Kentucky paper publishes piece describing Palestinians as ‘chosen people’

“The ‘chosen people’ are the oppressed,” is the title of a piece in today’s Kentucky.com, which is published by the Lexington Herald-Leader. The piece is pegged to Israel lobbyists’ opposition to Chuck Hagel, and is notable for its Christian anti-Zionism. Maybe this is a trend in the heartland? Surely it indicates a change in Israel’s image in the U.S. The author is Mike Rivage-Seul, a former priest and professor, and liberation theology adherent:

Individuals like Elliott Abrams and organizations such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee implicitly used that criterion [unconditional support for Israel] to criticize the nominee for failing to offer such support, despite Hagel’s unblemished record of voting for Israel’s interests.

In doing so, the AIPAC and its allies were evidently hoping to find receptive ears in the conservative Christian community which typically constitutes Israel’s strongest support-group on the grounds that the Jews are God’s “chosen people.”

However, even passing acquaintance with the Bible shows that God himself never offered “unconditional support” of Israel, nor did the prophets or Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, the Bible’s stories are largely accounts of Israel’s infidelities, of prophetic criticism of those failures, of their severe punishment by God…

In fact, it might be argued that the Jews were God’s chosen people only insofar as they made up a paradigm of the poor and oppressed when Jacob’s descendents were enslaved in Egypt and exiles in Babylon.

Given that understanding, the Palestinians today far better fit the profile of “chosen people” than do Zionist Jews.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/19/2482073/ky-voices-the-chosen-people-are.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/19/2482073/ky-voices-the-chosen-people-are.html#storylink=cpy

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 0 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Dan Crowther says:

    You can’t out-chosen the chosen. Similarly, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp.

    • W.Jones says:

      Dan,

      Who do you think the apostle Peter was talking about when he wrote:

      “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God“? (1 Peter 2)

      And why do you think that?

      • Taxi says:

        And “Peter’s” credentials are?…

        And a link too please to confirm that the DNA gene pool of the jews some two thousand years ago remains exactly the same today. Just in case it turns out that this “Peter” really does know what he’s talking about.

        • W.Jones says:

          Taxi,

          Peter’s credentials are that he was one of Jesus’ main disciples, next to James. That could mean something or less than nothing from a Rabbinical perspective, but since the quote is from the New Testament, it should be important in Christian circles as to the debate between Christian philosophy and Christian Zionism.

          Who do you think Peter is talking about?

          Regards.

        • Taxi says:

          The point, W.Jones, is that the question of humanitarian justice has NOTHING to do with religion. Some supporters of Palestine are atheists/agnostic/non-abrahamic and are uncomfortable relying on religious mythology or scripture to prove or legitimize their point. Especially mythologies penned by tribes, self-appointing themselves a holier than thou stature.

          One need not rely on the old or new testament to see that supporting the perpetrators of war crimes is downright unconscionably wrong.

          To answer your question, and without any knowledge of what came before or after your quoted passage, for all I know, “Peter” coulda been addressing his other fellow apostles, a posy of Levant pagans, a specific tribe of jews – or he coulda been completely hallucinating before a flock of sheep.

          It’s also not clear to me WHY he says what he says, let alone to whom.

          The passage is a nice bit of waxing lyrical – but no proof of anything whatsoever.

          Do christians out there really need to refer to a bible passage or two to clarify that a war crime, especially an enduring and ongoing one, should be categorically objected to with every fiber in them?

        • Shmuel says:

          Do christians out there really need to refer to a bible passage or two to clarify that a war crime, especially an enduring and ongoing one, should be categorically objected to with every fiber in them?

          Amen.

        • eljay says:

          >> Do christians out there really need to refer to a bible passage or two to clarify that a war crime, especially an enduring and ongoing one, should be categorically objected to with every fiber in them?

          According to Peter, those who suffer must tolerate their suffering:

          1Pe 2:18-19: Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

          Brings a tear the eye, don’t it? ;-)

        • bintbiba says:

          Double and Triple AMEN , Taxi and Shmuel.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Schmuel
          Whenever I am able to get a response from anybody who says they believe in Jesus about issues regarding Israeli conduct and US enablement of same, they always do end up quoting a bible passage (after telling me they are guided by Jesus whom they talk to regularly, and that, in one way or another “there’s some bad apples in every group, so why pick on the Jews?”

          Turns out, the bible passage most often quoted is the same one that is Hagee’s main justification for his beliefs (even though the Christian fundies I know have no clue what “fundy” means, nor “Zionist” or “Zionism” or “Christian Zionist,” and, further, they often never heard of Hagee. Here’s the biblical passage in this context:

          ” Hagee’s Christian Zionism, his reasons for supporting Israel and his theology are explained at his Web site:
          The support of Israel is a biblically based mandate for every Christian. All other nations were created by an act of men, but God Himself established the boundaries of the nation of Israel. God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a covenant of land that was eternally binding, and it’s recorded in the book of Genesis. God also told Abraham that He would make Abraham’s descendants into a great nation and through them He would bless all the families of the earth. In the same passage, God said He would “bless those who bless you” (Abraham), and “curse him who curses you” (Gen. 12:3). That gets my attention. I want to be blessed, not cursed, by God.”

          They want to go to heaven, and therefore support Israel, which they alway conflate with All Jews. They have told me they will gladly send their own kids and yours to support Israel as boots on the ground, and, as well, they will give all their tax money and yours for Israel.

          This is from: link to zionism-israel.com
          That link will take you to the many varieties of formal Christian Zionism.

          The everyday Christian fundies I know would not even register an accusation of “war crimes” against Israel. To them, and again, this is solely from my personal experience, they would read such an accusation as from somebody with a personal ax to grind against the Jewish people AKA Israel, likely because you hate Jews or have a personal relationship, a lover, or friends who are Palestinian.

          As I’ve often said on this blog in this context, these Christian fundies are good neighbors, earnest workers, etc–and they are often very informed with the GOP & Tea Party & Libertarian POVS that fit in there own take on everything–no such intellectual curiosity & itch to investigate, denounce, explain, convince, is spent on any aspect of foreign policy, especially when it comes to anything wrt Israel. It’s simple: The Jews are the chosen people. God wants them to support those people, no matter what–the ultimate what is God’s plan.

        • W.Jones says:

          Dear Taxi,

          I am not sure the point of your post was that “the question of humanitarian justice has nothing to do with religion.”
          link to mondoweiss.net

          You asked what Peter’s credentials were. He could have good credentials on humanitarian justice if he says to have mercy and forgive people.

          Then you allowed what you saw as the unlikely hypothetical where Peter “really does know what he’s talking about.” But you asked that in such a case there be DNA evidence the Jews today were the same group as in Peter’s time.

          Your statement suggests that Peter was talking about the Jews of his time, because you asked for evidence of how his statement was relevant for Jews of today.

          Thus your point was not that Peter could not make an accurate statement about the Jews of his time, rather your point was that his statement would likely be inaccurate if applied to today, because over 2000 years Jews as a group have likely changed so much in their composition.

          :)

        • Thanks for the mind game. ;)

          thanks for revealing so much about your own thinking process wj. ultimately what taxi’s point was is not for you to say, and i didn’t read it that way.

        • RoHa says:

          “Peter’s credentials are that he was one of Jesus’ main disciples, next to James.”

          There is no early evidence of anyone being a disciple of Jesus. In the earliest texts, people are called “apostles” (which means, roughly, “promoter of ideas”) but not “disciples”. The distinction is important, because one cannot be a disciple unless one has met and studied with the master. Anyone can be an apostle.

        • Eva Smagacz says:

          Eljay,

          In its time, when service was not so different from slavery, it was comfort to think that one’s crappy lot in life had a deep spiritual meaning. Not so different from AA meeting really, or even pastoral support in the hospice.

        • eljay says:

          Eljay,
          In its time, when service was not so different from slavery, it was comfort to think that one’s crappy lot in life had a deep spiritual meaning.

          That’s one interpretation. :-)

        • Mooser says:

          “but since the quote is from the New Testament, it should be important in Christian circles as to the debate between Christian philosophy and Christian Zionism.”

