This summer I got into an argument with one of my bosses about how Muslims and Christians worshiped the same God and just disagree with a few details, what do you think?
Outside the Lines recently did a special on the Evangelical Faith of Tim Tebow. Listen to the video and use your memory of Tebow's sharing his religious and political beliefs. Is his faith polarizing and alienating as the man in the video claims?
Texas Governor Rick Perry has released a new campaign ad on YouTube to help boost his slumping numbers in the 2012 GOP Primary Race. The ad targets the Christian Evangelical base of the Republican Party. Specifically, its intentions are to string a cord within the Christian Evangelical community and garner their support by conveying an extremely homophobic and highly theocratic message. Following embarrassing performances in several Republican debates, Perry's numbers have plummeted in the polls. Perry entered the race to become the GOP Presidential nominee on August 13, and he immediately became the front-runner in the polls. He held that spot for five weeks peaking with a 19 point lead over Mitt Romney on the 1st of September, but then his numbers began to steadily decline. Now he finds himself near the bottom of the candidates with only 5% support in the most recent Gallop Poll. Perry needed to act and act quickly in an attempt to re-energize his campaign and create enthusiasm and support from potential GOP primary voters. As one of several Evangelical Republican potential nominees, Perry's campaign needed to create some noise to separate himself from the rest of the group. Therefore, his campaign chose to draw a staunch line in the sand with the following message in his ad: "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."Is such bigoted and theocratic language acceptable in America? Isn't America supposed to represent equality and justice before the law and equal opportunity for all to strive to achieve one's goals? And which Church liturgy would Perry like our public schools that are paid for by tax funds from ALL AMERICANS, including Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Hindus, and other faiths, to forcibly teach our children? Personally, I am an Orthodox Christian, and I don't want Protestant guided prayer to be taught to my children. In particular, I don't want Evangelical Christianity to be taught to my children whatsoever. However, this is besides the point and only an example of why even Christians don't all agree or want schools being involved with guiding our children's spiritual growth. America is a secular country, and has never been a theocracy. The Separation of Church and State is a fundamental underlying principle in our Constitution protecting individual liberties and freedoms. The Constitution grants Americans the right to choose what religion to follow, and whether to follow a religion at all. State institutions are barred by the Separation clause from favoring any religion, and this includes Christianity.In the year 2011 is such homophobic and discriminatory language still acceptable from a politician running for president? Yes, what Perry said is not just homophobic, but also discriminatory to gay and lesbian Americans. Singling out one group (gay/lesbian Americans wanting to serve in the military) and denying them the right to freely participate in any aspect of society that all others are permitted (all other Americans are permitted to serve) is the very definition of discrimination. Finally, is this what defines the fabric of Christian America? Is the evangelical message the message of American Christianity? It definitely is not for me, and I wish it did not define the voice of American Christianity. However, there is no counter Christian block in American politics to the Evangelicals. Unfortunately, those of us Christians that love and accept all people and judge them by the content of their character have no representation in US Christianity and Politics. We are too few and far apart. I obviously don't think Perry's anti-gay ad should be acceptable in America, but I do unfortunately believe his Evangelical Christianity is the American brand of Christianity. Of course, there are small pockets of Christians here and there that do not adopt the Evangelical message, but their voice is not a part of the political discourse that represents Christianity in US politics. Anyways, what do you think?Is Rick Perry's new anti-gay ad acceptable in America? Does this message define the fabric of Christian America?
"I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message."
Do a majority of conservatives only vote for President's if they are "born again" fundamentalist Christians? Author of "Crazy for God," and son of one of the most influential Evangelicals in history, Francis Schaeffer, Sr, Schaeffer Jr. claims the "Christian Right" of the conservative party vote on the basis of whether a candidate is a born again fundamentalist Christian. They do not factor their actual intelligence, prior experience, or their actual policy proposals. He says all that matters is the candidate is a Christian extremist/neo-fascist. Do you agree? Is Francis Shaeffer, Jr right, do Conservatives vote for President's only if they are "born again" fundamentalist Christians?
Watch the clip of 'Family Guy' creator Seth McFarlane on LKL! He's an equal opportunity offender. Christians, gays, Sarah Palin, you name it, nothing, no one off limits. Do you think 'Family Guy' goes too far?
Sarah Palin is a Pro-Israeli Christian Evangelical. She believes Palestine must be ethnically cleansed of its predominantly Arab and other non-Jewish ethnicities to be displaced with Jews from other country's around the world. After this occurs, the new Jewish occupants of Israel are going to be faced with a decision that questions their very existence and validity of their belief system. Jews will either have to convert to Christianity and accept Jesus Christ or suffer the wrath of tribulation rained down on the planet while "True Christians" and 144,000 Jews, 12,000 from each of the original 12 Hebrew Tribes, were "Raptured" to be with the Lord while everyone on Earth suffered.This ideology of hers compromises her loyalty to the United States. If she were to run and God forbid become the next President, she must make foreign policy decisions based on what's best for the US. In most cases, what's good for Israel is bad for America. Speaking recklessly and loosely as she does on Barbara Walters concerning the issue of illegal Israeli Settlement Building in the West Bank on Palestinian Land could have led to an international crises in the Mid East if she were the President or Vice President.In the video below, Palin views the creation of a Palestinian State as merely a Zoning - Redistricting Issue. It is obvious she knows better than to say something that stupid, but the underlying ideology that controls her decisions on Middle East and Arab issues is Zionism. America's true national security interests are secondary to Israel's expansionism. Evangelicals, such as Palin, defend Israeli War Crimes against Arab and Muslim populations unequivocally. No matter what happened or what human rights violation Israel commits, they are justified because Israel is David in the wilderness of Arab Goliaths.From listening to her videos, do you think Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy will be driven by Israeli or US interests?
