Search This Blog

Friday, April 14, 2017

Challenging Zionism - the illogical foundation of Christian Zionism and the illegality and idolatry of Israel.


Challenging Zionism - the illogical foundation of Christian Zionism and the illegality and idolatry of Israel.


There are many things that have hijacked modern Christianity: money (prosperity doctrine), power (the Tea Party and their ilk for political power and control of government), capitalism (the expansionist colonialism of churches establishing their own franchises across the globe) ... and Zionism, the unfettered, unquestioning idolatry of modern Israel.

Yet, Zionism is a perversion of Christianity.

The very basis of Christianity is that God established a new covenant with mankind. Way back in the Old Testament, people were required to make a blood sacrifice to God in order to be forgiven for their sins. People kept sinning because funnily enough, people are fallible. As a result, God decreed that there was not one righteous person on the planet, that all had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3). To rectify this, God established a new covenant in which he would send his son, Jesus, to be the blood sacrifice on behalf of all mankind. The biblical verse that best explains this is John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe on Him, will not perish but have everlasting life'.

Hebrews 8:7-12, covers the new covenant in detail, with verse 13 summing it up with, 'In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away'.

In other words, the old covenant is gone and the new one fulfilled. Yet, Zionism is very much rooted in the Old Testament, the old covenant.

What is the point of God sacrificing his only begotten son, Jesus Christ in order to establish a new church of born again Jews and Gentiles as fulfilment of prophecy if He then re-establishes the old religious order of Judaism which rejected Jesus, as a fulfilment of prophecy?

There's conflicting issues with biblical prophecies if Zionism is truly of God. On the one hand, we have Christ crucified to save the world, and on the other hand, Israel re-established to save the Jews. One of these is not like the other.

Zionism is a perversion of the Bible.

Zionism deliberately ignores the New Testament, ignores the teachings of Christ. It justifies genocide. It justifies hatred and fear of Muslims. And it completely eliminates the purpose of the entire New Testament.

Zionism is based on Old Testament teachings in which Abraham was given the 'promised land', which just so happens to roughly be where Israel is today. However, it also ignores the New Testament which states that those who believe in Jesus Christ are heirs to the promises of Abraham and that the promises applied to all of Abraham's heirs, which just so happens to include Muslims.

According to both Jewish and Islamic tradition, Muslims were descended from Abraham's son, Ishmael, while Jews and Christians were descended from his son, Isaac.

Zionists seem to forget that Ishmael was also blessed of God and inherited a promise, as stated in Genesis 17:20:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation

In addition, although Genesis 17:21 states that God will establish the covenant with Isaac, this included a caveat, namely that if the Jews strayed, then they would be banished from the promised land. Deuteronomy 11:16-17:

Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them, lest the Lord’s anger be aroused against you, and He shut up the heavens so that there be no rain, and the land yield no produce, and you perish quickly from the good land which the Lord is giving you.

Zionists will often argue against the legitimacy, and for that matter, the very existence of Palestine, while ignoring the clear promise and blessing given to Muslims through Ishmael.

Covenants, broken covenants and new covenants

With all this talk of covenants, it is prudent to explain what is meant by the term.

In the Old Testament there were two covenants: Abrahamic and Mosaic. The Abrahamic covenant was God’s promise to Abraham to make his name great, bless him with many descendants who would become a great nation, and that through them many nations would be blessed. This promise was in perpetuity. Then there was the Mosaic covenant which was handed to Moses at Mt Sinai, and sought to fulfil the promise to Abraham making a great nation in the Promised Land. This covenant was conditional on the Israelites worshiping God alone and keeping his law.

In Judges 2:1-2, God promised to never break his covenant: 'I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice'. However, the Israelites broke the covenant over and over again. As a result the covenant became null and void. Isaiah 24:5 states The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, 'Because they have transgressed the laws, Changed the ordinance, Broken the everlasting covenant'.

Jeremiah 11:10 states 'They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers'.

Throughout Joshua 2, the Israelites are constantly vacillating between worshipping God and turning their backs on him.

In various parts of the Old Testament, God talks of a new covenant because of Israel and Judah constantly breaking the old covenants.

Jeremiah 31:31-34: 'Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people'.

This verse shows the covenant to be about the law of God written on their hearts, so they know when they are disobeying, rather than have a law written on tablets. It does not mention giving the land to the people.

Enter the New Testament, which is a new covenant with the people and which includes delivering the promises of Abraham to gentiles. Ezekial 16:60-63, talks of a new covenant in which God will provide an atonement for their sins, in other words, Jesus … in which the New Testament is based. The new covenant is based on the law being written on people’s hearts – not in giving them the land of Palestine.

Hebrews 10:16-18 states '"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin'.

So what happened to God’s promise of delivering the Promised Land to the Israelites? Well, back in the day it was given to the two tribes, namely Israel and Judah. However, centuries of disobedience culminated in a new covenant because of Israel’s inability to obey God. The laws of God were written on their hearts … and the promises to Abraham were opened up to the Christians as shown in Galatians 3:29: 'And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise'.

Origins of Zionism

Firstly, what is Zionism? It is the belief that Jews have a God-given right to the Holy Land based on scriptures such as Genesis 16:18, 'In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates'.

Zionism is the idea that God promised to restore the ancient nation of Israel. For Christians this contradicts the very raison d'etre for God sending His only begotten Son. Jesus was sent to establish a new church and a new covenant. So why would God now forget about the purpose that Jesus was sent, in order to return to the old ways?

One would think that Zionism is an ancient movement, given the above scripture, however, Zionism was initially created as a political movement in response to the persecution and pogroms that had befallen Jews prior to the 20th century. Modern Zionism is a relatively new idea. It originated in the 19th century as an idea of establishing a Jewish homeland as an answer to the so-called 'Jewish Question'. This 'question' was an ongoing discussion about how to handle Jews in Europe. It debated issues such as their legal and social status.

In 1862, an associate of Karl Marx, named Moses Hess declared that Jews should establish a socialist state in Palestine. In 1870 the Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion), began founding settlements in Palestine.

In 1897 Theodore Herzl established the World Zionist Organisation. Its premise was to identify a homeland for the Jewish diaspora. At first the WZO did not declare Palestine to be their homeland. Instead, they looked around the globe for a land that was suitable. Herzl was initially happy with either Argentina or Uganda, but Eastern European Jews refused to support any option other than Palestine(1).

As this shows, the WZO's location for the diaspora had little to do with scripture. Once Palestine was chosen, scripture became a means to an end; it was used to justify the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, rather than a Jewish state being necessary for the Zionist organisation's power base.

Criticism of Israel

There is the superstitious belief that criticising Israel will incur the wrath of God, after all, Genesis 12:3 states, 'I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse who curse you'. There are two things wrong with this:

1. criticism does not equate to cursing
2. the scripture was directed at Abraham, not the Jewish people.

It is not cursing someone to call out their crimes. What would have been the point of Leviticus, the book of law, if charging someone with a crime was considered a curse?

This superstition has also been used to counter criticism of Zionism. Again, this is another example of scripture being misappropriated in order to support the Zionist agenda.

Throughout the bible, the Jews were constantly in trouble for replacing God with idols. Zionism has created an idol of Israel while allowing no dissent. In addition to the misapplication of Genesis 12:8, criticism of Israel is labelled as anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism is a catch-all that ignores so many other factors. Firstly, many of the inhabitants of Israel are Caucasian, not Middle Eastern. This will be addressed in more detail later. While Judaism is a Semitic religion, so is Islam and Christianity. It is not anti-Semitic to call out Israel for committing crimes. Is it racist to charge someone of colour with a crime? Is it anti-Semitic to accuse someone from a Semitic religion, such as a Muslim or a Christian, of a crime? Of course not.

It is not anti-Semitic to bring to light crimes committed by Jews, Muslims or Christians.

Additionally, anti-Zionism is not anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism. Opposing Zionism is not an attack on the Jewish faith. Criticism of Israel is not an attack on the Jewish faith and is not anti-Semitic.

In a more sinister development, this allegation of anti-Semitism has extended to any criticism of Israel's extra-judicial killings of Palestinian civilians(2), including children(3), Israel's war-crimes in which it uses illegal weaponry(4) such as flechette shells(5), white phosphorous(6) or DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosives)(7), its use of human shields(8), its illegal detention, interrogation and torture of civilians, including children(9), and on it goes(10). Yet, criticising these Israeli crimes is anti-Semitic according to Zionists.

Of course, if any other country committed these crimes against a largely defenceless population, then it would be called a crime against humanity. The United States has invaded countries and overthrown despots for less.

It would be anti-Semitic to attack Jewish people because of their religion. It is not Judaism that is in question when it comes to criticism of modern Israel and Zionism. What is in question are the crimes of Israel and Zionism which are often hidden behind a cloak of religion in order to make claims of anti-Semitism against critics.

Zionists have used, or perhaps, misused and abused, history in order to justify the modern state of Israel and its war-crimes in Palestine. While Zionists had long been eyeing Palestine as the site for Israel, when World War 2 ended, the terrible abuses of the holocaust and the guilt felt by all nations was used to hasten the establishment of Israel. While this is understandable, even today there are some who reference the holocaust to justify Israel's crimes against humanity. This in itself is an insult to the memory of the millions who suffered or died in the holocaust(11).

Christian Zionism is also usually accompanied with strong opposition to Palestine, and more broadly, Islam. Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism and is being used to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine, as well as bombings, invasions or occupations by the United States and its allies in many Muslim nations, including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya and so on. These are countries who have posed little threat to the USA, yet who the USA has seen fit to interfere with, subjugate and kill thousands of people. American leaders are predominantly Christian. Interesting, that they accuse Islam of being a religion of violence, when Christians have waged more wars and killed more people than Muslims have.

Modern Israel established on a Zionist lie

Modern Israel was founded on a lie. It is the lie that states 'a land without a people, for people without a land'.

The lie predates the holocaust. It was first used by a Christian Zionist named William Eugene Blackstone in the mid-19th century. It was picked up by Jewish Zionists in the 1890s and has since been used to justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. After all, how can a non-existent people be ethnically cleansed or displaced.

The 'land without a people', was Palestine. This lie tries to claim Palestine was terra nullius. It's a blatant lie. Palestine was a land that had been inhabited continuously by millions of people for thousands of years. The 'people without a land' referred to the Jewish diaspora which claims they were dispersed from the holy land thousands of years ago. However, these people had a land. It was their own European nations. Many were Austrian, Polish, Romanian and so on. Those nations were their lands.

The cofounder of the World Zionist Organisation, Max Nordau, was disgusted by the Zionist lie when he discovered that it was not a 'land without people', after he visited Palestine and found it had a population of 700,000(1). In response, he declared to his fellow WZO cofounder, Theodore Herzl, 'But we are committing a grave injustice'.

Many Zionists argue that Palestine has never existed as a nation, therefore this justifies Israel's ethnic cleansing of the area. Palestine certainly has been an occupied land for centuries, but this doesn't mean the people or the land didn't exist.

Palestine referenced throughout history

The origins of Palestine and Israel go back to similar points in antiquity.

Inscriptions during the reign of Rameses II, around mid-12th century BCE, referred to a sea-people, who included the Peleset, believed to be the ancestors of Palestine. The Peleset, better known as the Philistines occupied Canaan. The first reference to Israel in history is in a monument to Pharaoh Merneptah in 1207BCE, which shows a tribe known as Israel invading Canaan, decimating the tribes there.  A few years later, the Israelites took the remaining portion of Canaan. Ancient Israel got their first King in 1000 BCE with the appointment of King Saul. Sigmund Freud speculated in his work, Origins of Religion, that the two tribes warring against each other in the land of Canaan, namely Israel and Judah were in fact the Hebrews and the Philistines(12).

Contrary to Zionist propaganda, Palestine existed for thousands of years and has been referenced throughout history:
  • Prior to 1948, currency and passports were issued in the nationality of 'Palestine'. 
  • In World War II, war in the Middle East was known as the Palestine Campaign and the British military issued a General Service Palestine Campaign Medal . 
  • In World War I, war in the Middle East was known as the 'Palestine Campaign' and the British military issued a General Service Medal with Palestine clasp. 
  •  In 1798-1799, Napoleon undertook his 'Palestine campaign' and was defeated. 
  • The Crusaders fought in and at one stage ruled Palestine. 
  • The bible refers to Palestine. 
  • Jewish scripture, the Tanakh, refers to Philistines
  • The ancient Greeks referred to it as Palaistine.
  • Ancient Egyptians referred to the area as Peleset.
Zionists are not only ethnically cleansing the land, but trying to ethnically cleanse history of Palestine.

