Lead. I didn’t cite too many of my own arguments because I was responding to SCHLOMO and he/she has seen my evidence in all of the replies that I’ve been making to his/her comments. They are all there http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz/the-l

          But the issue can be settled easily. Bring evidence to justify your thesis and you will have proved me wrong.

          • Glennd1

            1. The legitimacy of the occupied territories is only legitimate in radical Zionist circles. Many in Israel agree with me, you should read the press over their before you start reciting talking points that have could fall out of the lying sophist Dershowitz's mouth. And it's been ajudicated as well, and the policy of most nations on earth – including the U.S.- is that Israel retreat to the '67 borders, so our policy acknowledges the illegitimacy of the settlements, but you won't .Okay, live inside your lie, have at it.

            As for the "we didn't mean to" argument getting old, your response is an attempt to inject some normative view of Israeli actions as backed by superior moral motives from the outset, and of course that isn't true. Let's leave it at this. The Zionist cause was about establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Not elsewhere, and based on biblical imprecation and political desperation that is certainly understandable. But it could not establish a Jewish state inside the territory the Zionists began moving into en masse ofver 50 years previous until the gift of the territory to the Zionists, after a 25k to 500k plus increase in Jews in Palestine from 1898-1948. Who has invaded who? Fyi, you should also recognize that this fell on the heels of the breech of a number of agreements with Arab countries, the Sykes-Piccoult agreement. The Brits just broke a bunch of promises and chopped up the mideast in just tragic ways. The Arabs have a gripe. This did not occur in isolation. rather it was one of the early acts of a United Nations supposedly dedicated to justice.

            It's so sad that you have to dehumanize the Palestinians (or whatever you want to call them). Everything I've said above is supported by the historical record. You can pick apart each point, but don't bother. I'm not writing for you. I'm writing for the other good people on this thread who may wonder sometimes why we are supporting Israel in the first place, and what really happened between '47-'49. Just sayin'…

            And the idea of "transfer" was implicit in the enterprise. A Jewish state could not be established with a large Arab Muslim population. Period. It was debated publicly, and feared and prohibited for years. Zionists love to trace their right to the territory in Palestine back to the Balfour Declaration and the Palestiniane Mandate, but what they don't mention is that those and the U.N. resolution creating the Jewish territory in which Israel was created (and sprang to life with a 40k strong infantry, armored, air – amazing, yes?) – all those documents also explicitly stipulated that Israel could not displace the indigenous people living in the territories. They had to continue to allow the Arab Muslims living there to continue to do so, unmolested and as equals. It was a condition of the grant of territory.

            That's why folks like Albert Einstein published an open letter in the New York Times, signed by many other prominent U.S. Jews, in 1948 castigating the radical Zionists for their brutality and ihnumanity. That's why the U.S. then joined with the rest of the world condemning Israel's actions and voted for the Right of Return resolution in '49. At the time, this was not seen in any way as an unsullied act by the Zionists, quite the contrary. And there wasn't universal agreement that it was in the U.S.'s interests to do so, rather our own CIA director at the time begged Truman to not support it, claiming it would result in "endless war". Sounds about right, yeah?

            You folks conflate being conservative or republican or patriotic with supporting Israel, when nothing of the sort is so. I'm anti-Zionist and anti-Islamist – and makes sense to me. This is not our mess. Let Jews have asylum here, we should welcome them, in fact. But that's it. It is of no matter to me whether they get some strip of desert for a home or not. They started this fight, they can finish it. I won't back the other side, no way. How can you possibly say preserving Israel is in the U.S.'s national interest?

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            Glennd1, this part B of my reply
            “all those documents also explicitly stipulated that Israel could not displace the indigenous people living in the territories. They had to continue to allow the Arab Muslims living there to continue to do so, unmolested and as equals. It was a condition of the grant of territory”.

            Yes. And then the Arabs started killing them. I place much moral emphasis on who starts the violence, and I suggest you do too. It’s a moral consideration that matters a lot under any philosophical theory of ethics.

            “That's why the U.S. then joined with the rest of the world condemning Israel's actions and voted for the Right of Return resolution in '49. At the time, this was not seen in any way as an unsullied act by the Zionists, quite the contrary”.

            I repeat: Israel was in self defense. Israel had accepted the partition of Palestine that the International community proposed. It was the Arabs that refused, because they couldn’t swallow their former quasi slaves (the “dhimmis”), i.e. the Jews, to come to live as equals on land that used to be Islamic (Muslims can be funny that way some times, being ready to exterminate for matters of religious honor). And they invaded the newly established Israel. I am happy they didn’t manage to annihilate her, because the Israelis are obviously behaving in a more civilized way than the Arabs.

            “rather our own CIA director at the time begged Truman to not support it, claiming it would result in "endless war". Sounds about right, yeah”?

            Since 1973, when the USA started to truly help Israel become the strongest power in the region, the neighborhood of Israel (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) remained an oasis of calmness. And this benefited the USA.

            “You folks conflate being conservative or republican or patriotic with supporting Israel, when nothing of the sort is so”.

            I don’t. There are independent moral reasons for supporting Israel even if you are a Democrat. And to the extent that Israel serves your interests, it is patriotic too.

            “This is not our mess. Let Jews have asylum here, we should welcome them, in fact. But that's it. It is of no matter to me whether they get some strip of desert for a home or not. They started this fight, they can finish it. I won't back the other side, no way”.

            But you talk as if Israel is asking the USA to clear Israel’s mess. They are not asking you for help to deal with the Palestinians. In fact, it is Obama that interferes with Israel, trying to force concessions on the Israelis that will provide no benefit to the USA. In fact, the destruction of Israel would mean that the USA will be left with no ally in the Middle East.

            “How can you possibly say preserving Israel is in the U.S.'s national interest”?

            I hope you don’t mind if I rephrase the question: How can Israel help the USA?
            Very easily, by Israel’s bombing of Iran. You don’t need an Iran with nukes because sooner or later the mullahs are going to pass a bomb to terrorists, and the new 9/11 will be in the order of millions, not thousands, of casualties.
            Besides, a nuclear Iran represents a threat to Saudi Arabia, and soon you will have the Saudis acquiring nukes. The Egyptians will follow, maybe even the Turkish. The power game in the Middle East will make sure that the region will be full of nukes. Do you want such weapons to the hands of Islamists?

            Needless to say, a nuclear Iran will be bulling any neighboring nation so as to annex new oil fields, and you can expect oil prices to reach unprecedented levels.
            Israel can wipe this threat off the face of the USA – if only Obama would let her bomb Iran.

            USA preserving Israel? Nobody asked you to. Just let the Israelis take care of Iran by themselves, and you will get the bonus of a nuclear-free Middle East.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes. And then the Arabs started killing them. I place much moral emphasis on who starts the violence, and I suggest you do too. It’s a moral consideration that matters a lot under any philosophical theory of ethics."

            The Arab Muslims started killing Jews almost immediately, and the Jews resisted…resisted arming themselves or even organizing any defense at all for over 10 years, where much Jewish blood was spilled.

            And there's a lot in the middle, but in the end we have Israel as a sovereign with open democracy and equal justice for its citizens (gee whiz, but not for its enemies during a war of annihilation…how could they be so Apartheid-like?) and anyone with legal standing in their courts. There is no comparison.

            You have to be an absolute idiot ignoramus to come out and try to make rational arguments against Israel. It's just ignorance and bigotry in various measures, depending on who we're looking at. They NEVER have evidence, and at most will quote another moron or Muslim.

            Sad really.

          • Glennd1

            Are you for real?

            "You have to be an absolute idiot ignoramus to come out and try to make rational arguments against Israel" – do you realize such a statement reveals that you aren't engaged in reasoned discussion at all? That you identify yourself from the outset as engaged in something other than a search for the truth?

            I will deal with one simperingly obnoxious point you make, just to demonstrate how thuggish the moral calculus is underneath your position. You claim that "then the Arabs started killing the Jews" as evidence that the Israelis were only acting in self defense. Just a couple of points to show how ill informed this is, and also what a ricidulously misleading context it is:

            1. The Zionists began their campaign of retaking Palestine around 1898, with the first wave of Jewish immigration. At that point there were 25k Jews living in Palestine, comparatively unmolested in very substantial ways, fyi. The first wave was 30k more Jews and it ran till '48 with over 500k Jews emigrating to Palestine. During this period of time there was much Zionist terrorism and fighting. Stern Gang, Irgun – these are the names of the Zionist para-military. My point? In a very real sense, there was already a state of war between the Zionist settlers and the Arab Muslims living there, but it was only after the U.N. gave the territory to the Zionists that they began cleansing, and holding town after town. All this context is absent from your deceptive comment about who was killing who. It's actually pathetically simplistic, and not something a serious and informed person would say.