Dear Archbishop Williams,Greetings from Jerusalem!Last week at Sabeel, we had the privilege of having the Anglican Consultative Council delegation headed by Archbishop Michael Jackson. We seized the opportunity to convey to them our response to your interview on the BBC regarding your concern about the dwindling presence of Arab Christians of the Middle East. The concern is genuine and sincere, unfortunately, your words were negatively received by our people; and we have been asked by our friends - locally and internationally - to make a public response.1. As Palestinian Christians, we perceive ourselves as an integral part of the Palestinian people. We might be a very small religious community nowadays but due to our long rootedness in our land, we do not refer to ourselves as a minority. Moreover, as Palestinians, whether Christian or Muslim, we equally live under the oppression of the illegal Israeli occupation of our country. As Palestinians - Christians and Muslims - we share the same hopes and aspirations and we struggle for freedom and human dignity together.2. Although as Palestinian Christians, we appreciate the fact that you raised the issue of the vulnerability of the Christian presence in the Middle East -- a subject that is dear to our hearts and of great concern to us – you singled out the extremist Islamists as a threat to Christian presence, but neglected to mention two other extremists groups, namely, Jewish extremists represented by the religious and racist settlers on the West Bank that are encouraged directly by the present extreme rightwing Israeli government, and Christian extremists represented by the Western Christian Zionists that support Israel blindly and unconditionally. With candor the last two groups of extremists, i.e. Jewish and Western Christian Zionists are a greater threat to us than the extremist Islamists. In fact, these extremists have more military power and clout to uproot all Palestinian presence both Christian and Muslim from our homeland.3. In 2006, Sabeel conducted a survey of the Christians in Israel and Palestine with the help of Bethlehem University. The survey clearly indicated that the primary causes for the emigration of Christians from the West Bank are both political and economic conditions. “Those who are leaving…because of the bad economic and political situation represent 87.3% of the total respondents” (p.34). Only 8% of the respondents attributed emigration to religious extremism.4. As you are well aware, if Muslims are leaving Hebron, it is largely due to the violence of the Jewish religious settlers that has made the life of Palestinian Hebronites miserable and intolerable.5. The area of Bethlehem, Beit Jala, and Beit Sahour has sufficient space for Palestinians to live in; but most of their land (largely Christian) has been confiscated by Israeli settlement expansion including the settlements of Gilo and Har Homa.6. The separation Wall has broken up families and closed businesses. It has devoured land and torn communities apart. And with the checkpoints and permit system it has greatly restricted people’s movement especially to Jerusalem their Holy City. The Wall is a big “push factor” for Palestinians out of Palestine.We are saddened that a great opportunity was missed by not revealing the oppressive consequences of the Israeli occupation on the Palestinian people, both Muslim, and Christian.If the church - local and international - does not raise the prophetic voice, who will stand for justice and truth?In the absence of the prophetic, and as the rightwing Israeli government continues to spurn all international efforts for a just peace, we implore you to champion the cause of the oppressed Palestinians. The desperate situation needs the courage and clarity of an Amos, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”Respectfully yours,Naim Ateek Director Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center JerusalemFor Original Article see Naim Ateek Letter to Archbishop Rowan WilliamsDate: 23 June 2011
Christians United for Israel is a Christian Zionist and Conservative organization run by Mega Church Pastor John Hagee, that states its purpose"is to provide a national association through which every Pro-Israel Church, parachurch organization, ministry or individual in America can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel in matters related to Biblical issues."CUFI and many other Evangelical organizations in America base their ideology on Christian Zionism that has been defined and reported on extensively by The Reverend Doctor Stephen Sizer. In his book Christian Zionists: On the Road to Armageddon, Dr. Sizer defines Christian Zionism in the following way:Christian Zionism is essentially Christian support for Zionism.Grace Halsell summarises the message of the Christian Zionist in this way: “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us. [1] Whether consciously or otherwise, Christian Zionists subscribe to a religious Jewish agenda best expressed by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who claims: ‘We should not forget ... that the supreme purpose of the ingathering of exiles and the establishment of our State is the building of the Temple. The Temple is at the very top of the pyramid.' [2] Another rabbi, Yisrael Meida, explains the link between politics and theology within Jewish Zionism: ‘It is all a matter of sovereignty. He who controls the Temple Mount, controls Jerusalem. And he who controls Jerusalem, controls the land of Israel.' [3] This paradigm may be illustrated by way of three concentric rings. The land represents the outer ring,Jerusalem the middle ring and the Temple is the centre ring. The three rings comprise the Zionist agenda by which the Land was claimed in 1948, the Old City of Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and the Temple site is being contested. For the religious Zionist, Jewish or Christian, the three areinextricably linked. The Christian Zionist vision therefore is to work to see all three under exclusive Jewish control since this will lead to blessing for the entire world as nations recognise and respond to what God is seen to be doing in and through Israel.