          If you don’t believe Christian Scripture should have the force of law, dry up and blow away, allright? And if you think Scripture should have legal backing, please, make that clear.

      • Walid says:

        “Who do you think the apostle Peter was talking about when he wrote…”

        He was talking to and about Jews of that were ” the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”. Peter wanted no part of preaching to non-Jews and wouldn’t even sit or eat with them. He wanted to bring the good word exclusively to the Jews that he thought were the only ones deserving to receive it. Paul’s view’s were completely opposed to Peter’s and he wanted to bring into the fold anyone and everyone that would listen and even quarrelled with Peter about this. The church wasnt going anywhere until Paul took over its marketing and opened it wide open to all the pagans, relaxed the Judaic restrictions and told them they could eat pork and most importantly, no need to get nipped. That’s when membership took off, branches began opening all over the place and it’s been going up since then. It really became Paul’s church because he branched out from the initial Judaic foundation laid and stubbornly held to by J-C.

        Peter today would be a Zionist racist.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Walid
          What you say is exactly what extensive Christian and high secular academic research has revealed. Saul (St Paul) was the ultimate salesman of Christianity, even though Jesus was dead before he was born. As Nietzsche detailed (Christianity as a slave religion), the larger audience was very receptive, those not Jewish who were also feeling without hope to better their sorry lot under Roman rule.

          Pie in the sky is always attractive for those without much to eat.
          In contrast, the Nazi view was that Judaism was “an earth-bound religion.”

          Not hard to see why Jewish Zionists welcome Christian Zionist votes and cash. Personally, I don’t know a single Jew who has any respect for Christian Zionists (and I agree with them), nor do I know a single Christian supporter of Israel (no matter what it does) who even knows a single Jew on an intimate, personal level. I think they could all be converted to rabid anti-semites, judging by their own general sense of ethics in the modest and honest way they live their lives and the way the Nazis turned their mentality into a bedtime story for innocent children.

        • Mooser says:

          Paul’s view’s were completely opposed to Peter’s and he wanted to bring into the fold anyone and everyone that would listen and even quarrelled with Peter about this.

          I think they had slightly different ideas on the place and uses of women in the Church, too.

        • Taxi says:

          Mooser,

          “I think they had slightly different ideas on the place and uses of women in the Church, too”.

          I think you mean ‘usefulness’ and not “uses”. Otherwise your line sounds like something lifted from the Marquis De Sade’s novel, Justine.

        • Hostage says:

          The church wasnt going anywhere until Paul took over its marketing and opened it wide open to all the pagans, relaxed the Judaic restrictions and told them they could eat pork and most importantly, no need to get nipped.

          According to the Christian sources, there wasn’t any disagreement in the final analysis between Peter and Paul on the subject of Gentiles.

          According to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul didn’t go near any Gentiles, until after Peter had already been sent on a Divine errand to preach to a Gentile named Cornelius. It was Peter who addressed the Council in Jerusalem and took credit for being given the first mandate to preach to the Gentiles. It was also Peter who claimed the Gentiles had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit without the need for any preliminaries like getting “nipped” and taking-on the whole “yoke of the law”. He claimed that the salvation of the Jews would also be accomplished in the same fashion (without the law). See Acts 15:11.

          Paul was present and backed-up Peter’s views on that subject. The head of the Council, James, claimed that this was in-line with prophecies from the Jewish scriptures which predicted that God would intervene “to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles” and that they would be part of the people God.

          So when Peter wrote to “God’s elect” who 1) had “been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God through the sanctifying work of the Spirit” that necessarily included those who “had not been a people”, but had nonetheless become “the people of God”. He was addressing all the people that God had (supposedly) “chosen for his name” according to the prophecy recited by James in Acts 15, i.e. both the Jews and their Gentile brethren.

          According to the account in the book of Galatians, it was after the Council in Jerusalem that Paul noticed Peter wasn’t practicing what he’d preached, and corrected him for behaving hypocritically. But according to the same account, Peter acknowledged that Paul was correct and mended his ways. So the Christian sources really don’t support the popular theories that Paul’s views were opposed to Peter’s or that Paul was the inventor of Christian theology regarding the in-gathering of the Gentiles.

          It’s funny that Orthodox Jews don’t encourage Gentiles to be circumcised, study Torah, or observe anything more than 7 so-called “Noahide laws”, but nobody accuses them of pandering to the Pagans.

      • Mooser says:

        “Who do you think the apostle Peter was talking about when he wrote:
        “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God“? (1 Peter 2)’

        Well, I’m no exegesist, but it sounds an awful lot like Peter was talking to somebody he wanted a loan from. A big one. He’s laying it on thick! (1 Potato 2 Potato…)

        I know, the rock on which he wanted to found his Church was in an expensive corner lot, something like that?

    • Dan Crowther says:

      Seems like ol Jonesy took me seriously – I would have thought the reference to the movie “dumb and dumber” would have been a dead give away as to my sarcasm, but let me make it clear: This whole thing about who’s chosen, who’s not, what it means, the responsibilities, privileges etc is really, really DUMB. And it makes anyone involved in these discussions a little dumber, I mean, does anyone seriously believe this “choosing” took place? And I don’t care if its ingrained in people etc etc, it’s nonsense. Full Stop.

      • W.Jones says:

        “Seems like ol Jonesy took me seriously.”
        Looks like I triple stamped it.

        • Mooser says:

          “Looks like I triple stamped it.”

          W.Jones, don’t worry about Dan Crowther’s cynicism. Take heart, cheer up, nobody has proved PT Barnum wrong yet. They’ll be an all-night revival in your tent before you know it. Just keep trying.

  2. pabelmont says:

    Always glad to get a new and refreshing “take” on the Bible, its promises, and the meaning of “chosen”. As I understood it, the Bible (O/T) said something like, “I’ll give you Jews [some] land to keep if you behave, but only if you behave” and the Jews always misbehaved, and “if and when it please me, I’ll send a Messiah to gather you all back to Zion, please wait until I give the word.” The Zionists didn’t wait, disobeyed, and caused a horrible mess, which we call “I/P”.

    As for suffering, the world seems filled up with suffering people, mostly indigenes, but the Jews are no longer very much among them, perhaps proving that they were never (or are no longer) indigenes.

    As Vonnegut said, “So it goes.”

  3. Krauss says:

    Most likely a lone voice in the wind. Still interesting that they ran with it.
    I think unless more Heartland Christians become aware of the crimes against churches too, they will not support the Palestinians because they’ve been so brainwashed.

    Also, a small sidenote: Phil and the rest(Annie, Scott, Adam etc), have you guys seen the cartoon of Bibi in the London Times that ran on Sunday? It’s being smeared as anti-Semitism. What’s your take on it?

      • link to timesofisrael.com

        too close to the bone, eh? Not anti-semitic, but anti-Netanyahu and his deadly policies, imho. There is no indication that it represents anything other than him, and that despot does not stand for all Jews.

        • ritzl says:

          This tweet comparison sums it up: link to twitter.com (Compares a really nasty Scarfe depiction of Assad with this mildly nasty depiction of Netanyahu).

          Nothing antisemitic about the Netanyahu cartoon. Nothing at all. It’s an unflattering characterization of a fugly real man and his fuglier engineered reality. Emphasis on reality. Oh, heck, emphasis on fugly.

          The timing might, arguably, have been better, but then maybe it was spot on as a contrast/reminder. Stop doing it, Israel! Maybe the cartoons will turn around.

          Also, Scarfe appears to have a John Waters/Pink Floyd connection.

          Sorry to go OT. Thanks Kraus and JWP. The reaction to this is incredibly enlightening. And watch, nobody is going to defend him. Equally enlightening.

        • Krauss says:

          link to ynetnews.com

          Now Murdoch has gone over the head of his editors and apologized.