            2. Giving the Zionists Israel – Westerners just accept the moral legitimacy of the U.N. Resolution that granted the territory to teh Zionists. But no country in the mideast voted to support that resolution. The entire Arab and Islamic world opposed it, we just ignored them and did it anyway. Our own CIA warned against it, (as I note above), recognizing as most informed people did that yet another affront to Arab rights and sovereignty was being perpetuated by the west. By the very institution, the U.N., which in its charter has the stated purpose of ending colonialism – but this act is the very essence of colonialism. Accordingly, many Arabs and Muslims feel no moral requirement to just support the giving up of Palestinian land to Zionists to from a country when there hadn't been a Jewish state in Palestine in 2000 years. No other ethnic group has ever, ever had such an ancient land claim supported in the U.N. The Irish land claim is much stronger and more recent – as are many others, such as Kurds, etc.

            And folks like you wonder why they have gone mad with rage and are willing to blow themselves up to fight us? I mean, do you ever stop for a second and try to imagine the desperation and lack of hope one must feel to see killing oneself in a bombing as a viable strategy? Me, I say the U.S. washes it's hands of the whole region, come home, buy oil from them and watch the fracas. That region is riddled with conflict – some of it can be neatly laid at the door of the British and French, fyi. Sadly we now share some of the shame.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            Glennd1

            "And folks like you [objectivefactsmatter] wonder why they have gone mad with rage and are willing to blow themselves up to fight us? I mean, do you ever stop for a second and try to imagine the desperation and lack of hope one must feel to see killing oneself in a bombing as a viable strategy?"

            You are right. Suicide bombing is the result of desperation and lack of hope.

            Nothing to do with indoctrination that instills a death wish to children, nothing to do with the interpretation of Islam that the suicide bomber will go straight to Heaven.

            I wish i had some available virgins (or raisins, depending on the translation) to reward you for your penetrating thinking.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            Glendd1

            "Me, I say the U.S. washes it's hands of the whole region, come home, buy oil from them and watch the fracas".

            You won't be able to buy oil if Iran acquires nukes, for reasons i have already cited to you in my previous replies. At least not if you don't pay absurd prices.

            Then again, you might not need that much oil after all. Maybe the jihadis will have nuked a big American State, and USA demand for oil will be somewhat less.

            Don't worry, i'm just engaging in agitprop, nothing of the sort will happen.

            Jihadis intend to leave you in peace.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You claim that "then the Arabs started killing the Jews" as evidence that the Israelis were only acting in self defense."

            I did.

            "Just a couple of points to show how ill informed this is, and also what a ricidulously misleading context it is: "

            I accept your challenge. I said originally: "The Arab Muslims started killing Jews almost immediately, and the Jews resisted…resisted arming themselves or even organizing any defense at all for over 10 years, where much Jewish blood was spilled." And your challenge is explicitly (in your own words) to show:

            You said: "Just a couple of points to show how ill informed this is, and also what a ricidulously misleading context it is: " And then you say: "1. The Zionists began their campaign of retaking Palestine around 1898, with the first wave of Jewish immigration."

            Oh, the old, "Kill them with immigration" ploy? Wow. Conquest is happening in every modern state that I know of. So now any lawful immigration, regardless of any other factors or intentions, is now explicitly hostile? Where would bigots be without their moral equivalence? (You're still stuck with explaining your hate, but that's another topic).

            You continued with: "At that point there were 25k Jews living in Palestine, comparatively unmolested in very substantial ways, fyi. The first wave was 30k more Jews and it ran till '48 with over 500k Jews emigrating to Palestine."

            OK. You were supposed to refute my point that the Jews came first under the Ottomans, and then for more than 10 years under the British Mandate of Palestine before they even tolerated talk among the Jews about defending themselves against chronic violence and oppression received from Arab Muslims? Funny how you equate immigration with armed invasion. Or put another way, you missed the point entirely.

            But you still have the gall to attack others as children, projecting your child-like emotions and naïveté on anyone who disagrees with you, because you think you read all the "real" history? I'm sure you loved that psycho pseudo-Nazi who attacked Peter's book. It was easy for me to refute his claims of "no evidence." His entire theory was based on supposed lack of evidence. I've heard testimony from Arab Muslims living at the time that supported many of her claims. She may not have done a great job documenting her sources, but that doesn't make those claims false. It merely makes them a little harder to authenticate. I wonder who can produce more propaganda, Israel with AIPAC, or OPEC and others who follow a certain religion that requires explicitly cursing and hating Jews. And you claim to be smart.

            LOL. Sad for you.

            Stick around. I'd rather keep tabs on you than wonder if you're elsewhere recruiting more gullible bigots.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Continuing your reply to the first 10 plus years of Arab Muslims attacking and killing Jews with no organized or armed defense from Jews…you were going to refute this statement but never did. You try to confuse the timeline with this I suppose…

            "During this period of time there was much Zionist terrorism and fighting."

            But not the 10 years I mentioned explicitly. What kind of argument is this? Are you intentionally stupid?

            "Stern Gang, Irgun – these are the names of the Zionist para-military. My point?"

            Your point has nothing to do with your supposed falsification for my comment.

            "In a very real sense, there was already a state of war between the Zionist settlers and the Arab Muslims living there"

            Really? You've pinpointed the war starting at some time between the late 19th century and the middle of the 20th century? Amazing. You're brilliant.

            "but it was only after the U.N. gave the territory to the Zionists that they began cleansing, and holding town after town."

            Yes. The master plan was to wait for the attacks to come to then implement the "ethnic cleansing." By your standards, ANY war can be described as "ethnic cleansing." You fool, the repelled their enemy in defense of their sovereignty. Who was the competing sovereign? The British? No problem. The UN? Again, no problem. So what is your problem then?

            "All this context is absent from your deceptive comment about who was killing who."

            You didn't provide context, you attempted a smoke screen. Context brings clarity and definition, you simply expanded the scope of the topic from 10 years to 7 decades hoping nobody would notice when you dodged the very issue you claimed you would respond to. We noticed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I find it strange that you didn’t bother to cite ANY evidence whatsoever to prove your claim"

            Not strange at all when Jew-haters, or as they like to label themselves, "anti-Zionists" enter the debate. It's par for the course.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            objectivefactsmatter

            here's a quiz relevant to the "anti-Zionist" terminology.

            What is the difference between a fascist and a leftist?

            Answer:
            The former wants to exterminate the Jews, the latter is facilitating the Palestinians to do the job – and calls the former "racist".

        • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

          Glennd1, Here is the second part of my reply.

          “The only moral position for an American to take is to oppose Zionism and Islamism. We have no dog in the Jewish fight for a homeland – it's irrelevant to the U.S.”

          Zionism is the movement of the Jews to acquire their own state. Opposing Zionism is opposing Israel’s right to exist. If you do so, then why don’t you oppose other countries’ right to exist?

          I do not recollect making any suggestion for what the USA policy should be. Since you brought it up, let me remind you that the Middle East provides much of the oil for your car, and, unless you want to see oil prices sky rocketing (along with those of most other products), you should view the backing up of Israel from 1973 and onwards as a policy that contributed to Middle East stability – and hence to affordable oil prices.

          So you actually do have a dog in the Jewish fight for a homeland, but even if you didn’t, the moral thing for the USA to do would be to support someone who happened to be the good guy in a conflict – unless you think that helping a girl that is being raped is none of your business if you can’t get something out of it.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "But of course, it's a principle of international law that one cannot gain territory via conquest "

          But of course it wasn't conquest.

          Next…

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Q. What kind of a "child" has a beard and an AK47?

          A. A palestinian "child".

        • Drakken

          I sure as hell don't see you advocating for the Germans who were pushed out of the Sudentenland, eastern Poland, or East Prussia? Yet you open side with international law when it suits your purpose, full support and a sympathizer for the fake palis. Thanks for clearing that up hunyuk.

      • Drakken

        I say Israel ought to quit screwing around with these effing muslim savage, for every rocket or mortar fired, the muzzys get a MOAB in return.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Islam is going to suffer a Nakba that will make all previous Nakbas look like a tea party.

          That sure is a nice Mecca you got there. It would be a real shame if it was totally wiped off the face of the Earth, in retaliation of course.