[4]For CUFI and other Evangelicals that adopt a Christian Zionist Ideology, Biblical Palestine must be ethnically cleansed of all Arabs and other non-Jews. Biblical Palestine comprises of all the land between the Tigris River in Iraq and the Euphrates River in Egypt, as indicated by the Israeli Flag showing the Star of David (representing the State of Israel) between two blue stripes (the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers). In place of the Arabs, they want all the Jews from around the world to go back to Israel so that Jesus Christ Will Return to Earth and they will be "Raptured" and ascend to Heaven. During this rapture, they will look down from the clouds as Jews are violently slaughtered if they do not convert to Christianity. The Bible states that only 144,000 Jews, 12,000 from each of the original 12 Hebrew Tribes, will convert and hence be saved. Basically, they want all the Jews of the World to return to Israel and then be faced with the decision of accepting Christianity or being killed. Is this Anti Semitic? Is Christians United for Israel actually Antisemitic?Grace Halsell, ‘Israeli Extremists and Christian Fundamentalists: The Alliance’, Washington Report, December (1988), p31.Rabbi Shlomo Chaim Hacohen Aviner, cited in Grace Halsell, Forcing God’s Hand, (Washington, Crossroads International, 1999), p71.Yisrael Meida, cited in Halsell, Forcing, op.cit., p68.‘Biblical Zionism, Cutting Edge Theology for the “Last Days”’ Word from Jerusalem, International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem, September (2001), p9.
Christian Zionism is essentially Christian support for Zionism.Grace Halsell summarises the message of the Christian Zionist in this way: “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us. [1] Whether consciously or otherwise, Christian Zionists subscribe to a religious Jewish agenda best expressed by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who claims: ‘We should not forget ... that the supreme purpose of the ingathering of exiles and the establishment of our State is the building of the Temple. The Temple is at the very top of the pyramid.' [2] Another rabbi, Yisrael Meida, explains the link between politics and theology within Jewish Zionism: ‘It is all a matter of sovereignty. He who controls the Temple Mount, controls Jerusalem. And he who controls Jerusalem, controls the land of Israel.' [3] This paradigm may be illustrated by way of three concentric rings. The land represents the outer ring,Jerusalem the middle ring and the Temple is the centre ring. The three rings comprise the Zionist agenda by which the Land was claimed in 1948, the Old City of Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and the Temple site is being contested. For the religious Zionist, Jewish or Christian, the three areinextricably linked. The Christian Zionist vision therefore is to work to see all three under exclusive Jewish control since this will lead to blessing for the entire world as nations recognise and respond to what God is seen to be doing in and through Israel.[4]
Grace Halsell summarises the message of the Christian Zionist in this way: “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us. [1] Whether consciously or otherwise, Christian Zionists subscribe to a religious Jewish agenda best expressed by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who claims: ‘We should not forget ... that the supreme purpose of the ingathering of exiles and the establishment of our State is the building of the Temple. The Temple is at the very top of the pyramid.' [2] Another rabbi, Yisrael Meida, explains the link between politics and theology within Jewish Zionism: ‘It is all a matter of sovereignty. He who controls the Temple Mount, controls Jerusalem. And he who controls Jerusalem, controls the land of Israel.' [3]
This paradigm may be illustrated by way of three concentric rings. The land represents the outer ring,
Jerusalem the middle ring and the Temple is the centre ring. The three rings comprise the Zionist agenda by which the Land was claimed in 1948, the Old City of Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and the Temple site is being contested. For the religious Zionist, Jewish or Christian, the three are
inextricably linked. The Christian Zionist vision therefore is to work to see all three under exclusive Jewish control since this will lead to blessing for the entire world as nations recognise and respond to what God is seen to be doing in and through Israel.[4]
“You feel shame when you look through their catalogs” says Tomas Pando about TOMS shoe catalogs. The TOMS brand is famous for its 'One Pair Sold = One Person Helped' campaign, trademarked as 'One For One', which sends a pair of shoes to a child in need for each pair purchased. Tomas Pando is the founder of Argentina's Paez shoes which makes simple canvas slip-ons similar to the popular Santa Monica retailer's. He told LA Weekly that TOMS’ excessive abuse of images of poverty-stricken children is “like stopping me on the street and saying, ‘I’m dying, give me a penny.’ ”"Pando promotes the quality of his shoes while giving fair-wage jobs to his employees. Paez footwear is produced in a “no-sweatshops” factory on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, where the cost to manufacture Paez shoes is $8, Pando says; he sells them for $16 in his home country."“We support giving jobs and opportunities to the people of Argentina,” he says.Alibaba.com publishes data to help manufacturers and buyers find suppliers in foreign countries and shows that a pair of slip-on canvas shoes actually costs between $3.50 and $5 to make. "TOMS sells that kind of shoe in the U.S. at retail prices ranging from $29 to $98; the “classic” sells for $44-$68" LA Weekly notes. "Then, for each shoe sold, TOMS gives away a pair of shoes costing $3.50 to $5 to produce." The cloying campaign being cheap at heart isn't the first red flag regarding TOMS. Founder and self-titled 'Chief Shoe Giver' Blake Mycoskie shocked his brand's supporters in June when he spoke at a Focus On the Family event. The Christian organization is renowned for their hateful anti-gay propaganda and stringent support of the right-wing's Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps due to its charitable efforts, or Mycoskie's image as a carefree So-Cal hipster hanging out on his houseboat,TOMS is certainly widely regarded, by its consumers and folks aware of the brand, as quite contrary to right-wing ideals. Mycoskie has blogged apologies for his association with the group, assuring that if he had “known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak.” Adding, “TOMS, and I as the founder, are passionate believers in equal human and civil rights for all.”Aren't those concepts of equal human and civil rights in conflict with his