Why the Zionists Will Fail
Someone asked for more about Palestine and the Zionist destiny.
I tend to take a dark view of the situation in Palestine. I think the Zionists will be defeated and removed. I think that will take 50 to 100 years and many millions of lives destroyed.
Certain Jews coveted a homeland and (with considerable help from the British) took it by force--in blatant violation of their own holy laws.
The prophet Jeremiah said, “Thus says the Lord: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place.”Their harsh treatment of the Palestinians? Again, blatant violation of their own holy Jewish laws.....they flushed their own sacred book down the toilet.
Am I saying God is punishing them for that? No. What I am saying is that when they spurn their traditional ethnic and religious values--they lose confidence in their destiny and they begin to falter and stumble. Courage and resolve to win come from the integrity of the heart--and they search and find none. They become more desperate, they commit uglier atrocities--and they spiral downward.
Any nation that is so fallen as to violate its own deepest and most holy values and principles will perish--because such violation tears the heart out of the very people who make up that nation and leaves them morally bankrupt and weak.
They have looked in the mirror and seen the mark of Cain (and they know in their deepest hearts that Cain's punishment reflects the fate of their nation).
In this, of course, America and Israel are blood brothers. Look to your own deeds and your ominously gathering weakness, America.
posted by Wadena | 10:35 PM
22 Comments:
loved this piece, and have returned the link, and am thinking about equal time for cats as mascots. that is if you do not mind me lifting a picture?
Sounds like a good idea. Lift away.
(Remember to lift with your legs, we are not responsible for back injuries.)
;)
Wadena, you make me smile even after you write such troubling things.
I always feel like I need a little bit of time to reflect on your posts, but I am sure you are ok with me telling you that. I do not mean to shortchange the discussions. I am just a 'muller' especially with these matters more than most. I have some trouble with these deeply held convictions and tend to think religion (at least modern religion) has little to do with that plane. How many Catholics say "well, I'm Catholic when it involves baptisms or weddings, but I disobey most of the rules". Religion is more than a means to feel serenity, security, certainty, comfort, or more at ease in troubled times. It is a cultural extension, and I suspect very little thought goes into the task of one's stated 'affiliation'. Not to be negative, but the 'convictions' are elusive on many shores. We had a symposium on Just War theory and religious leaders talked about their views, but given their supposed views- most wars do not qualify as 'just'. The "St Patrick's Four" (not far from me) were Catholics who used blood in a recruiting office to express their deeply held belief that the killing in Iraq was immoral- but we don't see much action other than that, do we? Why not more public condemnations? Actions?
Thank you, Lily.
Why don't churches speak out against the war? Good question.
I attend the United Church of Christ. I joined a few years ago when I moved here. I was under the impression that it was a liberal, activist church because the national church leadership is that way.
However, local churches run the gamut from liberal to conservative and mine happens to be fairly conservative--an aging congregation with few young people.
And that means it's a dying church. A very nice church, very nice people, but a dying church.
I know why my church doesn't do anything about the war (the local church anyway). It's because we have a fair number of people who support the war and the leaders are deathly afraid of any controversy that might cause anyone to get upset and leave the church.
I suspect a lot of mainline churches are that way.
And.....the more FundaGelical churches are almost entirely supportive of the war, of course.
So, it is highly unlikely that any church is going to come out against the war.....which is making me ask--why the hell am I a member of a church that won't protest war crimes?
I have both political and theological differences with my local church--and it's the best church within driving distance.
So, I probably won't be a member much longer. I've been hoping things would improve......but things are not getting better (even though I've pushed a bit).
Glad you have been enjoying the posts. I usually take a pretty radical position, but only because these are radical times and I find that we have too many people on the fence and not enough radicals.
Ah well....enough.
Well Wadena it depends on how we look at it- certainly we all fund violence and oppression with our wallets at some point, knowingly or not. When we buy things, when we put money into any plate. Sometimes we manage to avoid, but its very difficult. The major institutions perpetuate the status quo- but try boycotting all major institutions!!!!
I mean, the schools teach the war and history their way. the church teaches their view their way, and responds their way. We often pay taxes to towns and counties that underserve and insult their residents... it seems that 'supporting' wrongness is inevitable. I also beleive that we must interact with systems, even those we do not agree with, to inform dialogue as best we can.
Years ago I went to a supposedly 'liberal' church because I had been treated so well when very ill, the pastor came to talk to me in the hospital (unsolicited, they just do that.) It felt good to have this community of people- and I gave it my effort, tried very hard to believe. I had a hard time.
