Jan 30, 2011

“Rand Paul Demands No More Aid to Israel” - by Rev. Ted Pike

 



RAND PAUL DEMANDS NO MORE AID TO ISRAEL

By Rev. Ted Pike
30 Jan 11

Last year I praised Sen. Rand Paul for his proposal that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be repealed because it gave special rights to some over others. I was criticized in the anti-Zionist right for encouraging an inveterate "bootlicker" of Israel.

But now Paul is again showing himself capable of independent thought and action, demanding that all U.S. aid to Israel be cut off.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday Paul said that "Reuters did a poll, and 71 percent of American people agree with me that when we're short of money, where we can't do the things we need to do in our country, we certainly shouldn't be shipping the money overseas."

When asked by Blitzer if he wanted to halt an annual $3 billion that go to Israel, Paul replied affirmatively, explaining that Egypt receives almost the same amount.

"You have to ask yourself, are we funding an arms race on both sides? I have a lot of sympathy and respect for Israel as a democratic nation, as, you know, a fountain of peace and a fountain of democracy within the Middle East. But at the same time, I don't think funding both sides of the arm race, particularly when we have to borrow the money from China to send it to someone else. We just can't do it anymore. The debt is all-consuming and it threatens our well-being as a country," Paul said. (haaretz.com "U.S. Democrats and pro-Israel lobbies slam Republican Senator's call to halt Israel aid" Jan 28, 2010.)

Despite Paul's obligatory praise for Israel, the bottom line is that a U.S. Senator is now calling for the virtually unprecedented: cutting the financial umbilical cord through which we have sustained Israel for more than a half century.

Christians especially have no duty to sustain the racist and Christian-persecuting state of Israel. (See, 50 Top Israeli Rabbis: Proud to be Racists and Israel's Increasing Anti-Christianity) Far from safeguarding American interests and making friends for America in the Mid East, a century of Zionist theft, terrorism and abrasiveness has violently inflamed the Arab world, not only against Jews but also against Israel's obedient ally, America.

Modern Israel is not that nation of obedient Jews which God says in Scripture He will bring back to peace and safety in the Holy Land. Instead, as the "Great Harlot," "Babylon" she constitutes that rebellious false return of Ezekiel 38 and 39, leading to Jewish dominion over the nations and arrival of Anti-Christ. (See, "Babylon the Great" is Israel)

As such, Sen. Paul lends support to Scripture in its command to Christian America to "come out of" any involvement with this writhing system of oppression and persecution (Rev. 18:4). (See, Israel: On the Way to Empire in the Mideast)

Democrats and the Israeli lobby are already loudly protesting Paul's recommendation. We can expect overwhelming pressure this week (led by ADL) to force Paul to back down and apologize, as he did last year.

Don't let them get away with it! Call Paul's office toll free 1-877-851-6437 right now and let him know that countless Americans stand solidly behind him.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.


NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org




--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

Why did Finkelstein avoid Zionism questions? By David Skrbina, PhD

 



OPINIONS » OTHER VOICES
 
Why did Finkelstein avoid Zionism questions?
By David Skrbina, PhD
Sunday, 01.30.2011, 11:33am

Norman Finkelstein's talk at UM-D on Wednesday was instructive and revealing—though not, I'm sure, in the way he intended. 

The event began with him speaking for about an hour and 20 minutes, mostly on the December 2008 invasion and massacre in Gaza.  He recounted the usual facts about that tragic event, facts that were probably well known to nearly everyone in the lecture hall.  He spent about 20 minutes on the Mavi Marmara incident of last May, and another 10 on recent events.  His talk concluded with no new news, no controversial statements—only the usual condemnation of Israeli atrocities that any decent person would find appalling.

Then came time for questions.  I was the first.  I said:  "Norm, during your talk you offered neither discussion nor criticism of the Zionist project.  This suggests that you find Zionism either irrelevant or unimportant to the question of Palestine.  So I have a three-part question for you: (1) What is your definition of Zionism? (2) What percent of Jewish Americans are Zionists? and (3) Are you a Zionist?" 

For the next 15 minutes, literally, the audience was treated to a rambling, incoherent response that failed to even address, let alone answer, any of the three questions.  This gist of his answer, as far as I can tell, consisted of a dismissal of the term "Zionism" as irrelevant to modern-day society.  Labeling people is counter-productive, he seemed to say.  We don't want to upset anyone, he implied.  Finkelstein ended his reply by stating explicitly, regarding the question of his own Zionism, "I refuse to answer that."  (This non-answer drew applause from a few members of the audience, including Nabeel Abraham of HFCC.)

Moderator Tarek Beydoun then interjected a follow-up question, to the effect that, the first question was indeed relevant, and why won't you answer it?  Finkelstein then launched into yet another (!) 15-minute sprawling non-answer, ending with the suggestion that we all need to "adjust and accommodate" ourselves to the reality of the situation—whatever that means. 

