#yes i wholly support palestine | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wisdomrays · 3 years

Text

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Are Muslims Guilty of Imperialism?

This charge continues to be leveled against the Muslim world. I would like to counter it by asking the following questions:

Given the existing circumstances of 1,400 years ago, how would any one living in Makka or Madina go about exploiting his own clan and tribe? If the supposedly exploited lands and people were those of the Hijaz, which were poor, unfruitful, and barren, who would have wished to invade or exploit them? It is ludicrous to level the charge of imperialist colonialism against the most noble-minded Muslims, who risked their lives to spread the message of Islam; who spent the greater part of their lives far from their children, families, homes, and native lands fighting armies ten or twenty times their size; and who felt deeply grieved when they did not die on the battlefield and join the earlier martyrs for Islam. We ask ourselves what worldly gain they obtained in return for such struggle, deprivation, and sacrifice!

Those who invaded, occupied, and exploited others with the worst intentions (and results) of imperialism are power-hungry individuals or nations. To mention a few: Alexander the "Great" and Napoleon, the Roman empire and Nazi Germany, the Mongol armies unleashed by Genghis Khan and the colonizing armies unleashed by western Europe, Russian dictatorship (whether czarist or communist) and the American empire (whether "manifest destiny" or "making the world safe for democracy"). Wherever such conquests came and went, they corrupted the morality of the conquerors and the conquered, causing chaos, conflict, tears, bloodshed, and devastation. Today their heirs, like bold thieves who bluff property owners to conceal their theft of that very property, turn to besmirching Islam, its Prophet, and his Companions.

True Muslims have never sought to exploit others. Nor have they let others do so where Muslim government had jurisdiction. At a time when Muslim armies were running from triumph to triumph, Caliph 'Umar said: "What befits me is to live at the level of the poorest Muslims," and he really did so. As he took only a few olives a day for his own sustenance, who was he exploiting?

After one battle, when a Muslim was asked to take the belongings of an enemy soldier whom he had fought and killed, he said: "I did not participate in the battle to take spoils." Pointing to his throat, he continued: "What I seek is an arrow here and to fall as a martyr." (His wish was granted.) While burning with the desire for martyrdom, who was he exploiting?

In another battle, a Muslim soldier fought and killed a leading enemy who had killed many Muslims. The Muslim commander saw him pass by his dead enemy. The commander went to the head of the dead soldier and asked who had killed him. The Muslim did not want to reply, but the commander called him back in the name of God. The Muslim felt himself obliged to do so, but concealed his face with a piece of cloth. The following conversation took place:

-Did you kill him for the sake of God?

-Yes.

-All right. But take this 1,000 dinar piece.

-But I did it for the sake of God!

-What is your name?

-What is my name to you? Perhaps you will tell this to everyone and cause me to lose the reward for this in the afterlife.

How could such people exploit others and establish colonies all over the world? To speak frankly, those who hate Islam and Muslims are blind to the historical truth of how Islam spread.

Let's look at what exploitation and imperialism are. Imperialism or colonization is a system of rule by which a rich and a powerful country controls other countries, their trade and policies, to enrich itself and gain more power at the other's expense. There are many kinds of exploitation. In today's world, they may take the following forms:

• Absolute sovereignty by dispossessing indigenous people in order to establish the invader's direct rule and sovereignty. Examples are western Europe's conquest of North and South America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, as well as the Zionists' conquest of Palestine.

• Military occupation so that the invaders can control the conquered nation's land and resources. One example is British colonial rule in India.

• Open or secret interference and intervention in a country's internal and foreign affairs, economy, and defense. Examples are those Third World countries who are manipulated and controlled by various developed countries.

• The transfer of intellectuals, which is currently the most common and dangerous type of imperialism. Young, intelligent, and gifted people of the countries to be exploited are chosen, given stipends, and educated abroad. There they are introduced to and made members of different groups. When they return to their country, they are given influential administrative and other posts so that they can influence their country's destiny. When native or foreign people linked to exploiters abroad are placed in crucial positions in the state mechanism, the country is conquered from inside. This immensely successful technique has enabled Western imperialists to achieve many of their goals smoothly and without overtly rousing the enmity of the people they wish to subjugate. Today, the Muslim world is caught in this trap and thus continues to suffer exploitation and abuse.

Whatever kind of imperialism they are subjected to, countries suffer a number of consequences:

• Various methods of assimilation alienate people from their own values, culture, and history. As a result, they suffer crises of identity and purpose, do not know their own past, and cannot freely imagine their own future.

• Any enthusiasm, effort, and zeal to support and develop their country is quenched. Industry is rendered dependent upon the (former) imperial masters, science and knowledge are not allowed to become productive and primary, and imitation is established firmly so that freedom of study and new research will gain no foothold.

• People remain in limbo, totally dependent upon foreigners. They are silenced and deluded by such empty phrases as progress, Westernization, civilization, and the like.

• All state institutions are penetrated by foreign aid, which is in reality no more than massive financial and cultural debt. Imports, exports, and development are wholly controlled by or conducted according to the exploiter's interests.

• While no effort is spared to keep the masses in poverty, the ruling classes become used to extravagant spending and luxury. The resulting communal dissatisfaction causes people to fight with each other, making them even more vulnerable to outside influence and intervention.

• Mental and spiritual activity is stifled, and so educational institutions tend to imitate foreign ways, ideas, and subjects. Industry is reduced to assembling prefabricated parts. The army tends to become a dumping ground for imperialist countries, for its purchases of expensive hardware ensure the continued well-being of the latter's industries.

We wonder if it is really rational to liken the Islamic conquest to imperialism, which brought disastrous consequences wherever it went.

The victory of Muslim armies never caused a great exodus of people from their homes and countries, nor has it prevented people from working by putting chains on their hands and feet. Muslims left the indigenous people free to follow their own way and beliefs, and protected them in exactly the same way it protected Muslims. Muslim governors and rulers were loved and respected for their justice and integrity. Equality, peace, and security were established between different communities.

If it had been otherwise, would the Christians of Damascus have gathered in their church and prayed for a Muslim victory against Christian Byzantium, which was seeking to regain control of the city? If Muslims had not been so respectful of non-Muslims' rights, could they have maintained security for centuries in a state so vast that it took more than 6 months to travel from one end to another?

One cannot help but admire those Muslim rulers and the dynamic energy that made them so, when we compare them to present-day rulers. Despite every modern means of transportation, telecommunications, and military back-up, they cannot maintain peace and security in even a small area of land.

Today, many scholars and intellectuals who realize the value of Islam's dynamics, which brought about Islam's global sovereignty and which will form the basis of our eternal existence in the Hereafter, expressly tell us that Muslims should reconsider and regain them. While conquering lands, the Muslims also were conquering their inhabitants' hearts. They were received with love, respect, and obedience. No people who accepted Islam ever complained that they were culturally prevented or ruined by the arrival of Muslims. The contrast with the reality of Christian Europe's conquests is stark and obvious.

Early Muslims evaluated the potential of knowledge and art in the conquered lands. They prepared and provided every opportunity for local scholars and scientists to pursue their work. Regardless of their religion, Muslims held the people in high regard and honored them in the community. They never did what the descendants of the British colonialists in America did to the American Indians or in Australia to the Aborigines, the French to the Algerians, or the Dutch to the Indonesians. On the contrary, they treated the conquered people as if they were from their own people and religion, as if they were brothers and sisters.

Caliph 'Umar once told a Coptic Egyptian who had been beaten by a Makkan noble to beat him just as he had been beaten. When 'Umar heard that 'Amr ibn al-'As had hurt the feelings of a native Egyptian, he rebuked him: "Human beings were born free. Why do you enslave them?" As he went to receive the keys to Masjid al-Aqsa, 'Umar visited and talked to priests in different churches in Palestine. Once he was in a church when it was time to pray. The priest repeatedly asked him to pray inside the church, but 'Umar refused, saying: "You may be harassed by other Christians later on because you let me pray in the church." He left the church's premises and prayed outside on the ground.

These are but a few examples to indicate how Muslims were sensitive, tolerant, just, and humane toward other people. Such an attitude of genuine tolerance has not been reached by any other people or society.

120 notes · View notes

chiseler · 3 years

Text

The Chiseler Asks Noam Chomsky About Israel-Palestine

Yesterday, May 24, 2021, Daniel Riccuito of The Chiseler conducted the following email interview with Noam Chomsky.

Daniel Riccuito: This latest assault against Gaza seems contradictory: both part and parcel of Israel's abiding agenda and more obviously cynical, bearing no relationship to the usual talking points about national defense, etc. Is it wrong to overestimate public opinion as surprisingly informed, seeing through Israel’s state propaganda more swiftly this time around?

Noam Chomsky: Each time Israel launches some barbaric act of terror, its sophisticated Hasbara system faces a more difficult task of justification, and its grip on popular opinion weakens. The horrors of Israel’s latest war against the civilian society in its Gaza prison are impossible to suppress, so propaganda seeks to restrict attention solely to Hamas rockets attacking innocent Israel in an act of unprovoked aggression: every country has a right to defend itself, and in self-defense Israel has been remarkably restrained considering the nature of the Hamas attack.

That still works in some circles, but fewer than before. Though the media do not convey anything like the hideous reality of Israel’s murderous strangulation of Gaza or the regular brutality of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank, nevertheless a fair amount is seeping through, a good deal more than before, enough for many to dismantle the propaganda line.

Yes, Hamas is a pretty awful organization and Palestinians deserve much better. But there are ways to deal with its rocket launches. The narrow answer is to eliminate the reason for them. Many are aware that they were fired in retaliation for Israeli crimes in Jerusalem, particularly the military attack on worshippers in Al-Aqsa. Hamas announced a deadline saying that unless the attacks stopped by then it would retaliate with rockets.

The more fundamental approach is to end Israel's vicious imprisonment of Gaza, which has rendered it virtually unlivable, without even potable water, let alone any hope for decent survival. A brutal jailer and torturer is hardly in a position to ask how to defend himself from occasional resistance by the prisoners. I think more and more people are coming to understand that, despite intensive suppression of the background, which continues.

Along with the limited reporting of the barbarity of Israel’s periodic assaults, the deepening recognition of Israel’s exploits in the illegally occupied territories and within its borders is making it harder to sustain the image of the embattled guardian of democracy and righteousness in the region.

Daniel Riccuito: Is the solidarity among geographically divided Palestinians (East Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank, and within Israel) wholly unprecedented?