One day they sent a letter out "reaffirming their position on gay people' and stated 'our' position. I told them they do not speak for me, and I could not support their stand.
That was the end of that. No more.
Well Lil, my pastor is gay, but our church is more inclusive than liberal, if that makes any sense at all.
Gays and Redneck Fascist bastards are welcome.....it's called the "Big Tent" philosophy.
We can believe however we wish and nobody is to criticize another for their particular theology.
But our church has not said zip against the war and I find that more and more disturbing as the days go by.
My pastor is supposedly Liberal but he hasn't ever done a damn thing worth talking about as far as taking stands on issues. Zero. I think he should be a leader, but he does not lead.....he waffles.
I'm sure it's because he has a career to think about and doesn't want to get labeled as a troublemaker (that could quickly destroy his chances to get his next and better church).
Most in our church are terrified to discuss the war OR Bush and most cling to calling themselves moderate (which means they aid and abet Bush, in my view, by failing to take a stand on anything).
Anyhow, I'm looking at options.
I agree with your definition of 'moderate'! Sometimes members can embolden leaders.
Just checking in, on the status of my favorite cat. I wonder when we will hear about the river again... :)
So I've gone and ranted again, and I realize that I have a real issue lately with religion as it seems to permeate my ramblings. I think the Alito hearings perhaps made me more mindful? Of what we stand to lose to theocentric moralists?
I think of you each day as I read my Garrison Keillor about Minnesota! I've never been there.
Ah yes, we need the third (and, final?) segment of the fishing trip.
It's been busy here.
I think we can get to that this weekend if the current events don't overwhelm my thinking again.
Religion. Yes, I've been wanting to post something about the nationwide theft of children by the FundaGelical churches.
It seems that in every city, village and town in America....the youth groups of traditional churches are failing and almost devoid of children.
Where are these children? They've been invited to FundaGelical youth groups with hot music, multi-media, and a host of activities.
Invited and staying and often attending Sunday services.
A massive brain-washing is going on in this nation.
What will the next generation be like? What percentage will be open to Theocracy?
Alarm bells should be going off.
(Thanks for checking.)
:)
Wadena,
You had left a comment on my site
jaysoundsoff.blogspot.com, and so I just put up a link to yours, but where are you getting all your ahistorical, rabid, anti-Israel stuff from?
I hope not from the cat.
Idunno, Jay. (?) It depends on which rabid statement you're talking about (or are you saying that they were ALL rabid?). (Eeek!)
(I HAVE had my shots, you know!!)
I'm aware that the Zionists seem to have their own history that works for them, but I probably got most of my history from the Presbyterian Church website a couple of years ago.
It may not agree with the Zionist version of history......I suspect this is not the first time THAT'S happened (the Philistines, the Egyptians, the Hittites....man, there are a lot of people who may just have a bone to pick with you about history).
Look forward to chatting with you. Maybe you can straighten me out some.
:)
The Presbyterian Church USA has a history of antagonism towards Israel, regardless of which party there is in power. Have you checked out other sources?
You mention a "Zionist version of history," but which Zionists are you talking about - Labor Zionists? Mizrakhi? Revisionist Zionists?
Have you ever been to Israel?
Jay
jaysoundsoff.blogspot.com
Jay said: """The Presbyterian Church USA has a history of antagonism towards Israel..."""
Actually, Jay....the Zionists have a history of hostility toward anyone who disagrees with them--and there are a lot of dead people to prove it. Last time I checked the Presbyterians haven't killed anybody.
I find it highly unlikely (no one but a rabid conspiricy theorist would think it) that the Presbyterian Church would have any reason to take sides in the dispute and write a false history.
Their history was approved by a General Council (so says the website) and that would include people from all walks of life....conservative, liberal, moderate and even a few radical middle of the roaders like yourself.
I think the truth is more in the direction of you holding the opinion that "anybody who doesn't blindly support the Zionists is a bad person and a liar."
Right?
:)
Figured so.
Zionist history is revised for a reason (and I can understand their desperation) but I'm not going to be taken in by it.
"I think the truth is more in the direction of you holding the opinion that "anybody who doesn't blindly support the Zionists is a bad person and a liar. Right?" :)
Not necessarily. Misinformed, perhaps, like that group of Presbyterians. Not all Presbyterians agree with the PCUSA stance.