          I’m divided over the cartoon. There are classic anti-Semitic themes invoked, but the actual subject of the cartoon is about Netanyahu and his pro-Apartheid policies which can be described as literally built on the blood on innocents. So in that sense, it’s correct. But yes, on publishing it on Holocaust Rememberance Day was bad timing, something the cartoonist later admitted. Nonetheless, I think the basic message is correct but it could have been done more subtly(for example, by portraying Netanyahu as something different than a classic Jew with a big nose).

        • Avi_G. says:

          Such hypocrisy on the part of Israel, Netanyahu and their defenders.

          What ever happened to freedom of speech and to truth? After all, that is precisely the defense Israel’s apologists bandy about when they criticize Moslems for taking offense to the well-known Muhammad cartoon. And this cartoon doesn’t even bring Judaism or religion into the discussion, it is merely a criticism Netanyahu’s policy. So what’s the big deal?

        • thanks jwp and krauss. i drafted this right after you posted today. hopefully it will go up tomorrow…old news by then. oh well. it’s a killer cartoon. we need more like it. the image hardly does the crime justice anyway. much more blood has been spilled and too many victims. the cartoon is mild in comparison to the crime.

        • JennieS says:

          link to google.co.nz

          Have a look at some other Scarfe cartoons – large & red noses are frequent. At least he hasn’t portrayed Netanyahu biting someone’s head off as he did with Thatcher.

        • Hostage says:

          Such hypocrisy on the part of Israel, Netanyahu and their defenders.

          Let’s face it. Building fortified walls and fences to keep others isolated is this Bozo’s legacy:

          *January 18, 2013, On the campaign trail this month, Mr Netanyahu visited Israel’s fortified border fence with Egypt, built to keep out what the government and some Israeli media call “infiltrators”, including African migrants. link to ft.com

          *“Netanyahu announced that he intends to support the [Gaza] disengagement after the three conditions he posed were met …including completion of the fence before the evacuation.” See Itamar Eichner and Nehama Duek, Yediot Aharonot, 19 April 2004.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Which “classic antisemitic themes” exactly, more precision so we know if to buy or not.
          As for noses, wrongity wrong. This here is a straight or even upturned WASP nose. The Classic Nose is Hittite:
          link to etc.usf.edu

        • Walid says:

          The timing is definitely bad. But why doesn’t the UN have rememberance days for other catastrophes that happened, such as those of the Armenians, the Amerindians, Palestinians, Serbians, and so on? Nothing wrong with the UN commemorating the Jewish holocaust on January 27th, but why not other ones too?

        • American says:

          “(for example, by portraying Netanyahu as something different than a classic Jew with a big nose).”….Krauss

          Well what do you want him portrayed as?…..he does have a classic big nose, people with big noses are caricatured with big noses—you want to give him a skinny wasp nose and big ears like the Bush Jr caricatures?
          Get over it, there’s nothing anti semitic in the cartoon…it’s aimed at him and Israel.

        • ritzl says:

          Sorry, Roger Waters. Argh.

        • Mooser says:

          “it’s a killer cartoon.”

          I liked Tony Greenstein’s article on the Scarfe cartoon..
          Testing link now. Okay.

    • Inanna says:

      My take is that when the prophet Muhammad gets pilloried in the press, it’s freedom of speech but when the Israeli PM gets pilloried in the press it’s anti-semitism. The problem for the hypocrites is that a good case can be made to criticise Netanyahu based upon his policies, which kill Palestinians and steal their land. This is an entirely rational hatred of Netanyahu’s policies and I hope the Sunday Times stands by its cartoonist.

    • Carowhat says:

      The cartoon is offensive. But not because of the idea conveys–that Netanyahu’s wall is killing the Palestinians, but because the execution of the cartoon counter-productively reminds the viewer of Nazi depictions of German Jews in the thirties. Perhaps the cartoonist intended that. If so, he made a bad mistake.

      • Avi_G. says:

        but because the execution of the cartoon counter-productively reminds the viewer of Nazi depictions of German Jews in the thirties.

        Look at Netanyahu. He’s got huge ears and a big nose. The cartoonist captured him quite accurately. This has nothing to do with stereotypes or anti-Semitism.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Avi_G, Gee, I thought Bibi looked like Pat Boone. A big nose is not even inflammatory these days. Barb S showed it was OK. When American culture wants to denigrate a culture these days, it snatches up the likes of Pat Boone.
          This has been a pillar of Hollywood teen movies for decades, Adam Sandler is the American apple pie–even when he’s f***ing it.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “…but because the execution of the cartoon counter-productively reminds the viewer of Nazi depictions of German Jews in the thirties.”

        Oh, bull. It only is a reminder of them if you want them to be. (And zionists really want them to be because it gives them power of non-zionists.) Being depicted as a blood-thirsty villan comes with the territory. Anyone who has such a knee-jerk victimization complex that the cartoon depiction of a 21st Century israeli PM “reminds [them] of Nazi depictions of German Jews in the thirties” needs to have his head examined.

        • Carowhat says:

          Oh bull to you. Before seeing the cartoon I was expecting (and hoping) to be amused or impressed by it. I was neither. The cartoonist had a good idea and ruined it with his crude execution.

          As far as my having a victimization complex, I don’t think so. I am not Jewish and I certainly don’t walk around hoping to see something I can claim offends me. I’ll go further. I think people who compare everything they don’t like to Hitler or the Holocaust are just plain dumb (or dishonest). Even so, my first reaction to the cartoon was dismay that it gave such an easy target for Netanyahu apologists.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The cartoonist had a good idea and ruined it with his crude execution.”

          So how does your subjective disappointment with the cartoon translate into, “reminds the viewer of Nazi depictions of German Jews in the thirties”? Which, by the way, is objectively patent nonsense. I’ve dozens if not hundreds of those cartoons. This one looked nothing like them. Not even close. This one is a rather generous caricature of Netanyahoo.

          “Even so, my first reaction to the cartoon was dismay that it gave such an easy target for Netanyahu apologists.”

          Yes, and that’s the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about. The cartoon is objectively fine: Netanyahoo is the leader of a state that has been spilling Palestinian blood and builing its apartheid wall (both literally and figuratively) for years and decades. The only way the cartoon could be an “easy target” by reminding viewers of the Stürmer Jewish cartoons is if one believes that ANY depiction of a Jew in the proximity of blood is the same as the Stürmer pictures. That, though, is objectively nonsense and anyone who thinks that needs mental health care.

        • Mooser says:

          “…but because the execution of the cartoon counter-productively reminds the viewer of Nazi depictions of German Jews in the thirties.”

          It should be easy to come up with an image from image-archives of a Der Sturmer cartoon, or something, maybe. But you might have a hard time proving the cartoonist was using that image as a model.
          Generally, I don’t think Jews were pictured as masons, an honorable and hardworking trade much appreciated in Germany.

    • Taxi says:

      The caption at the bottom of the cartoon reads:
      “Will continuing peace continue?”

      Oh boy is the zio jig globally up or what?!

      Yeah I gots no problem with the image, the caption OR the timing.

  4. Hostage says:

    See Sunday Times of London defends anti-Semitic cartoon as ‘typically robust’
    link to israelmatzav.blogspot.com

    I think it’s a pretty good likeness of the Jewish Prime Minister. After all he’s responsible for permitting the IDF to shoot Palestinian teenagers in order to secure his expanded borders inside the West Bank against “unauthorized entry” or to kill anyone who dares approach the Gaza fence.

  5. yourstruly says:

    god never offered unconditional support of israel?

    nor did jesus?

    palestinians?

    the chosen people?

    updated?

    only this time for real?

  6. American says:

    ‘Maybe this is a trend in the heartland? ‘

    (sigh)….been telling you.
    I do think the mainline Christian Churches and their activities have contributed to the uptick in Anti Israelism.
    But around my area it is the political angle and the lobby more so than the humantarian issue of Palestine.
    However there is a lot of activity on I/P for Palestine in the universities here, Duke, UNC, Wake Forest.
    All the zios who think Amercians “luv’ Israel really should get out more…….lol.

    • W.Jones says:

      American,

      Wouldn’t you say that in general American people don’t care, but that there is a small group of leftists that are critical and bigger group of C.Zionist supporters, with most of the rest of the supporters falling into the “liberal Zionist” category due to cultural ties?