Christian Evangelical beliefs?Christianity Today reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey revealed that Mycoskie attends Mosaic, "an L.A. evangelical Christian church that’s considered more multicultural than mainstream evangelical institutions," according to LA Weekly."Like almost all Evangelical Christian groups," religioustolerance.org says, "the The Evangelical Christian Church, Inc. (Christian Disciples) views "homosexuality" as a behavior rather than as a sexual orientation. That is: "homosexuality" is something that a person does; it is not something that a person is."Abilene Christian University, an evangelical college that refused to allow formation of a gay-straight alliance, hosted an official TOMS 'Style Your Sole' event last year, which of course Mycoskie spoke at. Willow Creek Community Church, who has promoted the idea that gays and lesbians should practice celibacy, seek therapy, or 'pray away the gay', hosted a Global Leadership Summit in June, during which Mycoskie was featured as an entrepreneur. He was scheduled to be interviewed on "leading organizations with a cause and navigating the start-up phase of an organization" for the congregation's members. Admission ranged from $149 to $399, depending on date purchased and number of people in the group, with $79 student $99 military rates available too. Should Mycoskie's religious preferences and business practices have been more transparent to his consumers, whose concerns are supposed to simply be fashion and helping those less fortunate? TOMS has donated over 1,000,000 pairs of shoes to children in need, internationally. Or is this a simple case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'? Mycoskie has never claimed to not be an evangelical Christian and was simply assumed to be a liberal supporter much to the chagrin of those who prefer to buy from brands whose representatives support equal rights. His profit margin on the shoes could have been called into question by a concerned consumer sooner too. What do you think? Please discuss in the comments and share.
This past weekend many people were talking and thinking about the impending date of the Rapture, predicted by Harold Camping of Family Radio. Many people treated the propaganda flippantly, including faithful Christians who did not find any merit in Camping's prediction. Some naysayers pointed to a verse from the book of Matthew which states that no man or angel can know when the Rapture will occur. But I realized how deeply some would be affected when I read a New York Times article from May 19 profiling a family where there parents had ceased saving for college for their kids because of their conviction that the world would end soon.Now that the date has come and gone and we're still standing, Harold Camping's followers have expressed bewilderment, devastation and a need for answers. In this NPR article, a Family Radio board member "was contrite." He, too, had earnestly believed the prediction, and felt responsible for misleading followers. A photojournalist at good.is posted snapshots of Camping's congregation, and wrote of speaking with a confused Camping himself on Sunday morning. Still, plenty of critics have scorned believers, and some cynics may not have much sympathy for people who chose to invest their faith in a baseless concept. Do you feel bad for them, or do you think they deserved the lesson they received?
Governor and Republican Presidential nominee, Rick Perry, is a racist and discriminates against the Palestinians in his discussions and dealings with the Middle East Conflict. The question, however, is why?In the attached video above, we hear Perry actually say the following: "The Obama Policy of moral equivalency of giving equal standing to the grievances of Israeli's and Palestinians...is a very dangerous insult." The very fact he says the grievances of one group are superior to another and that they should be given preferential treatment by the US is de facto racism and de facto discrimination. He carries it as far as to call it a "dangerous insult" to say the two humans are equals.In response to the Palestinian decision to seek statehood via the United Nations, Perry calls Obama's Middle East policy "appeasement" for "encouraging such an ominous act in bad faith." He argues Obama's policy is naive, uninformed, arrogant, and dangerous, yet, he never tells us why he believes in such. After listening to these words, I can't help but chuckle because if you describe someone using such terms, you would think all of your statements made it clear these terms do not apply to you. However, Perry clearly has no clue what appeasement truly means. Appeasement refers to diplomatic policies that make concessions to avoid war. What concessions does the US have to make to avoid war? What concessions has the US made recently or ever to the Palestinians? Obama has been going around trying to persuade people into voting against the Palestinian state, not for it. So who exactly is Obama appeasing? The Palestinians? No, Israel? Exactly, because Obama has definitely not acted in a way that favors the Palestinians by any means, and he surely isn't giving them anything in exchange for no war.However, the clear expression of Perry's ignorance and that of his audience comes from his statement that a state can't be founded by the UN. He obviously doesn't know how Israel was founded in 1948, does he? I actually truly doubt it. In listening to him discuss this issue, it is clear he knows absolutely nothing on the factual subject matter. This is an example of American fascism. Perry either knows the truth and is lying because he knows his audience doesn't know the subject or he has received and learned such bad information that he, as a Governor, does not know the basic facts. It is a cycle of falsehoods being repeated so often and so adamantly, they become facts. Perry talks about the Palestinians as terrorists and people accept this because this is hammered and repeated in the media and by our politicians so often that nobody questions it. At the same time, Israel's war and human rights crimes are not discussed or mentioned. Often our media and politicians will go out of their way to defend Israel even when she commits heinous crimes. The American public never gets an accurate portrayal of what is going on. They get the version of the story those in power want them to, and this leads them to blindly support horrific foreign policy decisions made by the US government. And after being