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,well,Schlo. You've finally found another idiot who share your anti-semitic hatred. Why don't you and Glennd1 move to a place that DOESN'T have ANY JEWS at all. Much of the Middle East would be perfect for you,because they've chased out all their Jews. Why don't you move there and quit bothering us with your anti-semitic tripe. Your hatred and bigotry against Jews is vile. Your contempt for Jews is well-known here and not loved.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Well,well,Schlo. You've finally found another idiot who share your anti-semitic hatred. Why don't you and Glennd1 move to a place that DOESN'T have ANY JEWS at all"

        Reading about their existance is so painful that Israel must be destroyed to make Muslims and dupes happy. Otherwise, "religious feelings" are going to constantly get hurt.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Mecca is the pressure point.

          • Kufar Dawg

            It might be easier just to destroy the funding source for islamofascism, the oil rich gulf states. Cutting off the head as it were.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I've been doing my part. If Romney will do his and Americans stop driving trucks when they don't need them (just because gas goes down in price again) we can perhaps get a lot further than we have in the last few decades since OPEC revealed it's ugly agenda to the world and we did almost nothing about it so far.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bruce.fitzgerald.9 Bruce K Fitzgerald

      So SO WRONG….KNOW this they will give account to the creator for FAILING to honor the APPLE of HIS eye & the Beloved People..Pray we must as it is 1938 again!!

  • tarasbalderdash

    Where are the Episcopalians? How could the most PC church in the country, the amazing shrinking Episcopalian communion, not join this screed that condemns a democracy and US ally and demonstrates solidarity with the people who danced in the streets in joy on Sept. 11th? Maybe they didn't get the memo.

    • Mr. Polly

      Israeli Jews in America were seen dancing in the streets with joy on Sept. 11.

      • R.C.

        Really? show us all the proof!

        • Kufar Dawg

          An islamofascist ape providing proof for his lies? Best laugh I've had all night.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          These "Jews" will look a lot like Palestinians, and they'll be passing out candy. How do we identify them as Jews? The liars said so.

      • Sunbeam

        Israeli Jews in America were seen dancing in the streets with joy on Sept. 11.

        This is pure rubbish!

      • UCSPanther

        9/11 Missing Links is NOT a credible source, pal.

      • Drakken

        You are without any doubt an effing liar!

      • Zionista

        that would be the arabs birdbrain

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Muslims in America were seen dancing in the streets in the US (Paterson NJ, Detroit) and in all Islamofascist apartheid entities world-wide.

        I'll be dancing when Mecca gets wiped out – in retaliation.

  • R.C.

    There unfortunately is a lot of ignorance of the Bible, both the Tanakh and the Christian new testament within the Protestant church–that said there are many in the Protestant church who are not genuine Christians and many Marxist change agents have infiltrated to promote their evil!

  • David R

    All children of Satan hate the Jews and are God-haters themselves…blind fools who call good, bad and bad, good.
    Well at least they're not hypocrites and openly voice and write their hatred. Where they are true hypocrites is when they call themselves Christians. But they're only fooling themselves and eternal punishment will remind them of this very soon.
    "I will bless those that bless you and curse those who curse you" (Genesis 12:3) refering to Israel and God's blessed people, the Jews.

    • mr. polly

      There is no reference either to Israel or the Jews in Genesis 12:3. Yet Christians repeat this LIE over and over.

      • David R

        Then wo do you think God is speaking toand promisig is protection? To Abraham, father of Isaac and grandfather of Jacob( Israel), who begets the 12 tribes of Israel.
        Hello? Please read ISRAEL…the Jewish nation and the chosen people of God Almighty.

        Now…go tell God he's a liar ! Oh..and maybe you can also tell Him that you hate His people, the blessed Jews.

        • mr. polly

          Yes, God is speaking to Abraham, father of Ishmael, who begat the Arabs. Therefore he is saying, "I will bless those who bless the Arabs, and curse those who curse the Arabs."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes, God is speaking to Abraham, father of Ishmael, who begat the Arabs. Therefore he is saying, "I will bless those who bless the Arabs, and curse those who curse the Arabs."

            Actually the text is specific that the promise goes to the seed of Abraham and his wife Sarah. Ishmael was promised other things, but the blessings and curses are not directed at Ishamael's ancestors. This is a common lie apparently authored by Mohammed according to their own ethics, desires and interests. It could have been around for longer than that, but there is no evidence for this possibility that I know of.

            Not only this, but we don't have that much evidence that the so-called Arabs are descended from Ishmael. The geneology is not well-documented and I haven't heard any compelling DNA studies either. Have you?

          • mr. polly

            Not only that, but we don't have any evidence that there ever were any such people as Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. And we certainly don't have any evidence that their "god" exists or ever existed, much less made any promises to anyone.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Do you realize in Hebron they have a tomb of Rachel?
            Yes, the real wife of a real man and the tomb is there to prove it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Guess what they did with it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Not only that, but we don't have any evidence that there ever were any such people as Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. And we certainly don't have any evidence that their "god" exists or ever existed, much less made any promises to anyone."

            Your ignorance proves nothing. YOU have no evidence, so speak only for yourself and perhaps where your research (if any) failed.

          • David R

            What a jerk…and that's a FACT!

          • David R

            How stupid can you get

          • David R

            Your stupidity doesn't even deserve a reply.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Islamic delusions are amazingly stupid.

          • David R

            He is speaking to Abraham regarding the promise through Isaac, son of the promise and forseeing the nation of Israel through the 12 descendants of Jacob, Isaac's son.
            Ishmael was the slave servant's son that she begat through Abraham because of his doubtful wife Sara, who mocked God's promise and covenant.
            Regardless of Agar and her son Ishmael being rejected…God still blessed Ishmael's descendants, the Arabs…wild asses of the desert (and they still are)

          • David R

            Fool…I pity you.

        • George_Babbitt

          2 Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God."

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Yet Christians repeat this LIE over and over."

        Or…or, you simply misunderstood. Or…you repeat slander that you heard without understanding the allegations.

        What a surprise.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        There is no mention of Islam or its pedophile prophet in the Bible.

        • George_Babbitt

          The bible always tells us to be on guard for false prophets, so just as mohhamed was a false prophet, so are the biggest heretics in modern times —> Darby and Scofield, so yes they are in there in a way.

  • Omar

    those same protestant leaders who complain about Israel's self-defense also complain about America's so-called "blockade" of the Castro regime in Cuba, despite the fact that there is no embargo on Cuba, much less a blockade. Why does democratic Israel get falsely criticized all the time, while Communist Cuba can get away with anything? That is a huge double standard.

  • rachel

    This is nothing but good ole fashioned antisemitism. Only thing is it is not acceptable to say hate Jews,but it is acceptble to hate the Jewish state,which is exactly what these selfrighteous phonies are doing.

    • George_Babbitt

      I don't hate Jew or the Jewish state, though Judaism ranks as the one of the most deplorable things that should be gone by this date and time.

  • scotsirish

    …………..and so it went in Germany in 1933. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holoc

  • Indus Valley

    The problem is these so called Christians don't even read the Bible…..Guess they read Quran every Sunday & their Sunday services are lead by some Madrasa educated Mullahs…..

  • Sunbeam

    This is outrageous. These Protestants ought to do better. Their action cannot be accepted. Their stand does not garnered the support of the majority Protestants. Their judgement is frail. They judged base according to emotions and naivety rather than fact finding. It's a terrible mistake.

    • David R

      They are the goats to be condemned (the false counterfeit Christians)…their end will contrast greatly with the true believers of Christ (the sheep…purchased by His blood on Calvary). The true Christians are reserved for eternal life, and the false reserved for everlasting hell.

  • Moishe Pupick

    F., 10/19/12 common era

    It’s instructive to note that these same liberal Protestant groups are always lobbying for yet more “gun control” and for banning nuclear weapons. It seems that when Israeli Jews are the targets of guns and of an Iran that continues to progress toward nukes, these groups lose their purported moral compass.

    Of course, they AREN’T antisemitic. Why, some of their best friends are good little Jewboys and Jewgirls

    who agree with them about Israel and other issues, sadly enough.

    • Charles

      As a lifetime Presbyterian, a protestant denomination which pays little attention to our national headquarters, I can assure you that our Gradye Parsons speaks only for himself and a few people at the national headquarters. When it comes to Israel, he doesn't know his punim from his pupic!

