Israel's Racist policies finally under Church disapproval

[DeBunkem]

It's a tepid, but good, start.

Presbyterians: End Israel aid over settlements
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Patrick Condon, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jul 10, 12:29 am ET

.MINNEAPOLIS – Presbyterian leaders strongly backed a proposal Friday that included a call to end U.S. aid to Israel unless the country stops settlement expansions in disputed Palestinian territories.

But they said the 172-page report, which details their church's approach to issues in the Middle East, was a sincere effort to mend long-standing fractures between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Jewish groups.

It earned qualified praise but also criticism from pro-Israel organizations, which have long taken issue with various Presbyterian statements on Middle East peace.

Church delegates approved the report by an 82 percent vote during the church's general assembly in Minneapolis. It's meant as a comprehensive guide to the denomination's more than 2 million members on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We feel we've brought together people who previously had trouble talking about some of these issues together," said Rev. Karen Dimon, pastor at Northminster Presbyterian Church in North Syracuse, N.Y., and chairwoman of the committee that produced the report.

Ethan Felson, vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said he still took issue with major aspects of the report, but said it contained "important signals" that could lessen long-standing tension between Presbyterians and pro-Israel Jews. He said it strengthens support for Israel's right to exist and removes comparisons of Israeli policy to apartheid.

"Concerns remain, but I have hope that authentic dialogue and better relations can come of this," Felson said.

The Anti-Defamation League said the report managed to "avoid a rupture with Jewish people, but bias against Israel continues." The Simon Wiesenthal Center said the report "takes definite sides in a complex struggle."

But the Rev. J.C. Austin, director of the Center for Christian Leadership at New York City's Auburn Seminary, disagreed.

"We are refusing to designate a winner or loser," said Austin, who helped prepare the report.

The denomination's relationship with Jewish groups took a hit in 2004, when the church's general assembly voted to authorize "phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel" because of Israel's policies toward Palestinians. That stance has since been softened, and this year convention delegates voted down an amendment to the Middle East report that would have put divestment back on the table.

Despite the strong convention vote, some delegates expressed concern that the Middle East report remained too slanted toward a Palestinian perspective.

"There are many longtime friends in the Jewish community who believe this report misstates Jewish theology and misquotes the Jewish voice," said the Rev. Susan Zencka, pastor at Frame Memorial Presbyterian Church in Stevens Point, Wis. "We have come to a position of Palestine good, Israel bad. Life is not that simple."

But supporters stressed that the overarching goal of the report is to encourage activism toward peace in the Middle East.

"I fully support a state of Israel, but I also believe Israel's peace will not come until they seek peace with Palestinians," said Dottie Villesvik, a church elder from Everett, Wash.

The church's annual convention is scheduled through Saturday. It began July 3.

http://tinyurl.com/2bd6nmf

[TheLibertarian]

Excellent. But I'll believe it when I see it; the neo-conservatives aren't done selling out this nation's interest to the welfare queen of the nations ("read: Israel). Funny - if Israel were a human being, they'd tell it - rightly - to get out and get a job.

[WinePusher]

the neo-conservatives aren't done selling out this nation's interest to the welfare queen of the nations ("read: Israel).

How are we selling out our nations interests when we ally ourselves with the sole democratic state in the Middle East?

Funny - if Israel were a human being, they'd tell it - rightly - to get out and get a job.

Yes we would, would you tell them that they can just sit back and live off other peoples hard work?

[DeBunkem]

the neo-conservatives aren't done selling out this nation's interest to the welfare queen of the nations ("read: Israel).

How are we selling out our nations interests when we ally ourselves with the sole democratic state in the Middle East?

Funny - if Israel were a human being, they'd tell it - rightly - to get out and get a job.

Yes we would, would you tell them that they can just sit back and live off other peoples hard work?

I'd say we need that $30 billion a year we send there more than those pampered, vicious, and illegal settlers and IDF murderers. I'd like to know how many of them have a real job. Apartheid/Occupation rogue political entities are not democracies. Even many Israelis oppose their governments' treatment of the Palestinians.

[WinePusher]

Funny - if Israel were a human being, they'd tell it - rightly - to get out and get a job.

Yes we would, would you tell them that they can just sit back and live off other peoples hard work?

I'd say we need that $30 billion a year we send there

To fund more of Obama's failed stimulus packages? If you're really concerned with cutting the deficit, might I suggest making cuts in frivolous spending projects.

more than those pampered, vicious, and illegal settlers and IDF murderers.