      • Ellen says:

        “small group of Leftist” is framing. the mark of a dishonest question as it frames the answer before it is given. Especially using the subjective term, “Leftist” to describe those who are critical if the Zionist project.

        Most Americans, like most everywhere, do not care. There is, however, a growing group across all walks if life that is critical, even sickened, by the Zionist enterprise.

        Supporters of Zionism are surely found among Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. But even this group is now beginning to question their support.

        This Kentucky newspaper opinion piece is evidence of this. Recent personal experiences in the “heartland” also point to that.

        • Betsy says:

          Yes, Ellen, good point. It is significant that the Lexington Herald-Leader was willing to run this op-ed. I do think it means that the ‘frames’ are shifting. This is a newspaper that is quite concerned not to appear ‘out of the mainstream’ because it has been vulnerable in past to accusations from Far Right of being ‘liberal’. If the Herald-Leader runs a piece, it means that the topic has become part of what’s acceptable debate in the ‘mainstream’. It is not a conservative paper, but it’s a very cautious one — always striving for ‘balance’. It is in a county that voted for Obama, but surrounded by ‘red’ counties — and the Rand & Mitch forces are always on the prowl around it. I think that this piece would not have been accepted several years ago — and I suspect the mainline churches recent stands are what legitimated this for the H-L. The author is a ‘social justice’ or ‘left’ Christian — but the newspaper would have refused the piece if this perspective weren’t now acceptable within mainstream debate.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Ellen
          Yeah, I think there is a very slow growth of informed American citizens that one day Zionists will fear. But it’s like molasses being poured into the social body. It may take WW3.

        • ritzl says:

          Thanks, Betsy. Good insight.

        • Mooser says:

          Betsy, Ellen, thanks.

      • “small group of leftists”

        seriously w.jones, wake up. the israeli foreign ministry doesn’t spend 100 million a year on hasbara for a ‘small group of leftists.’

        • Citizen says:

          @ Annie Robbins
          Yes they do. A flooding of Zionist cash-strewn over-reaction has been true since Truman, and it has always worked. Truman burned a big pile of orchestrated pro-Zionist Israel recognition letters, but he still unilaterally recognized Israel against the wisdom of both his own State Dept and Diplomatic Corps. Reason? As Truman said, I have lots of Jewish citizen help, but none from Palestinians, and the Zionist who pounded on his desk let him know if he did do what they said, Dewey would get the Jewish cash and key NY votes. Nothing has changed, has it? Bill Kristol knows the score. Wake up.

        • citizen, nothing in your comment supports the allegation the resistance to the lobby today is a ‘small group of leftists’. maybe you missed the dem convention vote over jerusalem, or was that your small group?

        • W.Jones says:

          Annie,

          I want to “wake up” to a wide range of Americans who feel deeply and critically about this issue. May “good dreams” come true!

          Yours,
          W.J.

        • hey wj, now i like that positive thinking!

        • Citizen says:

          @ Annie R,

          You’re right. But I still think the Zios will always spend a ton of cash to effectively muzzle said ‘small group of leftists’ as they fear its growth. I did not miss the dem convention vote over jerusalem–three (vocal) hits and that group was out, sorta like reverse base ball.

        • citizen, yes of course they will continue to spend a ton of cash countering us. but remember a large portion of that cash goes to convincing us we are just a little fringe group, and convincing everyone else we are a fringe group. that is why something like the televised vote at the dem convention is so threatening to them. it is absolutely imperative (to them) we think we are alone, isolated, and most of all…fringe.

          i have repeated time and again the trajectory of israel’s reputation is directly in proportion of the growth of the internet, because it takes the power out of the msm and shifts it to the people.

          here’s something i read recently (and please don’t tell anyone i read this site because it is hideous, but this part of it is true):

          Human minds subconsciously equate mass media with mass opinion. Hearing it on TV is like hearing it from hundreds of acquaintances. Media has the power of millions of gossiping tongues. Media owners and governments that influence them have staggering control over minds. They persuade the entire population by fooling every person that the entire population already believes this or that, and he should follow. Never before has mass opinion been so centralized and so easily manipulated.

          Throughout history, public opinion has served as a filter for truth. Facts and propositions, slowly permeating through society, were refused or accepted on a personal level. Every person received a particular piece of news from his neighbors, whom he knew to be fallible. He, therefore, took the news with a degree of doubt. Even when he credulously accepted the facts, he still interpreted them and formed his own opinion. Some crazy ideas did overtake the masses, but most facts were interpreted with common sense.

          It is very different today, when consumers hear from TV screens what is purported to be universally accepted opinion. The rational part of their minds protests the obvious lies, but the subconscious part refuses to rebel against TV opinions. The universal reach of TV broadcasts is equated with their universal acceptance, and evolution taught human beings (except the leftists) that universally accepted opinions are either true or that going against them is too troublesome.
          Theoretically, media also provide unprecedented access to opinions, including truthful ones. Such variety is of no importance to most people, who are unable to analyze and develop their own judgments. They can read truth on many sites on the Internet, but would still believe the government line.

          i reject the idea variety is of no importance to most people, who are unable to analyze and develop their own judgments. They can read truth on many sites on the Internet, but would still believe the government line.

          i think all it takes is one person saying loudly the emperor is naked and then the next person admits they see no clothes either. and at some point there is a tipping point, the 100th monkey.

          freeing palestine is not a fad. this is not just a ‘few year phase’ of bad press for israel. what has become obvious to the most casual observer is that israel is only flexible wrt how it frames its policies (incredibly creative and diverse, best hasbara on the planet) but completely inflexible wrt changing those policies. you just can’t hide behind lies and framing forever but one of the most effective forms of resistance to truth is convincing people to be silent and fear outing themselves. to convince people the ones who think like they do are weird or fringe.

          our numbers are great and growing, we are no longer fringe. we are mainstream. maybe not mainstream media, but mainstream. i know we are.

        • Mooser says:

          “A flooding of Zionist cash-strewn over-reaction….”

          So Americans would be just as Zionist if the Zionists didn’t spend all that cash (media, political contributions…)? Next you’ll tell me Americans would be just as Zionist if they knew the facts. You either have a very low opinion of Americans, or a very high opinion of Zionism, but I’m not smart enough to figure out which it is.
          The Zionist don’t spend that money because they don’t have to. They spend it because it takes a huge vomiting maw of misinformation and bribes (of one kind or another) to support their enterprise.

        • Mooser says:

          “seriously w.jones, wake up. the israeli foreign ministry doesn’t spend 100 million a year on hasbara for a ‘small group of leftists.’”

          Gee, I don’t ask for much, never hurry or harass the Moderator, try to be nice to everybody, but I do have one request. Please, can we figure out if Zionism (and/or anti-Zionism) is on the “left” or “right”? I mean, it would be really nice, and settle a lot of arguments. So let’s get a consensus, or put it to a plebiscite:
          Zionism– Right? or Left?
          Anti-Zionism—– Right? or Left?

          I’ll go along with whatever you folks decide. I’m easy, like (as I have mentioned before) Sunday morning. And yes, now that you mention it, I want a Sunday kind of love, but, who doesn’t?

      • American says:

        W. Jones says:

        American,

        Wouldn’t you say that in general American people don’t care,”>>>>

        Yes I do agree. Explained that many times myself…..Israel is not something your average American pays any attention to, not a concern of theirs unless something draws their attention to it.
        And I agree that it is a group of leftist that do most of the I/P advocating…how small they are I can’t say, they seems to be pretty wide spread and active in the larger cities in the state and around the universities.
        And I can really only say what I have observed and conversations in my particular area on Israel among people who follow politics or even listen to msn news . This not a big Christian zionist area, it’s more a traditional mainline Church area and I don’t personally know any christian zios, they just aren’t very active or visible in the community here.
        In the conversations among the people I talk to, as I said, they are “politically” critical of Israel re the US.
        NC is more mixed and somewhat more ‘modern’ than the deep South but it’s still traditionally Southern , particular in the rural and small town areas, in the sense of what they regard as ‘patriotic’ I guess you could say….’conservative’ here has a different meaning than it does in deeper South, not so religiously attached, more about US fiscal policy and etc.. In reality it is probably more like Libertarian than conservative except they aren’t so quite anti war, the sentiment there is more strong ‘defense’ but not the US as the world cop or entangling itself in wars abroad. All the newspapers in eastern part of the state are owned by a Libertarian group and their editorials reflect that. I don’t know anyone that thinks of Israel as like the US ‘culturally’ , to them it’s just a foreign country, friendly or not friendly.