They'll argue that the population in Palestine has increased, therefore there is no genocide. Apparently it's ok to murder thousands of people as long as the birth rate keeps pace with it.

Modern Israel founded by Europeans not Middle Eastern Jews

Zionism's great claim is that the creation of Israel in 1948 has re-established a homeland for diaspora Jews. Modern leaders, such as Benjamin Netanyahu propagate this by inviting Jewish people from all over the world to settle in Israel, albeit much of those in the illegal settlements that continue Israel's colonisation of Palestine.

However, the idea of the diaspora is largely based on the idea of Jews being scattered across the globe following exile by the Romans. This is contrary to historical record. For a start, the Romans never exiled an entire people group(13), particularly considering that would have dramatically affected their taxation income, produce and economy in general. No, the Zionists who created modern Israel were European Jews whose ancestors originated in Central Asia and not the Middle East.

The Khazars were a semi-nomadic people who controlled a large pivotal area on the silk roads in Central Asia, spanning the area from Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire, Turkey, Crimea and northern Caucasus. For centuries, the Khazars profited significantly from trade between the Europe, the Kievan Rus (slavic tribes from whom Russians and Ukrainians are descended), the Middle East, Persia and Asia. Much of the trade along the silk roads had to pass through Khazaria.

The silk roads weren't just a route for produce. They were also a melting pot of multiculturalism, as ideas, religions, customs, language and education were adopted or infused into the various people groups who travelled along these routes.

Significantly, the Khazars had taken notice of a number of the major religions traversing through their territory, namely Islam, Christianity and Judaism. After discussions with representatives of all three religions, the Khazars converted to Judaism. How this came about was explained by the Khazars leader (the khagan) in response to a letter from the noted Jewish scholar, Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, who was based in Cordoba, Spain and had heard rumour of the Khazar conversion. The khagan explained that one of his predecessors had invited delegations from Christianity, Islam and Judaism to explain which religion the Khazars should convert to. To help his decision, the ruler 'had asked the Christians whether Islam or Judaism was the better faith; when they replied that the former was certainly worse than the latter, he asked the Muslims whether Christianity or Judaism was preferable. When they lambasted Christianity and also replied that Judaism was the less bad of the two, the Khazar ruler announced that he had reached a conclusion: both had admitted the 'religion of the Israelites is better', he declared, so 'trusting in the mercies of God and the power of the Almighty, I choose the religion of Israel, that is the religion of Abraham'.(14)

Zionists discount the conversion of the Khazars, claiming that Judaism is not a proselytising religion, however the bible itself talks of Jewish proselytes in Matthew 23:15: 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves'.

The Khazar ruler demanded that his people also adopt Judaism. From here, the religion spread into the Rus and northern Europe. It is from these people, that the European Jews were descended. It is not from a Middle Eastern diaspora.

Zionists however, used the myth of diaspora to justify the establishment of modern Israel. Within a couple of years of its creation, Israel passed the Law of Return, which gives Jews across the globe, the right to live in Israel and be granted Israeli citizenship. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, stated 'This is not a Jewish state only because most of its inhabitants are Jews. It is a state for the Jews wherever they may be, and for any Jew who wishes to be here'(15).

More recently, some scientists have used DNA testing to confirm European Jews (Ashkenazi Jews) as being descended from the Middle East. However, Dr Eran Elhaik, and Israeli-born geneticist, has refuted this and identified that the Ashkenazi Jews were descended from the Khazars(16).

Zionists had argued that the Ashkenazi Jews were the descendants of Middle Eastern Jews who had fled the Middle Eastern during the Islamic conquests of the 7th Century. However, this is contrary to the historical record as well. Muslim Armies generally didn't go out and massacre civilian populations. They fought any military which opposed them, but once they'd conquered an area the residents were allowed to live in peace and practice their religion and culture. Neither did the Islamic conquerors exile Jewish populations(17). The only catch for non-Muslims was that they were required to pay a tax called Jizya. Funnily enough, there were those who saw a tax break in converting to Islam so as to avoid paying Jizya. This was particularly the case for Christians and Jews who saw little difference between their religious practices and those of Islam. So many non-Muslims, converted to Islam that the tax system had to be overhauled to remain viable(18).

While Zionists argue about the Law of 'Return', and claim that Israel was their ancestral home 3,500 years ago, it should be kept in mind that many of the people in Palestine trace their lineage to Jewish or Christian ancestors. If anything, it gives greater credence to the Palestinian claim for the land than that of European Jews whose ancestry is traced to Central Asia.

Ancient Israel and the exiles

Back in the day, God made a covenant with Abraham and out of this we saw the ancient kingdom of Israel which united the two smaller kingdoms of Israel and Judah. According to the bible, this united Israel lasted from 1020 to 930 BCE and was ruled by Kings Saul, David and Solomon respectively. Under Solomon's son, Rehoboam, the kingdom was again split into two: Israel in the north and Judah in the south. This 'new' kingdom of Israel rose to prominence by the 9th century BCE and was conquered in 722BCE by the neo-Assyrian Empire. Judah rose to prominence in the 8th century BCE, enjoying prosperity until its destruction in 586BCE by the Babylonian Empire.

Since then, the land was ruled by a variety of foreign invaders and for the most part was known as Palestine, an incarnation of its original name. Because of the lack of self-governance, Zionists argue that Palestine has never been its own nation and therefore there is no such thing as a Palestinian. Yet, there has not been a Jewish 'nation' since at least 586BCE and Israel has not existed since 722BCE. This argument also ignores the fact that prior to Jewish settlement, the land was known as Philistine and was, funnily enough, inhabited and ruled by Philistines.

Even with foreign empires ruling Palestine, there was of course, a large Jewish presence there. During these times, there were a number of exiles in which Jews were forced to leave their homeland. None of these exiles resulted in the complete removal of Jews from the holy land. In 597BCE, following the Babylonian invasion of the holy land, some Jews were exiled to Egypt and Babylon, meaning that many of the exiles remained within the empire and the levant. Most Jews remained in the land and by 538BCE, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar allowed the exiles to return.

The next exile occurred in 70AD following the Judaen Revolt against the Roman Empire, which culminated in the destruction of the Second Temple, the deaths of many and the enslavement of much of the population. Some of the rebels were captured and forced to participate in Rome's gladiatorial games, but for the most part the Jews remained in the land of Judea. Rome exiled a number of Jews associated with the uprising, but they did not exile the entire population(13).

From 132CE to 135CE, Shimon Bar Kokhba, led another revolt in Judea. This ended badly for the Jews, with about 580,000 being killed and more than 1,000 towns or villages destroyed. The fall-out included Emperor Hadrian renaming Judea as Syria Palaestina, banning Jews from entering Jerusalem except for specific events. The Jews suffered significant losses in Judea and were effectively exiled from the city of Jerusalem, some survivors were sold into slavery, while others relocated to Galilee. However, they remained in significant numbers within the general vicinity. While some argue this was the beginning of the diaspora, as with earlier exiles, the majority were still within the levant, in fact, most were still within Palestine, with only Jerusalem being out of bounds. Rome did not exile the entire population. After all, like any government, they needed tax payers so why would they exile their tax base?

The Promise to Abraham

Christ came to preach to the Jews, but they rejected him. From there, the message was given to the Gentiles and the promises of Abraham were also given to the Gentiles. Galatians 3:29: 'And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise'.

What promise?

There were a few promises, one of which was the land of Canaan in Genesis 17:8, 'Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God'. Zionists believe that this promise to Abraham has been fulfilled in modern state of Israel, which conveniently is roughly where ancient Canaan was. The problem with this is that the modern state of Israel is a Jewish state, yet Galatians 3:29 is clear that this promise was passed onto Christians.

Another problem with this promise being hijacked by Israel, is that the promise is ALL of Abraham's descendants. It is generally accepted that Abraham is the father of Jews, Muslims and Christians. Therefore, even if we were to apply this promise, the land of Canaan belongs as much to Muslims as it does to Jews as it does to Christians. So how can Zionists justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine in order to claim the land for Jews only?

One of the bible's key chapters that Zionists believe prophesies the fate of Palestine is Joel 3 which bangs on about Israel being surrounded by its foes who are summarily defeated. Awesome. Nothing like a little scripture to justify genocide.

Joel 3:4 specifically refers to Palestine:

Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head.

This is a scripture about revenge against Palestine, Tyre, Zidon doing wrong to Israel, BUT what about when Israel does wrong to Palestine?

Verse 21, the very last verse in Joel 3, declares:

For I will acquit them of the guilt of bloodshed, whom I had not acquitted; for the Lord dwells in Zion.

Verse 21 speaks of the shame of sin. Isaiah 1:15 explains the reference to the blood:

And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Joel 3:21 is pointing to the coming of Christ the Messiah and the spilling of Christ's blood to cleanse the people of their sin and shame. Unfortunately, the Messiah was rejected by his own people and hence the promises of Abraham and being the 'chosen' people, was passed on to those who did accept the message of Christ. Awkward.

If Joel 3 is prophesying anything, it is ultimately the acceptance by Jews of Christ as the Messiah.

Other Old Testament scriptures talk of destroying nations that come against Israel, such as Zechariah 12:9:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Considering the number of nations that vote against Israel and who pass UN resolutions criticising Israel, then there is going to be some serious bloodshed if God is going to destroy them all.

And then there is Jeremiah 12:14:

Thus saith the Lord against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them.

This one is a little awkward for Israel, because God himself gave their inheritance away to those who followed Jesus Christ, as stated above in Galatians 3:29. However, that was only after the Jews rejected Christ. Way back in the day, say around Jeremiah 31:31-34 there was promise of a new covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Of course the covenant was that of the New Testament and the sending of God's only begotten son, 'that whosoever believeth in him, shall be saved'. As it turned out, the Jews of the day did not believe on him but instead had him crucified, which is a powerful rejection of the Covenant by the Jews.

Far from the Jews being solely the chosen people, Romans 11 clearly states that God's chosen people includes any person, Jew or Gentile, who accepts Christ. Romans 11 refers to the Jews as being the 'cultivated olive tree' and the Gentiles being the 'wild olive tree'. It goes on to state how branches of the 'cultivated olive trees' will be cut off in order to graft branches from the 'wild olive trees' in. This contradicts any reason for the establishment of a Jewish-only Israel being a fulfilment of prophecy. How can Christians possibly accept Israel being established in the name of Old Testament Zionism. It is in defiance of the New Testament. Romans 11 doesn't say that Israel will be rebuilt as a physical nation, but saved and expanded as a spiritual nation through the salvation of the Gentiles.

Throughout the bible, particularly the prophecies and the New Testament, the references to Israel are of a spiritual nature, not a physical one. The expansion of God's people to include the gentiles who accept Christ, clearly shows that the spiritual Israel is not a physical state, but a spiritual state. Romans 2:29 states:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

In 2010, the Vatican stated that the Jews were no longer the 'chosen people' and that biblical scripture cannot be used to justify building settlements on Palestinian land. Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Butros went on to state: 'The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians. The justification of Israel's occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on the scriptures'. (19)

The New Testament is very clear about the spiritual manifestation of the Kingdom, not the physical one. Any prophecy on the re-establishment of Israel is a figurative one about the reconciliation of the spiritual person with God.

Earlier we saw how Zionists often use Genesis 12:3 to scare people into thinking God will curse them for any criticism of Israel. The other part of this verse is conveniently ignored by Zionists. It goes on to say, 'And in you all the families of the Earth shall be blessed'. All the families of the Earth, not just the Jewish families.

This is verified in Galatians 3:8 which says 'and the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” '.

The promises to Abraham were never meant to be exclusively for the Jews. They foreshadowed the coming of Christ, who went on to issue the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit'.

The bible tells us that 'Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through Him'. So why are so many Christians putting their faith and swearing their allegiance to Israel, a nation that rejects Christ as its Lord and Saviour?