  • YetWave

    So much for all the "Interdenominational efforts" put forth by Jews through the years. Before non Jews, the entire modern America Jewish community is reminiscent of Rodney Dangerfield. Regardless of how many lunches we feed 'em, how many interfaith breakfasts we host, we still don't get no respect. After seeing where the major Protestant organizations put their money and their mouths, maybe it's time to stop trying. American Jews may have to live like Israelis- pariahs in much of the non Jewish world.

  • kim segar

    For me, I only believe G-d's Word. There isn't anything else..PERIOD..For these hate mongers against Israel and the Jews who claim they replaced the Jews even though G-d gave the Jews Israel for a EVERLASTING COVENT…G-d is NOT a Covenant Breaker. If He was they best fear their Salvation Covenant…930 scripture tells us that the Land belongs to the Jews forever. Obadiah tells us those who pray for the peace of Jerusalem will rejoice with them… many scripture tells us that Salvation came thru the Jews Romans…9-10 and 11 and we owe them a dEBT. how is it the churches are told in just these scripture to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to EVERY Creature , TO THE JEW FIRST….never hear that .. G-d says when ALL the Nations go against Israel , HE will roar thru ZION and when they get to HIS HOLY HILL < HE will destroy them ,,kill many there and chase them back to their countries , killing them on the way and following them inot their countries and kill the men, women and children and the ox..Doesn't sound like He will put up with these freaks who call evil good and good evil..another word for PC…

    • mr. polly

      The Israelis are lucky so many Christians are fantastic kooks like you.

      • Drakken

        I see that your jihadist loving traitorous azz isn't in the ME waging jihad hadji?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Al Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood are lucky to have so many Socialists doing their work, spreading Islamofascism.

    • Glennd1

      Lady, are you for real? Do you realize that you are stating that the U.S.'s foreign policy should be based on your literal interpretation of scripture. You do realize not a single one of our founder would ever state such a thing, yes? That your words are as un-American as any leftist screed? If you want a Christian nation, go start one – we ain't it. Go fight your holy war – just don't for a second think you have a right to drag the U.S. into it.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Do you realize that you are stating that the U.S.'s foreign policy should be based on your literal interpretation of scripture"

        Moron, where did she say that? Manufacturing lies comes with the territory I guess.

    • George_Babbitt

      "G-d is NOT a Covenant Breaker" You are so right, yet a covenant can be broken by someone other than God. He said just that in Jeremiah 31 which was reiterated in Hebrews 8. The covenant of Sinai is broken. The old covenant is obsolete and has disappeared. The covenant made through Jesus Christ is superior to the old covenant. 1 Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God." The church(small c)is Israel now and heirs to all the promises made to the people of God, for the people of God are those who believe in Jesus Christ, and no other.

  • kim segar

    They need to read ALL the scripture and see how many hundreds of scripture tells us what G-d has said…and that it is better to believe G-d than man. G-d bless Israel and the Jewish people who have blessed the whole world and that G-d says they will not be punished anymore. that when HE stands on the Mt of Olive HE will tell them I am your G-d and you are MY people..and all Israel will be saved…Scripture is more up to date than the evil media…Look up..Messiah is coming. and we shall see Isaiah 17 soon and there is scripture to tell us the nukes in Iran will be destroyed…Amien

    • David R

      Amen to that !!! Well said…to God the glory!!!!

  • Drakken

    I think it is past time for christians and jews to nail a Proclamation to their churches doors stating that we westerners will no longer tolerate jihadist loving traitors like them period! Time to name and shame them in their own communities.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Socialism has destroyed Europe.

      Americans will NEVER permit that to happen in the US.

  • Ghostwriter

    To idiots like Glennd1 and Schlomotion,let me spell it out for you. The Palestinians hate us and want to kill us. They are anti-American to the core. The Israelis are different. They're pro-American and like us. They don't want to kill us unlike your beloved Palestinians,who,most of them have an overwhelming urge to murder Jews.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Ghostwriter,

      Socialists hate America and Western Civilization.

      THAT is why Socialists LOVE Islamofascism. Socialists see Islamofascists as allies with shared goals of destroying America.

      Eurabia is already lost.

      • Drakken

        It ain't over yet by a long shot, it is only the beginning. Europe will have its resurgeance and the socialist and leftist will rue the day they they brought their abomination to it's cities.

  • chuck

    Let us be clear, there is no such thing as an anti-Israel Christian. Do these "christian" liberals think that our
    LORD was Palestinian. These so called "liberal Christians" are guilty of the same thing that Hollywood is
    guilty of – believing their own press! They have only one appointment that they will keep. "We must all stand
    before the Judgement seat"

    • George_Babbitt

      You are right, but only because the church(small c)is Israel now. The covenant of Sinai is broken. A covenant can be broken by someone other than God. He said just that in Jeremiah 31 which was reiterated in Hebrews 8. The old covenant is obsolete and has disappeared. The covenant made through Jesus Christ is superior to the old covenant. 1 Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God." The church(small c)is Israel now and heirs to all the promises made to the people of God, for the people of God are those who believe in Jesus Christ, and no other.

  • DeShawn

    Why are you jewish supremacists always censoring my comments? You are afraid of teh truth, and here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNMFZZOOZLg Stop support for racist Israel! Free the Palesitnians!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      DeSHlTler, Still crying that your heroes SURRENDERED, UNCONDITIONALLY on May 7, 1945?

      EXCELLENT.

      WW2 Victory in Europe Day: Beaten Nazis Sign Historic Surrender (1945) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFFEKPIB0J8

      • DeShawn

        Man, how many times I gotta say it? I don't care about Hitler. Just because you're jew-wise doens't mean you're a Nazi. The Nazis also wore hats, so does that mean that everyone who wears hats is a Nazi? If anyone on this planet right now is like the Nazis, it's you Zionist jews, putting Palestinians into concentration camps and genociding them.

        • Lan Astaslem

          deformed, it's not the Jew's fault that you're an inbred pig – now be a good little boy and go back to banging your sister

          • DeShawn

            Really that's funny. AshkeNAZI so-called jews (actually khazars) are some of the most genetically inbred people on earth, while Africans are the most geneticially diverse. Yeah, that's right, those are the FACTS. You ain't dealing with some dumbass hood here–I am EDUCATED on you jews, and I know that frightens you.

          • George_Babbitt

            Rock the truth DeShawn, even if those who are hornswaggled by the Jews refuse to believe it, at least they are forewarned, so when they stand in front of the Throne of Judgement at the last day, they can't say they didn't know.

          • Drakken

            Then head on back to the dark continent where you enjoy yourself away from us Europeans. I am sure they have a machette for you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "it's you Zionist jews, putting Palestinians into concentration camps and genociding them"

          Statements like that reveal everything, while hats reveal very little or nothing. You are a liar or a dupe. If you're merely a dupe, where is your motive to accept such blatantly false lies? I have video of a "Palestian" complaining about the "concentration camp" he's living on (that is not the fault of Israel, but that's another subject), and he's waxing his late model BMW while making these statemtents. To ask a ridiculous but revealing question, how many Jews in Nazi concentration camps had any car at all? The obvious answer is none.

          Idi0ts.

    • Omar

      DeShawn, why don't you get lost? You are the real racist. Why don't you go somewhere else and export your hateful propaganda there.

      • DeShawn

        Oh I'm sorry, is the truth "anti-semitic?" How can I be racist? Are jews a "race"? I thought you folks were always saying you're a religion. Yeah, that's what I thought. How about addressing the FACTS Mr. Duke presents? Can't do that, can you?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Let him waste his time here so we can destroy his stupid arguments. He might otherwise find people to deceive if we chase him away.

    • Drakken

      Screw the the pali savages, may they be pushed into the sea and call it a day.

      • DeShawn

        And you wonder why folks don't like so-called jews (khazars), the biggest mass murderers in history. Why are you craving even MORE blood?

        • Kufar Dawg

          Were you born dumb? Or was dumb the price of admission into Islam?

          • DeShawn

            The only dumb person is the one who keeps calling me Islamic. I'm Christian and proud of it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm Christian and proud of it."

            You deceive yourself then. Any self-described Christian who takes the side of Islamic supremacism over Israel is clearly…not Christian. No matter what you say.

            What percentage of self-described Christians do you suppose are authentic? What makes you think you're one of them? You'd better worry really hard about that question and its answer.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Blood of enemies in a defensive war? Poor loser.

        • Drakken

          You muzzy lovers are the one screaming for blood, and sooner or later we are going to give you your wish.