It got no better after that.  Of the few remaining questions, we heard that Norm cares only about the occupation and the civilian killings, and that the rights of Israeli Arabs are of little concern; that "nobody" really believes in equality of all people; and that it is simply not reasonable to allow all Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland ("maybe they should just choose not to return").

Most people left the hall knowing scarcely more than when they went in.  We don't need someone to tell us the obvious.  We need an examination of the ideological basis for the present situation.  We need to expose the power of the Israel Lobby in media and government.  And we need a concrete strategy to restore justice and true democracy to the Middle East.

Perhaps I am too hard on Norm.  Everyone has their limits, and his happen to include only the most obvious and blatant Israeli crimes. This is fine, as far as it goes.  But let's not fool ourselves.  Let's not portray the man as some noble critic of the Zionist state.  In fact he is no critic of Zionism at all; he won't even discuss the matter.

At best, Finkelstein has a very shallow threshold for criticism.  At worst, he is a closet apologist for Zionism.  If American Zionists wanted to create a "safe" critic of the Jewish state, one who would point to only the most obvious flaws while covering up the root causes, they could do little better than Norm Finkelstein.

 

David Skrbina, PhD, is a professor of philosophy at UM-Dearborn.



Peace.
Michael Santomauro 

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?


Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: Text-OnlyDaily Digest • Unsubsc

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

The Arab American News - Why did Finkelstein avoid Zionism questions?

 



OPINIONS » OTHER VOICES
 
Why did Finkelstein avoid Zionism questions?
By David Skrbina, PhD
Sunday, 01.30.2011, 11:33am

Norman Finkelstein's talk at UM-D on Wednesday was instructive and revealing—though not, I'm sure, in the way he intended. 

The event began with him speaking for about an hour and 20 minutes, mostly on the December 2008 invasion and massacre in Gaza.  He recounted the usual facts about that tragic event, facts that were probably well known to nearly everyone in the lecture hall.  He spent about 20 minutes on the Mavi Marmara incident of last May, and another 10 on recent events.  His talk concluded with no new news, no controversial statements—only the usual condemnation of Israeli atrocities that any decent person would find appalling.

Then came time for questions.  I was the first.  I said:  "Norm, during your talk you offered neither discussion nor criticism of the Zionist project.  This suggests that you find Zionism either irrelevant or unimportant to the question of Palestine.  So I have a three-part question for you: (1) What is your definition of Zionism? (2) What percent of Jewish Americans are Zionists? and (3) Are you a Zionist?" 

For the next 15 minutes, literally, the audience was treated to a rambling, incoherent response that failed to even address, let alone answer, any of the three questions.  This gist of his answer, as far as I can tell, consisted of a dismissal of the term "Zionism" as irrelevant to modern-day society.  Labeling people is counter-productive, he seemed to say.  We don't want to upset anyone, he implied.  Finkelstein ended his reply by stating explicitly, regarding the question of his own Zionism, "I refuse to answer that."  (This non-answer drew applause from a few members of the audience, including Nabeel Abraham of HFCC.)

Moderator Tarek Beydoun then interjected a follow-up question, to the effect that, the first question was indeed relevant, and why won't you answer it?  Finkelstein then launched into yet another (!) 15-minute sprawling non-answer, ending with the suggestion that we all need to "adjust and accommodate" ourselves to the reality of the situation—whatever that means. 

It got no better after that.  Of the few remaining questions, we heard that Norm cares only about the occupation and the civilian killings, and that the rights of Israeli Arabs are of little concern; that "nobody" really believes in equality of all people; and that it is simply not reasonable to allow all Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland ("maybe they should just choose not to return").

Most people left the hall knowing scarcely more than when they went in.  We don't need someone to tell us the obvious.  We need an examination of the ideological basis for the present situation.  We need to expose the power of the Israel Lobby in media and government.  And we need a concrete strategy to restore justice and true democracy to the Middle East.

Perhaps I am too hard on Norm.  Everyone has their limits, and his happen to include only the most obvious and blatant Israeli crimes. This is fine, as far as it goes.  But let's not fool ourselves.  Let's not portray the man as some noble critic of the Zionist state.  In fact he is no critic of Zionism at all; he won't even discuss the matter.

At best, Finkelstein has a very shallow threshold for criticism.  At worst, he is a closet apologist for Zionism.  If American Zionists wanted to create a "safe" critic of the Jewish state, one who would point to only the most obvious flaws while covering up the root causes, they could do little better than Norm Finkelstein.

 

David Skrbina, PhD, is a professor of philosophy at UM-Dearborn.



Peace.
Michael Santomauro 
@ 917-974-6367 

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___