        • Citizen says:

          @ American

          Yeah, I agree most Americans really don’t care about Israel or the Palestinians’ plight. Meanwhile, impoverished Americans sure fork over enough money and American prestige ( Israel pockets are UN SC Veto) to Israel. How do you get average Americans to realize that they are being had in those ways (while Israel keeps grabbing foreign land?

        • American says:

          @ Citizen,

          I think more and more people are realizing it…..certainly a lot more than when I first started paying attention 11 years ago. In the last 2-3 years it’s really been like an explosion. Like I said among those I know it’s very political criticism involving both US aid and the abnormal influence of a lobby for foreign country that is a minority interest and not theirs….it’s part of the outrage/criticism about corruption and special interest in government. I see the basically the same thing reflected in net comments by the public on msm comment boards that I hear here…the concentration is on how it is detrimental to the US….more so than about Palestine…there is some mention and outrage on that but not as much as the other. Although I will say, as before, I think the mainline churches activity on I/P has stirred up more interest in I/P,– politics and churches being the main grapevines in NC . I see coverage on pro Palestine and pro or anti Israel activities around the universities covered by the Raleigh News & Observer that I didn’t see before. Didn’t hardly see ever the State paper cover those activities and the controversy until the past year or so.
          What will make more American really get in the fight?….imo Israel and the Zios will do something that makes them. It might be something big or it could be something that’s just the last display of hubris where the accumulation of all the previous Israel and zionist lobby over reaches just sets off the public. Everything they do builds up impressions, the Iran -Israel thing, the Israel in the US elections thing, this latest Hagel thing. The zios think, I guess, no one hears this or doesn’t understand what they hear when politicians swear allegiance to Israel…and when people hear it they don’t like but it’s not something they see they have to do anything about “immediately”. But it’s like anything that get lodged in minds by repetition…..so when something does happen to offend or threaten people even more by the Israel ‘thing’ all those past snippets are added to it in their minds… everything they’ve heard will have already supplied their conclusions and opinions on whatever it is that finally pisses them off. I hope the Zios do keep acting out and throwing their weight around….they will eventually ruin themselves.

        • Walid says:

          “I think more and more people are realizing it…..certainly a lot more than when I first started paying attention 11 years ago.”

          It’s good, American, but not good enough to make any difference in the next 100 years. There’s a lot of Americans, but they’re not all reacting as you and I wish they would and in the ongoing tug o’ war, the bad guys have something like 25 or 50 million American end-timers pulling with them or in the least supporting them while most of the rest of the Americans just munching on their hot dogs and enjoying the show. Most of the media people are also on the side of the bad guys so how can you expect an improvement?

        • seafoid says:

          Walid

          “Not good enough to make any difference in the next 100 years.”

          If you asked Newt Gingrich in 96 if there would be majority support in the US for gay marriage within 20 years he would have laughed at you.

          Never underestimate the power of the rotation of the generations.

        • American says:

          @ Walid

          Walid, some time ago I did a breakdown on all the christian zionist churches and their membership from the 2010 US Census on religious affiliation. I also researched every single domination from Mormons, all the different groups of Evangelicals, etc to find their official position on Israel. Not all Evangelicals for instance support zionism or Israel, some even have a Church position against it. It’s on MW if you want to use my archive to find it…it was probably a year or so ago.
          The numbers of christian zionist are no where near 25 or 50 million—they come in at around 10-12 million tops…including the TV churches like Hagee.

          The only impact these religious groups have in the US, since the churches can’t make direct political donations, is in their members voting in elections. To compare the 10 million vote for instance, consider that Hispanics now number 55 million in the US and 14 + million of them vote and are primiliary Catholic and liberal.

          I am not saying these christian zios have no political influence (on the politicians they vote for) but it is not to the extent or numbers they are hyped to have.
          The Zionist, because they want zionism and Israel to taken as supported by most Americans—and those like Hagee naturally want to portray themselves as larger, representing more than they really do, they want to be seen as having a lot of clout…..it’s like politicians who claim they represent ‘what Americans want or think…..they try to make themselves appear to be ‘leaders’ representing a large block or the majority block.

        • Walid says:

          Hope you’re right, seafoid.

        • Walid says:

          American, looks like I was spooked along with the rest of the people in thinking the Christian Zionists are more important that what they are. Thanks.

        • walid, checkout ellen’s comment

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • seanmcbride says:

          American,

          This would be an interesting exercise: identify which mainstream media owners, companies, outlets and shows from the 1970s through the present have played the greatest role in promoting the power and influence of Christian Zionists in American politics and culture.

          In particular, which TV news shows during those decades were most aggressive in presenting Christian Zionists to the American public as authorities on Christianity and domestic and international politics?

          There is a very big story there. This has been a neocon op from the word go.

        • sean, another interesting thing to look at would be which msm news stories originated from link to cbn.com

          and this is just non stop: link to cbn.com

        • American says:

          @sean…

          I am trying to think where I have seen the christian zionist played up as a big political force for Israel or in the US in the msm and really can’t think of many …seems mostly they are lumped in with ‘far right’ by the talking heads. Maybe they have been promoted/pushed that way in the media and I just haven’t’ noticed..

          To best of my memory I wouldn’t have know much about them or looked into them without the net where the Pro- I crowd pushes the ‘christian’ and zionist connection and some articles and exposes on them—a couple in the WP years ago and Mother Jones and a few others that publish investigative pieces.
          There was a series on them years ago in the WP where the writer joined up with the Kaye Minister group or whatever her name is and attended one of their big conferences in DC. The most revealing thing in that series was the description of Kaye telling the audience that their first allegiance was to Israel above the US. The author described a “dead silence” in the audience after she said that and then a mumbling running Thru the audience..it wasn’t well received evidently.
          My experience not with christian zios, but very conserative religious is that they will ‘drop’ any of their religious ‘convictions’ if it gets to the point where it actually threatens their other basic way of life or welfare. Seen that happen often in questions of medical treatments like stem cell research when they or some family member has a disease that that kind of research has been touted as potential for life saving….saw it happen to an extreme religious family when a sister had cancer and the doctors mentioned the day coming when stem cell research could offer cures….they changed their religious convictions on that overnight. My bet is even for christian zios if the day comes their ordinary lives in the US are disrupted or threatened by their Israel support they will opt for their own basic life welfare. A lot of people talk a good game but if you went out and offered one of them their dreamed of ride to heaven from Jerusalem right this minute I bet you wouldn’t have many takers.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Annie,

          That would be an excellent line of investigation into this topic — how have CBN propaganda themes been channeled into the mainstream media and who in the mainstream did the channeling?

          What most strikes me is that leaders of the mainstream Christian community — people with much greater authority within the Christian world than Christian Zionists, who tend to be much more intelligent and better educated than Christian Zionists, and who are often critical of Israeli policies — have for the most part been shut out of the mainstream media — they have been effectively censored.

          This should be a huge story. The largely neocon-dominated mainstream media have grotesquely distorted the views of American Christian culture in their efforts to turn the Christian community into a weapon of blunt force wielded by the Israeli government.

          It could be time for a major revolt by the real Christian majority in the United States.

        • i think that’s what the recent letter to congress signed by 15 representatives of mainstream christian churches was all about sean.

        • American says:

          I have wondered why there are these religious channels on cable and some of them are basically small unheard of groups…or I guess only known about by their followers. I guess there could be some arrangement by the powers that be to promote these programs. I don’t see how some of the smaller ones could be paying big bucks or how networks could be making piles of money off them,..it’s curious.