Even supposing that modern Israel is a fulfilment of scripture and that Palestinians are foreigners in the land, the bible is clear on how to deal with them. The Israelites were meant to share their land with the foreigners who lived in it and treat them as though they were Israelites. If modern Israel is a fulfilment of scripture then that means that Zionists need to apply scripture to Israel's occupation of Palestine. Ezekial 47:22-23 states, 'It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance,” says the Lord God'.

A new religion

Jesus did not come to reaffirm Judaism, He came to preach a new way. He proclaimed His church, or ekklesia, as the 'called-out ones'. They were the chosen ones called out to preach His message throughout the world. His church was one of singular purpose, comprised of those formerly known as Jews and Gentiles.

In Galations 3:28, Paul stated that 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'.

That is the new religion.

Christian Zionism is heresy. It is anathema to the teachings of Jesus. Jewish Zionism is understandable because Jewish scripture didn't accept the new way preached by Christ. But for Christians to support Zionism is a complete contradiction of and refusal to accept the New Testament.

Jesus is the Messiah, the King of the Jews, Israel's true King. Matthew 16:18 states that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds His new church. It doesn't say that he will re-establish a Jewish temple. In fact, the bible goes on to state that we are his temple. It is in us that God resides, not in the temples.

In Matthew 27:50-51, as Jesus dies, the temple curtain or veil is rent in two.

'And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split  and the tombs broke open'.

The curtain traditionally separated ordinary people from the holiest of holies, from the presence of God, in which only priests were allowed to enter. The tearing in two of the curtain signified the end of the old Jewish religion and ushered in an era in which anyone could enter the presence of the Lord and build a personal relationship with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Why then do Christian Zionists vehemently adore a return to the old way? Why do they idolise modern Israel whose religion rejects the deity of Christ.

Ephesians 5:25-27 clearly states the importance of this new church established by Christ, so why do some Christians so passionately support the old 'temple':

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

Christ sanctified the church. Without Christ the church is not sanctified. A nationalistic Jewish nation is not a sanctified church.

Romans 9:6 - 8But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Romans 9 goes on further to discredit the notion of God restablising the Kingdom of Israel by declaring that Israel had rejected the message of Christ:

Romans 9:30-33What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Those who are living by the law do not have the promise of Abraham; they are living within a physical limitation of their interpretation of God, not within an infinite spiritual experience. Zionism is a physical or worldly expression of a misrepresentation of God's word, it isn't a spiritual manifestation of God's word or love.

Romans 4:13 states It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

There is nothing righteous in ethnically cleansing Palestine.

The bible refers to Israel as being both physical and spiritual. The coming of Christ was not for the reestablishment of the old, physical nation of Israel. It was to establish a new order, a new covenant with the world in which Jews and Gentiles had membership of a spiritual kingdom of God.

1 Peter 2:9-10 however, has its own take on a similar claim, but this refers to the people of God:

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Romans 11:26-27 states that 'and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins'.

This verse is quite clear that Israel will be saved by Jesus, so why would God reinstate an unsaved Israel? Why would a Christ-less Israel be re-established. That is not the fulfilment of prophecy. Jesus and His salvation is the fulfilment of prophecy. To argue that Israel has been re-established in order to be saved ignores the many warnings in the bible of the blessings being removed from Israel if they disobey God. How much more disobedient can they get than crucifying the Son of God?

Christian Zionists not only believe that modern Israel is a fulfilment of scripture, but that it is blessed of God. So are they saying that Jesus was sent to establish a new covenant with the Jews, but God is going to establish the Old Covenant 2,000 years later through Israel, and bless Israel even though his 'chosen' people not only rejected Christ but crucified him. They rejected Christ's new covenant, so why are Christians idolising the old order as represented by modern Israel.

1 John 2:23 speaks of those who reject Christ as not being with God, so why would God bless modern Israel? 'Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also'.

Christ only ever preached to the Jews. He didn't go out into all the world - that privilege was reserved for his disciples after the crucifixion. This shows how significant the Jews were to God's plan and how much of a chance they were given to accept Christ. They rejected His message and crucified Him, yet today's Christians are refusing to evangelise the Jews of modern Israel, to the point of turning it into a sacred cow, an idol, one in which no criticism is allowed and which Israel is placed on a pedestal. Whatever happened to the message of the Messiah? While many Jews continue to reject that message and see Christianity as a heresy, Christians are ignoring the New Testament message in favour of restoring a pre-Christ kingdom which ignores Christ and would crucify him again.

End times prophecies

Psalm 102 is often used as a justification for the creation of modern Israel, but again, this ignores a number of key factors in it, specifically the verses 16-22.

For the Lord shall build up Zion; He shall appear in His glory. He shall regard the prayer of the destitute, And shall not despise their prayer. This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord. For He looked down from the height of His sanctuary; From heaven the Lord viewed the earth, To hear the groaning of the prisoner, To release those appointed to death, To declare the name of the Lord in Zion, And His praise in Jerusalem, When the peoples are gathered together, And the kingdoms, to serve the Lord


Yes, the verse talks about the building up of Zion and Jerusalem, but this verse was written hundreds of years before Christ. Jerusalem was eventually restored and then the temple sacked in 70AD. Even if this verse points to an re-establishment of Israel, verse 18 talks about a 'generation to come. That a people yet to be created may praise the Lord'. This is speaking of Christians mentioned in 1 Peter 2:10 (who once were not a people but are now the people of God) , if it is an end-time prophecy, then for Christians it is not speaking of the re-establishment of a Jewish kingdom, but a Christian one, so why do Christians worship modern Israel?

And then there's Luke 21 which is full of all sorts of prophecies about Jerusalem. Now, there is a slight hiccup with Luke 21 as an end-times guide, namely verse 32 which states that 'this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled'. 2,000 years later, that generation passed away long ago so how can modern Israel be a fulfilment of that prophecy.

Another slight problem with this chapter is one that is used to explain the diaspora, namely Luke 21:20-24. In summary, verse 20 states 'But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near'. It goes on to tell everyone to head for the hills. Verse 24 then states 'And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled'.

The fulfilment of the Gentiles relates to their salvation. As mentioned previously, Christ was the fulfilment of biblical prophecy in which Jews and Gentiles would have salvation. This means that Christians are the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. It again goes against the idea of re-establishing Jerusalem or Israel as a Jewish state.

Elevating Israel above the Kingdom of God

Zionism is not scriptural either in the bible or the Torah. Additionally, the Torah requires Jews to live in peace with their neighbours and treat people well(20), yet Israel violently occupies Palestinian land and often vilifies Palestinians and Arabs.

Zionism has successfully duped most of Christianity not only into believing that the establishment of a Jewish state in 1948 is scriptural, but has also led many Christians to defend or deny Israeli war-crimes, demonise Palestinians and most disturbingly, justify or ignore the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

John 4:22 is used to justify supporting Israel. It states that 'salvation is of the Jews'. However, this is merely acknowledging the history of Christianity. The verse before clearly states that there is a time coming in which there will be no further worship in Jerusalem: ' ... the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father'. If we will no longer worship in Jerusalem, how can Zionists justify the 20th century establishment of Israel in order to return it to the centre of Jewish worship.

Zionism elevates Israel, the Kingdom of the Jews, above the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God dwells in us, it does not dwell in Jerusalem.

At the time when Jesus was preaching to the Jews about salvation only being available through him, they were hung up on their own liberation from Rome and having their own kingdom. Yet Christ was clear that the Kingdom was not going to be an earthly one but a spiritual one as stated in Luke 17:20-21:

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

The New Testament resounds with scripture contradicting the re-establishment of a nationalistic Jewish homeland.

Believing that the creation of Israel is a fulfilment of scripture is akin to Abraham deciding that God needed a little helping hand in the fulfilment of his promise in Genesis 12. This was when God had promised Abraham that he would father a great nation even though his wife, Sarai, was barren. Sarai and Abraham decided that to fulfil the prophecy he would need to sleep with their slave girl, Hagar. As a result, she gave birth to Ishmael. God wasn't too thrilled about Abraham and Sarai trusting in their own logic rather than in God's ability, and rebuked Abraham for his impatience and lack of faith. Israel is the same. Zionists have taken what they consider to be God's promises and have decided He needs a hand. So they've created the state of Israel in their own strength rather than in the strength of God, which explains their willingness to use lies (land without people for people without land), demonisation and delegitimisation of Palestinians, and of course to use violence, to ethnically cleanse the land of Palestine, not to mention propaganda to ethnically cleanse history of the existence of the land of Palestine and its people. If Israel was truly created by God, it wouldn't have come with such violence and deceit.


The violent roots of modern Israel

It wasn't God that created Israel, it was terrorism(21).

Having said that, not all Jews were Zionist and many protested against the idea of Jews being a separate race or that they should be treated differently or exclusively. For them, this was no different to what anti-Semites had been saying in Europe for centuries. For instance, the President of the Anglo-Jewish Association, Claude Montefiore, considered it 'intensely obnoxious' and an 'invention' that Jews constituted a separate nationality. Further, one of Britain's Jewish MPs, Edwin Montagu was distressed by the Zionist belief that Jews be 'invested with certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population'.(22)

In his book, State of Terror: How terrorism created Israel, Thomas Suarez provides the following two quotes, which underscore the very problem with Zionism and the pervading sense of superiority that Zionists have over others:

- [The democratic principle] does not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab - Chaim Weizmann.

- The fundamental difficulty over Palestine was that the Jews refused to admit that the Arabs were their equals. - Ernest Bevin.

In the years prior to Israel's establishment, Zionist terrorists, in particular Hagana (formed 1920), Irgun (formed 1931) and the Stern Gang (formed 1940), committed numerous violent acts, including shootings and bombings that killed dozens of people. In one instance, a teenage Jewish girl disguised as an Arab was arrested, just as she placed a basket with a time-bomb in a crowded market. These groups did not hesitate to kill anyone who opposed them, resulting in most of the victims of their assassinations being Jewish (Assassinations being targeted rather than indiscriminate attacks). In 1939, David Ben-Gurion, the man who would become the first Prime Minister of Israel, encouraged Jews in Palestine to go on a rampage that killed 38 Palestinians and injured 44(23).


Zionist collusion with Hitler and Mussolini

The Stern Gang, also known as Lehi, sought an alliance with Hitler in 1940. Lehi sent a delegate, Nathan Yellin-Mor, to Germany to encourage the Nazis to attack British forces in Palestine. On the creation of Israel, Yellin-Mor became a member of the first Knesset. Lehi also established an alliance with the Italian Fascists through the Jerusalem Agreement (1940) and passed intelligence to them during the war to help overthrow the British in Palestine. The ultimate purpose of the Stern Gang's collaboration with the Fascists was to use 'all the means in its power to liquidate the Jewish Diaspora'. In other words, Zionists were using anti-Semites destroy Jewish communities in Europe in order to forcibly transfer their populations to a Zionist state in Palestine. In addition, Chaim Weizmann of the Zionist Organisation, met with Benito Mussolini to gain leverage against the British.(23).

Interesting then, that Zionists try to make a big deal of the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini collaborating with the Nazis, when the Zionists were also collaborating with Hitler's Nazis and Mussolini's Fascists.


Zionist rejection of a Palestinian state

In 1939, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain presented the White Paper 1939 which called for the establishment of a Jewish state within an INDEPENDENT Palestinian state. It limited Jewish immigration and provided guidelines around the purchase of land from the Palestinian Arabs. The Arab Higher Committee (under the leadership of Husayn ibn Ali - a Palestinian Arab who can trace his lineage to a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad) accepted the White Paper. The Zionists did not. The White Paper, had it been the blueprint for the future of the Levant, would have seen an independent Palestinian state established. This of course was unacceptable to Zionists, as it still is to this day. The idea of a two-state solution is anathema to Zionists.

Zionists are happy to refer to United Nations Resolution 181 as legitimising the creation of Israel. However, Resolution 181 recommended that a Jewish state be created in Palestine ... as long as the Arab occupants were in agreement and an Arab state was also be created. It is a myth, that the United Nations created Israel(24). The state itself was created by the Jewish Agency which misused Resolution 181 and forcibly took over Palestine, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

The war that followed Israel's creation in 1948, resulted in significant loss of land for the Palestinians, deaths of thousands, depopulation of around 400 villages and the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians. It was genocide. It was ethnic cleansing. It was the Nakba. So how can Christians defend Israel's actions as being blessed by God? Some Christians mock Islam for claiming to be the religion of peace, yet Christianity has provided material and spiritual support for Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Zionists are killing in the name of God.