Noam Chomsky: Not unprecedented, but taking new forms as circumstances change. One change, which has received some notice, is the further “Judaization” of the few cities where there still are remnants of the mass expulsion of Palestinians in 1948, “mixed cities,” so-called. Resentment of the further marginalization and repression of the Palestinian minority seems to have been a factor in the protests there against the Israeli actions in Greater Jerusalem, initially dispossession of still more Arab families in Sheikh Jarrah, then the assault on Al-Aqsa worshippers, among other events. One was Israel’s decision to prevent East Jerusalem participation in forthcoming Palestinian elections for the first time, in violation of its commitments under the Oslo accords, another step in Israel’s imposition of its nationalist-religious agenda in the Greater Jerusalem it has established, a core part of the Greater Israel project it has imposed throughout the West Bank.

Daniel Riccuito: I won't ask for predictions, but are there specific opportunities available, here and now, to those committed to seeing a semblance of justice for Palestinians?

Noam Chomsky: There definitely are opportunities. For the first time, there are calls in mainstream media for cancellation of US military aid to Israel along with congressional legislation calling for conditioning such aid (Betsy McCollum). These are openings that can be pursued well beyond. This unparalleled aid to Israel is in violation of US laws that bar aid to military units engaged in systematic human right abuses. The IDF provides many candidates. Many Americans can come to understand that. Even a threat to the huge flood of aid could have major policy repercussions.

A more far-reaching issue that should be highlighted is Israel’s nuclear weapons programs. The US pretends not to know that they exist, for good reasons. Abandon the pretense, and serious questions arise about whether all US aid to Israel is illegal under US law because of Israel’s development of nuclear weapons outside the framework of international arms control agreements. By bipartisan agreement, and media complicity, that crucial matter has been effectively suppressed.

And it is crucial. A lot is at stake, quite apart from the legality of US aid to Israel. One obvious matter is a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. That has been strongly supported for years by the Arab states, Iran, the Global South (G-77), with general support in Europe. It is regularly vetoed by the US, most recently Obama. The unspoken reason, of course, is what I have just described: protecting Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons system, and arguably illegal US aid to Israel.

A ME NWFZ with effective inspections is entirely feasible, as we have seen before Trump dismantled the Joint Agreement on Iranian nuclear programs (JCPOA). It would go far beyond the JCPOA in ending alleged concerns about an Iranian nuclear threat. It would end any shred of justification for the vicious US sanctions on Iran, to which Europe is compelled to conform. It would end a very serious threats of escalation to major war. It would lay the basis for punishing Israel for its campaign of assassination and sabotage against Iran, and its threats of much worse.

In brief, such initiatives could have major consequences. All matters that would be of much concern to Americans if they knew about them.

There is a lot more that can be done. Choice of tactics is no trivial matter, a consideration that should be second nature to activists. The choice must be based on realistic assessment of existing circumstances – not what we might like them to be, but what they are.

Existing circumstances in Israel-Palestine are not obscure. For 50 years, Israel has been systematically creating a Greater Israel in the West Bank in which it takes for itself whatever it finds of value while bypassing Palestinian population centers so as to avoid the dread “demographic problem”: too many non-Jews in a “democratic Jewish state,” an oxymoron more difficult to sustain with each passing year. There is no need to run through the details, evident on the ground. Greater Israel is so closely integrated into Israel proper that Israelis are barely aware of the international border. The creation of Greater Israel has been undertaken in brazen defiance of Security Council resolutions and in perfectly conscious violation of international law. It has been advanced across the Israeli political spectrum, with only marginal opposition. Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, for example, were among its most forceful proponents.

Discussion of tactics and options is meaningless unless this reality is recognized. In particular, current 1-2 state debates are empty unless the Greater Israel option is recognized. As long as the option exists, we can be confident that Israel will never consider disappearing in favor of “one state” --- that is, a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority. Nor is there any force in the world supporting this, or likely to be such a force in the foreseeable future.

Tactics therefore have to be directed at undermining the Greater Israel option. There are many possibilities: an arms-trade embargo conditioned on terminating this project, for example. Insofar as that can be accomplished, other options can be considered. I won’t proceed here but it takes little thought to recognize what the possibilities are. What is important is to keep all of this clearly in mind in devising ways to reach some tolerable settlement, one that can be a basis for moving on to something better.

#The Chiseler #Noam Chomsky #Israel #Palestine

11 notes · View notes

ruminativerabbi · 5 years

Text

Omar and Tlaib: A Way Forward

Sometimes I have to search around to find the topic I wish to write about in my weekly letter to you all, but other times the universe simply presents me with an issue that it feels almost impossible not to write about. This is one of those weeks. And that was before President Trump called the loyalty of Jewish Americans who vote Democratic into question.

I am thinking, of course, of the huge brouhaha surrounding the proposed, then banned, then half-unbanned, then cancelled trip of Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) to Israel.

The single point of near-universal consensus is that the whole incident was handled maladroitly by all concerned—and that really is saying the very least.

The congresswomen, by declining to go on the actual trip of members of the House to Israel that took place just a few weeks ago, were making it clear that they had no interest in actually visiting Israel or hearing what representatives of our staunchest ally in the Middle East might or might have had to say to them…and then feigned shock when they were called out for insulting the leadership and citizenry of Israel by planning a propaganda tour featuring meetings solely with Palestinian bigwigs and Arab members of the Knesset. (The itinerary for the trip they then proposed to make on their own confirmed their intentions clearly, although Rep. Omar now says—contrary to the itinerary she herself released—that she would have met with at least some Israeli officials.)

President Trump, by putting his oar in where it wasn’t even remotely needed, seems to have made Prime Minister Netanyahu feel obliged to ban the Omar and Tlaib from entering Israel lest he appear weak or—and, yes, I know how weird this sounds to say out loud—unmanly. (The ensuing firestorm on this side of the world would have been considerably less hot had it not seemed that the Prime Minister’s decision reflected more than anything his desire not to provoke President Trump or to irritate him—which paradoxically actually did make him look and sound weak. And unmanly weakness was indeed the specific issue in play: the President’s tweet confirmed as much: “It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit.” He didn’t have to say who specifically was going to be labelled weak for not banning the two!)

For his part, the P.M. himself, more than aware of the importance of playing ball with his nation’s biggest supplier of foreign aid and himself an extremely savvy politician, seemed somehow not to understand what a huge error of judgment it was going to be to appear to disrespect members of Congress…and, at that, the specific members of the House that the world was just waiting to see if he would dare to insult.

The whole incident played out in Israel entirely differently than it did here. For your person-in-the-shuk Israeli, the whole rumpus was basically uninteresting. I saw very little coverage in the Israeli press—not none, but nothing like what I saw on every American website I visited while we were in Israel. When it did come up, most regular Israelis I talked to seemed confused why this was even an issue. Although I think most Americans surely do not, everybody in Israel remembers when, in 2012, the United States barred a Knesset member, Michael Ben Ari, from entering the United States because the party he represented, the Kahanist Kach party, was formally labelled as a terrorist group. (Nor, for the record, is it unheard of for the United States to bar entry to people deemed undesirable for one reason or another, a list that over the years has included such dangerous criminals as Amy Winehouse, Diego Maradona, and Boy George. For a full list of people now or once barred from entering the United States, click here.) So the notion that Israel would bar entry to two individuals who have been outspoken in their animosity towards the Jewish state and who openly and shamelessly support the BDS movement, and neither of whom is above lacing her rhetoric with openly anti-Semitic language, merely because they were also elected to Congress—that didn’t seem that big a stretch to most Israelis that I heard giving forth on the topic. Indeed, when I did hear Israelis talking about the issue, the question was more why Israel shouldn’t decline to offer unambiguously hostile people a public platform on which to promote invidious policies than it was why they should let them in without any assurance that they would be at least minimally respectful of their hosts’ sensitivities.

Still, Israel could have turned this whole affair to its own advantage by inviting Rashida Tlaib and Ilan Omar to come to visit, but by making the invitation conditional upon their agreement to meet with Israeli officials and learn about the Israeli take on the Middle East conflict. It would have been a good thing if that happened too, because, as their comments about Israel over the last few days prove, both Omar and Tlaib are as naïve as they are hostile towards the Jewish state. Omar wants Israel to grant Palestinians “full rights,” but without saying what she means exactly. Does she want Israel to annex the West Bank and make its Palestinian population into Israelis with the full rights of citizens? It seems hard to believe that that’s what she means. But then what does she mean? Is she in favor of a two-state solution featuring a State of Palestine in which the Palestinian citizens would have “full rights?” But then why is she not addressing the Palestinian leadership and telling them to declare independence and get down to the work of nation building? When she denounces the Israeli decision to bar her entry as “unprecedented,” does she not know that our own country also bars entry to people deemed hostile or dangerous, or likely to promote views considered inimical with the nation’s best interests? When she speaks about “the occupation,” does she not realize how bizarre it is to blame Israel for “occupying” the Palestinians’ land when Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians an almost complete withdrawal in exchange for their willingness to live in peace? And, of course, also without showing the slightest interest—at least as far as I can see—in the places in the world that actually are occupied by foreign powers—Tibet, for example, which has been occupied by China since 1951 or the part of the Western Sahara that Morocco has illegally occupied since 1976.

For her part, Rashida Tlaib sounds more calculating then naïve. When she denounces Israel for setting up roadblocks that inhibit free travel from the West Bank into Israel, she conveniently forgets to mention the reason those roadblocks were set up in the first place: to prevent terrorist attacks on innocents of the kind that were part and parcel of daily life in Israel during the first and second Intifadas. To suggest that those roadblocks were set up to harass innocents like her elderly grandmother instead of owning up to the fact that they have worked so well, as has the security fence, that terror attacks inside Israel have plummeted to almost zero—that crosses the line, at least in my estimation, from finessing the details to make a point and approaches something more reasonably called manipulating the facts to create a wholly false impression. (I think we can all be confident that, if violent terrorists were blowing up children in discotheques and pizzerias in her own home district, she would support any plausible effort to end the carnage even if it caused her grandma some inconvenience.)