          Does anyone know how to find ratings and number of viewers for these programs?

        • Walid says:

          I read it, Annie, thanks. Interesting how the number of Catholics is rising because of the Hispanics. From what Ellen is saying, they are too preoccupied with other things to be thinking about cheering Zionist misdeeds. I’d be curious to know how much of the support Israel is geting is from people actually empathizing with it and how much is due to the guilt thing they are constantly being bombarded with by Israel. The “chosen people” and the “promised land” are parts of the guilt schtick.

        • seanmcbride says:

          Annie,

          One hopes that that letter is the beginning of a volcanic social, cultural and political eruption — I am betting that those leaders have reached the limits of their patience on these issues — they are going to start fighting back in defense of their own most sacred values.

          The notion that people like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Michele Bachmann are the standard bearers of authentic and mainstream Christianity is risible.

          The Israeli government and the Israel lobby have attempted to manipulate Christian fundamentalists in the United States in the same way they manipulated Maronite Christians in Lebanon — and they have been far more successful in this op than most of us would have predicted. What has most enabled their success in this project is censoring and silencing more influential and authoritative voices in the Christian community.

        • seanmcbride says:

          American,

          This is what needs to be done: build a database of guest appearances by Christian Zionists on Fox News, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and some other mainstream outlets during the last few decades. I think there have been many more of those appearances than you realize — thousands, without exaggeration.

          Mainstream Christian voices have been almost entirely shut out in the mainstream media, obviously by design and deliberation. The neocons have been running an op to hijack Christianity in the United States and to use Christians as cannon fodder and in their endless wars for Greater Israel.

          This is a controversial assertion, I know, but it is easy to back up with mountains of documentation that are a snap to assemble with Google.

        • Hostage says:

          That would be an excellent line of investigation into this topic — how have CBN propaganda themes been channeled into the mainstream media and who in the mainstream did the channeling?

          Bear in mind that my neighbors out here in the Bible Belt have been jumping all the way to the ends of their collective chain for years over the CBN reports about persecution of Christians and Messianic Jews in Israel. What they want to know is why the mainstream media won’t touch these stories for love nor money? See for example: Messianic Jews Persecuted – CBN.com

        • Mooser says:

          “How do you get average Americans to realize that they are being had in those ways…”

          Citizen, please! Are you talking about giving kids a basic political education, appropriate to Americans? You want the whole goddam country over-run with hippies again?

        • Mooser says:

          “i think that’s what the recent letter to congress signed by 15 representatives of mainstream christian churches was all about”

          Annie, you don’t think it was part of “Zionising the Christian culture”? If you saw the list of what these Zionist’s do, you’d know. I forget which number it is, but they play “head games”!

        • Mooser says:

          “I have wondered why there are these religious channels on cable and some of them are basically small unheard of groups…or I guess only known about by their followers.”

          Gee, I’ve got an idea! Why not look at the “Must Carry” laws, which gave these stations a free ride on the TV satellites! Why I think it was St. Ronnie who gave us that one! You see, all the churches were complaining that if the couldn’t have nation-wide reach, the country would get Zionised, so Ronnie gave them special broadcast status. Look it up. Maybe it was Carter.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Mooser
          Mooser was responding to this from me: “Yeah, I agree most Americans really don’t care about Israel or the Palestinians’ plight. Meanwhile, impoverished Americans sure fork over enough money and American prestige ( Israel pockets are UN SC Veto) to Israel. How do you get average Americans to realize that they are being had in those ways (while Israel keeps grabbing foreign land?”

          It’s not just American kids;, but all Americans who need to know Israel could care less about Americans,what ever their age. Don’t know what Mooser is implying by referring to hippies….

        • Citizen says:

          @ Walid
          That’s how I see it too from my perch in ordinary Florida (on the other side of the state than Boco Rotan, Miami Beach, etc.

        • are we talking about the same letter mooser?

          link to mondoweiss.net

          i have to agree with sean’s point the propaganda themes (about christian views in america) channeled by the mainstream media mainly reflects christian zionist views wrt israel. and i think because of that phenomena qe will begin to see more pushback from mainstream christian churches, because there are millions of christians who do not identify themselves as christian zionists. so that’s what i meant by “that’s what the recent letter to congress signed by 15 representatives of mainstream christian churches was all about.”

          it didn’t get a lot of press, some but not alot. these views are marginalized by the msm. it’s not limited to the churches, non zionists views are rarely covered by the msm.

    • FreddyV says:

      Zionism has been twisting Christians around to an exciting end times theology for over 100 years now which demands the Jews return to the geographic territory of Israel in order for Jesus to return.

      The problem is, the theology is woefully false, poor and easily refuted. Those who actually take the trouble of checking it out come away feeling conned into supporting the antithesis of the basic tenets of their faith.

      There is an upswing in Christians challenging Christian Zionist teaching and I think it’s going to reach a tipping point where either enough people will wake up to the false teaching, or Israel will do something that will be too much for Christians to stomach, then we’ll see a massive falling away. Politicians won’t feel they need to support Israel to keep constituents happy and unconditional US support will end.

      I’d prefer Israel to make a tough peace with Palestine and their neighbours before it comes to this, but I think Israel is on a suicide mission. It sadly won’t happen.

      • seanmcbride says:

        FreddyV

        Zionism has been twisting Christians around to an exciting end times theology for over 100 years now which demands the Jews return to the geographic territory of Israel in order for Jesus to return.

        1. cultural engineering
        2. head games
        3. mass mind control
        4. Mossad Manchurian Candidates
        5. preying on the mentally challenged
        6. psychological manipulation
        7. psychological warfare
        8. psyops
        9. social engineering

        So far the operation has been enormously successful, ensnaring many influential Americans — especially influential American politicians. American Christian culture has been largely Zionized.

      • JeffB says:

        There is an upswing in Christians challenging Christian Zionist teaching and I think it’s going to reach a tipping point

        Darby and Scofield have been challenged by mainstream Christian teachers for 2 centuries. There is no upswing the denominations that rejected Dispensationalism and more broadly Premillenialism. With Pentecostalism likely to overtake Catholicism (which is Amillennialist) as the dominant form of Christianity on the planet within the next generation I’d say you are dead wrong about any move towards rejection.

        I don’t want to get into debating Christian theology since I suspect neither one of us believes it, but no it is not easily refuted. If it were easily refuted it would have been refuted a long time ago, there certainly have been plenty of people who have tried.

        • Citizen says:

          JeffB
          Yeah, I think you are right. The names Darby and Scofield are not even known by the Christian fundies I know, even though they take their interpretation as straight from God. I agree the Christians equipped with that stupid stuff indeed deserve it. All cannon fodder and tax fodder. If I was a Jew I’d never let my daughter or son near any of them. Actually, any educated and reasonable parent would agree.

        • Hostage says:

          With Pentecostalism likely to overtake Catholicism (which is Amillennialist) as the dominant form of Christianity on the planet within the next generation I’d say you are dead wrong about any move towards rejection.

          FYI, Pentecostalism is generally seen as incompatible with fundamentalist dispensationalism. The latter denies the continuing validity of “spiritual gifts” and claims that things like “divine healing” or “speaking in tongues” are part of a previous dispensation that have died-out (cessationism).

          So on the website of christianzionism.org you’ll find materials from Pentecostals talking about the need for Christian peace makers to deal ethically with the plight of the Palestinians and counseling about the need for love, not war. That sounds like the opposite of the policy advanced by the Israel Lobby to me. link to christianzionism.org

        • Ellen says:

          I don’t want to get into debating Christian theology… JeffB, right you should not go there. You just demonstrated you are absolutely clueless about Christianity and Catholicism or Pentecostalism.

          In spite of ignorance, you make sweeping statements on Christianity as if they were facts. (Another tactic of framing.) This woeful ignorance is the basis of your argument where it seems your are claiming that a form of fundamentalism is supportive of Zionism.