You, and The Libertarian, and other members of this forum condemn Israel and their "vicious" and "murderer" ways. Are Israel's actions equatable with Iran, who is planning to STONE a woman for adultery? Do you condemn Iran with the same passion you condemn Israel?

[TheLibertarian]

So what you're telling me, winepusher, is that the needs of the American taxpayer come second to the needs of Gawd's People, and that you're willing to spend any amount of money required to keep Israel and the Middle East.

The "neo-con" appellation is most appropriate for you. I can't wait until we expel you and yours from the Republican Party and take it back to its small-government roots.

[WinePusher]

So what you're telling me, winepusher, is that the needs of the American taxpayer come second to the needs of Gawd's People, and that you're willing to spend any amount of money required to keep Israel and the Middle East.

Where did I claim that? I support the United States allying itself with Israel and supporting it by all means, including reasonable monetary contributions, but I haven't seen any dollar amounts from a respectable think tank or newspaper. You and DeBunkem have just thrown out numbers in the billions without any documentation.

The "neo-con" appellation is most appropriate for you.

Thank You For Recognizing That.

I can't wait until we expel you and yours from the Republican Party and take it back to its small-government roots.

You assume I don't support small government. Please list the factors and determinants that would lead you to the conclusions that I am not a small government proponent.

[TheLibertarian]

Where did I claim that? I support the United States allying itself with Israel and supporting it by all means, including reasonable monetary contributions, but I haven't seen any dollar amounts from a respectable think tank or newspaper. You and DeBunkem have just thrown out numbers in the billions without any documentation.

Too hard for you to do your own homework, huh?

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politic ... gn-aid.htm

Israel Total

2,520

2,985

2,624

2,700

3,120

2,813

That's twenty billion dollars in direct aid over five years last decade. That figure does not include covert financing for military operations.

You assume I don't support small government. Please list the factors and determinants that would lead you to the conclusions that I am not a small government proponent.

There's nothing "small government" about neo-conservatives. You want more war and more social collectivism.

[WinePusher]

Too hard for you to do your own homework, huh?

I should provide documentation for YOUR claims? Please review the rules, you obviously haven't.

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politic ... gn-aid.htm

Israel Total

2,520

2,985

2,624

2,700

3,120

2,813

That's twenty billion dollars in direct aid over five years last decade. That figure does not include covert financing for military operations.[/quote]

So, your argument is that the United States should cease to provide aid to Israel because it burdens the tax payer? Do you object to providing aid to Egypt and the ten other countries mentioned in your source, or is it only Israel?

There's nothing "small government" about neo conservatives. You want more war and more social collectivism.

Before providing a reasonable response to your pressumputious and fringe post, let me lay out YOUR beliefs as you feel comfortable to tell ME what I believe. You want to surrender our sovernigity to other nations, and turn us into a nanny state.

Now, for my reasonable response. For being a libertarian, I would think that you support the core principle of liberty. Is liberty only good for the United States? I believe the line goes, Liberty and Justice for all; not just Americans. Now, when it comes to social collectivism, I break away from the neo-cons and align myself more with Paleoconservatives; however, it is conservativism in general that supports individualism and a free market and capitalism; read Ayn Rand.

[TheLibertarian]

I should provide documentation for YOUR claims? Please review the rules, you obviously haven't.

Why golly gee, winepusher! It looks like I just did!

So, your argument is that the United States should cease to provide aid to Israel because it burdens the tax payer?

In addition to the fact that Israel is an apartheid State illegally created by Harry Truman and the U.N., yes.

Do you object to providing aid to Egypt and the ten other countries mentioned in your source, or is it only Israel?

I object to all foreign aid, military and otherwise. But of those nations, I object to Israel most of all.

Before providing a reasonable response to your pressumputious and fringe post, let me lay out YOUR beliefs as you feel comfortable to tell ME what I believe. You want to surrender our sovernigity to other nations, and turn us into a nanny state.

I'll tell you what you believe as long as you continue to believe it. And don't tell me about a nanny state. It's you closet liberals that pushed for DOMA, pushed for PATRIOT, and will continue to push until Roe is overturned.

Now, for my reasonable response. For being a libertarian, I would think that you support the core principle of liberty. Is liberty only good for the United States? I believe the line goes, Liberty and Justice for all; not just Americans.

And it isn't America's job to share her liberty like the socialists want to share her wealth, is it? That's Wilsonian liberalism you're thinking of, not any small-government philosophy.

Now, when it comes to social collectivism, I break away from the neo-cons and align myself more with Paleoconservatives; however, it is conservativism in general that supports individualism and a free market and capitalism; read Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was a sell-out and intellectual lightweight. I suggest Max Stirner instead.