    • Ghostwriter

      DeShawn,David Duke is not and never has been a credible source for ANYTHING. Quit inflicting this idiot on us and peddle your anti-Jewish garbage elsewhere. Go back to Stormfront and please leave us alone. We have all the anti-semitic swill we can stand for one day.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    These apostate Churches are mock fronts for leftist political agendas that attack
    what is true Biblical faith with marshmallow love fests of humanistic idiocy aiding
    Communism and debasing reality. Ever what they say should be ignored and no
    credibility given to their false claims to Christianity, liars from the outset and
    continuous fronts of subversion……….hell will have them soon enough………..William

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “…urge[s] Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace.” It continued: “We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.”

    For Pakistan? No? Egypt? No? For the "Palestinian Authority?' Libya…for who?! You have a problem with who?!

    Nobody uses their heads any more. They just see what argument gets them angry and then they go with it.

    Welcome to the post-modern world.

  • Glennd1

    Dionissis – You seem earnest and sincere. But as you admit in your response to the "who invaded who" comment, you haven't researched this most fundamental issue in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You do understand that this is THE issue around which everything else revolves? If you conclude that much of what Israel has done in founding its nation was against internatlional law, immoral and a violation of Palestinian rights, then their fight against Israel is about expelling an invader. The moral scale tilts in the favor of the Palestinian cause wrt initial causes and conditions..

    What's interesting to me is that you would feel entitled to argue with me with such brio when you admit you don't even know the history of the region. Do you realize how arrogant that is? But let's forget that, and move on.

    Dershowitz. Do you realize that Dershowitz isn't taken seriously as a historian on the conflict by any serious public intellectual or academic? He's a lawyer – and has no standing in the profession of history. He's an activist. His book "The Case for Israel" is a reprise of the now debunked lies of Joan Peters in her 1980 something tome, From Time Immemorial. If you want to read real mideast history, read Benny Morris. Morris is a Jewish, Zionist, Israeli historian who – along with many other similarly situated – took advantage of the declassification of much Israeli govt and IDF documentation and classified info.

    The record is devastating. I'll just give you one tiny snippet of what Morris debunked. A common claim is that the Arabs just left their homes, 650,000 of them between '47-'49, at the behest of their Arab masters, awaiting the Arab attack that would kick the Jews out of their U.N. awarded territory. But in fact, nothing of the sort happened – and this is universally acknowledged by real historians across the ideological spectrum now. It's not controversial.. Here's Morris, in his own words:

    T Rami al interviewed Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.
    Morris: As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

    Benny Morris also said this:
    “Israelis like to tell the world, that they are running an ‘enlightened’ or ‘benign’ occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation.” Israeli historian, Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims.”

    Now also understand that Morris thinks Israel was justified in a relative sense for (again, his words) "what amounts to ethnic cleansing" – to create their state. He believes the Jews have a special moral and spiritual imperative, and in fact thinks they should have gone farther back then. He says this with the moral backdrop of how other nation states were created via conquest and displacement of peoples. In other words, the argument goes something like this. "You Americans wiped out the Indians, so shut up while we wipe out the Palestinians." What this implies is that if we were displacing the indigenous people in America now – Americans would support it.

    We would not. We would be standing up for their rights as we have many other minority groups. The crimes that Israel committed in its very founding cover it with blood. A very accurate analogy would be if the U.N decided to give your home town back to an Indian tribe. You woke up one day and their military was clearing town after town, Indian terrorist organizations were committing atrocities (three separate Zionist "paramilitary orgnanizations" were operating in addition to the IDF during the ethnic cleansing) and you fled your town to another one to be safe. You would have the moral right to fight and kill those who invade your lands. There is no "civilian" in an invasion, btw. Everyone who invades is a combatant. The lesson? If you don't want to be a legitimate target for killing, don't invade and steal other folks lands, homes and property. (cont'd)

  • Glennd1

    (cont'd)Americans on the right have been fed lies primarily due to the unholy alliance between the Zionists and the Evangelicals in the Republican party. Most on the right don't really know how the hard core right has really taken over all the machinery of the party. They posit their support for Israel as a matter of Christian faith, and just wrap whatever facts/lies around that a priori view. Put another way, when all the real history started coming to light in the '80s and '90s, the right never digested it. Up until then, there was at least a plausible reason for accepting the now acknowledged lies. But now there is none. You have to simply ignore all the facts that have come to light. Menachem Begin's own memoir documents, for example, the "Lydda Death March" – which was the cleansing of the 50,000 Arab Muslim residents from that town. My view is not controversial among people who know the history.

    Now, what's also true is that some people who espouse some of the same critique as me are also supporters or apologists for Islamists. I am nothing of the sort, and you'll see no evidence of this in my commentary. Predictably (that is if you bother reading just one real history book o nIslam and the mideast), any threat to Arab Muslims arouses pan-Arab, Pan-Muslim ire. Most Americans don't seem to understand that Mohammed was the only leader to ever unite the Arabs, and this blending of religious/national/ethic identity is something that Americans don't live inside. We should not be shocked at all that the cause of the Palestinians was framed in terms of Jihad and colonialism. That is predictable, and we should not act like virgin girls getting felt up for the first time over these folks fighting back at us.

    I've taken a lot of time. I'm not arguing any of your points – if you don't realize that you are poorly informed on this topic, well then I don't know what to say. Your commentary is right-wing agit prop and doesn't merit a response. If you read my comment carefully and with an open mind and heart, you will see that I'm only about being principled and the truth.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

      Glennd1, i am responding to you in three, may be four parts. So as to prevent confusion with my previous two part replies to you, i will label those part a, part b, part c and part d.

      “you haven't researched this most fundamental issue in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You do understand that this is THE issue around which everything else revolves”?

      I have not researched it thoroughly because it is NOT the most fundamental issue.

      What counts is the here and now, and how can the blood shedding (due entirely to Palestinian terrorism) be stopped. And the first step towards the resolution of the conflict is recognizing that the ones that are perpetuating it are the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

      If you are concerned about Palestinian children, you are supposed to want their parents to stop instilling in them a death wish and a vicious hate towards Jews. So long as this goes on, no peace is forthcoming – and it is the Palestinian intransigence that is to be blamed, not Israel.

      “If you conclude that much of what Israel has done in founding its nation was against international law, immoral and a violation of Palestinian rights, then their fight against Israel is about expelling an invader. The moral scale tilts in the favor of the Palestinian cause wrt initial causes and conditions..”

      Whereas the actions of the Arabs (to invade Israel in 1948 because they did not want to accept the partition plan for Palestine that the international community proposed) were moral and lawful and not in violation of Israelis’ rights?

      Their fight against Israel is not (and never was) about expelling an invader, it is about annihilating someone who wishes to leave in peace with them. And from the little I’ve read on the history of Zionism, I know that the Jews came to the land peacefully, buying land and making the region prosper. And that the Arabs started the violence and terrorism against the Jews. So the moral scale does not tilt in favor of those who chose terrorism instead of cohabitation.

      Commentator “objectivefactsmatter” brought this issue to your attention. i.e. that for ten years the Arabs were perpetrating attacks and the Jews were restraining themselves not to respond. Is he lying?

      Not that it would really matter: as I said, what counts is the here and now.

      “What's interesting to me is that you would feel entitled to argue with me with such brio when you admit you don't even know the history of the region. Do you realize how arrogant that is?”.

      I feel entitled to argue (with brio or not) because the bulk of the issues that I touched upon had nothing to do with what happened from the late 1980’s to 1948, but all to do with what Palestinians have been doing since the Oslo Accords of 1993.

      I didn’t admit not knowing the history of the region, I said I had not thoroughly researched it. And it is a parameter almost irrelevant to what happens today. The Palestinians are motivated by a hate that is due to their daily indoctrination that they should exterminate the Jews, not due to what actually happened in 1948 and before.
      So I am not arrogant at all.
      But let me tell you what I find interesting: it is the fact that you evade to reply to almost every single point I make. You even refused to answer the question that I pleaded you to answer EXPLICITLY, namely what guarantees do the Israelis have that, if they return to the 1967 borders, the will not face daily terrorism from the West Bank just like it happened with Gaza when they ceded to the Palestinian terrorists. All you do is referring back to the pre-1950 period.

      “But let's forget that, and move on”
      I agree. But it is you who keep talking ancient history, not me.