labeled and universally accepted as a terrorist, to dare agree or even reach out to the Palestinians is treated as conspiring to commit terrorism. It is by this manner, the Palestinian voice is never heard and US policy makers do as they please while misleading the uninformed public.In the video, Perry is seen openly recognizing Israel as having a right to continue to kick Palestinians out of their homes and land so they can build "Jewish Only" settlements in their place. Only a racist thinks it is okay to kick a person out of their house because they are the wrong ethnicity and that only people of a certain ethnicity may live there. And this is the very definition of discrimination. Perry also supports sanctioning the Palestinian Authority if they go forward with the UN vote. He even believes, the US should threaten to withhold US financial support to the UN if they allow the vote to happen. In other words, he hates the Palestinians so much, he is willing to sacrifice the livelihood of tens of millions of people that depend on UN assistance to survive just so he could put the already 45% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and 80% of those in Gaza living under the international poverty line in an even harder situation. Or, then again, Perry might just be that clueless.Perry says his Christian Evangelical faith guides how he handles the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. He says "I, as a Christian, have a clear directive to support Israel." He continues, that from his "perspective, it’s pretty easy. Both as an American and a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel." Cenk Uyger from The Young Turks explains Perry's religious lust for Israel in the video below. In essence, Perry and the approximately 55 million American Christian Evangelicals believe the land of Palestine must be completely ethnically cleansed of all races of human beings other than the Jewish race. After this happens, Christ will return to Earth. The Jews are then confronted with the decision of either converting to Christianity or burning in hell, and the Evangelicals and the converted Jews live happily ever after. In other words, they want Armageddon to occur.Earlier in June, when the flotilla's filled with humanitarian aid were sailing for Gaza, Perry called on the Justice Department to criminally charge all people involved in delivering aid to the Palestinians via this manner. The following are a few quotes of his surrounding the whole debacle:"As an American citizen and governor of one of its largest states, I write to applaud your recent efforts to warn and discourage those who have supported or plan to support a flotilla intended to interfere with Israel's maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip""More importantly, I write to encourage you to aggressively pursue all available legal remedies to enjoin and prevent these illegal actions, and to prosecute any who may elect to engage in them in spite of your preemptive efforts."Perry addresses the Palestinians as a sub-species. Their ambitions, rights, and dignity are so secondary to others, Perry doesn't even mention or acknowledge they have them. To Perry, as long as they have enough food to stay alive, then they are fine. Who cares that Israel has literally built a wall that encloses them from the entire world. Who cares that one family has their house bulldozed by the Israeli Defense Forces so a Jewish immigrant can build a new home in its place. Who cares if the Palestinian children are suffering from chronic malnutrition. Who cares when Israel kills Palestinians at will. Apartheid is cool and the good idea to those in the Evangelical Christian community. It was supported by their first political leader, Ronald Reagan, in the case of South Africa; so supporting it here is merely a favorite past time.So is Christianity the driving force behind Rick Perry's racism towards the Palestinians?
It is regularly said that a candidate for a political office or a politician seeking reelection in the United States cannot win their bid if they were to criticize Israel for its oppressive policies against the Palestinian people. The theory claims that such a candidate that is willing to speak out against Israel's crimes risks becoming the target of the Israeli Lobby. In this scenario, the Israeli Lobby is presumed to either not donate any money to that person's campaign or to donate tons of money to a rival candidate.There are only two US Presidents that have ever crossed the Israel Lobby on serious terms during their first term. The first was Jimmy Carter, who dared to mention the recognition of a Palestinian state next to Israel. As a result, the Christian Evangelical vote switched sides and voted for Ronald Reagan making Carter a one term President. The other President was George H. Bush. He threatened to withhold US Aid to Israel if it continued to build settlements on stolen Palestinian land. Like Carter, Bush was a one term President.However, were these just coincidence? There is one thing for sure in America, and that is Congress goes out of its way to praise and protect Israel no matter how heinous a crime she commits. There is absolutely no fair and open debate on the issue of Palestine in this country. Our politicians are seen regularly repeating Israeli talking points as though they are fact. Personally, I believe there is some truth to the claims. I think our Congress is scared to actually step up against Israel and face retaliation from the Israeli Lobby. The individual members fear losing their next election campaign, and believe crossing Israel will help secure their opponent the funding he/she needs to beat them. If this is not the case, then it means our Congress supports and funds ethnic cleansing and oppression because they actually agree with it and believe it is a morally justified action. Can a US politician criticize Israel and win an election in America?Related Polls: 1. Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: Should the pre-1967 6 Day War borders be the basis for negotiations? 2. Does Israel's Netanyahu want peace with the Palestinians? 3. Are Republicans against Palestinian-Israeli Peace? 4. Is the US to blame for no peace in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict? 5. Is Palestinian Reconciliation positive news? 6. Questions and Issues in Palestinian Israeli Conflict 7. Should Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state? 8. Al Nakba Denial vs Holocaust Denial, what's the Difference?