          And this form of Christianity is soon to take over Catholicism as the largest organized Christian Church. (Then you go on to paint Catholicism as an end-of -times” theology.)

          As an aside: In 1995 there 65.7 million self-identified Catholics in the US. By 2012 there 78.2 self identified Catholics in the US. (See link to cara.georgetown.edu)

          The fastest growing regions of Catholics is in the US South. (Home to the largest Baptist and Methodist population.) ” The Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina, for instance, is dealing with the twin facts that over 95 percent of its Catholics were not born in that state and that, in the past 15 years, more Spanish-speaking people have settled in this state than in any other state in the country. ” link to americancatholic.org

          Charismatic Christianity or Pentecostalism is fragmented, and there are no reliable statistics on the growing population. “While the predominantly white U.S. Pentecostal denominations have seen their growth rates level off in recent years, non-white churches are exploding. This is especially true for Hispanic congregations.” link to christianitytoday.com

          This is a growing population, but not one with concerns for Israel, but rather immediate and grave social concerns in their own communities — poverty, drug and human trafficking, etc.

          Zionists will face increasing challenges getting Charismatic-Pentecostalism to adopt the Zionist enterprise as their own.

          Traditional Catholicism does not adopt the Bible as literal text, but as a symbolic, inspired text. The rapture gig will not fly with that group.

        • W.Jones says:

          Ellen,
          More important than the issue of Bible as symbolic vs literal is the issue of Church tradition. Some Catholics believe in a 7 day Creation and Noah’s flood in a simplistic way. However, C.Zionism is not part of Catholic tradition, so it would be very hard to insert it there as a religious teaching. The Pope is in Rome, not in the US with the C.Zionist movement. That being the case, it makes Protestant groups more susceptible, because they don’t have strong pressure to rely on Church tradition (although they often rely on it).

          I’m not saying Catholicism hasn’t invented things over many hundred years, but like I said, the Pope is in Rome.

        • Mooser says:

          “American Christian culture has been largely Zionized.”

          I was hoping that Ellen or Betsy could tell us something about that! And of course, in light of the defining characteristic which appear right above it! Do Zionists have control of your churches, or your precious “Christian culture” using “social engineering” (No. 9) or (No. 5) “preying on the mentally challenged” (oh my God, that’s awful) or perhaps No. 3 “mass mind control” (Betsy, Ellen have you carefully studied all the various intervals in those Bach Cantatas?)
          What about (No.4) “Mossad Manchurian Candidates” Do you really know who runs your Church, huh?

          Just a tragedy that Christianity allowed this to happen, allowing itself to be “Zionised”
          Betsy and Ellen, you have a lot to answer for. You should have watched out for those “Zionising” influences.

        • Citizen says:

          Yeah, Mooser
          What culture, after all, deserves to be “precious?” If you grew up being fed Spam and Starlac and saltines, that food group may easily be a comfort food of yours in your dotage. And so on.

        • Citizen says:

          “Traditional Catholicism does not adopt the Bible as literal text, but as a symbolic, inspired text. The rapture gig will not fly with that group.”

          This is an important fact.

      • Walid says:

        “Zionism has been twisting Christians around to an exciting end times theology for over 100 years now which demands the Jews return to the geographic territory of Israel in order for Jesus to return. ”

        Freddy, the Zionists have been milking it for over 100 years but it was the Christians from the days of the Puritans that began prodding the Jews into fulfilling their destined role in the grand scheme of millenialism and have kept the heat on them to continue doing so until today. It wasn’t the Jews that went knocking on the doors of the Christians to ask for their help in the “return” but it was the Christians that offered their help to the Jews. Today, the Zionists and the Christian Zionists are milking each other with an equal passion. There is something obscene about this relationship.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Walid
          What’s obscene is the willful ignoring on both sides of heavy-duty inconsistencies in what they each believe is the goal, as well as, in who’s “more ultimately special or chosen.” The pie-in-the-sky award goes to the Christian Zionists and fundys. The heaven-on-earth award goes to the Jewish Zionists.

  7. Walid says:

    The concept of the Chosen People whether Jews or Palestinians is folklore. The Roman Catholic Bishops’ Synod on the future of Christians in the Middle East concluded that a) The Jews are not exclusively chosen by God and b) The Bible never promised Palestine exclusively to the Jews and that therefore these 2 premises could not be used by the Jews to dispossess the Palestinians nor to continue occupying their land.

    After Abe Foxman complained to the Vatican and started waving the antisemitic flag, the straightforward resolutions were watered down to avoid a confrontation between Jews and Catholics. and the resolutions ended being to the effect that all of the humankind is God’s chosen people and that whatever promise was made to Abraham was superceded by the arrival of Jesus-Christ.

    This rumble is again taken up in a YNet opinion piece last month disparaging the Roman Catholic Church for blaming the Jews for the Middle East’s dwindling Christian population (which is also folklore). The writer is basing his conclusion on the wrap-up of the synod that ended in 2010 but evidently ignorant of the developments that transpired between then and the final rewritten resolutions as they appeared in the final Apostolic Exhortation “Ecclesia in Medio Oriente” that was signed and delivered by the Pope in Beirut in September 2012. This is part of the YNet opinion piece:

    The Vatican synod in 2010 declared that Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people. “We Christians cannot speak about the Promised Land for the Jewish people”, the synod’s document said. “There is no longer a chosen people. The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians.”

    link to ynetnews.com

    • Walid says:

      The Christian population of the Midle East has been steadily decreasing since the first Iraq war and this was discussed here on a couple of occasions; the synod of the bishops was held in 2010 to discuss reasons for the decreases and what has to be done by the church to change this situation. It was not held to bad-mouth the Jews or Israel as is being pretended in the YNet piece. If anyone is interested in the actual finished product of the Exhortation that was diluted to keep the peace:

      link to vatican.va

      • ritzl says:

        Thanks Walid. What a wonderfully inclusive and imploring document, albeit lengthy (which, I guess, is how these things go…).

        The things you learn here… :)

  8. JennieS says:

    The Palestians are the “chosen people”. They ere chosen for eviction and oppression by the Zionists, the British, the UN the US etc and the signatures of provably real (human) beings are all over the documentation.

  9. “Chosen people” is a loaded term and a concept that sets my teeth on edge. It is present in Judaism and Judaism is present in Zionism. How essential is it to Judaism? How essential is it to Zionism? Not sure we can measure this.

    Let’s start with the first Jewish tradition: matza on Passover. When we Jews eat matza on passover we say two blessings. one the everyday blessing for bread: hamotzi lekhem min ha’aretz. (blessed are you god- hebrew not included), who takes the bread out from the earth. (Traditional Jews have the word Haaretz ready on their lips even if the politics of Haaretz and the politics of American traditional Jews is not the same.) But the second blessing is: blessed are you god, who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us regarding the eating of matza.

    This doesn’t specify the idea of chosenness, but specifies the role of the commandments as something which sanctifies us or makes us holy.

    When Jews stop believing in their destiny…
    When Jews stop keeping the Sabbath they stop being Jewish…

    I’m sorry that I cannot complete this idea at this time, but this is my initial response.

    • Citizen says:

      yonah, Here’s a spin on the term “chosen people” that works with your thoughts: link to torah.org

    • Mooser says:

      “This doesn’t specify the idea of chosenness, but specifies the role of the commandments as something which sanctifies us or makes us holy.”

      Nice little shortcut, Yonah! Sure, having the commandment is pretty cool, it really is. But it’s whether you follow them or not which (if anything can makes you holy. And you know, I have this sick sorta feeling that if you have been given them, and then don’t follow them, you is in deep tar-sand, brother. Sorta like when your Dad says “I told you once, I told you twice, I told you a million times…”
      But if you want to keep thinking that just carrying the book around will gain you some cred, be my guest.

  10. eljay says:

    >> When Jews stop keeping the Sabbath they stop being Jewish…

    Well, so much for the reality of atheist Jews. Unless:
    - atheist Jews are still Jews, even though they’re not Jewish;
    - atheist Jews are still “culturally Jewish” even though they’re not “religiously Jewish”; and/or
    - atheist Jews are still part of the Jewish tribe / collective / nation / culture / ethnicity / civilization even though they’re not “(religiously) Jewish”.