      “Dershowitz. Do you realize that Dershowitz isn't taken seriously as a historian on the conflict by any serious public intellectual or academic? He's a lawyer – and has no standing in the profession of history”.
      Excuse me, do you mind reading again your OWN COMMENT on Dershowitz? It was YOU who referred to him first, in the context of your claim that the disputed territories are ILLEGALLY occupied.
      So, not only was it not me that brought him up, but also he was very pertinent to the LEGAL issue that you were discussing, given that he is a lawyer.
      Have I made any claim that he is a respected historian?

      • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

        I am replying to myself in order to correct a mistyping. In the following sentence i obviously meant "from the late 1800', not from the late "1980's" that i wrote.

        "I feel entitled to argue (with brio or not) because the bulk of the issues that I touched upon had nothing to do with what happened from the late 1980’s to 1948, but all to do with what Palestinians have been doing since the Oslo Accords of 1993".

        And in the following sentence i obviously meant "to live in peace", not to "leave in peace".
        "Their fight against Israel is not (and never was) about expelling an invader, it is about annihilating someone who wishes to leave in peace with them".

        • Glennd1

          And I'm not responding to you because you don't get it. You really are just citing either hamhanded "personal" reasoning or repeating the debunked lies of Zionist apologists. If you don't know, or don't care – - that's on you. What I won't do is argue with you. It would be like me arguing with a 5 yr old about physics when they want to claim snow comes from reindeer. You don't realize it, but that's how out of whack with reality your worldview is.

          As for Zionist children, lol, maybe you shouldn't bring your children with you when you invade and take another people's land and homes? And if your children die while on such an immoral, vicious venture – then it is all your fault, not the fault of the victims of your own invasion attacking in response.

          Listen, let me be perfectly clear. If the Arabs got together and wiped out every Zionist in Israel – after giving them fair warning to leave (which they have been doing for decades, just in case you haven't been listening to them like they are actual human beings with rights and all that inconvenient stuff) – I woudln't lose any sleep. Since you don't know much actual mideast history, you just don't intuitively get how arrogant, chauvinistic and ultimately idiotic the Zionist experiment is. Only because the Arabs were kept divided by the partitioning and our "stalibilization" efforts have they not been able to effectively mount a unified campaign to eliminate Israel.

          You do realize how absurdly outnumbered, outgunned and overwhelmed the Israelis will be when this happens, yes? And you do realize the Arabs aren't going to give up, yes? Think about it – their religion, their national identity and their homeland is at stake. I wonder, if just for a second you could imagine being in that situation. What would you be willing to do?

          And once again, before you guys call me an Islamist, remember I in know way want to support any Arab or Islamic or Mideast govt. None of them. Islamic civilization will continue to morph, and it will attempt to threaten us, but we have to be smart about how we face off against them. If you read books like say, Natan Scharansky's The Case for Democracy (he's a Soviet dissident Jewish refusenik who immigrated to Israel), in it he shows how Ronald Reagans strategy of countering Soviet rhetoric very publicly, and also holding them to account for their human rights aspirations and statements. A big part of what we did is show the world how immoral and bankrupt the Soviet system was.

          But, because we have blood all over our hands and are meddling everywhere in the mideast, we have no moral authority, our views have no other prestige other than raw power. Which is why we are getting nowhere do. Do yourself a favor, dumbass, Google a map of U.S. military facilities in the mideast. Note the 18 that surround Iran. Map our "allies" – look up what forces we have deployed their. Take a really good look at our presence in the mideast and ask yourself is it crazy for Arabs, Persians, Turks and other Muslims to think we are invading? Do facts affect what you think?

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            Glendd1

            “What I won't do is argue with you”.

            Funny you should make such an assertion in a public forum dedicated to debates and argumentation.

            You don’t like people disagreeing with you, do you? That’s why I think you have this need to criticize my person and not my arguments.

            “As for Zionist children, lol, maybe you shouldn't bring your children with you when you invade and take another people's land and homes”?

            It is still immoral to kill intentionally children, and, personally, I don’t feel like laughing out loud when children of ANY nationality die.

            But I have referred you to the claim of another commentator, “objectivefactsmatter”, who said that for at least 10 years since the Jews returned to their ancient homeland they were not perpetrating any violence, and had to put up with Arab violence. Hence, “objectivefactsmatters’” argument went, they were not invaders. Can you debunk this factual claim of this commentator?

            “I woudln't lose any sleep [if every Zionist in Israel got wiped out by the Arab world”.

            And this shows what a sensitive and considerate person you are.

            “Since you don't know much actual mideast history, you just don't intuitively get how arrogant, chauvinistic and ultimately idiotic the Zionist experiment is”.

            I know intuitively Middle East mentality better than yourself: I am Greek, I live next to them Arabs. And, believe me, capitulations a la Obama count as weakness in the eyes of the Arab world.

            “Only because the Arabs were kept divided by the partitioning and our "stalibilization" efforts have they not been able to effectively mount a unified campaign to eliminate Israel”.

            What exactly was the Arab invasion of 1948, if not a unified campaign to eliminate Israel?

            “Think about it – their religion, their national identity and their homeland is at stake”.

            What does any Arab country’s homeland have to do with Israel? Is Israel threatening any Arabic country’s territory? And how on earth did you come up with the threat to their religion? Is Israel trying to convert them to Judaism?

            “Take a really good look at our presence in the mideast and ask yourself is it crazy for Arabs, Persians, Turks and other Muslims to think we are invading? Do facts affect what you think”?

            Actually, facts do affect my thinking.

            So here is my question: when did the USA threatened to invade Turkey? Saudi Arabia? The Gulf States? Egypt? Jordan?

    • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

      Glendd1, this is part b of my reply

      “A common claim is that the Arabs just left their homes, 650,000 of them between '47-'49, at the behest of their Arab masters, awaiting the Arab attack that would kick the Jews out of their U.N. awarded territory. But in fact, nothing of the sort happened – and this is universally acknowledged by real historians across the ideological spectrum now. It's not controversial”.

      You are misrepresenting the historical controversy, which is not about whether ALL Arabs left willingly, but how many of them did so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_P

      I, too, could have presented the controversy as being whether ALL Arabs have left forcefully, and I could have concluded that nothing of the sort happened, and that it is not controversial and that it is universally acknowledged by “true” (whatever you mean by that) historians, because it is TRUE that SOME Arabs left willingly.

      But I choose to be fair, something that is not usually the case with the Israel-bashing crowd.

      “What this implies is that if we were displacing the indigenous people in America now – Americans would support it”.

      Oh no, it does not.
      The analogy you allude to is inaccurate, because Israel is not guilty of ethnic cleansing NOWADAYS. What your evidence supports is that, if there has been ethnic cleansing, it occurred in 1948. You yourself interpret Benny Morris as believing, i am quoting you, “in fact [Benny Morris] thinks they [the Israelis] should have gone farther BACK THEN”.

      So Benny Morris is NOT implying that violently displacing indigenous people in America (or Israel or wherever) should be acceptable TODAY.

      But there is an analogy to be drawn: if we accept your narrative, then USA citizens today should accept daily terrorism from descendants of native Indians, who happen to harbor ill feelings against the whites that stole their land.
      No, I wouldn’t accept that past grievances (justified or not) give to Indians and Palestinians the right to terrorism.

      “The crimes that Israel committed in its very founding cover it with blood”.

      This is true for almost every country on the planet, not just Israel. Nations have been massacring neighbors or indigenous people throughout history. I am a fan of the USA despite what might have transpired in the past between the Indians and the non native Americans.

      “There is no "civilian" in an invasion, btw. Everyone who invades is a combatant”.

      Nope.
      Those who come to leave peacefully, and are not totting guns, are indeed civilians, not invaders. Combatants are those who engage in a battle (for invasion purposes or other purposes).

      Don’t take my word for it, see the attitude that the international law takes towards people who are not participating in a combat.

      • Omar

        Glennd1 doesn't want to accept facts. He supports totalitarianism.

      • Glennd1

        Okay, one last one. But first, you do realize you argue like a child, yes? Sigh. My argument does not imply that I would support Indian terrorism. You see – and again your ignorance of real history is showing – we have actually sought to deal with reparations and to atone in real ways for our actions via treaties and laws – but I'm sure you don't have a freaking clue about that or the contemporary view of MezoAmerican istory. But it's also true 90% of them died from disease (not intentionally by westerners). I would support us living up to our treaty obligations. And if a separatist movement did arise, I would support giving them some land back.

        Do you see how infantile your reasoning is? Do you see how desperate you are to score points, instead of seek truth? Do you want to stop coming off like a gibbering moron? Then stop posting on the web for at least a year. Get a pile of history books to read up on the world, Islam, the mideast, American history – get it from multiple perspectives.