For use throughout this article, please refer to:US Foreign Aid To IsraelUse of the Veto on United Nations Resolutions by the USAFor decades, the United States of America has been involved in the Middle East Conflict between the Palestinians and the Israeli's as has the rest of the world. Its involvement has always been stated as one pursuing an end to the conflict that results in a fair and just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. However, its actions in the last 40-plus years suggests the US is actually, at least in part, to blame for the continuation of the conflict.In the history of the conflict, the US has consistently armed and protected Israel from international scrutiny and action. This policy picked up momentum following the 1967 Six Day War launched by Israel to obtain more land, including the Old City in East Jerusalem from is Arab neighbors. The US may have been a signatory to United Nations Resolution 242, which demands Israel returns to her 1967 borders and give Palestinian refugees the right to return, but it has never acted in a way lending to its actual fulfillment.In the 1970's, President Jimmy Carter staged the first Middle East Peace Talks between Israel and its neighbor Egypt. Following the negotiations, the Camp David Accords were signed into international law. In essence, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for Israel returning to its 1967 borders. This includes Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Sheba Farms and Southern Lebanon, and from the Syrian Golan Heights. Also, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had negotiated for the West Bank and Gaza to be used as the starting point and as the framework for the creation of a Palestinian state. The Israeli settlement project in the West Bank was to come to an end. At this point, it seemed as though US policy was truly intended to resolve the conflict.However, in the 1980's Ronald Reagan, an Evangelical Christian, became President and the majority of the Camp David Accords became obsolete. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and was protected from War Crime tribunals by a veto administered by Reagan at the UN Security Council on numerous occasions. At the same time, Israel began to really move its colonial settlement project in the West Bank and East Jerusalem by building tens of thousands of Jewish Only colonies. Reagan never once even threatened international action against Israel for stealing Palestinian land and making thousands of families homeless. Instead, he doubled US Military support to Israel by increasing it from $500 million to $900 million annually, and he provided Israel with one and half times its typical economic aid by increasing it from $525 million to $725 million. By the end of his Presidency, US Military aid to Israel ballooned to $1.8 billion a year and economic aid ballooned to $1.2 billion a year.Sabra & Shatila Genocide Committed by Sharon and the Christian Phlange (see videos below)In 1988, the Conflict should have come to an end. Yasser Arafat and the PLO accepted the state of Israel and were willing to settle for only the West Bank and Gaza, which is only 22% of Palestine's land. For 24 years now, everyone has known the following is the only rational and possible settlement between the two parties:Israel returns to 1967 bordersPalestine becomes a state on the West Bank and GazaIsrael must recognize the Palestinian Right to Return - exactly how this is enacted must be discussed between Israel and the Palestinian RefugeesIsraeli Settlements within Palestine must come to an end. Some settlements will have to be removed and Israel must exchange land with the Palestinians in proportion to settlements they agree can remainEast Jerusalem becomes a part of the Palestinian StateReagan virtually ignored and obstructed any progress occurring while he remained President, but the next President, George H. Bush, became involved in secret talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. He is the only President to withhold Financial aid to Israel because of its continued construction of settlements. He unequivocally stated: "The United States policy on settlements in the occupied territories is unchanged and is clear: we oppose new settlements in territories beyond the 1967 lines - settlements [are] contrary to the United States policy; and I will continue to reiterate the policy, and try to persuade the government of Israel that it is counterproductive to go forward with additional settlements in these territories. Our objective is to get the parties to the peace table."The US has basically bankrolled Israel's continued colonial project in the West Bank, and thus such a threat actually had an effect. He demanded Israel completely halt all settlement activity to receive financial aid and they did, at least temporarily. In my opinion, only the first President Bush actually tried to do the right thing. He tried to stop the settlements and actually threatened Israel. No other President has ever done that. It was his hands on approach that led to the parties gathering at the negotiations table. He understood the basis of the Occupation was land, not religious or defensive as Israel and its supporters claim. The Palestinians want to live free and equal to the rest of the people of the world on their land, and Israel wants to kick the Palestinians off that land by building more colonies in the West Bank for Jews only and claiming it as part of Israel. President Bush, however, lost his reelection campaign against Bill Clinton.President Clinton continued the negotiations between the Palestinians and Israeli's, but did not confront Israel's colonial expansion. While he was in power, he oversaw the Oslo Peace Process and witnessed the horribly unjust Oslo Accords. It was supposedly the outline for beginning an overarching peace between the two people, but it instead enabled and encouraged the further colonization of Palestine in the West Bank. It divided the regions of the West Bank into A, B, and C zones. Zone A - The PA has complete control over all civilian administration, and its paramilitary police force is in charge of security. 3% of the West Bank was Zone A Zone B - The PA has full civilian authority but it shares security responsibility with Israel. Joint Israel-PA patrols operate here. 23% of the West Bank was Zone B Zone C - Israel has full control.Israel was committed to handing over more parts of Area C to the Palestinians every six months, but in practice this process occurred only irregularly. 74% of the West Bank was Zone C As can be seen in the Map, Israel maintained virtual control of the entire West Bank. The idea the PLO was in any actual control of the West Bank during Clinton's Presidency was a complete facade. By maintaining this control, Israel embarked on a major colonial expansion project and was able to add hundreds of thousands of illegal Jewish-only settlements on land stolen from the Palestinians in the West Bank. The international community attempted to step in on numerous occasions, but Clinton either "persuaded" them to change their minds or administered a US veto at the UN to block international action.The Oslo Accords were a failure and their shelf life was rapidly eroding towards the end of President Clinton's tenure. During his reign, he administered vetoes to block international scrutiny and sanctions against Israel for colonizing Palestine and increased US financial and military aid to Israel. In other words, he gave Israel the money and the means to continue the Conflict and to continue to steal and ethnically cleanse Palestinian land.After Clinton, another Evangelical Christian, George W Bush, became President of the United States. During Bush's administration, the Conflict reached its worst condition since the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that occurred from the 1940's through the 1960's. Bush basically allowed Ariel Sharon to do whatever he wanted. Israeli and US policy became one and the same under Bush. The Oslo Accords were completely thrown off the table as Israel reoccupied the small areas of the West Bank it had previously withdrawn from. This caused tensions to be high and following Sharon's visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque with the Israeli army, the second intifada, the Al Aqsa Intifada, was launched by Palestinian's in an attempt to resist the injustice of the Israeli Occupation.It was during Bush's presidency, Israel began plans to construct the Apartheid Wall, which would create cantons of Palestinian reservations enclosed by a wall which reaches 30 feet high. Israel claimed it was building a "Separation" barrier between them and the Palestinians, and had no other intentions. However, the route of the wall and Israel's actions suggests otherwise. The Wall's stated purpose tells us Israel's plan was to racially separate its Jewish citizens from its Arab Palestinian citizens and neighbors. It would keep the Palestinians walled in the world's largest open-air prison, preventing them access to the outside world except for having to go through and being subjected to interrogations to be able to plead with and hope Israel allows you to get out. The Wall's route carves the Palestinian population into Islands separated from each other. It would not follow the line of the pre-1967 borders, but instead it would be placed within the West Bank swallowing half of its territory. On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice - the UN's principal judicial organ - issued an advisory opinion saying the separation barrier was illegal and that construction must stop immediately. The Court also said Israel should make reparations for any damage caused, and that the Assembly and the Security Council should consider what steps to take "to bring to an end the illegal situation" created by the barrier. The US was the only country to vote against the advisory opinion. Next, on July 22, 2004, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted on a resolution demanding Israel comply with the ICJ's advisory opinion. Again, the US voted against the resolution. The General Assembly, however, has no enforcement mechanism and leaves such decisions as sanctions or other actions to be taken against a nation state for the UN Security Council to decide. After passing the matter to the UN Security Council, Bush vetoed the matter allowing Israel to begin to create the map below:As the map clearly indicates, the Apartheid Racist Wall allows Israel to steal half of the land in the West Bank, and President Bush supported this policy. Not only did he support it, but he actually increased US financial and military aid to Israel following the beginning of its construction. Anybody that argues using the term "Apartheid" to describe the wall as unjust, false, or offensive is absolutely clueless as to what Apartheid means. Israel itself calls the wall the "Separation" Barrier. Apartheid is merely a synonym for separation. The word "Apartheid" literally means separation. So Israel, in its own terms, is basically referring to is as the Apartheid Wall.Like presidents before him, President Bush also protected Israel from international scrutiny via pressure or the administration of a US veto. He did so following Israel's reoccupation of the entire West Bank, which in turn allowed Israel to begin constructing the Wall. He also turned a blind eye as Israel was able to build hundreds of thousands of more settlements. Many times, Bush was even willing to use or threaten the use of a US veto in opposition to his European counterparts...none more horrific and inhumane than the veto Bush used in January 2009 just prior to leaving office.The Apartheid WallOn the eve of the 2008 US elections, Israel launched military attacks on the Gaza Strip leading to the death of at least fifteen Palestinians. This would lead to the end of an Israeli-Hamas truce in mid-December, and then Israel launched Operation Cast Lead. The United Nations scrambled to meet and attempt to put an end of the Israeli massacre but the US bullied them in Israel's favor and prevented the Security Council from being able to take action. After abstaining from a UN Security Council Vote on a resolution written by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush would later use a veto to block UN General Assembly Resolution which had passed 142 member states in favor, 4 oppose, and 8 abstentions. Instead of joining the international community in condemning Israel and trying to find a way to put an end to the massacre, Bush sent Israel more weapons resulting in the murders of 1400 Palestinians, including 400 children, in the Gaza Strip in three weeks. Israel's murderous rage ended on the eve prior to President Barack Obama being sworn into office. The Operation seemed to be coordinated to begin on US election day and then end it just prior to the non-Evangelical Christian Democrat, Barrack Obama, took office. President Obama's election brought new hope to the Palestinians and other Arab countries that they finally had a US President that would do the right thing. After all, he said the Palestinians were suffering more than any other people in the world and many other things the Palestinians and Arabs had