It would, therefore, be a good thing for both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to come for a visit to Israel. Nor is it too late. In my opinion, Israel can and should offer to invite them to Israel if they are willing to listen, to learn, and to refrain from promoting anti-Israeli views while they are in Israel as guests of the State. Contrary to the President’s tweet, principled reaching-out towards people who have in the past been hostile but who could conceivably change their minds would be seen by all—or certainly by most—as an act of strength, not weakness. There is, after all, a lot to learn. Understanding Israel today requires knowing a lot about Jewish history and its impact on Jewish reality today. It requires understanding the relationship between Israel and both Judaism and Jewishness, a relationship that is obscure in many ways even to relatively savvy observers of the Middle Eastern scene. And it requires understanding the specific way that Israeli identity has been forged over the decades against a background of unremitting hostility on the part of most of its neighbors and, even more perfidiously, on the part of the United Nations—and how decades of exposure to that kind of stark enmity so often tinged with not-so-subtle anti-Semitism has made Israelis, to say the very least, wary and mistrustful of the world.

It would surely have been better if we hadn’t come to this impasse in quite the way we have. But having come to this crossroads, we must now traverse it and I believe we can. If they are truly sincere in their interest in learning about Israel, Representatives Tlaib and Omar should indicate their willingness to come and to listen. Israel, for all it is barred by its own laws from admitting to the country people who advocate policies inimical to the nation’s survival (and specifically the BDS movement), should find a way around that restriction to welcome them both and to help them understand where Israel is coming from and why it acts as it feels it must. If everybody involved is willing to take a step back and to calm down a bit, what at the moment is an impasse can become a crossroads that all concerned can grow mightily by traversing.

#Ilhan Omar #Rashida Tlaib

2 notes · View notes

script-a-world · 6 years

Note

If a whole ethnic group were to be driven from their home and trapped in a cave, would it be plausible for them to regain sovereignty status once they were freed? An entire kingdom was banished, and then sealed away. Their former holdings are all taken. I looked it up with micro-nations and the cheapest way for them to get land on which to stake a kingdom would be to actually Build it like the Palm Deira. Would it be possible to instead retain sovereignty while integrating with society?

Lurelay: Possible? Yes. Plausible? Not really, unless they have some powerful and influential outside help on their side. Most of all it would just be incredibly difficult.

Let's start with some definitions first, both from Wikipedia:Sovereignty defines itself as “the authority of a state to govern itself or another state." / "supreme power or authority."

Now what is a state? “A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory.”

The point "geographical territory“ is of real importance here. Unless a very kind outside power with an affluence of land decides to grant them their own territory in their own right, they would have to either stay in their cave or reside in a foreign land which may or may not grant them the right to self-govern to at least some extent but with no hint of sovereignty. Or they would have to take territory by force, which seems unlikely in this scenario.The other issue is that one of the key factors that make a state a state is the acknowledgement of other nations. A real life example to look into here would be Taiwan. Taiwan fulfills pretty much every single textbook requirement for a state – if it weren't for the fact that most other nations simply don't acknowledge it as a sovereign state and instead group it in with the territory of the peoples republic of China.

All questions about building an island aside – most countries still claim some part of the sea along a certain radius of their coasts as their own territory. No one would be too happy if a random group of forgotten cavemen suddenly started building their land right behind their harbors.

Where would they get the resources to build an island from in the first place?

These are all questions you would have to consider in order to make this scenario plausible.

Saphira: The answer isn't No. There is a way to do it, but not because any of us know of a way.

The answer can't be No because there has to be a way. From there, it stops being world building and starts being Character Growth, Plot and Moral Expression.

Feral: So the closest thing to why you are describing from history, as far as I can think, is the establishment of the State of Israel after WWII and some North American indigenous tribes.

In general throughout history when invaders come in and exile a people, the exiled have not been able to reestablish sovereignty there or elsewhere.

The establishment of Israel in 1948 was complicated and controversial and still is. Major factors in the founding of the state were the British Mandate following WWI and the attempt by the British, with the support of the US, to maintain control in the region after WWII. I recommend learning more about Mandatory Palestine and the State of Israel.

You might hear that some Native American tribes are "sovereign" from the United States government and that they are also fully enfranchised citizens of the United States. According to various treaties, this is generally the law, giving "sovereignty" to reservations, which really means joint jurisdiction between the tribal government and federal government. (Of course it's important to remember that the tribes did not choose to live on reservations; it is a form segregation and oppression). In practice, Native American communities tend to be the most impoverished and disenfranchised communities in the country. See recent news on Standing Rock and the suppression of Native American voters in North Dakota during the 2018 election.

So, yeah, if you're looking for historical examples of this happening successfully, you're not gonna find a lot. As for whether you can write a people taking back their native land and reestablishing their sovereignty as a plot... that depends wholly on you.

Tex: Something this big is rarely able to be accomplished without outside help, especially if they're cut off from their physical resources such as land. However, that level of action is usually political in nature and has a social cost - there is rarely, if ever, genuine, random kindness from political powers, especially in situations where an entire nation is forced out of their home.

The scenario you're giving us looks to be near the end of a dispute between... I'm assuming only two entities? What led up to this situation? Was this completely out of the blue? How quickly did this conflict escalate? What are the primary factors that led up to this scenario? Are other entities (governments, mercenaries, provocateurs, etc) involved in this conflict? To what degree? This kind of large-scale, physical reaction doesn't happen randomly or abruptly, and the lead-up is the majority of the context that determines how the rest of this situation plays out.

I'm going to err on the side of caution and assume this was an act that occurred during a war campaign, and that this might or might not have been one campaign during the course of an entire war, which might have been preceded by an escalation of conflict that presumably stemmed from some disagreement that was attempted by at least one side to resolve diplomatically. Because... diplomacy is way cheaper than war, and a popular option between feuding governments because war means raising taxes and it takes a lot of effort to convince your taxable population to empty the coffers and send people outside their home. (The topics of standing armies, ally formation/maintenance, and organization of campaigns with multiple entities are pertinent but too long to discuss for this question.)

Is the cave on their land? Someone else's? If someone else's, are they neighbors? Allies? Or enemies? Was anyone else a witness to this act? How does the conquering of these people - and I'm assuming their corresponding lands - affect international relations? Because you can't just up and shove people out of their home (which... must be a tremendously coordinated and expensive effort, by default) without somebody noticing. There's going to be a huge economic shift that, depending on who did this conquering and how influential these conquerees were, can have a ripple effect to people that have barely interacted with the conquered group on any level. And realistically speaking, it's cheaper for the conquerors to kill the population off, enslave them, sell them, let them retain a degree of autonomy but raise taxes that benefit the conquering nation, or some combination thereof in order to sufficiently recuperate the costs of such a large-scale invasion and make the venture profitable for their own people.

Speaking of somebody noticing this, the ethnic group might or might not be able to rally others to their cause. Unless these others are solidly allies - with no blemishes upon the ethnic group's record that might be brought up - they would need to convince others that this cause is a profitable idea somehow. If they can talk fast enough and make enough promises (negotiation of new trade policies, the marriage of some daughters in the royal family, taxes, etc), then the idea of loaning out an army, a diplomatic envoy, or something even cheaper like weapons/other supplies is possible. The amount of preexisting goodwill, combined with what the ethnic group can promise in recompense - as well as how well their potential allies might believe they can carry through on them - is an important context to consider.

I mention the above for several reasons. For one, those are the traditional methods for both conflict and conflict resolution (of a sort) on large scales such as the one you're mentioning. For two, micronations are generally unstable due to lack of global recognization and are economically dependent on their neighbors/host nations. For three, Palm Deira is physically connected to a preexisting kingdom, to which it is legally the property of that kingdom - it's not just floating out there in the middle of some body of water that's up for the taking. For four, unless you're willing to upend nature to create brand new landmasses, it would take way more technology and other resources than is available to most people - something that has the potential for causing major ecological damage that will make a lot of people very, very angry with you. It's a lot easier to take less destructive political routes to retake one's lands - in almost any era of human history - than it is to just... make new land.

As for retaining sovereignty while integrating with (another's) society - while possible, it's usually politically counter-productive and will cause friction with the host nation(s), which will sour relations between the two groups and if left unmitigated will result in another conflict that will push your ethnic group out. Some integration is expected, and as many nations are also built and bound by their own cultures, similar cultures mesh better than non-similar ones. The more commonalities there are between the two groups, the better it is for everybody involved. Historically speaking, integrations between significantly different ethnic groups are difficult to succeed at unless sacrifices of some cultural nuances are made on both ends, and if there are frictions between major cultural norms, resentment eventually builds into a conflict that may escalate into a war.

#pylons #sovereignty #politics #Anonymous

26 notes · View notes

araitsume · 5 years

Video

youtube

The Desire of Ages, pp. 272-280: Chapter (28) Levi-Matthew

This chapter is based on Matthew 9:9-17; Mark 2:14-22; Luke 5:27-39.

Of the Roman officials in Palestine, none were more hated than the publicans. The fact that the taxes were imposed by a foreign power was a continual irritation to the Jews, being a reminder that their independence had departed. And the taxgatherers were not merely the instruments of Roman oppression; they were extortioners on their own account, enriching themselves at the expense of the people. A Jew who accepted this office at the hands of the Romans was looked upon as betraying the honor of his nation. He was despised as an apostate, and was classed with the vilest of society.

To this class belonged Levi-Matthew, who, after the four disciples at Gennesaret, was the next to be called to Christ's service. The Pharisees had judged Matthew according to his employment, but Jesus saw in this man a heart open for the reception of truth. Matthew had listened to the Saviour's teaching. As the convicting Spirit of God revealed his sinfulness, he longed to seek help from Christ; but he was accustomed to the exclusiveness of the rabbis, and had no thought that this Great Teacher would notice him.

Sitting at his toll booth one day, the publican saw Jesus approaching. Great was his astonishment to hear the words addressed to himself, “Follow Me.”

Matthew “left all, rose up, and followed Him.” There was no hesitation, no questioning, no thought of the lucrative business to be exchanged for poverty and hardship. It was enough for him that he was to be with Jesus, that he might listen to His words, and unite with Him in His work.

So it was with the disciples previously called. When Jesus bade Peter and his companions follow Him, immediately they left their boats and nets. Some of these disciples had friends dependent on them for support; but when they received the Saviour's invitation, they did not hesitate, and inquire, How shall I live, and sustain my family? They were obedient to the call; and when afterward Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?” they could answer, “Nothing.” Luke 22:35.

To Matthew in his wealth, and to Andrew and Peter in their poverty, the same test was brought; the same consecration was made by each. At the moment of success, when the nets were filled with fish, and the impulses of the old life were strongest, Jesus asked the disciples at the sea to leave all for the work of the gospel. So every soul is tested as to whether the desire for temporal good or for fellowship with Christ is strongest.