Israel's Right to Exist?

If Israel has a right to exist, then so does Palestine.

However, modern Israel was created through the illegal displacement of the existing inhabitants of Palestine. The following gif shows the creeping colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine:

From: Humanity for Palestine



Zionists will claim that Israel's right to exist is written in the holy scriptures. They are using the scripture to justify killing in the name of God; justifying genocide in the name of God; justifying ethnic cleansing in the name of God.

Ironically, these same people will accuse Palestinians of killing in the name of God, claiming that it is evidence of the inherent violence of Islam. This suits their Islamophobic narrative; their vilification of Islam while ignoring the inherent violence in Zionism that has killed and displaced so many people. Palestinians are not fighting in the name of Allah, they are fighting to defend their land from a violent and illegal invasion.




Israel claims that its enemies want to drive it into the sea, yet the evidence is pretty clear that Israel is trying to drive Palestinians into the figurative sea. Israel continues building illegal settlements which violate the Fourth Geneva Convention(25) and numerous UN resolutions in order to drive the Palestinians out of the land.

United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 22/29(26) states:


Considering that the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,


It goes on to state:


Affirming that the Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and constitute very serious violations of international humanitarian law and of the human rights of the Palestinian people therein, and undermine international efforts aimed at invigorating the peace process and realizing the two-State solution


Israel claims that it isn't an occupation because the land was not under sovereign rule. However, even Israel's High Court ruled that 'Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation'(27).

Israel isn't serious about peace, even though it portrays itself as the victim, as the only serious contender for peace while claiming Palestine is opposed to any peace settlement.

If Israel was serious about peace it would end the occupation and remove the illegal settlements. It removed settlements from Gaza in 2005, but had built a wall around it so the 1.8 million residents became inmates in the world's largest open air prison. Israel then increased the settlements in the West Bank. It isn't Palestine that opposes peace, but Israel.

When the UN admitted Palestine as a non-voting member, the Zionists were up in arms. If they truly care about peace, why would they oppose the recognition of Palestine? Recognising Israel is one thing, but opposing the recognition of Palestine demonstrates the animosity that Zionists have towards it.

Israel claims it is a democracy, yet Palestinians do not have the same voting rights as Israelis. If Israel truly is a democracy, then maybe one day we will see a Palestinian leading the Knesset. Yeah sure ... like that will ever happen.

Israel is an ethnocracy, not a democracy. It is ruled by one ethnic group and there is no chance that another ethnic group will govern Israel(28). In fact, considering the walls and barriers that Israel has constructed to segregate Palestinians from Jews, as well as the separate roads for Israeli and Palestinian use, Israel is more of an apartheid state than a democratic one.

The establishment of Modern Israel was a European land-grab that had been in the planning for decades, and which opportunistically used the holocaust and scripture to justify it. The holocaust was terrible, but it was over by 1945 and other nations were assisting with refugee resettlement post-war, not to mention the ability to settle back into European countries which were at peace in the three years preceding 1948. Part of the justification for the establishment of Israel is the slogan, 'Never again', declaring that the Holocaust will never happen again because Israel is the safe haven for Jews the world over. However, even Holocaust survivors have condemned the invocation of Holocaust guilt to justify killing and displacing Palestinians(29).

Regardless of prophecy, there is no justification for ethnic cleansing and killing in the name of God.

If Zionists worshipped God in spirit and in truth, they would look at the scriptures holistically and take into account the spiritual nature of the New Testament, as well as the words of Christ in Matthew 22:35-39 which sums up the entire law in two commandments:

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. 
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”


Zionism was a land-grab deceitfully done in the name of God in order to manipulate Jews and Christians into unquestioning fealty to the state of Israel.

Legitimising an illegal occupation that kills in the name of God is not Christian.

Idolising a state that was created illegally in contravention of a UN Resolution is not Christian.

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, lying and idolising do not constitute love; the basic tenets of Christianity.


References

1. Information Clearing House, Hanna Braun, 'A basic history of Zionism and is relation to Judaism', September 2001, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4549.htm. Accessed 14 April 2017.

2. Al Jazeera, Megan O'Toole, 'Strong evidence' of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, 29 July 2015, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/evidence-israeli-war-crimes-gaza-interactive-15072810-150728133534137.html. Accessed 14 April 2017.

3. ABC News, Israeli security forces 'killed 25 Palestinian children' in three months, UNICEF says, 15 May 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-15/25-palestinian-children-killed-in-3-months-unicef/7415256. Accessed 14 April 2016.

4. Middle East Monitor, Military Expert: Israel is using 3 internationally banned weapons in Gaza, 4 August 2014, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20140804-military-expert-israel-is-using-3-internationally-banned-weapons-in-gaza/. Accessed 14 April 2017.

5. The Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, Israel using flechette shells in Gaza, 20 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israel-using-flechette-shells-in-gaza. Accessed 14 April 2017.

6. Human Rights Watch, Israel: White Phosphorous Use Evidence of War Crimes, 25 March 2009, https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes. Accessed 14 April 2017.

7. The Independent, Raymond Whitaker, 'Tungsten bombs' leave Israel's victims with mystery wounds, 18 January 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tungsten-bombs-leave-israels-victims-with-mystery-wounds-1418910.html. Accessed 14 April 2017.

8. The Electronic Intifada, Rania Khalek, Israeli army uses Gaza children as human shields, 11 August 2014, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/israeli-army-uses-gaza-children-human-shields. Accessed 14 April 2017.

9. Haaretz, UN: Palestinian Children Tortured, Used as Human Shields by Israel, 20 June 2013, http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.530993. Accessed 14 April 2017.

10. Amnesty International, Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories 2016/17,  https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/. Accessed 14 April 2017.

11. Norman G. Finkelstein, 'Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History', Verso 2008, updated edition.

12. Ian Carroll, 2012. In the Beginning, 'Israel / Palestine - a 4000 Year History'. 1st Edition. Adenuf Publications.

13. Shlomo Sand, Pages 130-143, Chapter 3, The Invention of the Exile - Proselytism and Conversion, 'The Invention of the Jewish People', First Edition (English), Verso, 2009.

14. Peter Frankopan, 2016, Chapter 6 - The Road of Furs, The Silk Roads - A New History of the World. Bloomsbury

15. Shlomo Sand, Page 287, Chapter 5, The Distinction: Identity politics in Israel, 'The Invention of the Jewish People', First Edition (English), Verso, 2009.

16. Oxford Academic, Genome Biology and Evolution, Danielle Venton, Highlight: Out of Khazaria - Evidence for "Jewish Genome" lacking, 16 January 2013, http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full. Accessed 14 April 2017.

17. Shlomo Sand, Page 180, Chapter 3, The Invention of the Exile - Proselytism and Conversion, 'The Invention of the Jewish People', First Edition (English), Verso, 2009.

18. ibid, Page 181.

19. Reuters, Vatican synod ends with criticism of Israel, 23 October 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-mideast-idUSTRE69M18F20101023. Accessed 14 April 2017.

20. Neturei Karta International, Jews Against Zionism, Rabbi Dovid Weiss, The Torah Demands Justice for the Palestinians, 1 June 2001, http://www.nkusa.org/activities/speeches/nyc060101.cfm. Accessed 11 April 2017.

21. Thomas Suarez, 2016. State of Terror. 1st Edition. Skyscraper Publications.

22. Ibid, Chapter 2, Zionism and the British Mandate to 1938.

23. Ibid, Chapter 3, While the War Raged, 1939 - 1944.

24. Foreign Policy Journal, Jeremy R. Hammond, The Myth o the U.N. Creation of Israel, 26 October 2010, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/. Accessed 11 April 2017.

25. The Jerusalem Post, Daniel Steiman, The settlements are illegal under international law, 29 December 2013, http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-settlements-are-illegal-under-international-law-336507. Accessed 10 April 2017.

26. United Nations Human Rights Council, 22nd session of the Human Rights Council: Resolutions, decisions and President’s statements, Resolution 22/29 adopted 22 March 2013, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session22/Pages/ResDecStat.aspx. Accessed 10 April 2017.

27. BBC News, The Geneva Convention, 19 December 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm. Accessed 10 April 2017.

28. Middle East Monitor, Asa Winstanley, Israel is not a democracy, 13 February 2015, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150213-israel-is-not-a-democracy/. 11 April 2017.

29. Alternet, Katie Halper, 6 Holocaust Survivors Who Fight Against Israel's Treatment of Palestinians, 6 August 2014, http://www.alternet.org/world/6-holocaust-survivors-who-fight-against-israels-treatment-palestinians. Accessed 11 April 2017.



Recommended reading

Miko Peled, 2016, The General's Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine. 2nd Edition. Just World Books.

Norman G. Finkelstein, 2008. Beyond Chutzpah - On the misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. 1st ed. London: Verso.

Ilan Pappe, 2007. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Reprint Edition. Oneworld Publications.

Ilan Pappe, 2014. The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge. 1 Edition. Verso

Craig Nielsen, 2010. Israel Palestine - A Christian Response to the Conflict. Digital Print Australia.

Anna Baltzer, 2007. Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories [Updated & Revised]. Edition. Routledge.

Avigail Abarbanel, 2012. Beyond Tribal Loyalties: Personal Stories of Jewish Peace Activists. 1st Unabridged Edition. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Shlomo Sand, 2010. The Invention of the Jewish People. 1st Edition. Verso.

Shlomo Sand, 2012. The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland. 1 Edition. Verso

Noam Chomsky, 2004. Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood. 1st Edition. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Noam Chomsky, 2015. Gaza in Crisis. 1st edition. Penguin Books.

Noam Chomsky, 1999. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians. Updated Edition. Pluto Press.

Naim Ateek, Cedar Duaybis, Maurine Tobin (editors), 2005. Challenging Christian Zionism: Theology, Politics and the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Melisende UK Ltd.

This subject is also covered in the following article:

Ranting Panda, Repenting of the Palestinian Pogrom, 18 December 2012, http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/repenting-of-palestinian-pogrom.html.



Individual GIF frames

The below are the individual frames of the Humanity for Palestine GIF, for hard-copy prints.












--0--
'

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Freedom of speech - a two-edged sword

Freedom of speech - a two-edged sword

Three interesting things happened this week in relation to freedom of speech:

- Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act - proposed changes rejected
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali - anti-Islam activist's proposed tour of Australia cancelled
- Bassem Tamimi - Palestinian activist's proposed tour of Australia cancelled

The first issue was the rejection by the Senate of proposed changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act(1).

Section 18C reads(2):

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
(3) In this section:
"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place
.


The government, under pressure from extreme right wing activists, had attempted to change the wording, 'offend, insult, humiliate', to simply 'harass'.

It should be noted, that 18C applies to speech in public, not in private. So what is said around the BBQ with your mates is not an offence under 18C. Similarly, even if it is said in public, there are exemptions to 18C which generally covers any public speech that is done 'reasonably and in good faith':

Exemptions 
 Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.


The Senate rejected the proposed changes when Labor, the Greens and cross-benchers such as Nick Xenophon voted against it.

The extreme right were up in arms and vowed to fight on for 'freedom of speech'.

This roughly translates as the right to 'offend, insult and humiliate'. What is that these people want to say that they can't say already? It boils down to people wanting the right to disrespect others. In reality, they already have this right.

Most of the issues that the opponents of 18C have are not that people are stopping them from saying anything, but that people call them out on it. It seems that they want the right to insult, offend and humiliate, but don't want others to have the right to respond. This is an attack on free speech in itself.

The second issue was the proposed visit to Australia by former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the poster-child of the anti-Islam brigade.

HirsiAli was a Somalian refugee who has been vocal on issues such as female genital mutilation and forced marriages. Not too many people have an issue with this. However, Ali gives voice to Islamophobia by claiming that it is Islam itself that is responsible for terrorism and violence within the Muslim world. She has stated that Islam is a 'destructive, nihilistic cult of death'(3).

A number of people criticised her visit, but very few called for her to be banned. Muslim women made a video stating that Ali did not speak for them. However, they weren't requesting her tour be cancelled. They were calling her out for hate speech and bigotry that has been feeding the hate-mongering by Islamophobes. Ironically, this hate-mongering has manifested itself in violence against Muslims by people who claim that Islam is inherently violent.