I don't know what you mean by "blindly support the Zionists." At this point, I'm no longer sure what you mean by "Zionists" or that you even know what Zionism is.
"Figured so."
????
"Zionist history is revised for a reason (and I can understand their desperation) but I'm not going to be taken in by it."
I'm still wondering which "version of Zionist history" you referred to previously? I'm not sure if you even know.
You did not answer my question if you've ever visited Israel, so I'll assume that you haven't.
Regards,
Jay
Jay.....Zionists are the people that are currently occupying Palestine (and, of course, they are the reason the Palestinians wake up grumpy every darn morning).
THOSE Zionists! Those very ones!
Now, of course, I know that all Presbyterians may not agree about everything.
That was not the problem.
The problem is.....you seem to be telling me (tell me if I'm wrong) that the PCUSA has come up with a lying contrived false history of Palestine because....
They are mean old poo-poo heads?
They are crazy?
They are part of a Nazi conspiricy?
They are really, really, really dumb?
Well, since I don't know because or why, so I'll leave it up to you to explain this mystery.
What is the significance of the repeated questioning about having been to Israel? Many in my family have been to Israel and I maintain relationships to people that we have relationships with there, but I am still not sure why this particular matter is so crucial to the discussion of history. Maybe I am missing something.
Jay seems to be suggesting that your use of 'Zionists" is mis-applied?
Asking if I've been to Israel is the old internet debate tactic of ignoring everything your opponent has said and trying to find one or two ways to discredit that opponent without ever dealing with the points he has made.
Haven't been to Israel? Ah, then nothing you have said can be true.
The tactic reveals the poverty of the questioner's argument.
I usually just ignore such stuff.
You read too much into my inquiry about whether you've been to Israel. It's legit to ask about whether you have first-hand knowledge, the lack of which does not affect the validity or falsity of your points.
When you refer to Zionists "occupyimg Palestine," are you including residents of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? What about the non-Zionist Haredi Jews, Hassidic and non-Hassidic?
I don't know what motivates the national leadership of the PCUSA, but it's something other than facts and fairness. Fortunately, there are level-headed voices within the PCUSA community.
If readers wish to examione a different perspective, I recommend as an introduction Myths & Facts. M&F is supportive of Israel, so you may wish to carefully examine its endnotes and to look up the documents and check the references for yourself. In any case, the quality of the material is better than what you've been reading at PCUSA.
Jay, this may be stating the obvious too obviously, but when I refer to Zionists, I mean Zionists.
I have complete faith in the information from the PCUSA.
As you yourself express in confusion, you don't know what motivates them. Obviously, they have no reason to lie and they are a trusted and respected church.
Let us be real with each other: What they say is true.....and you don't like that.
Your article points out some trivial mistakes in what they have said about the wall the Zionists are building in Occupied Palestine.
Thus people are diverted from the most resoundingly obvious fact that there SHOULD BE NO WALL.
The Zionists have no authority to be building walls in a land they have stolen at the point of a gun in the first place.
Quibbling about whether or not a fence is electrified is simply a smoke screen to obfuscate the reality that outsiders have come into Palestine and taken it at the point of a gun and now build a wall to further entrench an oppressive, illegal and apartheid state.
The key point that YOU and other Zionists would like to smoke screen is that an occupying power should not be building a wall in the Palestinians' own country.
It is, of course, nothing less than an outrage that the Palestinians should have to endure, at the point of a gun, someone building a wall that separates children from parents, brothers from sisters, business owners from their business, workers from their jobs, and renders making a living and having a normal life impossible.
Indeed, and sadly, the Zionists have become incredibly like the Nazis that once oppressed THEM in that such a wall would create a mammoth enclave that would very much resemble a concentration camp.
What could be more ironic and tragic than a people oppressed by Nazis-- becoming the oppressors themselves and invading a country because they need "Lebensraum?"
After this, remember that your display name serves as a link back to your site, so do not add additional links to promote your own or other Zionist sites or information.
Thanks.
Oh....second rule of the blog.
Do not label unconventional warfare as terrorism or call people terrorists.
Such terms are dishonest propaganda.
This is NOT a sleazy cable news outlet nor is it a forum for Bush Press Releases.
Thanks.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jay:
Third rule of the blog:
Do not go back to your blog and call this blog a Moonbat blog.
That's not nice.
In fact, it's really naughty.
I'm VERY surprised at you.
No! I'm shocked.
Regards,
Wadena
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home