Principle is always exacting. No man can succeed in the service of God unless his whole heart is in the work and he counts all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. No man who makes any reserve can be the disciple of Christ, much less can he be His colaborer. When men appreciate the great salvation, the self-sacrifice seen in Christ's life will be seen in theirs. Wherever He leads the way, they will rejoice to follow.

The calling of Matthew to be one of Christ's disciples excited great indignation. For a religious teacher to choose a publican as one of his immediate attendants was an offense against the religious, social, and national customs. By appealing to the prejudices of the people the Pharisees hoped to turn the current of popular feeling against Jesus.

Among the publicans a widespread interest was created. Their hearts were drawn toward the divine Teacher. In the joy of his new discipleship, Matthew longed to bring his former associates to Jesus. Accordingly he made a feast at his own house, and called together his relatives and friends. Not only were publicans included, but many others who were of doubtful reputation, and were proscribed by their more scrupulous neighbors.

The entertainment was given in honor of Jesus, and He did not hesitate to accept the courtesy. He well knew that this would give offense to the Pharisaic party, and would also compromise Him in the eyes of the people. But no question of policy could influence His movements. With Him external distinctions weighed nothing. That which appealed to His heart was a soul thirsting for the water of life.

Jesus sat as an honored guest at the table of the publicans, by His sympathy and social kindliness showing that He recognized the dignity of humanity; and men longed to become worthy of His confidence. Upon their thirsty hearts His words fell with blessed, life-giving power. New impulses were awakened, and the possibility of a new life opened to these outcasts of society.

At such gatherings as this, not a few were impressed by the Saviour's teaching who did not acknowledge Him until after His ascension. When the Holy Spirit was poured out, and three thousand were converted in a day, there were among them many who first heard the truth at the table of the publicans, and some of these became messengers of the gospel. To Matthew himself the example of Jesus at the feast was a constant lesson. The despised publican became one of the most devoted evangelists, in his own ministry following closely in his Master's steps.

When the rabbis learned of the presence of Jesus at Matthew's feast, they seized the opportunity of accusing Him. But they chose to work through the disciples. By arousing their prejudices they hoped to alienate them from their Master. It was their policy to accuse Christ to the disciples, and the disciples to Christ, aiming their arrows where they would be most likely to wound. This is the way in which Satan has worked ever since the disaffection in heaven; and all who try to cause discord and alienation are actuated by his spirit.

“Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” questioned the envious rabbis.

Jesus did not wait for His disciples to answer the charge, but Himself replied: “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The Pharisees claimed to be spiritually whole, and therefore in no need of a physician, while they regarded the publicans and Gentiles as perishing from diseases of the soul. Then was it not His work, as a physician, to go to the very class that needed His help?

But although the Pharisees thought so highly of themselves, they were really in a worse condition than the ones they despised. The publicans were less bigoted and self-sufficient, and thus were more open to the influence of truth. Jesus said to the rabbis, “Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.” Thus He showed that while they claimed to expound the word of God, they were wholly ignorant of its spirit.

The Pharisees were silenced for the time, but only became more determined in their enmity. They next sought out the disciples of John the Baptist, and tried to set them against the Saviour. These Pharisees had not accepted the mission of the Baptist. They had pointed in scorn to his abstemious life, his simple habits, his coarse garments, and had declared him a fanatic. Because he denounced their hypocrisy, they had resisted his words, and had tried to stir up the people against him. The Spirit of God had moved upon the hearts of these scorners, convicting them of sin; but they had rejected the counsel of God, and had declared that John was possessed of a devil.

Now when Jesus came mingling with the people, eating and drinking at their tables, they accused Him of being a glutton and a winebibber. The very ones who made this charge were themselves guilty. As God is misrepresented, and clothed by Satan with his own attributes, so the Lord's messengers were falsified by these wicked men.

The Pharisees would not consider that Jesus was eating with publicans and sinners in order to bring the light of heaven to those who sat in darkness. They would not see that every word dropped by the divine Teacher was a living seed that would germinate and bear fruit to the glory of God. They had determined not to accept the light; and although they had opposed the mission of the Baptist, they were now ready to court the friendship of his disciples, hoping to secure their co-operation against Jesus. They represented that Jesus was setting at nought the ancient traditions; and they contrasted the austere piety of the Baptist with the course of Jesus in feasting with publicans and sinners.

The disciples of John were at this time in great sorrow. It was before their visit to Jesus with John's message. Their beloved teacher was in prison, and they passed their days in mourning. And Jesus was making no effort to release John, and even appeared to cast discredit on his teaching. If John had been sent by God, why did Jesus and His disciples pursue a course so widely different?

The disciples of John had not a clear understanding of Christ's work; they thought there might be some foundation for the charges of the Pharisees. They observed many of the rules prescribed by the rabbis, and even hoped to be justified by the works of the law. Fasting was practiced by the Jews as an act of merit, and the most rigid among them fasted two days in every week. The Pharisees and John's disciples were fasting when the latter came to Jesus with the inquiry, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but Thy disciples fast not?”

Very tenderly Jesus answered them. He did not try to correct their erroneous conception of fasting, but only to set them right in regard to His own mission. And He did this by employing the same figure that the Baptist himself had used in his testimony to Jesus. John had said, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.” John 3:29. The disciples of John could not fail to recall these words of their teacher, as, taking up the illustration, Jesus said, “Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?”

The Prince of heaven was among His people. The greatest gift of God had been given to the world. Joy to the poor; for Christ had come to make them heirs of His kingdom. Joy to the rich; for He would teach them how to secure eternal riches. Joy to the ignorant; He would make them wise unto salvation. Joy to the learned; He would open to them deeper mysteries than they had ever fathomed; truths that had been hidden from the foundation of the world would be opened to men by the Saviour's mission.

John the Baptist had rejoiced to behold the Saviour. What occasion for rejoicing had the disciples who were privileged to walk and talk with the Majesty of heaven! This was not a time for them to mourn and fast. They must open their hearts to receive the light of His glory, that they might shed light upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death.

It was a bright picture which the words of Christ had called up, but across it lay a heavy shadow, which His eye alone discerned. “The days will come,” He said, “when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” When they should see their Lord betrayed and crucified, the disciples would mourn and fast. In His last words to them in the upper chamber, He said, “A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me. Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.” John 16:19, 20.

When He should come forth from the tomb, their sorrow would be turned to joy. After His ascension He was to be absent in person; but through the Comforter He would still be with them, and they were not to spend their time in mourning. This was what Satan wanted. He desired them to give the world the impression that they had been deceived and disappointed; but by faith they were to look to the sanctuary above, where Jesus was ministering for them; they were to open their hearts to the Holy Spirit, His representative, and to rejoice in the light of His presence. Yet days of temptation and trial would come, when they would be brought into conflict with the rulers of this world, and the leaders of the kingdom of darkness; when Christ was not personally with them, and they failed to discern the Comforter, then it would be more fitting for them to fast.

The Pharisees sought to exalt themselves by their rigorous observance of forms, while their hearts were filled with envy and strife. “Behold,” says the Scripture, “ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high. Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord?” Isaiah 58:4, 5.

The true fast is no mere formal service. The Scripture describes the fast that God has chosen,—“to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke;” to “draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul.” Isaiah 58:6, 10. Here is set forth the very spirit and character of the work of Christ. His whole life was a sacrifice of Himself for the saving of the world. Whether fasting in the wilderness of temptation or eating with the publicans at Matthew's feast, He was giving His life for the redemption of the lost. Not in idle mourning, in mere bodily humiliation and multitudinous sacrifices, is the true spirit of devotion manifested, but it is shown in the surrender of self in willing service to God and man.

Continuing His answer to the disciples of John, Jesus spoke a parable, saying, “No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.” The message of John the Baptist was not to be interwoven with tradition and superstition. An attempt to blend the pretense of the Pharisees with the devotion of John would only make more evident the breach between them.

Nor could the principles of Christ's teaching be united with the forms of Pharisaism. Christ was not to close up the breach that had been made by the teachings of John. He would make more distinct the separation between the old and the new. Jesus further illustrated this fact, saying, “No man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.” The skin bottles which were used as vessels to contain the new wine, after a time became dry and brittle, and were then worthless to serve the same purpose again. In this familiar illustration Jesus presented the condition of the Jewish leaders. Priests and scribes and rulers were fixed in a rut of ceremonies and traditions. Their hearts had become contracted, like the dried-up wine skins to which He had compared them. While they remained satisfied with a legal religion, it was impossible for them to become the depositaries of the living truth of heaven. They thought their own righteousness all-sufficient, and did not desire that a new element should be brought into their religion. The good will of God to men they did not accept as something apart from themselves. They connected it with their own merit because of their good works. The faith that works by love and purifies the soul could find no place for union with the religion of the Pharisees, made up of ceremonies and the injunctions of men. The effort to unite the teachings of Jesus with the established religion would be vain. The vital truth of God, like fermenting wine, would burst the old, decaying bottles of the Pharisaical tradition.

The Pharisees thought themselves too wise to need instruction, too righteous to need salvation, too highly honored to need the honor that comes from Christ. The Saviour turned away from them to find others who would receive the message of heaven. In the untutored fishermen, in the publican at the market place, in the woman of Samaria, in the common people who heard Him gladly, He found His new bottles for the new wine. The instrumentalities to be used in the gospel work are those souls who gladly receive the light which God sends them. These are His agencies for imparting the knowledge of truth to the world. If through the grace of Christ His people will become new bottles, He will fill them with new wine.

The teaching of Christ, though it was represented by the new wine, was not a new doctrine, but the revelation of that which had been taught from the beginning. But to the Pharisees the truth of God had lost its original significance and beauty. To them Christ's teaching was new in almost every respect, and it was unrecognized and unacknowledged.

Jesus pointed out the power of false teaching to destroy the appreciation and desire for truth. “No man,” He said, “having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.” All the truth that has been given to the world through patriarchs and prophets shone out in new beauty in the words of Christ. But the scribes and Pharisees had no desire for the precious new wine. Until emptied of the old traditions, customs, and practices, they had no place in mind or heart for the teachings of Christ. They clung to the dead forms, and turned away from the living truth and the power of God.