Nonetheless, Ali cancelled the tour herself, citing organisational and security concerns, even though authorities stated that they had no knowledge of any security threat to her on the tour(4).

This further fed the paranoia of the anti-Islam groups who then claimed this was an attack on free speech by Muslims and Australia's left-wing activists.

The third issue was the less publicised visit to Australia by Palestinian activist, Bassem Tamimi, who was being brought to Australia by the Australian Friends of Palestine Association and other Palestine advocacy groups.



Hours after issuing Tamimi's visa, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton revoked it. The Immigration Department stated, 'The Department recently became aware of information that indicates there is a risk that members of the public will react adversely to Mr Tamimi’s presence in Australia regarding his views of the ongoing political tensions in the Middle East'(5)

Interesting that it was the fear of violence from people opposed to Tamimi's message in support of Palestine that resulted in the visa being cancelled. It was only a few weeks ago that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Australia and was met by peaceful protests from pro-Palestine groups. Apparently, the government doesn't have as much trust in either the anti-Palestine or pro-Israel/Zionist groups.

So with the government shutting down Bassem Tamimi's freedom of speech in support of Palestine, where is the outrage from those who oppose 18C? Where is the outrage against the stifling of Tamimi's freedom of speech, from those who supported Hirsi Ali's visit to Australia in the name of freedom of speech?

It seems that freedom of speech in Australia is a rather ethereal concept, one that is somewhat tenuous in its application. Those who claim to oppose 18C in the name of freedom of speech are using this position to attack anyone who dares challenge their hate speech.

American civil rights campaigner, Alan Dershowitz stated, 'Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent'.

This week the government did pick and choose which expressions to authorise and which to prevent. They didn't stop Hirsi Ali but did stop Bassem Tamimi.

Most people want freedom of speech, however, they aren't so happy with freedom of retort. And it is this freedom of retort that has opponents of 18C believing that they are victims in some sort of conspiracy to shut down their freedom of speech.

The extreme right does raise some valid issues regarding terrorism for instance, however, banning Islam, as some of them want to do, will only cause greater fracturing of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and will destroy any trust that the Muslim community has in the government. It will make identifying radicals harder, given that it is often Muslims who report radicals within their own community.

Hirsi Ali raises valid points around FGM and forced marriage. The lies that she then goes on to spread cannot be addressed if her views are forced underground. Better for these distortions to be brought to the light where they can be exposed for the lies that they are, as we saw in the campaign by Muslim women that Ali doesn't speak for them.

Bassem Tamimi makes valid points around Israel's oppression of Palestine, exposing the decades of violations of human rights and UN resolutions. These issues need to be addressed, not shut down by those who refuse to acknowledge Israel's crimes against humanity.

Freedom of speech is important in order to flesh out valid issues. As George Washington said, 'If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter'.

If issues are not discussed and debated, then people will continue on in their own ignorance and in same cases, acting out their hate through violent actions as we see by both Islamist extremists and Western Right-wing extremists, many of whom are Christian.


References

1. ABC News, Ashlynne McGee, '18C: Proposed changes to Racial Discrimination Act defeated in Senate', 31 March 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-30/18c-racial-discrimination-act-changes-defeated-in-senate/8402792. Accessed 9 April 2017.

2. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/. Accessed 9 April 2017.

3. Southern Poverty Law Centre, 'A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists',    https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#ali. Accessed 9 April 2017.

3. Sydney Morning Herald, Jacqueline Maley, 'Why did Ayaan Hirsi Ali really cancel her Australian speaking tour', 8 April 2017, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-did-ayaan-hirsi-ali-really-cancel-her-australian-speaking-tour-20170406-gvf31i.html. Accessed 9 April 2017.

4. The Guardian, Christopher Knaus, 'Palestinian activist's Australian visa cancelled on eve of speaking tour', 8 April 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/08/palestinian-activists-australian-visa-cancelled-on-eve-of-speaking-tour. Accessed 9 April 2017.

5. ABC News, Jade MacMillan, 'Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's Australian visit slammed by 1,000 protesters', 23 February 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/palestinian-protesters-march-against-benjamin-netanyahu/8298538. Accessed 9 April 2017.




Sunday, March 12, 2017

Gaming the system - the real rorting of welfare

Gaming the system - the real rorting of welfare

An opinion piece by guest blogger, Willz


Gaming the system is another symptom of the greed of capitalists. It seems to me that every time the government comes up with another scheme to supposedly help people, for whatever the reason or whatever their motives, whether honourable or devious, then the schemers come out of the woodwork and quickly work out how to game the system.

It happened with the demise of the old CES (Commonwealth Employment Service) and the creation of private job agencies. These agencies soon realised the best way to game the system and get the maximum amount of money out of the government was to have as many high-risk unemployed people on their books as possible. It is not in their best interest to find jobs for these people as that would lessen their income. In fact they get more money if these people remain unemployed and pushed into dodgy work for the dole schemes. As a result, unemployment has exploded and work for the dole horror stories are now coming out. A recent expose on ABC’s Four Corners program exposed just how bad and corrupt this system has become(1).

Agencies have been accused of forging signatures(2)

Next we had the brilliant idea of the VET loan scheme. This was a scheme introduced by the federal government to allow anyone to enrol in vocational education courses with fees paid for by way of a loan which would be paid back only when the applicant obtained work in their chosen field. As a result RTOs sprang up everywhere offering dodgy courses at inflated prices, in many cases luring people who had no hope of even completing the course and issuing worthless diplomas and certificates that most graduates will never use or obtain employment from, with little chance of the government ever recouping their loan money. Many of these dodgy RTOs have now closed or been closed down for signing unsuitable people up to overpriced courses(3). The cost of this scheme has now blown out to over 4 billion dollars with little likelihood of the government ever recouping their money.



Now we have the roll-out of the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme), which is a worthy scheme, but unfortunately it seems that the schemers are already coming out of the woodwork; lining up at the government treasury with their hands out, looking for new job opportunities. Coincidentally, after being unemployed for some time and obtaining advice from my job provider I enrolled in a Diploma of Community Services course which qualifies one for work in any of the community service industries including mental health, disability, aged care, caring for children etc covered by the NDIS scheme. Having completed the course and subsequently completing a Mental Health First Aid Certificate, I set about putting my new found skills to use.

The first thing that struck me was the sheer number of NDIS based support agencies that had sprung up since the announcement of the NDIS. Most of them in opulent buildings with large numbers of staff servicing a relatively small number of clients, drawing a large amount of money from government grants. One job I was interviewed for serviced eight clients. For this service they rented a huge office with four staff and two houses that housed four clients each with two support workers assigned to each house, plus two casual support workers for vacation and fill in shifts. I don’t know what their budget is, but it would be well over one million dollars per year to help eight kids with mental health problems. This is just one example, but typical of nearly every interview I have been for.

I am yet to obtain work in the sector and have heard many unconfirmed reports of a ‘jobs for the boys culture’ that exists in the industry. By law, these agencies are required to advertise all vacancies to supposedly give everyone a fair go, however there really is no way of compelling them to give the job to the most suitable applicant rather than to a mate or relative.

The failure of all these systems to address the problems they were supposedly designed to fix is nothing more than a symptom of an ever more sickening system of greed and exploitation, also known as capitalism. Private enterprise simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing by their clients. For them it is always about the bottom line and as such any social service run by private enterprise will only help the people running them.


References

 1. ABC, Four Corners, ‘The Jobs Game’, 23 February 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/02/23/4183437.htm. Accessed 11 March 2017.

2. News.com.au, ‘Investigation exposes fraud within taxpayer funded Jobs Services Australia’, 25 February 2015, http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/investigation-exposes-fraud-within-taxpayer-funded-jobs-services-australia/news-story/9d5d9181be2bac46efd4c1857ac092a2. Accessed 11 March 2017.

3. Sydney Morning Herald, Matthew Knott, ‘Rampant Abuse’: Vocational loan scheme slammed as costs blow out, 16 October 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rampant-abuse-vocational-loan-scheme-slammed-as-costs-blow-out-20151015-gka79i.html. Accessed 11 March 2017.



Saturday, February 4, 2017

Trump's Gag Order banning abortion will increase abortion & kill more women

Trump's Gag Order banning abortion will increase abortion & kill more women


One of Donald Trump's first proclamations as President was to issue an Executive Order banning American funds being paid to organisations that either perform abortion or give advice on abortions. This essentially applies to any family planning centre and will particularly hit hard those Non-Government Organisations in developing countries. This is affectionately known as the 'Gag Order' or 'Mexico City Policy'. In other words, NGOs are banned from mentioning the 'a' word ... abortion.

There is empirical evidence that shows that the restriction on NGOs increases the number of abortions because the Gag Order means contraception and family planning advice isn't provided, resulting in unwanted pregnancies and unsafe terminations(1).

Trump's Gag Order is not new. Every Republican President going back to Reagan, has implemented it and every Democrat President since then has lifted it. This means there is plenty of evidence available to see its impact globally.

Those who are celebrating the Gag Order thinking it has just saved millions of lives, have not only condemned millions more foetuses to an unsafe abortion, but also put the lives of thousands women at risk. Not only will there be an increase in the number of abortions, there will be an increase in the number of deaths of women who undertake abortion.

One of the many lies that were told by Trump during the election campaign was that Hillary Clinton was in favour of late-term abortions. The gullible 'pro-lifers' ran with this and started sharing their own lies about it. In one of the debates, Trump stated that 'you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day'. What Trump and his loyal band of unquestioning pro-lifers didn't seem to get was that the word for this is birth ... by Caesarian Section(2). No-one aborts a baby on the ninth month on the final day.

As for actual late-term abortions and so-called partial-birth abortions, these are only done to protect the life of the mother or if the life of the foetus is unviable. Late term abortions are not done out of convenience. They are extremely rare and only performed to save the life of the mother or when the foetus cannot possibly survive. Perfect foetuses, or those with minor abnormalities are not terminated during the later term of the pregnancy(3).

Trump's abortion decree is an abortion of a policy that will kill more people than it claims to save.

Strict abortion laws do not stop abortions. For instance, the World Health Organisation published a report showing that the abortion rate is 29 in 1,000 people in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America. Both these areas have strict abortion laws. Whereas in Western Europe, the rate is 12 per 1,000, even though abortion is legal. Those countries with strict abortion laws, tend to find an increase in unsafe abortions. Restrictive abortion laws have little effect on abortion rates, only on the method and safety of abortions(4). There are likely at least two reasons why abortion rates are lower in Western Europe: better access to contraception and less poverty.

In America, when abortion was legal, the death rate of women was 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. In nations where there is a higher incidence of unsafe abortions, the death rate is 220 per 100,000, effectively 350 times higher. The WHO's report identifies that unintended pregnancy is a big cause of abortions and that one of the most effective ways to reduce this is to fund appropriate contraception programs.

A comprehensive study by Stanford researchers in 2011, examined abortion rates in 20 African countries from 1994 to 2008, covering 260,000 women. During the first seven years, Democrat Bill Clinton was President and had lifted the Gag Order that his Republican predecessor had implemented, while the last seven years were under Republican George W. Bush who reinstated the Gag Order. Abortion rates under Clinton were 10.4 per 10,000, while under George W. Bush the abortion rate rose by almost 40%, to 14.5 per 10,000(5).

Impact of Gag Order (Mexico City Policy) when implemented in 2001(5)


Part of the reason for the increase in abortions was that the Gag Order impacted on contraception, resulting in more unwanted pregnancy. One NGO, Marie Stopes International estimates that a cut just in their funding alone would result in 6.5 million extra unwanted pregnancies, 2.2 million more abortions and the deaths of 21,700 women over the next four years of the Trump administration(6).

One argument that pro-lifers will use for banning abortion is the emotional impact it has on women. Yet a study conducted by the Bixby Center for Global Research and published by the academic journal PLOS ONE, indicates that 95% of women who have abortions do not regret it. In fact, anti-abortion protesters who picket abortion clinics, tend to cause more emotional distress than having the abortion, with 16% of women reporting that they were upset by the protesters. However, within a week of having an abortion, women who experienced protesters reported no more distress than those who hadn't experienced protesters and did not regret their decision. In others words, the protests make no difference(7).

While banning abortion may appeal to Conservative Christians, it is a very simplistic approach to a complex problem. It's simplicity and lack of fore-thought makes it more dangerous than legal abortions.