    • eljay- you have demonstrated the danger of musing in front of someone who finds it amusing.

      • W.Jones says:

        You don’t think his muse brought out the Hypocracy?

        • “When Jews stop keeping the Sabbath they stop being Jewish.”

          This is pure “muse” rather than a fact. No authority in Jewish law would approve of this statement, although there are special laws regarding Jews who don’t keep the Sabbath, as in can they be counted as one of the ten for a quorum (minyan)? If they touch wine, can one drink the wine?

          I am using the word “they”, although I don’t keep the Shabbat either and so I should say “we”.

          When one is called up to the Torah, the blessing uttered is “blessed are you God, who chose us of all the nations, and gave us your Torah”. The reconstructionists have changed the blessing that they utter, so that chosenness is not in the blessing.

          Judaism was able to survive the transition from a nation with a land to a dispersed nation. Could Judaism survive without the concept of chosenness? Quite assuredly it could, but only in theory. Those who are devoted to the spiritual survival of the people- meaning the religion, are really not that into changing basic tenets and chosenness is a basic tenet. Not as essential as God’s oneness, but the precept that God gave us the Torah is pretty basic. And also: the giving of the Torah was one of the most essential acts that God ever performed in his relationship with humankind. So to believers, it’s pretty difficult to get beyond this basic act of God’s relationship to the human race and consider the giving of the Torah a trivial matter.

          Could modern Zionism have come into existence without Judaism? No. But there were many concepts that the early Zionists wished to toss on the ash heap and it certainly was feasible to conceive of chosenness as one of the disposable parts of the Torah. (As in: we Jews are a nation, however conceived and however our traditions, it is our nationhood which is of the essence, rather than the specifics of our nationhood as conceived originally by the religious. Our survival in the diaspora is an enigma, That is our survival until now. but our survival from now on requires a land, so that we can stop pretending to be special and be just like all the other nations.)

          Naftali Bennett has said, (paraphrase), Israel was established as a refuge for Jews, but today Jews are safer in Teaneck New Jersey. So now the Jewish aspect of Israel has become the most important. Thus the original conception of Zionism is not necessarily reflected in the New Zionism.

          I prefer the old Zionism and although it would be a multi generational effort that wouldn’t show results immediately, I would wish that the aspect of chosenness could go the way of the animal sacrifices- assigned to the past, but my wishes are not aligned with the probable facts.

        • eljay says:

          >> yonah fredman @ January 30, 2013 at 4:50 pm

          Wow, talk about amusing. (And, no, I don’t mean you’re flying low.)

        • W.Jones says:

          Yonah,

          Regarding Choseness, you are right that this is an important concept in the religion. But I’m not sure it couldn’t be applied differently at a later point. What about the idea that God did choose a people at one time in history, but since that time He has chosen many more nations to believe in Him, which they now do?

          After all, isn’t there a prophecy that predicts all nations would belong to and worship God?

        • you are right that this is an important concept in the religion. But I’m not sure it couldn’t be applied differently at a later point.

          it could be applied differently at a later point or applied differently now for that matter. but that is the thing about religions, it’s all in the way it’s practiced, it’s in the minds of the practitioners. that is why religions can be either a thing of beauty and love, wisdom and understanding or a thing that wreaks havoc on the world. this would include the concept of chosen-ness.

          i was not raised religiously, but i was raised to believe i was special and had a special gift. i raised my son the same way. that’s normal. individually we view that as an honor and a responsibility or waste it away on a foolish concept of superiority. i kind of think of this chosen-ness in a positive way. i am sure there is something of this in all religions. it can be abused or used to create flocks who will do good in the world. all that is used in practice, either good or bad can be applied now or applied differently at a later point.

        • RoHa says:

          “but i was raised to believe i was special and had a special gift.”

          Special in what way? What special gift?

        • Mooser says:

          “that is why religions can be either a thing of beauty and love, wisdom and understanding or a thing that wreaks havoc on the world. this would include the concept of chosen-ness.”

          Or, given a little scope for action, and more than one congregation of followers, both at once! And having a bad religion isn’t against the law, committing crimes is.

        • Mooser says:

          “Special in what way? What special gift?”

          Only good answer: “Well, I’ve got one special left!” Smack!

          In whatever way she wants to be, and feels she is. Just like, I believe, you are, RoHa. And if you don’t believe it too about you, on some level, you have my sympathy.

        • Citizen says:

          @ RoHa
          Some kids are raised that way; nearly everything they do is special; we’re all snowflakes, unique, is another version a tad less unique. Some kids are raised to believe they are far from special as can be–they’ll never be labeled “spoiled,” eh? They spend their lives with that baggage.

        • oh heavens, and i thought i was going to get away with ignoring this. what parent doesn’t doesn’t think his kid is special? what mother!?!

          the special gift is just being who you are. this is supposed to go without saying. pity the poor child whose parents doesn’t see the jewel inside the being.

        • Citizen says:

          “what parent doesn’t doesn’t think his kid is special? what mother!?!”

          I see you’ve lived a very sheltered life, Annie. Don’t get me wrong–I admire you and what you strive for, which I hope is plain to see over the years here at MW. That’s certainly a pat on the back to your parents who conveyed to you that you were special. But, your question I quoted here–it’s meant to be rhetorical, but my god, there’s so much you don’t know about every day life of millions of kids, past and present….

        • the answer to the question citizen is ‘not a very good mother.’ it is completely normal and common for a parent to think their child is special, if not to the world then at a minimum in their (the parents) own eyes.

          i am sure there are millions of kids, past and present who have never felt this love, but there are billions who have. for most parents their children are the most precious things in their lives. it’s called human nature.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Annie: Thanks for conceding the only point I strove to make.

        • it’s good to hear your implication parents who thought their kids were special therefore raised them thinking nearly everything they did was special wasn’t another of your points. sorry for the confusion. as far as conceding bad parents exist, anytime and my pleasure. as i wrote earlier, pity the poor child whose parents doesn’t see the jewel inside the being (because they absolutely do exist and often, as you say, spend their lives with that baggage).

      • eljay says:

        >> eljay- you have demonstrated the danger of musing in front of someone who finds it amusing.

        Oh, sorry, was I flying low?

        • Mooser says:

          “>> eljay- you have demonstrated the danger of musing in front of someone who finds it amusing.”

          Yonah, you have demonstrated the danger of treating religious concepts and morality as trivial. But really, what else can you do?

    • Mooser says:

      “>> When Jews stop keeping the Sabbath they stop being Jewish…”

      eljay, there’s only so much land in Israel! If we don’t keep the standards high, all kinds of Jewish riff-raff will get in.

      Me, I would say that after twothousandyears of persecution, any man, or woman who is willing to say they are a Jew, is a good enough Jew for me. (As long as nobody else is saying it for them (“You are a Jew”) of course)
      But since I believe Jews can live almost anywhere in the world there’s room for all of ‘em, as many as there may be. For Zionists, the world is very, very small, so there are too many Jews, especially the ones not under their control.

  11. W.Jones says:

    The Palestinian Christians’ Kairos Document deals with the concept of “Choseness” (that God has chosen or “elected” people) in this way:

    2.2.2 Our Lord Jesus Christ [cast] a new light on the Old Testament, on… themes such as the promises, the election, the people of God and the land…

    Our land has a universal mission

    2.3 We believe that our land has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God open up to include all of humanity, starting from all the peoples of this land. In light of the teachings of the Holy Bible, the promise of the land has never been a political programme, but rather the prelude to complete universal salvation. It was the initiation of the fulfilment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

    2.3.1 God sent the patriarchs, the prophets and the apostles to this land so that they might carry forth a universal mission to the world… Our land is God’s land, as is the case with all countries in the world. It is holy inasmuch as God is present in it, for God alone is holy and sanctifier… God gives us the capacity, if we have the will, to live together and establish in it justice and peace, making it in reality God’s land: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it” (Ps. 24:1).