        Then you might actually be able to form an intelligent analysis and commentary. but if you keep up like this, just know that you are nothing but a partisan hack. Your efforts here are more like partisan masturbation, seeking only to gratify yourself and your ilk – it's not argument at all. I know, you can't believe i would say that. I mean you took the time to parse out my many statements and "refute" them. But what you miss is that your arguments are terrible and nonsensical, yes? You aren't arguing a fact based, reasoned way at all. And I know – you can't see it. I'm trying to do you a favor now, I'm late for some stuff to do, but I think you are earnest. I wonder, are you humble enough to see that I'm right? It's okay, it's not your fault. You are surrounded by people who are screaming the same things every day. And some of them are very smart too, and know the things I'm telling you but just never mention it or acknowledge it.

        You try to use Benny Morris back at me – I understand him very well. If you follow his own moral assessment of Israel's behavior, Israel comes out a scoundrel. That he then decides to support the Zionist cause anyway adds no moral weight to his position, and in fact it exposes him to real derision. You are aware that in Israel, much of what I'm saying, the historical references, aren't considered controversial, yes? It is you and the others in this echo chamber of unreality who are out of step. I hope you wake up.

        I didn't wake up until after 9/11. I was just like you, in what I believed, but I didn't really argue it much. It just seemed axiomatic, we support Israel, right? The mideast is really hard to understand, I had read about it for a long time, but realized after 9/11 that I couldn't really even describe Shia vs. Sunni or have any sense of say, the history fo the peoples of the Arabian peninsula. And as I read more about things on a political basis, I realized that I didn't really understand the region, I was just being spun. So I began to read actual history books of the region. Analyses by various people of wny Al Qaeda attacked us, and then I finally got to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

        And I was amazed. When I really looked at the campaign of Zionism from start to finish, there was no way that I could come to any other conclusion that they were the invaders, and then when I realized they actually did the ethnic cleansing, they really did displace 650,000 Muslims from homes and towns that could be traced back as far as records had been kept. There was no disputing it. And then I found out this was discussed openly in Zionist circles for decades before and that all the international organzations involved strictly, explicitly and directly forbade Israel to displace any indigenous people. I was stunned. I woke up. I suggest you do the same.

        • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

          Glendd1

          “My argument does not imply that I would support Indian terrorism”.

          But I did not say that you would actually support Indian terrorism. I said that your narrative about past ill feelings due to land disputes as justifications of Palestinian terrorism would make you morally justify the hypothetical contemporary terrorism of Indians, so long as you want to be consistent.
          The issue is very clear, morally speaking: land disputes alone do NOT justify targeting civilians.

          “Your efforts here are more like partisan masturbation, seeking only to gratify yourself and your ilk – it's not argument at all”.

          I protest that I put forth substantive arguments on a variety of issues pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the ones you refuse to challenge.

          What is my “ilk”? I mean, what do you imagine is the ideological configuration of the people that (as you very politely put it) I am masturbating with?

          “I mean you took the time to parse out my many statements and "refute" them. But what you miss is that your arguments are terrible and nonsensical, yes? You aren't arguing a fact based, reasoned way at all. And I know – you can't see it”.

          Let’s see, I argued about the reasons of the impasse in the current peace process, about the Palestinian incitement to children, about Palestinian intransigence in negotiations, about the reasons the two state solution is already dead, about the reasons it would be beneficial for the USA to allow Israel to strike Iran, about…

          And all along I was citing facts, and would have cited more if only I knew what point exactly was that you were objecting to. But you kept on dismissing me with personal characterizations. How can I reply to you with more facts if you do not tell me what exactly is your disagreement?

          Do you have any suggestion as to how to resolve the current impasse in the peace negotiations? Just answer this, if you don’t want to reply to anything else, it is the most pressing humanitarian issue.

          “ But first, you do realize you argue like a child, yes”?

          I would, if only you could point to me the facts and/or moral considerations that are childish in my discourse. But you choose to dismiss me with a sweeping claim that I am a Zionist (whatever this means for you) instead of specifying what it is that Zionists get wrong.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

      Glendd1 this part c of my reply

      “The lesson? If you don't want to be a legitimate target for killing, don't invade and steal other folks lands, homes and property”.

      But lots of Jews were not fighting, therefore they were not invaders – Jewish children for example.

      The lesson I got from you is that your ethics suck – so long as you justify the massacre of civilians.

      “My view is not controversial among people who know the history”.

      You mean the historians that agree with your ideological predilection.
      It is understandable, it is called “confirmation bias”.

      “We should not be shocked at all that the cause of the Palestinians was framed in terms of Jihad and colonialism”.

      What any decent person gets shocked about is the amount of international animus directed against the Jews, as if they were the scumbags of this earth. Hand in hand with this anti-Jew attitude goes the willingness to forgive everything to Palestinian terrorists who target children.

      “I've taken a lot of time. I'm not arguing any of your points”.

      I have noticed that, you do NOT argue ANY of my points whereas I made every conceivable attempt to answer EVERY SINGLE POINT you made.

      It seems that our attitudes to our debate correspond to the attitudes of Palestinians and Israelis towards peace: Israelis are trying everything that can work to bring peace, the Palestinians are dismissing everything – guess which of us I think plays the role of the Palestinian in our debate.

      “if you don't realize that you are poorly informed on this topic, well then I don't know what to say”.

      Have you caught me into citing false info? Or being based upon false info? If yes, you did not write about it.

      And, since you seem perplexed as to what to say, how about saying that you would attempt to answer the multitude of issues that I brought up?

      “Your commentary is right-wing agit prop and doesn't merit a response”.

      Every claim that cites reasons deserves a response, at least that’s the savoir vivre of debating.

      As for my agitprop (right-wing or not), I think you refer to the reasons I cited for the USA allowing Israel to bomb Iran’s nukes. Well, do you have a counterclaim to the reasons I provided?

      Claiming that you will not condescend to reply to me sounds like you have no argument.

    • Omar

      You believe in left-wing extremism and totalitarianism.

  • Questions

    These anti-Israeli Protestant groups really are Christian, and not "impostors," as some Culture Warriors here claim. What such message posters miss is what's right in front of them: Christianity is different from Judaism. Yes, I know about Christian Zionism, but even there, its adherents have an ulterior motive hardly rooted in the pursuit of Jewish interests — read the Book of Revelations.

    Don't expect non-Jews, mainline Protestants included, to fight Jewish battles. The Jew, as always, stands alone.

    • guest

      I wish I could argue with you on your first sentence but it is true. They're not reading their Bibles, and they don't go to churches that I would attend. But sadly, yes, they're still Christian.

      The ulterior motive, even from Genesis 12 – blessing those who bless thee, is still in Israel's favor. There are many, many of those here. God will judge those who oppose Israel. I hope America is never numbered among those.

      Satan hates God, and Satan hates God's chosen people. That will not change. God bless you, any Jew who reads this.

      • George_Babbitt

        The Jews are no longer God's people unless they have accepted Christ. Read Jeremiah 31 which is reiterated in Hebrews 8. The Jews broke the covenant they made on Sinai with God, it's over. The only redemption they can find now is in Christ. For Paul tells us that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, but rather that all are one in Christ Jesus, for all the promises of old are as it says in 1 Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God."

        • guest

          I was referring to the covenant with Abraham, which is unconditional and irrevocable. You are correct that the "If you follow my commandments…" covenant was broken. That was a two-sided agreement, (See Exodus 24:7-8) and tragically broken. To be restored after the fullness of the gentiles come in. Romans 11:11 and 11:25. But in Genesis 15, Abraham was put in a deep sleep. He couldn't get out of that covenant if he had wanted to. I call your attention to Romans 11:28-29, and (of course) Joel 3:2 – the warning against nations who want to divide God's land (also Obadiah verse 15). We dare not play that role.

          • George_Babbitt

            You're one week late to the party, you don't introduce yourself and you carry the Darby/Scofield heresy guidebook with you….I know you didn't RSVP.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "What such message posters miss is what's right in front of them: Christianity is different from Judaism."

      No they don't. Explain the distinctions if you suppose to educate others.

  • FPF

    It's like aiding the Canaanite when Israelite was going to take their promised land. The result was already written. These people openly defy the foundation of their believe, if there is one!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It's like aiding the Canaanite when Israelite was going to take their promised land."