It was significant that the signing of Trump's Executive Order on abortion was done so in the presence of a cabal of men. Not one woman was present.

Trump has stated that he wants women punished if they have an abortion(8). His Executive Order will do exactly that by driving abortion underground(9). Rather than stop abortion, it will bring back the coat-hanger - the stereotypical tool of trade for backyard abortions. Under the Gag Order, backyard abortions will be a booming industry for two reasons. Banning funding of NGOs who provide or advise on abortion, will reduce the access that women in developing countries have to contraception, increasing the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies and meaning more women will seek out abortion. Without having access to safe and medical abortion, many will try other methods that not only kill the foetus but significantly increase the risk of women dying in the process. In some cases, backyard abortions fail, often leaving the foetus alive but severely damaged so when born, the baby is suffering from significant injuries and will live life with severe disabilities.

Abortion is not a simple procedure, even when undertaken through a medical clinic. Every effort must be made to ensure that those who seek it, have access to the best possible care.

Signing the Executive Order banning the funding of NGOs who provide or advise on abortion


Furthering Trump's desire to punish women for abortion, Arkansas has just passed a law that lets rapists sue to stop their victims from having an abortion. Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortions will be banned and for those who do have one, there is the risk of a $10,000 fine or six years in prison(10).

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion, it drives it underground.

Many women who want or need an abortion will find other, more dangerous methods to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

Restrictive laws do not stop women from having abortions(11)



The Republican Gag Orders do not reduce abortion(12). Previously, the Gag Orders have resulted in the closure of clinics, a reduction in contraception and an increase in unsafe abortions(13). If Trump and the pro-life lobby are truly concerned about reducing abortion, they would ensure there is adequate poverty-reduction measures in place and access to contraception. For instance, this could come in the form of foreign aid. Of course, the problem with this is that the right-wing tends to be opposed to foreign aid and look at ways to reduce it.

Domestically, poverty and financial stress, could be reduced through raising the minimum wage, but again most right-wingers oppose any increase in the minimum wage. What about job security and providing people with a realistic number of hours per week instead of putting them on casually for a couple of hours. The payment of a living wage would go a long way to reducing the number of abortions.




Bannning abortion does not stop abortions, it will only result in women seeking illegal and unsafe abortions which will increase their likelihood of dying.

40% of women who experience complications during unsafe abortions, do not receive medical care. It is estimated that the annual global cost of unsafe abortions is $232 million, and if all women who experienced complications were to receive medical treatment, the cost would be $562 million(4).

The primary driver of abortion is poverty or financial pressures(4). Access to adequate contraception is also a significant cause. To reduce abortion, we need to address these drivers.

If the 'pro-lifers' genuinely care about life, then they will address the issues that cause women to seek abortion, namely poverty and war. Financial stress such as that caused by costs of health care can be alleviated through a working health care system. Pro-lifers who opposed Obamacare are contributing to abortion levels, not reducing them. Similarly, pro-lifers who oppose a living wage or an increase to the minimum wage, are contributing to the abortion levels. Pro-lifers who support wars such as the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, have contributed to abortion levels. Pro-lifes who oppose the resettlement of refugees in western countries, such as in Europe, the US or Australia are also contributing to abortion levels. Pro-lifers who support Trump's ban on funding NGOs who provide advice on abortion are contributing to abortion levels and an increase in mortality rates of women who have abortions. Pro-lifers who oppose Foreign Aid are contributing to abortions globally. Pro-lifers concern for foetuses ends at birth. If they wish to truly stop abortions, then they must take a far greater concern for the welfare of people globally, this can only be done through sharing wealth and knowledge, yet Conservatives will scream that wealth redistribution and publicly funded health programs are a Communist plot.

Catholic nun, Sister Joan Chittister nailed the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-life but then oppose measures to reduce the causes of abortion:

'I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is'.

Many pro-lifers think that all they need to do is oppose the legalisation of abortion; that this is all that's needed. But as shown above, the law is not the solution. Ending poverty, providing free or affordable health care, providing employment and living wages, delivery social justice: these are things that will reduce the number of abortions across the globe.

Following Trump's inauguration, more than one million people attended rallies across the world, protesting Trump's position on abortion, refugees, Islam, racism and of course his own misogyny and sexism. This sign at one of the rallies showing a coat-hanger and the comment 'Never Again' encapsulates the reason all people who value life should oppose Trump's Gag Order on abortion(14):



As distasteful as abortion may be to many people, it would be safer to legalise abortion so that women have access to safe and affordable medical terminations than to seek out unsafe back-yard abortions.

Some may claim abortion is murder, but as Gandhi stated:

Poverty is the worst form of violence.


References


1. The Atlantic, Anna Diamond, 'Trump Strikes at Abortion With a Revived Foreign-Aid Rule', 23 January 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/mexico-city-policy/514010/. Accessed 4 February 2017.

2. Forbes, Tara Haelle, 'No, Late-Term Abortions Don't 'Rip' Babies Out of Wombs -- And They Exist For a Reason', 20 October 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/10/20/no-late-term-abortions-dont-rip-babies-out-of-wombs-but-they-are-needed/#4031e85b1bc4. Accessed 4 February 2017.

3. The Huffington Post, Dr Jennifer Gunter, 'Terms And Partial Birth Abortions: The Mythical Arch-Nemeses Of the Anti-Choice Movement', 23 October 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/term-and-partial-birth-abortions-the-mythical-arch-nemeses-of-the-anti-choice-movement_us_580d4427e4b02444efa3f33a. Accessed 4 February 2017.

4. 14. World Health Organisation, Guttmacher Institute, 'Facts on induced abortions worldwide', January 2012, http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/abortion_facts/en/ and https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide. Accessed 4 February 2017.

5. World Health Organization, Eran Bendavid, Patrick Avila, Grant Miller, 'United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa', 27 September 2011, http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/. Accessed 4 February 2017.

6. The Huffington Post, Anna Almendrala, 'Trump Blocked Global Abortion Funds, So the Dutch Government Is Stepping In', 26 January 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/netherlands-global-gag-rule-abortion_us_58890a2fe4b0024605fd7844. Accessed 4 February 2017.

7. UCSF's Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Diana Green Foster, Katrina Kimport, Heather Gould, Sarah C.M. Roberts, Tracy A. Weitz, 'Effect of abortion protesters on women's emotional response to abortion', 6 September 2012, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128832#sec013. Accessed 4 February 2017.

8. The Guardian, Lucia Graves, 'Trump once said women should be punished for abortion. Now he's making it happen', 24 January 2107, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/trump-once-said-women-should-be-punished-for-abortion-t. Accessed 4 February 2017.

9. The American Prospect, Nathalie Baptiste, 'This is What Happens When Abortion is Outlawed', 17 June 2015, http://prospect.org/article/what-happens-when-abortion-outlawed. Accessed 4 February 2017.

10. Independent, Charlotte England, 'Arkansas Passes law allowing rapists sue victims who want an abortion', 4 February 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arkansas-abortion-law-that-will-let-rapists-sue-victims-husbands-second-trimester-a7561066.html. Accessed 4 February 2017.

11. Guttmacher Institute, 'Restrictive laws do not stop women from having abortions',  https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2016/restrictive-laws-do-not-stop-women-having-abortions. Accessed 4 February 2017.

12. Guttmacher Institute, Susan A. Cohen, 'U.S. Overseas Family Planning Program, Perennial Victim Of Abortion Politics, Is Once Again Under Seige', 8 November 2011, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2011/11/us-overseas-family-planning-program-perennial-victim-abortion-politics-once-again-under. Accessed 4 February 2017.

13. Guttmacher Institute, Sneha Barot, Susan A. Cohen, 'The Global Gag Rule and Fights Over Funding UNFPA: The Issues That Won't Go Away', 3 June 2015, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2015/06/global-gag-rule-and-fights-over-funding-unfpa-issues-wont-go-away. Accessed 4 February 2017.

14. The Pueblo Chieftain, Nancy Benac and Ben Nuckols, Associated Press, 'Over 1 million join anti-Trump women's marches worldwide', 21 January 2017, http://www.chieftain.com/news/top/5563925-120/trump-washington-women-america. Accessed 4 February 2017.











Thursday, January 26, 2017

Australia Day - Changing the date will achieve nothing if nothing changes for indigenous people

Australia Day - Changing the date will achieve nothing if nothing changes for indigenous people



For many indigenous people, 26 January is seen as Invasion Day. It is the date the First Fleet landed in Botany Bay and has come to symbolise the massacres, displacement and human rights abuses of indigenous people that followed and which continues to this day.

As a result, there is a push to have Australia Day celebrated on a more appropriate date.

26 January is the anniversary of an invasion and of the establishment of a British colony, it isn't the anniversary of the establishment of Australia. That would be 1 January 1901. However, as that is already a public holiday, Aussies would lose their collective gum-nuts if New Year's Day was coupled with Aussie Day.

To compound the indignity of 26 January, it has been hijacked by white nationalists. It is the day when racists come out of the woodwork, flying and wearing Australian flags and demanding that non-white's, those from different cultural backgrounds, turn their back on their cultures and morph into some ill-defined Australian 'culture'. Whatever that may be.

Prime Racist Pauline Hanson, has long been bagging out multiculturalism, claiming it has failed. What her and the far-right forget is that Australia was built by multiple cultures, including our own first peoples, and then migrants from numerous lands, such as Asia, Middle East, Europe, the South Pacific. And of course, they were of various religions, including Islam, the religion that the bigots love to hate.

Australian culture is a potpourri of everyone else's culture, so it's a tad rude to expect people to forget those cultures.

26 January has been seen as a Day of Mourning almost as long as it's been acknowledged as Australia Day. It wasn't until 1935, that all states and territories agreed on 26 January being Australia Day. In 1938, at the 150th anniversary of the First Fleet landing, aboriginal leaders met in Sydney for a Day of Mourning and Protest. As a national holiday, Australia Day is still relatively young. It was only in 1994, that all states began holding public holidays on the same day(1).

Australian Aborigines Conference - Sesquicentenary Day of Mourning and Protest(1)


However, will changing the date of Australia Day from 26 Januaray really be anything more than a symbolic gesture? Sort of like former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations. While it was a good thing and long overdue, in the end it wasn't followed up with any other action. Yes, it acknowledged that generations of indigenous people had been stolen from their parents, which is important for those most affected by it, but in the end was it more about white people assuaging their guilt, feeling warm and fuzzy, and feeling that was all they needed to do. It wasn't followed up with any effective action to combat indigenous issues.

Changing the date of Australia Day will not change the jingoism, the racism, the ignorance that is prevalent throughout white Australia. One only has to look at the uproar and the threats from the ultra-right wing over a billboard in Melbourne showing two young Muslim girls in hijabs celebrating Australia Day. Talk about hypocrites. On one hand, the bigots bang on about Muslims having to embrace Australia and to love the nation, but when they do the same bigots get upset. The billboard was taken down as a result of this uproar. After all, we can't upset the delicate feelings of the ultra-right who take offence at anything that doesn't fit with their extremely myopic view.

Thankfully, thousands of Aussies realised this was unacceptable and a crowd-funding campaign raised more than $160,000 to put the ads back up on billboards around the country. This was a great kick in the guts of the bigots. There was an argument put forward by some on the left that while the crowd-funding was well-meaning, it just reinforced the denial of the genocide and displacement of indigenous people. This has merit, but is conflating two very important issues. Of course we shouldn't ignore the significance of 26 January as the anniversary of the invasion and subsequent brutality against indigenous people. But we also shouldn't tolerate intolerance against modern Australians. Australia Day, whether the date is moved or not, will continue to be a celebration of Australia as a nation, and as such the message needed to be sent to the white nationalists that modern Australia is a land that welcomes and is replete with people from all sorts of religions and cultures.

Following the crowd-funding campaign, billboards were put up and not surprisingly, the bigots went off their collective nuts. Once such billboard was at the Canberra Theatre, which received threats of violence and bombing(2).

Patriotism has become synonymous with racism and exclusivity, and disturbingly, this has permeated society to the point that it has become normalised. Criticising racism often results in accusations of being 'unAustralian'.

And then there was the uproar over the Meat and Livestock Association's annual advertisement for lamb. The 2017 ad drew criticism on a number of fronts, not least of which was that it failed to mention Australia Day. Some years ago the MLA decided to hijack Australia Day in order to promote lamb as the traditional food of Aussies on Aussie Day. There has never been an official food for Australia Day. This was purely a capitalist campaign at making money through sales of lamb. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with patriotism, yet the bigots condemned the MLA for being unAustralian because their adverisement didn't mention Australia Day.

The ad started out with aborigines having a barbeque on the beach and then boats arriving from all over the world with stereotypes of migrants. The ad ended with the comment, 'aren't we all boat people'. While it's not the greatest ad, the message it was trying to send is important; that Australia is a culturally diverse nation, and importantly, that refugees should not be demonised as we are all boat people. Some may feel it belittles the suffering of indigenous people or reinforces cultural stereotypes, but in the end it was a great message ... and an important one ... about tolerance, inclusion, understanding and acceptance.

Moving Australia Day will mean nothing if we don't challenge the ignorance and the intolerance that underpins it. Instead of fomenting racism and using it for political gain as Tony Abbott, Cory Bernardi, George Christensen and their ilk do, both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party must do their best to expose the ignorance behind racism. Additionally, it is up to Australians generally to dispute the racist garbage that bigots spout and the right wing media often publishes.

If Australia Day is moved it is likely that the intolerant will say that the do-gooders got what we wanted and then expect us to shut up and move on, accusing us of never being happy. Will moving Australia Day affect the dialogue around the invasion, the genocide, the stolen generations, the ongoing abuse and marginalisation that indigenous people experience to this day?

Moving Australia Day will not change the fact that white settlement was a racist invasion.

But hey, this is just a 'black arm-band' view of history isn't it?

A black arm-band is a better than a white blind-fold.

The so-called 'black arm-band' history is at least truthful and ensures that history is not forgotten. It also means that we can understand the causes of today's inequality and abuse of indigenous people and take effective action to counter the inequality and abuse.

26 January is a divisive date. On the one hand, there are those who will celebrate Australia as a nation, as a land of freedom and opportunity. Some of the people will be bigots, but many are ordinary Aussies who are proud of their nation and grateful they don't live in a country that persecutes them. For that matter, many of the people celebrating Australia Day are migrants or refugees who truly do love this nation. On the other hand, there are those who commemorate 26 January as Invasion Day. Many will march at Invasion Day rallies around the country, ensuring that the suffering of indigenous people is not forgotten and calling for real action to combat the poverty, prejudice, inequality, to remember the stolen generation and the deaths in custody, to challenge the white blindfold view of history and ensure the heroism of the indigenous warriors in the Frontier Wars is remembered.

While 26 January is an offensive date on which to celebrate being Australian, will the protests against it stop if it is celebrated on another day? Will those of us who see 26 January as Invasion Day, then join in the celebrations on another day? Perhaps.

There is a lot to celebrate about Australia. We are a wealthy, peaceful nation, largely free to live out our lives and achieve our goals.  If we can ensure the wealth is sustained and shared, we have the ability to do a lot of good for people domestically and internationally. We can knock down barriers of intolerance and build a nation of harmony, regardless of the many cultures and religions that are represented here. Australia is supposed to be the land of the 'Fair Go', then everyone should be treated fairly, not forced to become clones of a myopic few who fail to recognise or understand the history of Australia.

If Australia Day is moved to another date, then celebrate Australia's diversity and beauty. However, 26 January should become a national day commemorating the invasion. There are few cenotaphs that memorialise the frontier wars, so this would be a time to remember and pay respects to the indigenous people who suffered and died in the defence of their lands.

The holiest day on the Australian calendar is Anzac Day, in which the country is awash with cenotaphs thronged by people paying their respects to those who fought and died for Australia, largely in foreign wars. Yet when in 1988 an aboriginal man laid a wreath on Anzac Day in Sydney to commemorate the indigenous people who died defending their own lands, he was stopped and taken away(3).

Australian poet, Bruce Dawe, describes the lack of remembrance in his poem, For the Other Fallen:

You fought here for your country.
Where are your monuments?
You resisted the invader as best you knew how.
Where are your songs of those days?
When you were captured you were not prisoners-of-war.
That would have been awkward.
You had the misfortune of occupying 'unoccupied land'.
You had to correct your gross error.
There was a pioneer tradition waiting to be unfolded.
Tales as resilient as ironbark.
Your share in them was minimal and negative.
You were rather slow to understand this.
The bush and the stone and the stream.
The tree. The plain.
The special green. The faded calico blue,
They were your last line of resistance.
You fought here for your country.
Where are your monuments?
The difficulties we have in belonging
- these, these are your cenotaph.
(Bruce Dawe)


Regardless of whether Australia Day is celebrated on 26 January or another, this is the challenge to all of us:
  • Never forget Australia's black history and it's human rights abuses (4)
  • Never forget the genocide, such as in Tasmania where almost every aboriginal person was murdered 
  • Never forget the killing fields in which the Native Mounted Police exterminated large numbers of aborigines(3)
  • Never forget the frontier wars and the massacres of indigenous people
  • Never forget that indigenous people were prohibited from speaking their languages and practising their culture
  • Never forget that indigenous people were once treated no better than flora and fauna.
  • Never forget that aborigines were once denied freedom in their own land, subject to curfews and having to obtain permits to travel and to marry(5)
  • Never forget that we nuked aboriginal tribes at Maralinga
  • Never forget the stolen generations, the rape and abuse of indigenous people
  • Never forget that many indigenous people worked for no wages or their wages were garnered by the government and put in trust accounts and the money was rarely given back to the people who earned it(6)
  • Never forget the deaths in custody, which continue to this day
  • Don't turn our backs on indigenous history
  • Genuinely work together for true reconciliation with the first peoples of this land
  • End the unequal treatment of indigenous people, whether it be in the justice systems, health, education, employment, housing or society.

Certificate of Exemption - Mary Rose Woods(7)

As an example, Certificates of Exemption such as the one above, were issued to a few aborigines who had displayed a character that the white people were happy with. The Exemption meant that they could 'open a bank account, receive certain Commonwealth social service benefits, own land and purchase alcohol', however, the holders of the certificates were 'not allowed to live with their families on reserves and even had to apply for permission to visit them'(8). The exemptions could be revoked at any time without warning or appeal. Aborigines were prisoners in their own lands. 

A common argument that non-indigenous people will put forward is that all of this was decades ago, that it is time for indigenous people to move on. 

Firstly, denying history denies people an ability to move on. How can there be reconciliation with indigenous people if we deny the abuse that they suffered? How can we move on from history if we fail to understand it or the reasons behind it? if we don't understand our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Secondly, what many don't seem to understand is that the abuse didn't end decades ago. It continues to this day. Indigenous people are greatly over-represented in prisons, often being arrested and sentenced for crimes that white people are rarely if ever charged with. Indigenous people are eight times more likely to be imprisoned than non-indigenous people. Indigenous people represent 3% of the Australian population but 27% of the prison population. Many of them are imprisoned for trivial crimes, including fine default.(9) Part of the solution, is to improve education and employment opportunities and to end the racist actions of law enforcement officers who feel led to arrest indigenous people for minor crimes. 

It's been more than 25 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The 1989 Royal Commission investigated 99 deaths in the previous 10 years (an average of around 10 deaths per year). In the subsequent 25 years, 340 indigenous people have died in custody(10) (more than 13 deaths averaged per year). Few of the 339 recommendations have been implemented and meanwhile non-indigenous Australia is in denial about the abuse and persecution of indigenous people. Is it any wonder then that the rate of indigenous deaths in custody has increased since the Royal Commission. 

Non-indigenous Australia can't simply say that indigenous history was decades ago and to get over it. It is still happening.

It wasn't luck that made Australia the 'Lucky' Country. Australia got rich through the deliberate theft and rape of indigenous lands and resources. It was also the hard work of indigenous people and migrants from all lands and religions that made Australia what it is today.

Certainly celebrate our great nation, its diversity and its wealth, but never forget its history.

Whether Australia Day moves from 26 January or not, Australians should acknowledge and remember our brutal past, understand its discriminatory present and build a peaceful and harmonious future that benefits indigenous people and appreciates their culture. Unless this happens, changing the date will be a symbolic gesture only.

Moving Australia Day from 26 January will achieve nothing, if nothing changes for our first people.


References

1. Australia Day, History, http://www.australiaday.org.au/australia-day/history/. Accessed 26 January 2017.

2. ABC News, Ewan Gilbert, 'Australia Day billboard with girls in hijabs prompts online call to 'bomb' Canberra Theatre', 25 January 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-25/canberra-theatre-threatened-after-aus-day-displaying-billboard/8210680. Accessed 26 January 2017.

3. Pilger, J. (1992), 'A Secret County'. London: Vintage.

4. Reynolds, H. (2000). 'Why Weren't We Told? : a personal search for the truth about our history'. Ringwood, Vic. New York, N.Y. Penguin.

5. Frankland, K. Queensland Department of Communities. (1994). 'A Brief History of Government Administration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in Queensland', http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/93734/Admin_History_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islanders.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2017.

6. Kidd, R. (2000), 'Black Lives, Government Lies'. Sydney: UNSW Press.

7. National Museum Australia, From Little Things Big Things Grow: Fighting for Indigenous Rights 1920-1970, Programme to be White, Mary Terszak's story of surviving assimilation, http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/from_little_things_big_things_grow/behind_the_scenes/programmed_to_be_white. Accessed 26 January 2017.

8. Australian Human Rights Commission, 'Bringing Them Home, Chapter 8, Assimilation 1936 - 1962',  https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-chapter-8. Accessed 26 January 2017.

9. ABC News, Lauren Day, 'Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Grieving families lament lack of reform', 14 April 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-14/grieving-families-lament-lack-of-deaths-in-custody-reform/7327630. Accessed 26 January 2017.

10. The Guardian, Calla Wahlquist, 'Aboriginal deaths in custody: 25 years on, the vicious cycle remains', 15 April 2016,  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/15/aboriginal-deaths-in-custody-25-years-on-the-vicious-cycle-remains. Accessed 26 January 2017.


Sunday, January 22, 2017

The Republican Party's degenerate trajectory: from Nixon to Trump


The Republican Party's degenerate trajectory: from Nixon to Trump



The election of Trump is culmination of more than 40 years of Republican Party degeneracy.

The Republican Party has been on a downward trajectory of crime and morals since at least the 1970s. It has been a decline that has seen Republican presidents outdoing each other in criminal and ethical turpitude. So why is it portrayed as a party of family and Christian values?

It was the 2016 election that showed the true heart of the Republicans: one which idolises power, wealth, partisanship, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, and which has no respect for truth, love and respect. It is no longer a conservative party, but an ultra-right wing one.

It was this election in which the Republican Party threw off the sheep's clothing and revealed the amoral, greedy, bigoted wolf beneath. 'Trumpers' proudly showed themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

However, the destruction of the Republican Party hasn't happened overnight.

It was Nixon who really kicked off the avalanche of corruption within the Republican Party. Watergate became a term that defined American politics in the 1970s, and led to Nixon being impeached and eventually resigning. Numerous Republican politicians were sentenced to jail over it.

Instead of Nixon also being jailed, his successor, President Gerald Ford, issued a full and unconditional presidential pardon for any crimes that Nixon 'committed or may have committed'(1). The presidential pardon was met with disbelief, yet there it was. One Republican pardoning another for crimes committed in the highest office in the land. Not surprisingly, Ford was a one-term president.

Nixon's crime was that during the 1972 presidential election campaign, burglars linked to Nixon broke into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) office in the Watergate Hotel, installing wiretaps on phones and stealing sensitive information which was then used to support Nixon's re-election campaign. Nixon denied knowledge of the operation and attempted to cover it up.

Fast forward to the 2016 elections and the DNC's computer servers were allegedly hacked by Russia and sensitive information released in order to discredit Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign and strengthen Republican Donald Trump's bid. Trump denied knowledge of it, but he benefited from and exploited the information that was obtained and released through Wikileaks. Trump successfully won the presidency, however numerous intelligence agencies are now investigating the links between Trump, his campaign team and Russia(2).



Here's a tip: not only will Trump be a one-term president, but he will be impeached before his term is up.

After Ford, the next Republican president was Ronald Reagan, a B-grade Hollywood actor. Reagan continued Nixon's legacy of corruption, defining the 1980s with Irangate(Iran-Contra Affair)(3), in which Reagan's administration illegally sold weapons to Iran in exchange for assistance in securing the release of hostages being held in Lebanon. The provision of arms to Iran was illegal because of trade and weapons sanctions against it. To compound the problem, funds from the sale of the weapons were then illegally channelled to the Contras who were a militant right-wing terrorist group fighting against Nicaragua's ruling Marxist Sandanista government. The Contras committed untold human rights abuses and hundreds of terrorist attacks. The United States was happy to not only fund the Contras terrorism, but to also divert funds from their War on Drugs to support the Contras large-scale drug-smuggling operations(4). But the Republicans justified it to themselves because they couldn't possibly allow a successful socialist government in Central or South America.

Like Nixon, Reagan denied knowledge and blamed rogue intelligence agencies. However, a number of these agencies, including the CIA, claim to have advised Reagan that supplying arms to Iran was 'a bad idea'(5).

In 1989, Reagan was succeeded by President George H.W. Bush, also a Republican. Bush, like Ford, then issued presidential pardons to a number of Reagan's administration who'd been implicated in the Iran-Contra affair, raising questions about what Bush was trying to cover-up(6). Bush was vice-president under Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair and had previously denied any personal involvement in the scandal, however his own diaries tell a different story in which he wrote, 'I'm one of the few people that know fully the details ...'. Bush failed to disclose the existence of the diary to officers investigating the Iran-Contra affair in the event that it would affect his 1988 presidential campaign(7).

Just like Ford, Bush served one term. There must be something about issuing presidential pardons that doesn't bode well.

The next Republican president was George H.W. Bush's son, George W. Bush. George, George, George. Just when one might think that Republicans couldn't stoop lower than Watergate and Irangate, in comes George W. Bush.

Bush was a fuck-up from start to finish ... not to put too fine a point on it.

In mid-2001, he ignored intelligence reports that said arch-terrorist Osama Bin Laden, founder of the Al Qaeda terrorist franchise, was plotting a major attack on US soil(8). Who needs to know about potential terrorist attacks, right? Surely not the President. On 11 September 2001, Bush suddenly discovered why he perhaps should have paid more attention to that little snippet of intelligence when more than 3,000 innocent people were killed when Al Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger aircraft, flying two into the World Trade Centre, one into the Pentagon and one crashing into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers managed to wrestle control from the terrorists.

As an aside, some years later, Republicans tried to blame Democrat President Obama for not stopping the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans including the US Ambassador, and seven Libyans. So where was the Republican outrage over a President who ignored warnings of a terrorist attack on US soil that killed more than 3,000 people?

In retaliation to 9/11, Bush launched a war on Afghanistan where Bin Laden was allegedly holed up. Bin Laden evaded Bush and was eventually caught 10 years later in Pakistan during an operation directed by Democrat President Barack Obama.

Bush decided to compound his military failure by manufacturing a reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. He justified this through his puerile and completely false claim Hussein 'tried to kill my dad' - a reference to President H.W. Bush sending the troops into the First Gulf War.  His daddy (President H.W. Bush) however, had the good sense to listen to intelligence reports warning that deposing Hussein would create a power vacuum. So, as it turns out, neither Hussein or Daddy Bush tried to kill each other.

The feckless George W decided to run with a campaign of fear to justify the invasion and invented stories about Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was allied with Al Qaeda. He then garnered support of some western allies whom he called 'The Coalition of the Willing' and warning other nations that they were 'either for us or against us'.

A Senate Intelligence Committee found that Bush exaggerated intelligence reports about Hussein's WMD and links to Al Qaeda (which were non-existent)(9). Similarly, the Chilcot Report(10) in Great Britain also found there was no immediate threat from Hussein and that non-military options had not been exhausted, that intelligence reports were flawed and not challenged.

Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, costing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and $2 trillion(11). It also created the power vacuum that resulted in the establishment of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into the Islamic State (or ISIS) that has been so active of late in Syria and Iraq. Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, has since admitted that the Iraq War gave rise to ISIS(12). The Chilcot Report, which investigated Britain's involvement in the Iraq War, rightly concluded that the Coalition had ignored warnings of the fall-out from an invasion and failed to adequately plan for an Iraq without Hussein leading it(13).

Thirteen years later the world is still feeling the impact from this disastrous military campaign through the presence of ISIS in Syria, Iraq and its influence in terrorist activities across the globe.

Just when the world thought that the Republicans couldn't get any worse than George W. Bush, in steps reality TV star, Donald Trump. The Republicans had previously elected a B-grade Hollywood actor, so what could possibly go wrong?

Like Nixon, Trump's campaign benefited from information stolen from the DNC; this time by Russian government hackers.

The Republicans have a habit of illegally acquiring DNC information during election campaigns.

Inexplicably, Conservative Christians continued backing Trump even with his confessions of sexual assault (who can forget him boasting about grabbing women by the pussy), when he said(14):

'I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything .... I did try and fuck her. She was married ... I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything'.

But hey, the Bible is his favourite book ... so he says.

As a businessman, Trump is a con-man, having racked up numerous bankruptcies, law suits, cheated contractors and disillusioned share-holders(15).

His campaign was riddled with populist and contradictory claims with Politifact declaring that only 4% of his claims were wholly true, compared to Hillary Clinton's 25% of claims being wholly true(16).

What does Trump stand for? Trump. He claims to put America First, but it will be Trump first, America a far second and only as it benefits him.

Most disturbingly is the apparent existence of a dossier that claims Russia has incriminating evidence against Trump(17). Then President Obama and President-elect Trump were briefed by joint intelligence chiefs of the contents. The Republican Party themselves had commissioned a former MI6 operative to investigate Trump. It was this investigation that revealed that Russia may have incriminating personal and financial information regarding the man who is now the 45th President of the United States. If these claims are true, this could leave America exposed through having a President that is being black-mailed by a foreign power. Does this explain why Trump initially denied Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC?

As Lenin stated, 'there are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel'.

The Republicans have made use of many scoundrels over the years, with a string of immorality and criminal behaviour from Nixon to Trump.

Trump's populist rhetoric has been based on fear in order to manipulate the population, creating an imaginary enemy through racism and bigotry.

Pink Floyd founder, Roger Waters, described this phenomenon as, 'This is how you control your domestic population – by making people afraid and by identifying an enemy'.

Speaking of Waters, he performed a concert in 2015 in Mexico(18), resurrecting the classic Pink Floyd song, Pigs, in honour of Trump and his ilk:

Big man, pig man 
Ha, ha, charade you are 
You well heeled big wheel 
Ha, ha, charade you are 

Trump has used racism to invent enemies, whether it be whipping up fear of black people, Mexicans or Muslims.

Ironically, during the Civil War, it was Republicans who fought against the racism of the Democrats who who wanted to maintain slavery and were willing to break out of the Union to keep it. While there was more to the Civil War than fighting against slavery, it was a primary reason for the Civil War in order to maintain the Union. Robert Smalls, a former slave who went on to become a Republican politician once described the Republican Party as, 'the party of Lincoln … which unshackled the necks of four million human beings'.

Back then, Republicans were fighting against racism, today they are fighting for it. 

The Republican Party is decrepit. Given its history of increasingly degenerate Presidents, it would be a bold call to say that the Republicans have reached some sort of moral nadir, however, after the Trump presidency, surely the only way is up. Surely ...

The lies that Trump has told to manipulate the gullible have become known as post-truth and has become the hallmark of many right-wing politicians around the globe, including Australia's own Pauline Hanson who never lets the truth get in the way of her racist fear-mongering.

The Post-Truth Era is the new Dark Ages.

The thing about the Dark Ages was that it was the result of the ultra-religious, not unlike the Christian Right's blind backing of Trump. The Dark Ages eventually gave way to the Renaissance, which of course was led by artists and poets. It's not a coincidence that many of the people opposing Trump are in the field of the arts, whether it be actors, musicians, writers, painters or poets.

We may see a renaissance of philosophical thought based on a renewed search for now abandoned truth ... eventually.

During the election campaign, Trump felt led to defend the size of his hands and his ... er ... tackle. Following his inauguration on 20 January 2017, the braggadocious Trump was again boasting of his size; this time the size of the crowds who attended the inauguration. Not surprisingly the claims were exposed very quickly as lies. On NBC's Meet The Press, host Chuck Todd put the suggestion to Trump's senior advisor, Kellyanne Conway, that the claims made by Trump's publicist, Sean Spicer, were lies. Conway wasn't going to give any quarter. These weren't lies ... they were 'alternative facts'. There you have it. Day 1 and Trump has to lie about his size. Post-truth indeed.

'Alternative Facts' is the new Trump-speak, or doublespeak, for lies(19).

Sadly though, we have now entered a new Dark Ages where politics (and even religion) is governed by feelings rather than fact, by manipulating people's behaviours through fear, greed and desire in which facts are fluid and just another commodity to trade and twist for populist politics and power over others.

The Far-Right wing ignores history at its peril. Even a cursory glance at Republican history over the last 45 years should serve as a warning of where this is going to end; war, impeachment, crimes. A look further back at history and we see the danger of demonising others and how that played out in Nazi Germany. Surely it is a concern when neo-Nazis are embracing the policies of the Republicans and welcoming Trump with open arms.

In the meantime, it is only the Republican Party who can arrest their degeneracy. Trump will lead a government in which Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If America goes to hell in a hand-bag, then the Republicans have only themselves to blame.

A short summary of the downward spiral from Nixon to Trump



References

1. History.com, Watergate Scandal, http://www.history.com/topics/watergate. Accessed 22 January 2017.

2. The Guardian, Guardian staff, 'US intelligence investingating Russian links of leading Trump associates - report', 20 January 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/20/us-intelligence-investigating-russian-links-of-leading-trump-associates-report. Accessed 22 January 2017.

3. The National Security Archive, 'Iran Contra at 25: Reagan and Bush 'Criminal Liability' evaluations', http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB365/. Accessed 22 January 2017.

4. The National Security Archive, 'The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations', http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html. Accessed 22 February 2017.

5. The New York Times, James David Barber, 'How Irangate differs from Watergate', 9 August 1987, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/09/opinion/how-irangate-differs-from-watergate.html. Accessed 22 January 2017.

6. Brown University, 'Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs, The 1992 Pardons', https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/thepardons.php. Accessed 22 January 2017.

7. The National Security Archive, 'The Iran-Contra Affair 20 years on - Documents Spotlight Role of Reagan, Top Aides', 24 November 2006, http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm. Accessed 22 January 2017.

8. Daily Mail, Evan Bleier, 'Bush administration ignored CIA warnings in the months before 9/11 that 'spectacular' terrorist attack on the U.S. was imminent and 'just didn't get that we were going to be struck', former top agency officials reveal', 15 November 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318493/Cofer-Black-George-Tenet-say-Bush-administration-ignored-CIA-terrorist-warnings-two-months-9-11.html. Accessed 22 January 2017.

9. The New York Times, Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, 'Senate Panel Accuses Bush of Iraq Exaggerations', 5 June 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html. Accessed 22 January 2017.

10. BBC News, 'Chilcot Report: Findings at-a-glance', 6 July 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36721645. Accessed 22 January 2017.

11. Reuters, Daniel Trotta, 'Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion:study', 14 March 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314. Accessed 22 January 2017.

12. The Guardian, Martin Chulov, 'Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State', 26 October 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/tony-blair-is-right-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis. Accessed 22 January 2017.

13. The Iraq Inquiry, 'Sir John Chilcot's public statement, 6 July 2016', http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-inquiry/sir-john-chilcots-public-statement/. Accessed 22 January 2017.

14. Washington Post, David A. Fahrenthold, 'Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005', 8 October 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html. Accessed 22 January 2017.

15. Financial Times, Barney Jopson, 'Bloomberg assails Trump's business record', 28 July 2016, https://www.ft.com/content/71f18200-5465-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60. Accessed 22 January 2017.

16. Politifact, 'Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter', http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/. Accessed 22 January 2017.

17. CNN Politics, Evan Perez, Jim Sclutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein, 'Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him', 12 January 2017, http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/. Accessed 22 January 2017.

18. Roger Waters, Zócalo Square, Mexico City, 1 October 2016, Pigs - Three Different Ones, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWLBtMz5OuY. Accessed 22 January 2017.

19. The Guardian, Jill Abramson, 'Sorry, Kellyanne Conway. 'Alternative facts' are just lies', 23 January 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts-lies. Accessed 23 January 2017.

Updated 23 January 2017.