It was this that proved the ruin of the Jews, and it will prove the ruin of many souls in our own day. Thousands are making the same mistake as did the Pharisees whom Christ reproved at Matthew's feast. Rather than give up some cherished idea, or discard some idol of opinion, many refuse the truth which comes down from the Father of light. They trust in self, and depend upon their own wisdom, and do not realize their spiritual poverty. They insist on being saved in some way by which they may perform some important work. When they see that there is no way of weaving self into the work, they reject the salvation provided.

A legal religion can never lead souls to Christ; for it is a loveless, Christless religion. Fasting or prayer that is actuated by a self-justifying spirit is an abomination in the sight of God. The solemn assembly for worship, the round of religious ceremonies, the external humiliation, the imposing sacrifice, proclaim that the doer of these things regards himself as righteous, and as entitled to heaven; but it is all a deception. Our own works can never purchase salvation.

As it was in the days of Christ, so it is now; the Pharisees do not know their spiritual destitution. To them comes the message, “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.” Revelation 3:17, 18. Faith and love are the gold tried in the fire. But with many the gold has become dim, and the rich treasure has been lost. The righteousness of Christ is to them as a robe unworn, a fountain untouched. To them it is said, “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” Revelation 2:4, 5.

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:17. Man must be emptied of self before he can be, in the fullest sense, a believer in Jesus. When self is renounced, then the Lord can make man a new creature. New bottles can contain the new wine. The love of Christ will animate the believer with new life. In him who looks unto the Author and Finisher of our faith the character of Christ will be manifest.

0 notes

pamphletstoinspire · 6 years

Photo

Catholic Prophecy - Part 22

THE END OF THE WORLD

Christ Himself has warned us that "no one knows of the day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but the Father only." {Matt. 24:36). It is futile, therefore, to attempt to determine any date for the end of the world. At the same time, however, Christ gave us a number of signs to watch for, and he added "When you see all these things, know that it is near, even at the door." {Matt. 24:33). Now what are these signs?

1. The Gospel shall be preached in the whole world. 2. A universal falling away from the Faith. 3. The coming of Antichrist. 4. The return of the Jews to the Holy Land. 5. Widespread disturbances of nature.

St. Alphonsus di Liguori enlarges on these signs as follows: 1. The Gospel shall be preached freely in the whole world. 2. All the nations of the earth shall fall away from the Faith. 3. The Holy Roman Empire shall collapse. 4. Antichrist shall come. 5. Henoch and Elias shall return to preach. 6. The Jews shall return to the Holy Land. 7. The powers of heaven shall be shaken. 8. The stars shall fall from heaven. 9. Widespread earthquakes, tidal waves, lightning, wars, famines, and epidemics shall occur.

Now, the question is this: "Have any of these signs come to pass already?" The answer cannot be definite and clear cut. It may be asserted that the first two signs are already here: indeed, the Gospel has been preached in every nation, and there is overwhelming evidence of a general falling away from the Faith. Yet, it has been, and it may still be contended that the preaching of the Gospel must be absolutely world-wide and reach every single human being, and not be merely confined to pockets of missionary activity in every nation. It can also be objected that the current faithlessness is not general enough to be applied to the second sign; indeed, the Church is still very active and influential. Some statesmen are openly 90 Catholic Prophecy professing their Catholic Faith; some governments are wholly or almost wholly Catholic (e.g., Spain, Portugal, and Ireland).

In my opinion, the two interpretations are valid if given the necessary qualifications. This is so because there are two different stages within the Latter-Days period: the first, heralding the final stage, being of lesser intensity; the final stage bringing about the consummation of the world. To each of these two stages will the proximate signs of the End apply. Thus, we are now about to enter the first stage, the Great Disaster which is imminent and which will be followed by a period of peace. So, we can already see the signs of its coming: the Gospel has been preached in every nation (although imperfectly), and the falling away from the Faith is worldwide (yet incomplete). Then, the lands of the former Roman Empire will be in a state of utter chaos and anarchy. Communism (a prefiguration of Antichrist) will triumph (but its victory will be as short-lived as that of Antichrist some thirty years later). The Great King to-be and the Holy Pontiff will reveal themselves to the world and fight Communism, thus prefiguring Henoch and Elias. Stones will fall from heaven; earthquakes and tidal waves will wreak havoc throughout the world; famines and epidemics will be widespread. Thus will come the end of the first stage, or "the Good Friday of Christendom." The resurrection will be spectacular: the Great King will be the Emperor of Western Europe, and anointed by the Holy Pontiff. Many Jews and all non-Catholic Christians will turn to the True Faith. The Mohammedans will embrace Christianity, as also the Chinese. In short, virtually the whole world will be Catholic. This universal preaching of the Gospel, in turn, will constitute the first sign of the second stage. Toward the end of the Great King's reign, people will fall away again from the Faith (the second sign). Then, the Holy Roman Empire will collapse (Third sign). Antichrist will come (Fourth sign). Henoch and Elias will be sent down again in order to fight Antichrist (fifth sign). The Jews will return to Palestine (sixth sign). New disturbances of nature will take place (seventh, eighth, and ninth signs).

This personal interpretation of mine is based on my knowledge of a large number of private prophecies, and on extensive and painstaking cross-references and correlations made many years ago, when I was in a position to devote much time to studying these prophecies. Moreover, this

The End of the World 91

interpretation is not incompatible with Scripture. Indeed, Scripture supports it in many cases. We read in the Gospel, for instance, a description of various evils followed by the caution: "But the end is not yet" (Matt. 24:6), and, again, a description of pestilence, famines and earthquakes, with the conclusion: "But these things are the beginnings of sorrows," (Matt. 24:8), the first stage only. Then, we are told that "the Gospel is to be preached in the whole world" {Matt. 24:14) before the End finally comes. In Verse 15, another description of these events is given, but it is clear that Verses 9 to 14 formed an indivisible whole, as did Verses 4 to 8. Then, at the end of that third passage (Verses 15 to 22) we are informed again that those days will be shortened for the sake of the elect, otherwise no living creature would be saved.

For the above reasons I regard it as certain that there will be two different stages. The first stage will only be the beginning of sorrows, and it will be shortened for the sake of the elect, and the Gospel will then be preached throughout the world. This will be the period of peace under the Great Monarch, the period of conversions and general prosperity which we and our children may enjoy — in short, the period of peace promised by Our Lady of Fatima. NOSTRADAMUS |j 75. Michel De Nostredame (Michael of Our Lady) Known as Nostradamus. Nostradamus was born in the South of France in 1503 where he studied the humanities. He obtained his doctorate in philosophy and medicine at the age of twenty-six. Later, he was appointed adviser and personal physician to the Kings of France, a post which he retained through the reigns of Henry II, Francis II, and Charles IX. A member of the Third Order of St. Francis, he enjoyed the friendship of Pope Pius IV. He was a devout Catholic all his life, and he died in 1566.

I make no apologies for quoting Nostradamus. I am aware, of course, that he is not regarded very highly by some of the more educated people in this part of the world, although he enjoys considerable popularity among lovers of sensationalism. This unfortunate state of affairs has been brought about by the shameless commercial exploitation of his works. In point of fact, however, Nostradamus was an authentic seer and, in the Old World, many an erudite has not deemed it beneath his dignity to spend long hours poring over his predictions. The list of lay and clerical authors who have written books on Nostradamus over the last 150 years is quite impressive, and I once knew a medical specialist of high renown, a man of great learning, now deceased, who wrote at least three books on the prophecies of Nostradamus. His familiarity with the Greek and Latin languages and with the dialect of southern France enabled him to decipher many of the most obscure of Nostradamus' coined words.

Yes, I have every reason indeed to regard Nostradamus as a genuine seer. I know that Dr. Rumble of Sydney would not agree with me, and Dr. Rumble is quite an erudite too — on a par with some of the clerical writers I have just mentioned. But, however great his erudition, Dr. Rumble had to specialize in breadth of knowledge rather than in depth. This was required by his very functions as a ''Radio-Replies" man. No one could possibly answer such diverse questions as he was 94 Catholic Prophecy

asked without having at his disposal a good library of reference books. But once you consult a work of reference, you have to take at its face value the information given therein. On controverted questions, this is unreliable.

Although a pygmy compared to the intellectual giant that Dr. Rumble is, 1, on the other hand, became acquainted with Nostradamus not less than thirty-two years ago and feel entitled to say without exaggeration that I know the man and his works. Not only the man and his works, but also a number of the works that have been written about him. This necessary introduction being made, here now are some of his prophecies.

f75.1 4.50 Libra shall see the Hesperides reign, Of heaven and earth shall hold the monarchy, Not to perish under any Asian forces, Until seven in rank have held the Hierarchy.

Comment: A bad start, you may say! It is unintelligible. Not really so, however, once you are fully acquainted with Nostradamus' symbolism.

The Hesperides' Gardens is that fabulous land of plenty, west of Gibraltar, from which Hercules brought back to Greece the Golden Apples. That land is the United States, and the above quatrain, interpreted, should read thus:

Under the sign of Libra, America shall reign, Shall hold power in the sky and on land, Shall never perish under Asian forces, Until seven Pontificates have passed.

Comment: As a great world power, the U.S.A. began its "reign" during the First World War — but it was not the greatest world power; in 1918, that was France. In 1945, however, the U.S.A. was, by and large, the greatest world power. I think it is from the reign of Pius XII that the seven Pontificates must be counted, and this brings us to the last Pope according to St. Malachy's list — when the world will end. It is debatable, of course, whether the U.S.A. is still the leading world power; the inane policies of the Washington politicians since 1945 have been quite successful in lowering U.S. prestige and influence, and the Vietnam War seems to Paragraph 15. 1 95 suggest that the giant has feet of clay. However, it must be borne in mind that the Washington politicians have never really wanted to win the Vietnam War. That war could have been won within a few months if the U.S. Army had been allowed to land in North Vietnam. Finally, in the unlikely event of an all-out war with Soviet Russia, I am inclined to think that the U.S. would prove the stronger of the two. The greatest weakness of the U.S. is moral corruption. But, miraculously, when an all-out war erupts, people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and forget about drugs and sex. On the other hand, the greatest weakness of Soviet Russia is internal discontent, and when a global war breaks out, the dissenters, far from rallying round the Government, may seize this unique opportunity to revolt. We saw this during World War II when whole Russian armies, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, defected to the Germans and were anxious to liberate their homeland under the leadership of their general, Vlassov. To my mind, this is why Soviet Russia is so careful in its dealings with the U.S. They just do not relish the prospect of a global war. And if the Washington political careerists had taken this into account since 1945, it is fairly certain that Communism would now be a thing of the past — without any war. The history of post-war U.S. diplomacy is a story of missed opportunities.

I must be pardoned for elaborating on the subject. But this study in prophecy would lose its significance — in fact might become irrelevant if I did not examine the political context of the period to which these prophecies refer. So, let me explain a little further the story of "missed opportunities."

In 1945, the U.S. was the only nuclear power in the world. When the Soviets decided on the Berlin Blockade, what did the U.S. do? At great expense, it organized an air bridge; whereas, the only logical answer worthy of the leading nation was to force the way with tanks through the blockade. No, there would have been no war: the Russians could not afford it. But their loss of prestige in the satellite countries would have been tremendous, and the consequences for them would have been incalculable.

Next came the Korean War. General MacArthur had a plan to finish it quickly, a plan that would have in the process brought to its knees the rising power of Communist China. But Washington opposed it and recalled MacArthur (as a 96 Catholic Prophecy

reward for his genius, no doubt). In 1956 there was Hungary; after the popular uprising, the Russian tanks left the country and remained poised for several days on the other side of the border, waiting to see what action the U.S. would take. Meantime, the newly-formed Hungarian government asked the U.S. for support — which was refused — and they then approached several European countries. Spain offered to send a few planes, but refuelling facilities were required in West Germany. West Germany did grant, or was about to grant, those facilities when the U.S. stepped in and threatened West Germany with economic sanctions. Bonn had to back down. Result, the Russian tanks poured back into Hungary and crushed the uprising in a bloodbath.

Is it the end of the ''missed opportunities?" Not in the least! but I cannot review them all: Yalta, Poland, East Germany, the Middle East, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, the list is long indeed. And, except in these last few years, the risk of all-out war with Russia was non-existent. Even now, this risk is minimal if the Washington politicians would but allow the U.S. Army to show its teeth.

Back now to Nostradamus. He foresaw the Age of Enlightenment and the subsequent development of the printed word which man is using to boast of his achievements. It is to be noted that in his time printed books were still comparatively few.

\\ 75.2 Letters will do such great and unequalled boasting . . . He foresaw the development of radiology and, as his apposition of "rare metals" and "waves" makes clear, the development of nuclear power — a thing which was undreamed of in his time.

U 75.3 "The complete transformation of incorruptible metals and mysterious waves. . ." (i.e. Plutonium and Gamma and Beta rays).

He foresaw the decadence of the spiritual and temporal powers (the Church and the secular governments), modern irreligion, and the general revolt against authority; plus, he foresaw that the Church would be affected first. Indeed, it is only within the last twenty years that anarchy has been spreading; whereas, irreligion began in the 18th century.

Paragraph 15.1 97

|f 75.4 "Momentous and painful events, calamitous adventures are drawing close . . . first, the temples of the Lord; then, those whose power is on earth, when the enemies of Jesus Christ shall begin to multiply. . ."

He also foresaw much of what the other prophecies mention:

|f 75.5 "I find that learning shall be at a great loss, and that so many great floods shall happen before the universal conflagration, that there shall scarcely be any land that shall not be covered with water, and this shall last so long that except from what lives on mountains and in waters, all shall perish. Before and after these floods, however, there shall be such scarcity of rain and such a great deal of fire, and burning stones shall fall from heaven, that nothing unconsumed shall remain. The world shall be so diminished, and so few men shall be left on earth, that not enough will be found to plow the fields, and these will stay in fallow as long as they had once been tilled."

He gave the correct date when the Christian Calendar was abolished in France: (It was restored later by Napoleon I.)

|f 75.6 "And it shall be in the year 1792, which will be thought to be a renewal of time. . ."

He foresaw the rise of authoritarian regimes in Italy, Germany and Spain (Mussolini assumed power in 1922, Hitler in 1933, Franco in 1938).

|f 75.7 "And three regions shall be over a wide extent of leagues, namely, the Roman, the German, and the Spanish. They shall be equal in nature, but much different in faith."

There is another passage that should be inserted before the last sentence above, but it is practically impossible to translate it satisfactorily as the sense is quite obscure. However, it clearly refers to a war, and two or three countries, by indicating the nearest latitude of their capital cities. Thus, 48° for Paris (although it should really be 49°); 50° for Prague; 52° for London, Berlin and Warsaw. It goes on to say that 98 Catholic Prophecy

the first areas (50° and 52°) will be the first to "tremble", followed by the Western, the Southern and the Eastern, in that order. Indeed, Prague and Warsaw were the first to "tremble" (March 1939 and September 1939). Then, came Paris (May 1940); Greece (October 1940); Russia (June 1941). It could not have been more accurate. Yet, it is impossible to reconstruct this passage, which is a jumble of verbs, nouns and adjectives, with no apparent connection. This obscurity, of course, is deliberate. In nine different passages at least, Nostradamus explains that it is not expedient to be too specific and that he has "roughed up" his original vaticinations so that they might be passed by the ecclesiastical censor. "But," he says, "I could have given the dates for every event which my prophetical instinct enabled me to see because I have worked out all dates through astrological calculations." Nostradamus had a natural gift of clairvoyance coming from God, of course, as all things come from God, but not immediately inspired by God. Moreover, he was a scientist and an accomplished scholar. Astrology had no secrets for him, and it is his knowledge of astrology that enabled him to find out the dates (he gives precision's about this in twelve different passages).

Astrology is, to the mind of modern men, a superstition, but it was not so in the past, in those so-called Dark Ages which, in his foolish pride, modern man derides. Astrology was then held in high esteem by men such as Galileo and St. Thomas Aquinas. It is only comparatively recently that rationalistic philosophers and scientists decided that there was nothing but superstition in Astrology (although, to be sure, a great deal of what is currently presented as "Astrology" is just that). Yet, some fifteen years ago in Paris, a group of biologists and radiologists established experimentally that the sun and the moon did influence some biological processes. And since the exercise of our free-will depends on our thinking power, which in turn rests on biological processes, it is not hard to see that the stars may indeed have a bearing on the future of mankind. Let us consider another passage on the Second World War: fl 75.8 "Italy, emulating Ancient Rome, will raise great armies and put her wings high in the sky (planes). And at that time, great Bysantine sails (the British fleet based in the Paragraph 75.8 99

Middle East), with the help and power of Aquila (the American Eagle), shall meet the Ligustics (Italians) and hinder them so, that the two Cretans (the perfidious ones: Hitler and Mussolini), shall not keep their faith. In the sea, there shall be great commotion, beginning in the Panpotam (Sicily) to the European Mesopotamia (Italy) at forty-five and others, from forty-one, forty-two, and thirty-seven/'

Comment: This passage would have been incomprehensible before the events it describes. But not so now. kk Pan-Potam" means Sicily because this coined word means in effect "island". European "Meso-Potamia" means Italy because the word means ''Peninsula" in Greek. The figures 45, 41, 42, and 37 are degrees of latitude. And so, this passage can be explicated as follows:

"Italy will emulate Ancient Rome. She will raise great armies and put her planes in the sky. But the British fleet of the Middle East, supported by the Americans, will confront the Italians with the result that Italy and Germany will not keep their faith. There will be great activity at sea. It will begin in Sicily (where he Americans under Patton, and the English under Montgomery landed in July 1943). It will be then carried to the mainland of Italy."

All this is strictly correct: the Anglo-Americans landed in Sicily first (37° of latitude), then on the mainland at Naples and Salerno ( Between 4 1 ° and 42° latitude) where bloody fight- ing took place. Finally, the war ended when the Allies had reached the North of Italy (45°). Meantime, and even before the Salerno landing took place, the Italians had broken their faith with Germany (six days before, exactly), so that the Fifth American Army of General Clark was confronted, not by Italian troops, but by German troops under Rommel and Kesselring. Let us now turn to Nostradamus' prophecies of events yet to come.

As the above passage has shown, it is extremely difficult to interpret Nostradamus' predictions before the events. Once the events have come to pass, however, some significant details always make it possible to identify the passage concerned. Regarding the future, therefore, all one can do is to give an outline, and qualify any possible interpretation of de- tails by means of a question mark.

#catholic prophecy

0 notes

ruminativerabbi · 6 years

Text

Dual Loyalties

I think most of us in the Jewish community take the accusation of “dual loyalty” as a feature specifically of anti-Semitic rhetoric. But the reality is that the insult itself, although always a popular way among anti-Semites to disparage Jewish Americans, has a far more complicated history than taking it “just” as a way of questioning the patriotism of American Jews would make it sound. And the philosophical underpinnings of the idea—the question of whether loyalty to one’s country by definition precludes the possibility of also harboring a deep sense of emotional, financial, or activist involvement in the affairs of some other country—is itself an interesting question to think through.

It is widely understood that the heart cannot love two other persons simultaneously with the exact same level of passion or vigor, and that, as a result, one of the two parties will always be the less loved and one the more no matter how pure one’s original intention to love them both equally well might have been. Indeed, it was the slow insinuation of this idea into our Western consciousness that led to even the most traditional Jews turning away from polygamy despite its scriptural bona fides and instead embracing the monogamous model in marriage. Nor is this just a non-binding instance of a custom falling into gentle desuetude: Rabbi Gershom ben Judah of Mainz formally interdicted polygamy in the year 1240—an amazingly daring move in his day in that it actually made (and makes) it forbidden to obey to least one of the 613 commandments according to the simple meaning of the text, which is surely how Scripture meant for it to be observed—and thus does it remain forbidden and not merely out of vogue for Jews even today.

What is true with respect to the love of another person is also widely understood to be true with respect to the love of one’s country. And, indeed, although fidelity to one’s spouse and allegiance to one’s country are hardly each other’s exact counterpart in every single way, there are features that both clearly do—and should—share. To consider the issue from an American vantage point, for example, I think it is entirely fair to say that the love of country that characterizes the patriotic citizen, rooted as it must be in a deep allegiance both specifically to the foundational ideas upon which the republic rests and more generally to the whole American ethos as it has evolved to our day, simply cannot co-exist with that citizen’s same level of allegiance to some other country and to its institutions and foundational ideas.