      Correct. Or even like aiding the Philistines. What a cooincidence. How can they overlook such obvious clues?

  • Richard

    Is there anything at all spiritual about this Presbyterian churches? It seems more of a home for leftists then real desire for God. Is the religious part just side dressing? No wonder ppl have been leaving it in droves, it offers very little when it comes to real spirituality. Spirituality does not mix with politics, it only can cause strife. Temples of worship I have attended kept politics out of any service, in order not to create discord among its members.

  • Guest

    Thank you for publishing this. We should all write opposing letters to congress immediately.

    For what it is worth: these "leaders" are of denominations have been literally hemorrhaging members for decades, and very many of the remaining members of these churches are elderly. These denominations are shadows of their former selves. Judging by those in my family, the remaining members who still attend these congregations do so because of the ties within their local congregations only. They're disgusted by those at the top. These denominations would already be gone if they weren't living off "dead men's chests" – large endowments bequeathed back when the churches were headed by true followers of Jesus.

  • jake

    As a Mennonite past – I am shocked to see Mennonite Central Committee Exceutive Byler in that crowd. MCC has done a lot of good around the world but the bloke leading it now doesn't appear to have a clue what he signed. I am totally sad. Only good news, God is in control and as mentioned above He is still on Israel's side. "If God is for me, who can be against me" Keep that close to your heart Israel.

  • Mburu

    CLAIM:…..the pervasive teaching of hatred of Jews in Palestinian schools, mosques, and every outlet of Palestinian media.

    REBUTTAL: what about the pervasive anti-gentile hatred taught in jewish schools/synagogues/hebrew media…..:(

    • Kufar Dawg

      Relax Hassan! Relax with a nice, tall, steaming glass of camel urine….prophet recommended!

    • DeShawn

      Thank you for speaking the truth, brother. THe jews are always accusing others of behing the haters, but they're the most hateful people on earth. Have you read their talMUD?

      • Noah

        I have read the Torah and despite your thoughts I see no hatred. Try reading the quran and when you get to the verse about killing infidels then you can spew the hate about the quran

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Objective observers nearly always agree with the Jews, unless corrupted by hate like you.

      • Drakken

        Keep showing what a dumbazz you are abed.

    • Marc

      I teach at a Jewish school and teaching hatred is not part of the curriculum. I would love to know where you got this misinformation. Next time you post, look up the facts and not the fiction.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I would love to know where you got this misinformation"

        Well, it's a long story but most of it traces back to Paganism and Satanism through Islam and sadly, some comes from the Catholic church, again through Pagamism.

        "Next time you post, look up the facts and not the fiction"

        Don't hold your breath or place any wagers on that ever happening.

  • Mburu

    CLAIM: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East whose laws ensure and protect the human rights and religious freedoms of its Arab

    FACT: israel is an apatheid state that insists on calling itself a "jewish state" despite having millions of non-jewish citizens!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Kufar Dawg

      Look inbred Ahmed, those "millions of non-Jewish citizens", at least the non-muslim ones, are smart enough to realize what their fate would be in your various and sundry islamofascist pigsties of the Mid-East and N. Africa, where the persecution of ANYONE non-muslime is par for the f'ing course. A persecution that includes murder, rape and forcible conversion to pisslam. Israel is the only place in the Mid-East where non-muslimes aren't being murdered, raped and persecuted by your islamofascist brethren with impunity and glee. For an islamofascist ape to complain about apartheid states is practically the definition of hypocrisy.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      CLAIM: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East whose laws ensure and protect the human rights and religious freedoms of its Arab

      FACT: israel is an apatheid state that insists on calling itself a "jewish state" despite having millions of non-jewish citizens!!!!!!!!!!!"

      ——-

      Such bold liars are pathetic. Anyone checking your facts will quickly identify you as a liar the minute they speak to anyone outside your cult of liars.

    • Ghostwriter

      Mburu,please go back to the anti-Jewish sewer you were spawned from and leave the rest of us alone. I've already read too much of that filth and may soon need to take a shower just to recover from it.

  • riverboatbill

    Useful idiots.

  • mah29001

    Where's the Southern Poverty Law Center's condemnation of this hate rally? If this were a bunch of neo-Nazis protesting, they'd already be calling it a hate rally.

  • George_Babbitt

    The church is Israel now, that place called the 'State of Israel' is just a pretender pack of blasphemers. Jesus Christ wants nothing to do with those who would build another Temple and spit on His act on the cross.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The church is Israel now"

      Grafted in, not replacing it you fool…and not physically. I suppose Heaven already replaced the earth, so where is your Internet connection taking place?

      Think much for yourself?

      • George_Babbitt

        What is the difference when only living branches can be part of the living vine, and those that rejected Him are as dead as those that produce no fruit and are cast onto the fire? 2 Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God."

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "What is the difference when only living branches can be part of the living vine, and those that rejected Him are as dead as those that produce no fruit and are cast onto the fire? "

          Yes, each INDIVIDUAL will have that chance and requirement. Jews do not have a shorter path to salvation in Heaven. That is the point. The point you and the bigots think you read is that you can judge Jews collectively.

          "2 Cor 1:20 "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God."

          And from that you read that you get to judge groups of people because some of their ancestors were used as examples? You've learned all the wrong lessons because you accepted the traditional bigotry you were taught.

          Nothing I said contradicts your citations, and your citations don't even begin to justify your claims.

          • George_Babbitt

            "Yes, each INDIVIDUAL will have that chance and requirement. Jews do not have a shorter path to salvation in Heaven. That is the point. The point you and the bigots think you read is that you can judge Jews collectively. "

            They have that chance now. It says that they were only hardened 'in part'. So if there is one left at the end to represent the remnant, we're all good. Also, how is it that they can act in a collective on their communes when they recreated the Israeli people, and when they ask for a sanctuary/homeland for themselves, yet not when the bill comes due on their offenses to the natural order. I know that I have covered with you in the past the myriad examples of God dealing with peoples/nations collectively, so there is no need to rehash that evidence again, right?

            "And from that you read that you get to judge groups of people because some of their ancestors were used as examples? "

            The Jews have shouldered the responsibilities and debts of their ancestors by calling in the (false) claim of their 'ancestors' to the land. It's like when you go to buy a piece of property, and you do a deed investigation on it to see if there is any back taxes, or to verify if you will have full mineral rights to it, they went in full force, asking for everything that came with what they(collectively)wanted, and they will get it.

  • Charles

    The good news about the Presbyterian Church USA is that the vast majority of its members don't even know where the headquarters is located (Louisville), much less what is going on with the man who signs outrageous political statements, supposedly on behalf of the Presbyterian Church. On the issue of Israel, Gradye Parkins is speaking for himself and a small committee at the national headquarters, which issues periodic liberal political positions. His position is antithetical to the vast majority of Presbyterians on both the left and right political spectrum. As Presbyterian churches are governed locally, we simply ignore the national pronouncements, which in the world of politics, have no impact.

    Theologically, most Presbyterians recognize God's eternal covenant with the Jewish people and His love that binds us, not separates us.

    • George_Babbitt

      Read Hebrews 8, the covenant of Sinai is broken and obsolete, by the people that strung Christ on a cross.

  • Reese

    I am a Bible-believing Judeo-Christian who loves Israel and the Jews. Jesus was and IS a Jew and HE is my LORD. He talked after his resurrection of Israel and how much He loved Israel and His people and how He longed to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks and protects them…and He sadly talked about in the Last Days how bad it will be when the anti-Christ, anti-Bible, anti-Jew, anti-Israel One World Government (Obama Commuists & Islamists) takes over and tries to destroy Israel and His people. I don't see how a Christian could go against Israel and the Jews. The Bible from beginning to end talks about how Satan (via Baal the Moon god, which is what Islam stems from/the Assyrian) is trying to destroy Jehovah God's plan to bring THE Savior to the world (ALL people of the world) via the lineage of the Jews, via the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob lineage, to save us from our sins.

    • Reese

      …That is why Satan has inspired so many evil leaders to destroy Israel and the Jews throughout history. Satan doesn't like the seed/lineage that God used to bring salvation to ALL of mankind and God will use to bring the Savior back again, but this time, not as a suffering Savior, but as a victorious, mighty warrior, who will defeat all enemies who have come against Israel and the Jews. The so called "Christian" church should never be aligned with Satan, but, sadly, liberal leftist Communists have infiltrated some arms of the "church"and as such, they are no longer the "church". But there are Conservative Christians who belong to bodies of believers who do support Israel and the Jews.