IMG_1069

One thought on “IMG_1069

  • October 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    Permalink

    The church leedars while always acknowledging Israele28099s right to exist in security have (presumably) been silent as to what territory they believe Israel has a right to be secure within. Israel, by the evidence of its land-confiscation, settlement-making, and claimed annexations , does not regard the borders of 1966 as its own permanent borders or as likely borders to be negotiated with the Palestinians (and Lebanon and Syria).The churches should make clear and explicit what territory they believe Israel has a right to (and a right to be secure within) unless they wish to support an expansive Israel. If they believe that Israel can be secure within a territory smaller than that of 1966, they should say so, loud and clear.And if they believe that the Zionist terrorism (1945 5/1948) which expelled Britain and many Palestinians, and the Zionist state-terrorism and warfare (5/1948 present) which completed the expelling and (as it turned out) established the permanent exile of 85% of the Palestinians living in the territory which Israel seized by threat and use of terrorism and war (contrary to the UN Charter, which Israel had not yet signed), then perhaps the churches should TALK ABOUT THAT HISTORY and revisit their seemingly unthinking assurance of Israel’s right to be secure. At a minimum, it might make a few people think about an issue that’s been swept under the rug for far too long.And since they are asserting Israel’s right to be secure, they should talk about whatever rights they believe the Palestinian people to have, rights to territory and rights to security. The Palestinians are not the people of a lesser God .

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *