Jesus Was Not a Real Estate Agent Nor Did he Invent the Bomb

There was a very interesting segment on the documentary program Vice recently, called Armageddon Now. In it they discussed Evangelical Christians and their strange devotion to Israel.

Vice's Thomas Morton travelled with a group of Born Again Christian tourists, as they visited the "Holy Land"; and spoke with End Times minister Irvin Baxter.

Baxter stood at the spot where Armageddon is supposed to take place, and described a rapturous scene of bloody horror. First; Russia, Iran, Iraq et al will attack Israel killing two-thirds of the Jewish population. Jesus will then appear for a final showdown with the Anti-Christ, after which the remaining one-third of Jews will see the light, convert to Christianity and live happily ever after.

If there is an "ever after".

But first, they have to make sure that only Jews reside in Israel, which includes the disputed territory now occupied by Palestinians of a variety of faiths, including Christian.

Morton spoke with several Israelis, who of course find the whole thing nonsense, but since these Evangelicals make up 40% of the tourist trade, they roll their eyes and leave them alone.

We might look at this and see Baxter and his flock as being on the edge of society, but since they now represent a huge voting block in the U.S., not a group we can afford to dismiss so lightly.

Even more troubling for Canadians, is that our current government appears to follow this same belief, led by a Prime Minister, who will defend Israel to the ends of the earth and support their actions no matter what. In fact, we lost our seat on the U.N. security Council, in part, because of that.

Most in the media believe that Stephen Harper is only doing this to secure the Jewish vote, but I think it is something more. His "Evangelical" indoctrination.

In February of 2005, Harper appeared on the Drew Marshall Christian radio program, to discuss his opposition to same -sex marriage, and the origin of his homophobic views. Apparently, his father had left the United Church after they began to accept gay and lesbian ministers, and he joined his dad and others in protest.

He also told Marshall that he had "found Jesus" when he was in his 20s. Yet, those closest to Harper at the time, including his former fiancée, Cynthia Williams; claimed that he never went to church or tried to proselytize. His former VP when he was running the National Citizens Coalition did contend that he held some pretty strong religious views.

Lawrence Martin gave us a hint at those views, when he noted that Stephen Harper did not support diplomatic solutions to attain world peace, but rather believed in the 'clash of civilizations'. ( Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, p. 79). Three very frightening words, that define the Neoconservative military agenda.

I've blogged on this before.

Stephen Harper has recently complained that the media is not asking Justin Trudeau the tough questions. But where are the tough questions on Harper's foreign policy and blind support of Israel?

Warren Bell wrote an excellent piece for the Vancouver Observer: Why Stephen Harper behaved strangely in Israel, in which he suggests that "... delving into the Prime Minister’s religious background goes a long way to explaining the otherwise inexplicable."

Harper's Religious Journey

In Lloyd MacKey's 2006 book, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, he states that Harper's religious journey was led by Preston Manning, who spent countless hours indoctrinating the young man into his faith and the end times Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

It's interesting to note that Manning's dad, former Alberta Premier, Ernest Manning; also held a very strong belief in end-time prophesy. After reading Sydney Watson's Mark of the Beast, Ernest wrote a play based on the novel, that was acted out for his congregation.

Tim LeHaye, co-author of the Apocalyptic Left Behind series, that is believed to have launched this new interest in Israel as sacred ground, was also influenced by Sydney Watson.

It does explain a lot.

The Book of Revelation

Most of the End Times philosophy, however, does not come from Watson or LeHaye, but The Book of Revelation.

Renowned biblical scholar, Elaine Pagels debunks this Book, as not being a legitimate part of the Gospels, but the work of a distressed man who lived during violent times. According to CNN's John Blake.

Anyone who has read the popular “Left Behind” novels or listened to pastors preaching about the “rapture” might see Revelation as a blow-by-blow preview of how the world will end.

Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended.

She says the writer of Revelation may have been called John – the book is sometimes called “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine” but he was not the disciple who accompanied Jesus. He was a devout Jew and mystic exiled on the island of Patmos, off the coast of present-day Greece.

The editors of the Bible cherry picked what Gospels made the cut, ignoring any that did not fit their blueprint for Christianity. The 1945 discovery of 52 additional works reveal a different view of Jesus and his teachings.

Pagels suggests that Jesus was gnostic, and his teachings based on the spiritual, rather than the literal. The virgin birth and resurrection were simply naive misunderstandings, since Jesus believed that with heightened spiritually we could all be reborn pure and resurrected.

Yet the Book of Revelation has caused so much damage. Charles Manson was a believer, and saw the Beatles as the Four Horsemen. David Koresh of Waco Texas followed the Book, and took out his followers in a "blaze of glory".

Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber who murdered 168 people, including many children, was inspired by the Turner Diaries, which was inspired by the Book of Revelation. McVeigh chose the anniversary of the raid on Camp Davidian in Waco Texas, to carry out his horrific assault.

Now these "Evangelical Christians" are not only supporting an all out genocide, but appear to be encouraging it. Stephen Harper has some explaining to do, but don't expect that any time soon, given that our media believe that his support of Israel is only politically motivated, and has nothing to do with his indoctrination into the end-times cult.

Would Canadians Really Support Genocide?

In the Vice documentary, one of the men interviewed on the Evangelical goals, stated that Jesus was not a real estate agent.

I agree. There is nothing to suggest that he defined borders or attempted to create Jewish subdivisions. He did not build bombs or advocate genocide. He did not plan a comic book scenario of a final showdown with a fictitious anti-Christ and never mentioned a future land called the United States of America or even Canada.

Over the years, this anti-Christ has been everyone from Adolf Hitler to Barack Obama, but I think the real anti-Christ is the embodiment of everyone willing to accept so much death and destruction to serve their own agenda.

Usually it's money, but often an insane, narcissistic belief that they have somehow been chosen for greatness. They don't need a bloody battle but a bit of Prozac.

There was a piece in an Israeli newspaper recently, that was clearly a call for the genocide of the Palestinian people. It was pulled soon after publication, but Vox still carries the full text. The author of the piece says, "What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?"

Indeed, if you look at the constitution of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party, it becomes clear that they mandate complete control of Palestinian lands, with or without HAMAS provocation.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

How can you even negotiate from such strong positions? They leave no room for compromise.

The rest of the world is turning away from Israel, given their latest onslaught, including many prominent Jewish leaders. Some are even suggesting sanctions. But not Canada.

If you polled the Canadian people, asking if they supported Genocide, as Harper clearly does, what do you think they would say? I'm hoping and feel confident, that the majority would say no way.

If not, then maybe we're the Anti-Christ, or at least following him blindly.

Lawrence Cannon's Confusing Foreign Policy Re: Palestine

After ducking and dodging questions about Israel's occupation of the Gaza strip, Lawrence Cannon came out today and did an about face .....sorta' ... kinda'... I think.

We already know how the Harper government feels about a two state solution. They have hooked their wagon to John Hagee's and now roll along implementing 'God's Foreign Policy'; which is annihilate the Muslims, gather the Jews, and offer up Baptism, by water or fire. Their choice...

Jason Kenney has been pretty clear, but knowing that Canadians like Obama, and Obama is looking for a peaceful solution. What to do ... what to do?

If you're Lawrence Cannon, you panic until you can find the right answers.

Cannon dodges Jewish settlement issue after meeting with Abbas
CBC News
May 25, 2009

While U.S. leaders have openly called for Israel to stop the expansion of its settlements in Palestinian territory, Canada's foreign affairs minister avoided the issue after a meeting Monday with the president of the Palestinian Authority.

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at his side, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon was asked repeatedly to comment on the issue. He would only talk about development in new areas, not touching on the provocative issue of growth in existing locations.

"Concerning the development into new areas, we've also thought it wasn't a gesture that was helpful to the advancement of peace," Cannon said.

Canada supports roadmap

Cannon said he hoped Israel and the Palestinians would sit down soon and discuss a peace deal. He said Canada supports the roadmap for peace, a plan drafted by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia that aims to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Complete freeze necessary: Abbas

Abbas on Monday told reporters that the absence of a complete freeze is hurting the Israel-Palestinian peace dialogue. He said the international community has been clear in advocating a complete freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and elsewhere.

He and Cannon both expressed support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "This dedication and recommitment to the peace process is something that is welcome not only by this government but we believe by all Canadians, and a recommitment to the two-state solution, which is the Canadian position," Cannon said.

Well he may say that, but that is clearly not the intention of this government. Since Stephen Harper has stated that he is tapping into the theo-cons for support, even if it means putting a little muscle into our foreign policy, it means that Charles McVety and the Christian United for Israel will be calling the shots. And they are pro-Israeli aggression to help fulfil a biblical prophesy.

I can appreciate where Cannon would have difficulty, because Stephen Harper has told him one thing, but I think his conscience may be telling him something else. Who knows? I'm not so sure he has a conscience actually.

Back to - The Lawrence Cannon Story: Intelligent Incompetence

We Can't Ignore the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. But Who is the Underdog?

The reasons given for our allegiance to Israel are:

1. Their strategic value

2. They deserve unqualified support because they are weak and surrounded by enemies

3. They are a democracy

4. The Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment.

5. Israel’s conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries.

But how accurate are those assumptions?

1. Strategic Value

Israel is certainly geographically strategic in the Middle East, but can they be counted on? History has shown that Israel will always put their own needs first. They have often worked against American interests, while receiving generous financial and military support from the U.S.
And because of the U.S. support, it has made that nation vulnerable to terrorist attacks from those who have suffered because of Israeli aggression. And it's meant that they, and now us because of Harper's shift in foreign policy, must be accepting of Israeli war crimes, further alienating us from the Arab world.




2. Israel is Weak and Surrounded by Enemies

Israel is surrounded by enemies, most of their own making, but they are hardly weak. According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Watt in their thesis on the subject.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel.

According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents. (1)

And Israel's conduct is only inflaming hatred and leaving them vulnerable to what Chalmers Johnson calls 'blowback'. Expected revenge.

Israel's greatest single political prob­lem is the daily threat of blowback from the Palestinian people and their Islamic allies because of Israeli policies of displacing Palestinians from their lands and repressing those that remain under their jurisdiction. (2)

And even after the Americans received their own "blowback" on 9/11, Bush still incited hatred from the Arab nations, with his silly and insensitive comments. From the Book on Bush by Eric Alterman and Mark Green:

Bush's simplistic nostrums about good and evil did not travel well. While many in Europe and elsewhere viewed the attacks on the towers to be unconscionable, they nevertheless understood the context in which they arose. Millions of Arabs were frustrated by their own lack of personal and political freedom, denied to them by autocratic and corrupt governments that maintained their despotic rule in part through their alliances with the United States. Israel was a particular source of grievance. Al-Jazeera broadcast daily the brutalities that the Likud government, armed with American weapons, visited upon the stateless Palestinians while settlers continued to occupy expropriated lands with the appearance of American forbearance, if not exactly its blessing.

That these broadcasts ignored the Israeli argument that its violence was a response to Palestinian terrorism served only to multiply their inflammatory effect. In Saudi Arabia, home to the majority of the September 11 hijackers, U.S. troops protected a corrupt, feudal monarchy that lived lavishly on oil exports and controlled access to the holy Islamic cities of Mecca and Medina. Osama bin Laden drew sustenance from the wells of hatred these policies inspired. (3)

3. They are a Democracy

Is that really a good enough reason, especially considering that Israel violates many democratic principles:

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights. (1)

4. The Jewish People Have Suffered From Past Crimes

This is certainly true but does it give them the right to inflict so much pain on others?

[Another] justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The country’s creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress: If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country … We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir famously remarked that ‘there is no such thing as a Palestinian.’ Pressure from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what it does. (1)

And even George Bush had a brief moment of regret over the suffering of the Palestiniamns at the hands of the Israelis:

In another of these bizarre instances, Bush once found himself confronted by a series of photographs of wounded Palestinian children by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Bush reportedly cried out, "I want peace. I don't want to see any people killed on both sides. I think God loves me. I think God loves the Palestinians. I think God loves the Israelis. We cannot allow this to continue." He then grabbed the hands of his guests and asked them to join him in prayer, as both sides looked on in an apparent state of shock. But while God may have loved both the Israelis and the Palestinians as His children, Bush loved only the former. Or rather, only Israel was represented in Mr. Bush's eyes by a "good man"—Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whom Bush deemed to be a "man of peace." As a result, Sharon, like Mr. Putin, was given a free hand to defy Bush's wishes and deal with his enemies however he saw fit, irrespective of God's purported affections. Virtually all the progress made toward peace under the Clinton administration dissipated as a result. (Pg. 4)

5. Israel’s Conduct has Been Morally Superior

This is an absolute falsehood They have behaved horribly, knowing that they have a powerful friend in the United States.

Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground, Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF … is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions. As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ‘would have joined a terrorist organisation’. (1)

It's time to change our foreign policy to reflect Canadian values and not give so much support to a foreign nation who is breaking all the rules of common decency.

Sources:

1. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, By: John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, London Review of Books, March 23, 2006

2. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, By Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-8050-7559-5, Pg. 11

3. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 231

4. Alterman/Green, Pg. 192