been waiting decades to hear from a US President. However, Obama has not lived up to expectations and has instead, thus far, continued US policy.Three major events define the current Obama Presidency in relation to the Middle East Conflict. The first occurred on February 18, 2011. The UN Security Council attempted to condemn Israeli plans to expand construction of its colonies, and Obama chose to use the US veto. Once again, actions taken by the US can only be explained as continuing the conflict. There is no other possible outcome from supporting Israel's continued theft of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing of its people. The second major event occurred a few weeks ago when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas presented the Palestinian bid to Statehood at the UN. Obama and the US has actively attempted to derail the Palestinians from seeking statehood via this manner. Obama vows to vote against the UN vote for Palestinian Statehood and use a veto if the matter is directed to the Security Council. The hypocrisy reflected and the depth of the lies told in US and Israeli positions on the Palestinian statehood initiative have reached new highs. On several occasions, people acting on behalf of either Israel and America have said that a state can't be granted by the UN. Really!? How do they sleep with themselves at night after telling such hypocritical and ironic lies? I have one question for them...How did Israel become a state? Exactly! Via the UN! The Palestinians are essentially using the same method as Israel.The third major event took place recently when the US decided to make cuts in Palestinian humanitarian aid. Obama and Congress threatened President Abbas they would do this if he continued his UN bid, and it appears at least Congress has kept its word by passing a veto proof resolution calling for $200 million in aid to be frozen. Surprisingly, the UK Independent article cited above reports the "decision to delay the payments runs counter to the wishes of the Obama administration and reflects Congressional anger at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's so far unrealised pursuit of Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and statehood recognition at the UN." Actually, Obama does not support such actions, however, the resolution to freeze $200 million in aid to the Palestinians is veto proof. If the President were to exercise his veto, Congress has the votes to overturn him. In this case, a veto by the President would actually be counterproductive and a political nightmare for him. I believe the US is to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict. Without US military aid, Israel would not be able to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from Palestine. Israel uses the military aid provided by America to protect its illegal settlement and to enable the farther construction of more Jewish only settlements on Palestinian owned land. It uses US financial aid to pay for the supplies and development of the settlements. Furthermore, when Israel becomes the target of an international probe, America blocks the UN from taking any action. To restate and simplify, the US uses American tax dollars to give Israel both military and financial aid (which Israel is exempt from having to repay the loans). Israel uses its military to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and oppress the Palestinian population in order to develop Jewish only settlements. They also use the military might to forcefully imprison the Palestinians and completely control their lives. After using tanks and bulldozers to clear an area, Israel uses the financial aid the US sends them to pay for the supplies and construction of the new Jewish only settlements that are usually built directly on top and in the spot previous Palestinians lived. The settlement activity is illegal and is repeatedly condemned by the international community, except by the US, of course. American tax payers pay for the military equipment and weapons Israel uses to continue to occupy and oppress the Palestinians. American tax payers and donors paid for the Apartheid Wall. America arms Israel to the teeth. In fact, Israel is considered the world's 10th largest army even though the nation consists of only 6.5 million people. And Israel does not just collect and show off its weapons, she is constantly using them against the civilian population of the Palestinians. When the international community tries to put an end to Israeli War Crimes, America ALWAYS steps in to shield and enable Israel to continue to commit human rights violations against the Palestinians. This is clearly not in the best interest of US security. To put this in perspective, Bush's protection and support of Ariel Sharon from the ICJ, for example, is equivalent to an Arab leader protecting and supporting Osama bin Laden. See The Crimes of Ariel Sharon to farther understand this point. Americans would obviously be pissed at Arabs that protected and supported bin Laden. Likewise can be said about Bush's support and calling Sharon a "Man of Peace" knowing he has murdered tens of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians in cold blood. Arabs are and were rightfully pissed this occurred.If the US did not do these things, I believe the international community would have already resolved this issue. I've provided an outline of the major actions the US has taken towards the conflict in recent history and my opinion. What do you think? Is America to blame for the continuation of the Middle East Conflict?
"The United States policy on settlements in the occupied territories is unchanged and is clear: we oppose new settlements in territories beyond the 1967 lines - settlements [are] contrary to the United States policy; and I will continue to reiterate the policy, and try to persuade the government of Israel that it is counterproductive to go forward with additional settlements in these territories. Our objective is to get the parties to the peace table."
Zone A - The PA has complete control over all civilian administration, and its paramilitary police force is in charge of security. 3% of the West Bank was Zone A Zone B - The PA has full civilian authority but it shares security responsibility with Israel. Joint Israel-PA patrols operate here. 23% of the West Bank was Zone B Zone C - Israel has full control.Israel was committed to handing over more parts of Area C to the Palestinians every six months, but in practice this process occurred only irregularly. 74% of the West Bank was Zone C
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