But does that concept of patriotic monogamy, so to speak, mean that citizens are somehow being untrue to the country of their own citizenship by caring deeply about, and feeling intensely involved in, the affairs of other nations? Is it an act of disloyalty for someone happily married to a loving spouse also to care deeply about other people—about a neighbor suffering from some terrible illness, say, or about a co-worker suddenly in danger of losing his or her home? Who would say it does? And yet the dual-allegiance derogation—with its implication that one cannot be a truly patriotic American if one also cares deeply about the affairs of another country and is emotionally or even spiritually caught up in that country’s affairs of state—continues to surface like an endlessly recurring infection that simply refuses to succumb until it has done the maximum damage possible…to those whose American patriotism it attempts to sully and, paradoxically, also to those who degrade their own allegiance to our nation’s democratic principles by using it to question the patriotism of others. And, yes, this does seem to be more focused on Jewish supporters of Israel than on others: I imagine Irish Americans care more about Ireland than most other Americans do, but I can’t recall anyone accusing them of disloyalty because of it.

Most recently, this has come up in the wake of a comment of Rashida Tlaib, the newly elected member of the House of Representatives from Michigan, who openly and publicly suggested that people backing a series of pro-Israel bills in the House appear to hear to have forgotten “what country they represent.” The implication of that remark, tweeted out to her 280,000 followers on Twitter, is completely clear in its suggestion that any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate who actively and vocally supports Israel cannot be a truly patriotic American and so should not be trusted to serve in the Congress or imagined invariably to have the best interests of American citizens at heart. (The irony that inheres in the fact that Tlaib is both a Palestinian-American and an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian cause, yet presumably does not see herself as unsure what country she represents, went unnoticed only by some. See below.)

The “dual loyalty” mud has been flung at many others as well over the years. The internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in West Coast concentration camps during the Second World War could only be justified with reference to the fear that, now that war had come, Americans of Japanese descent might reasonably have opted to preference allegiance to their ancestral homeland over loyalty to their adopted one. The 1960 presidential election was marred by opponents of John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, openly wondering if the then-candidate’s true allegiance was to our nation or to the Vatican. There are lots of other examples too, of course. But all have in common the basic notion that caring deeply, personally, and intensely about the security and wellbeing of a foreign state is a form—albeit a minor and unactionable form—of sedition. But is that a reasonable supposition? It is one thing, after all, for the Constitution to require that the President of the United States be a “natural born Citizen,” presumably because of the fear that any citizen who was formerly the citizen of a different country will necessarily harbor in his or her heart the kind of indelible allegiance to that country that would make it impossible to be wholly loyal to this one. When spelled out that clearly, that sounds ridiculous. Or at least to me it does! But to posit that citizens in general, and not specifically those seeking the highest office in the land, are by definition disloyal if they care deeply about the fate or wellbeing of specific other nations strikes me as being infinitely more so.

Two essays published last week spoke directly to this issue and I’d like to recommend them both to you.

Writing on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website, Andrew Silow-Carroll cited a remark by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis dating back to 1915 in which he could have been addressing himself to Rashida Tlaib directly. “Multiple loyalties,” he wrote, “are objectionable only if they are inconsistent. Every Irish American who contributed towards advancing home rule [i.e., in an Ireland then fighting for its own independence from Britain] was a better man and a better American for the sacrifice he made. Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so.” In other words, caring deeply about an ancestral homeland and feeling a tie of kinship and emotional affinity to its inhabitants is not a sign of disloyalty, much less of sedition, but rather a natural extension of the allegiance we all feel to our extended families. But Silow-Carroll’s comment on that passage is also worth citing: “The Brandeisian notion that ‘multiple loyalties’ make you a better American has guided and justified Jewish activism for Israel even before its founding in 1948. It’s based partly on Brandeis’ theoretical notion that loyalty itself is an admirable and fungible quality, like honesty or sobriety. And it assumes, as Brandeis did famously, that American values, Jewish values and Zionist values are fully aligned.” I couldn’t agree more. To read Silow-Carroll’s piece, click here.

The other essay was by Alan Dershowitz and was published on the website of the Gatestone Institute. His essay is less about Tlaib herself, however, and more about the anti-BDS legislation whose supporters Tlaib was attacking. (To read the essay in its entirely, click here.) That legislation, intended to make illegal discrimination against entities (commercial or academic or otherwise) that do business with Israel, is being widely attacked in some circles as an attack on the freedom of speech promised all Americans by the First Amendment. He addresses that charge, I think effectively and—for me, at least—conclusively, and then turns his withering gaze to Rashida Tlaib herself and addresses her tweet: “Tlaib argues that ‘boycotting is a right and part of our historical fight for freedom and equality.’ Would she have supported, in the name of equality, the right of white bigots to boycott Black owned stores in the South or Black apartment renters in the North? Would she support the right of homophobes to boycott gay owned stores? Or the right of anti-Muslim bigots to boycott Muslim-owned stores or products from Muslim nations? If she were to support legislation prohibiting anti-Palestinian boycotts, how would she respond to an accusation that she ‘forgot what country’ she represents?...No one has accused Tlaib of forgetting what country she represents when she supports the Palestinian cause, even though Palestinian terrorists, acting in the name of ‘Palestine,’ have killed numerous Americans. Americans of any religion have the right to support Israel, and most do, without being accused of disloyalty, just as Americans of any religion have the right to support the Palestinian cause. It is both bigoted and hypocritical to apply a different standard to Jews who support Israel than to Muslims who support the Palestinian cause.”

What else is there to say? I couldn’t feel myself to be a more patriotic citizen of our great country. My deep commitment to the security and wellbeing of the State of Israel is not solely rooted in the fact that Joan and I own property there, but far more deeply in my conviction that the future of the Jewish people is inextricably tied to the fate of the State of Israel. I can’t even begin to explain why anyone would argue seriously that that makes me less of an American patriot.

#Dual Loyalty Issue #Rashida Tlaib #Alan Dershowitz #Andrew Silow-Carroll

1 note · View note

ruminativerabbi · 5 years

Text

Lawfare is Warfare

When I first heard that the International Criminal Court based in The Hague had determined that war crimes have been committed on the West Bank, in Gaza, and in East Jerusalem and was going to embark on the process of deciding whether or not to prosecute those alleged crimes, my first tendency—like most normal people, I imagine—was to wave it away as yet another example of an organization founded to prosecute wrongdoing being hijacked by Israel’s enemies as part of a long-term effort to delegitimize the Jewish state. In a nutshell, that actually is what this is all about. But the potential consequences for Israel are serious. And the situation, as it turns out, is far more complicated than I had first understood.

The court was founded in 2002 by the signatories to the so-called Rome Statute that now serves as the court’s foundational document. Neither the United States nor Israel is a signatory to the Rome Statute, however, because at the time both nations feared—apparently entirely reasonably—that the court would end up delivering highly politicized judgments unrelated to the pursuit of justice that was supposed to be the court’s raison d’être in the first place. And although the ICC is in theory independent of the United Nations, the on-the-ground reality is that the Court is so intricately related to the U.N. so as to make of its latest machinations just another part of the U.N.’s mission to ignore—and, indeed, to whitewash—the crimes of all members states except Israel so as to have the time solely to devote itself to the demonization of the Jewish state. (More on this below.) But just to wave this latest development as just another example of the moral bankruptcy of a United Nations-related agency like UNESCO or (even more egregiously) UNRWA would be a mistake. This is an important development that needs to be taken seriously.

The ICC can only try individuals, not entire countries. And so, if the pre-trial hearing that will now ensue endorses the opinion the President of the Court, Fatou Bensouda of Guinea, that the ICC does indeed have the right to pursue the matter, what will almost inevitably follow will be the issuance of subpoenas to major Israeli political and military figures ordering them to appear before the court. If they declined to appear, warrants could then be issued for their arrest. And although it is so that the Bensouda’s original decision speaks in passing about crimes committed by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, no one appears to be taking any of that too seriously—including not Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, both of which organizations openly and effusively praised Bensouda’s decision to proceed and neither of which entities seemed to harbor even the slightest worry that it might end up having to answer for any of its own actions.

There are strong arguments against the ICC decision to move forward against Israel, some procedural and some moral. Of them, though, surely not the least compelling is the relationship—ignored by the court but fully relevant—between the fact that Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Accord and the fact that the ICC only has the right to bring the citizens of member states to trial. But there are other strong arguments in Israel’s favor as well.

The ICC’s decision to treat the Palestinians as though Palestine were an independent country is rooted in the kind of wishful thinking that has characterized the fantasyland approach to reality of the United Nations for decades. Palestine, of course, could easily become an independent country: having already been recognized as a state—or at least a state in potentia—by well over one hundred countries, all the Palestinians have to do is to declare their independence and then get down to the task of negotiating a workable modus vivendi with the neighbors. It’s that last part, of course, that has gummed up the works for decades now: the obvious necessity of recognizing the reality of Israel’s existence and learning to live in harmony with the Jewish state has been the sticking point that has held back the Palestinians from doing what they endlessly insist is all they really want to do: to live in peace as an independent state among the nations of the world. But that inability to accept reality and create a nation is hardly Israel’s fault: the door to Palestinian independence has been open for decades even despite the Palestinians’ unwillingness to step through it. The ICC’s solution—simply to ignore reality—is simultaneously childish and malign, and does not do the court any credit. But there is far more to say as well.

Key too is that the court exists to prosecute individuals for war crimes in places where there is no independent judiciary that can investigate and try its own citizens. But Israel is hardly that place: the independence of the Israeli judiciary and its ability to act freely has just been demonstrated in the various indictments handed down against Benyamin Netanyahu. Even more relevant, though, is that there actually have been individuals tried over the years in Israel for having behaved with excessive force or violence against Palestinians. So the notion that the ICC would need to step in even if it did have some sort of jurisdiction in the matter is not particularly convincing. And when paired with the fact that neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas has ever tried anyone for war crimes committed against Israeli citizens and actually foster terror crimes against civilians by lionizing terrorists who die on the job and providing endless financial support for their families—taken together, those two facts make the whole notion of trying Israel at the ICC even more Kafkaesque.

But when all of the above is considered in light of the ICC’s own history, the situation moves past Kafka.

The ICC has, to date, undertaken investigations into twelve different countries, mostly in Africa. (The countries involved are Burundi, the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Kenya, Mali, Libya, Uganda, Myanmar, and Bangladesh.) But it has adopted a totally hands-off policy with respect to the Arab world: the government of Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of its own civilians over the last few years, destroyed countless towns and villages, and turned fully half of its own population into refugees. But the ICC has shown no interest of any sort in that behavior. Indeed, among the nations of the Middle East, only Israel arouses its ire…and merely for defending itself against entities that openly espouse terror as their weapon of choice in a war they could end tomorrow but prefer to pursue perennially as though violence directed at civilians could somehow result in the achievement of their avowed goals.

Finally, the argument—which I’ve noted in a dozen different on-line settings—that the ICC is independent of the United Nations is simply not true. For one thing, the ICC depends fully on the United Nations for all of its funding. For another, the ICC regularly bases itself on the kind of one-sided, wholly biased reporting of U.N. agencies that no reasonable person would consider even remotely accurate.

The world has mostly nodded. Yes, the P.M. of Australia, who has more on his plate this week to worry about than the ICC, took the time to opine in public that the ICC has no jurisdiction in the matter of Israel’s behavior. The German government said much the same thing, as did our own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. So there’s that to be grateful for. But the larger issue—the public demonization of Israel in the larger forum of nations and the general willingness of the nations of the world not to care or even particularly to notice—is beyond distressing.

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the issue itself of war crimes committed during the Gaza Uprising of 2014 is itself a bogus charge invented by Israel’s enemies without any serious evidence to muster on its own behalf. A year later, in 2015, the independent High-Level Military Group—a group led by General Klaus Naumann, the former chief of staff of the German Army and the Chairman of the NATO military committee and staffed by generals, high-level military experts, senior officers, and chiefs of staff from seven NATO nations—came to the following conclusion regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza: “Each of our own armies is of course committed to protecting civilian life during combat. But none of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the IDF last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population in such circumstances…During Operation Protective Edge, in the air, on the ground and at sea, Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard.”

As the specter of anti-Semitism rises at home and abroad, we tend to focus on the thugs and brutes that attack Jews at worship in synagogue or at home. That rising tide has to be addressed, obviously, and somehow confronted. But to allow our distress over that kind of activity at home to divert our gaze from institutions like the ICC merely because they present themselves not as ruffians or hoodlums but as jurists concerned solely with the pursuit of justice—that would be a disastrous error of judgment. In the end, I still hope that reasonableness will prevail, but I feel less sanguine with each successive article I read, both in print and online, about the inner workings of the International Criminal Court. Our government has already spoken out forcefully on the side of decency and rationality. I mentioned above the responses of Germany and Australia. Which of our other so-called friends and allies will join us in calling out the ICC, on the other hand, remains to be seen.

#International Criminal Court #ICC

0 notes

ruminativerabbi · 5 years

Text

Loyalty and Patriotism

The President’s series of comments and tweets about the questionable loyalty— both towards our own nation and towards Israel—of American Jews who do not support the Republican party came as a shock to many. This was not, however, because the President hasn’t made outrageous comments before or because his lack of personal restraint hasn’t surfaced in more contexts that I could list in just one letter, but because the specific nature of the charge was so overlaid with so many disconcerting overtones at once that it was hard to separate them one from the other even just for the sake of discussing them discretely.

When we lived in Germany in the mid-1980s, Joan and I were part of the Jewish community in Heidelberg. In those days, it was a small operation: a series of rooms rented on a busy shopping street near the center of town with windows only facing the inner courtyard of the house in which the community had both its offices and its modest worship space. This specific arrangement, I was told, had been set in place years earlier for security reasons: by choosing a building housing only stores and offices that were closed on Friday evenings and on Saturday mornings, no one other than members of the community or their guests would have any reason to enter the property when services were underway. And that, in turn, was intended to make it as simple as possible for the police officers guarding the building to do their work successfully. (This European model of a back courtyard leading to a building without its own address and all but invisible from the street—like the Achterhuis in which the Franks hid out in Amsterdam—will be unfamiliar to most North Americans. But it’s the way most of Heidelberg’s buildings were built—and also most older buildings throughout Germany and elsewhere in Europe—and the seclusion suited the community’s needs to a tee.) Even though this concept of being both in full view and yet somehow also invisible, thus simultaneously present and absent, was peculiar in the extreme to me as a new arrival used to our American ways. In time, I got used to it. Even the irony of being guarded during worship by German policeman faded and eventually became just part of how things were. By the time we were ready to leave, I hardly noticed the officers other than to wish them a good day on the way out and to thank them for watching over us.

Nor was any of this viewed as excessive by anyone at all, including not by myself or Joan: on our way to shul on Shabbat, we never failed to notice the granite monument marking the spot on the Rathausstrasse where the Rohrbach synagogue stood before the neighbors burnt it to the ground on Kristallnacht. (Now part of Heidelberg, Rohrbach was then its own little village with its own tiny Jewish community and that is where we lived during our years in Germany.) Nor were we alone: people to shul coming from the other direction just had a different marker to pass by—the one on the Grosse Mantelgasse marking the spot on which the synagogue of Heidelberg itself was burnt to the ground in 1938. (Click here for a photo montage connected with that site and its terrible history.) And that experience of walking by those sites provided more than enough historical background for anyone to feel entirely secure about having maximal security arrangements in place when the community met for prayer or for study, or in communal fellowship.

One of the interesting features of life in Germany in those days was the fact that the expression “German Jews” was not ever used to describe the Jews we met in Germany. At first, this struck me as odd: referencing myself as an American Jew seemed entirely natural to me, but that was not at all how things were in Germany, where the members of the community referenced themselves solely as “Jews in Germany,” reserving the title “German Jews” for the pre-war community that was either murdered or hounded into exile. Those people, the usage seemed to me to be saying, they were the ones who were insane enough to think of themselves as some version (i.e., the Jewish version) of German, who were oblivious to the degree to which they were despised, resented, and disliked by their neighbors and colleagues in the bank or in the academy or in the workplace…and who paid an unimaginably huge price for their own naiveté. (The reverse usage, “Jewish Germans,” was also in use in the pre-war period, although mostly as part of the strange expression deutsche Staatsbürger jüdischer Herkunft, meaning literally “German citizens of Jewish origin.” That expression, though, I only read in history books and never heard anyone use in normal discourse other than ironically.) Nor was this a mere local usage: even the national association representing Jewish interests to the public and to the German government referenced itself that way, calling itself the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (that is, The Central Council of Jews in Germany), a title weirdly reminiscent of the name of the Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland (meaning something like “The Reich-wide Union of Jews in Germany), the umbrella organization that represented Germany Jewry during the Nazi years until its final members were deported to their deaths in the course of the war and the organization stopped existing.

So that’s the baggage I bring to this conversation: years among people who couldn’t even begin to describe themselves as Jewish Germans, even though many of them were born in Germany, had German passports, spoke only German to each other or to anyone, and had no other nationality to claim other than their theoretical right to Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. Except that they all (or mostly) had German citizenship, these people were truly stateless, the human version of flotsam adrift in a world that somehow had room for them but couldn’t quite figure out where they belonged. I myself, of course, didn’t feel that way at all: in those days I felt as unambiguously American as I do today. As noted, I got used to how things were in Germany. But I came from an entirely different world, one in which it would be unthinkable for a leading academic to publish a book presenting an analysis of the place of Jewish Americans in the national fabric of the United States as being about the relationship in the U.S. of Americans and Jews. But even Jews in Germany spoke that way in those days: unselfconsciously talking about “Jews and Germans” without suggesting even obliquely that the Jews in questions were themselves also Germans…or at least citizens of what was then called the Federal Republic of Germany.

Here, things are supposed to be different. And, by and large, they are different. And yet, there is apparently still enough self-doubt underlying the whole Jewish enterprise in America for the President’s comment to have struck a nerve in a way that some equally inane comment that didn’t call into question the American-ness of American Jews never would or could have.

The notion that American Jews are being disloyal to Israel by supporting the Democratic Party, after all, is one thing. Among the Democratic leaders of things in the Congress are people like Chuck Schumer, Nita Lowey, Hakeem Jeffries, and Nancy Pelosi—all of whom have very strong pro-Israel voting records. And, indeed, a group of forty freshmen Democrats visited Israel a few weeks ago and came away, judging from their own post-trip comments, both impressed and encouraged in their pro-Israel orientation. Yes, there are the odious Rashida Tlaib and Ilan Omar, about whom I wrote last week and whose statements about Israel, as I said then, fall in my estimation somewhere between bizarrely naïve and wholly dishonest. But to condemn any Jewish American who is a member of the Democratic Party or who votes Democratic as disloyal to Israel because of a tiny handful of backbenchers whose views are specifically not shared by the vast majority of their Democratic colleagues—that really does suggest a level of willful invidiousness hard to square with reality.

But the other part of the President’s comment—that by not supporting his bid for re-election, American Jews are being disloyal to their own country—that is, and by far, the larger and more serious accusation. (For my comments from last January when Congresswoman Tlaib raised the same dual loyalty issue, click here.) It’s hardly a new canard. Indeed, words spoken by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis more than a century ago are suddenly eerily relevant: “Multiple loyalties,” he wrote in 1915, “are objectionable only if they are inconsistent. Every Irish American who contributed towards advancing home rule [i.e., in an Ireland then fighting for its own independence from Britain] was a better man and a better American for the sacrifice he made. Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so.” In other words, Justice Brandeis was saying simply that feeling a deep sense of interest in the wellbeing of people to whom one is tied by bonds of ethnicity, culture, or religion is not inimical with being a patriotic citizen of one’s own country. And, really, why should it be?

To wave away the President’s remark as just another over-the-top comment reflective solely of an idea that momentarily popped into his head and thus nothing to take too seriously is an extremely tempting way to respond. And, indeed, the fact that no one at all appears to have taken that approach could itself be waved away as an example of extreme over-sensitivity on the part of our American Jewish leadership. But I would like to think that the tidal wave of angry responses to the President’s remarks were and are indicative, not of a lack of self-confidence, but rather of the willingness of the Jewish community to speak out against bigoted canards questioning our loyalty even when given voice by the President himself.

I lived among people so unsure of themselves that they couldn’t even bring themselves to self-define as citizens of their own country, of the country they actually were citizens of. I understand the historical circumstances that led, not at all unreasonably, to that extreme level of insecurity. But our American Jewish community is nothing like that, nor should it be. The across-the-board responses to the President’s remarks were universally condemnatory. Even in the right-wing press, I didn’t see anyone—and certainly no one of stature—eager to walk along with President Trump on this one or even to appear mildly supportive. That, in and of itself, is more buoying and encouraging than the remark itself was disconcerting. We live in a vibrant, dynamic American state. That Jewish Americans have no need to disguise their feelings or hide their true sentiments about Israel—or about anything at all—is a sign of the health of the republic and one of which all Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, should be proud.

#Donald Trump #American Jewry #patriotism #loyalty #Rohrbach #Heidelberg

0 notes