ThePresbyterianChurchBearingFalseWitnessAgainstIsrael-Part 2

[johnkarls]

.
There follows below material posted in Sec. 3 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Possible Topics for Future Meetings.”

What follows below is the second portion the 8/26/2014 Sec. 3 posting entitled “EXPIRED: The Presbyterian Church Bearing False Witness Against Israel” comprising e-mail correspondence between Bill Lee and John Karls about the accuracy of the first portion of “EXPIRED: The Presbyterian Church Bearing False Witness Against Israel.”

The reason for separating “EXPIRED: The Presbyterian Church Bearing False Witness Against Israel” into 3 parts is that the following Part 2 is NOT required reading for our 1/15/2010 meeting.

[The topic for each meeting is selected by vote of the participants of the previous meeting. If a proposed topic fails to receive a single vote at 6 consecutive meetings, it expires. HOWEVER, if a topic proposal contains voluminous information worth preserving, it is retained in Sec. 3 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org with “EXPIRED” preceding the subject of the topic proposal.]


**************************************************************************************************
Succinct Recap Re Israel
by BillLee » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:33 pm
.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, August 26, 2014 1:05 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Sorry to have lost my temper.

To recap the salient points vis-a-vis which the National Presbyterian Church has lied --

(1) Palestine NEVER belonged to the Arabs, at least not for the last 1,000 years when it was owned by the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks and then, according to the U.N. survey, partitioned based on who owned what which, of course, the Arabs have never been willing to accept due to Soviet fomentation against American interests during the Cold War and Iranian fomentation against American interests ever since.

(2) Most importantly, the Palestinians have NEVER been willing to concede Israel's right to exist (which implacable opposition to Israel’s existence is embedded in the Constitution of Hamas which took control of Gaza from the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 2007 and which implacable opposition, as described in my 3/31/2010 e-mail, was why the PLO’s Yasir Arafat reneged on the comprehensive peace agreement settling all outstanding issues that he had signed with Israel in 2000 under the good offices of Bill Clinton), so what's to negotiate???

(3) The most recent rocket attacks on Israel must put at two dozen at least, the serious attempts by the Arabs and Palestinians to annihilate Israel by means of three wars and numerous terrorism campaigns.

*****
I hope that sounds a little more even tempered.

Though it is difficult to keep one's temper when faced with such mendacity.

But enough already. I'll have everything re-corked by Sep 3rd.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: Bill Lee
Date: Tue, August 26, 2014 12:03 pm - MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - Believe it or not I am used to what on occasion seems a bit of hyperbole, where your methods of stating things are concerned as you are “stirring the pot” to generate discussion. Thus since we were not speaking in person I was not aware that you were as incensed as I now read you may have been. Apologies certainly not necessary.

I must admit however that on this and on past occasions I have wondered why this particular issue is so close to your heart. As you are not Jewish I would think that you would have less "skin in the game" than you would, say, with American inner city children due to your time and emotional investment in that area.

Perhaps at some point you will enlighten me. ~ Bill


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, August 26, 2014 9:59 pm - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Delighted to honor your request that "perhaps at some point you will enlighten me" - as to why I care so much about the defamation of Israel by the likes of the National Presbyterian Church.

My 3/31/2010 e-mail to the members of the Wasatch Presbyterian Adult Ed Committee, which was part of my original response to your e-mail that started our current exchange of views, stated as the second and third paragraphs of its second section entitled "My Status As A Good Samaritan" --

"I have no particular love for Israel. Indeed, Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned. However, I do have a love for the law. And it pains me as a lawyer to witness defamation accompanied by obvious hostility (or, in legalese, 'motivated by malice')."

I hope you will not be offended if I point out that your attitude, which is in effect "why get involved if it's not your fight?", is the reason why 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis.

And if I point out that under English-American common law, a failure to oppose the commission of a crime makes you an accessory who is ipso facto guilty of the same crime.

[Indeed, my failure to oppose the criminal defamation by Wasatch Presbyterian and the National Presbyterian Church would have made me an accessory who was ipso facto guilty of criminal defamation.]

I trust that since we have been good friends for 9 years, my frank answer to your question will not jeopardize our friendship.

Your friend (still, I hope),

John K.


**************************************************************************************************
Re: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
by BillLee » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:43 am
.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: Bill Lee
Date: Wed, August 27, 2014 10:18 am - MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John –

I recall reading your words (which follow) more than once in your e-mail. ["I have no particular love for Israel. Indeed, Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned. However, I do have a love for the law."].

Somehow it just didn't occur to me that your level of vehemence could actually be chalked up to a "love for the law", especially since Israel is guilty of breaking so many moral if not legal laws itself, and currently has the upper hand. I just figured it had to be more than that. Not to mention it wasn't the illegalities in the conflict itself that had you incensed. It was what you considered to be a philosophical misstep by a religious organization here in the states. (Aside: Almost any non violent behavior by Christian malefactors (religious organizations) can be explained away, or defended in court, as long as the explanation\defense is couched in the malefactor's belief in people's favorite mythical beast. Thus you were tilting at windmills anyway.)

I guess it also may have failed to occur to me because I have so little love for the way that the law is applied both here and there.

All of that said, you are definitely "putting words in my mouth" when you say that my position is: "why get involved if it's not your [our] fight?". When in fact I had voiced no position at all so far. I had merely asked why it seems you are more adamant about this issue than you are most other topics we have discussed.

In truth when the subject comes up I most often ask the proponents of Israel to justify some of the most egregious behavior on Israel's part and do exactly the same when confronted by folks like Dayne and his buddies. I think both sides behave badly often (or at least in a counter productive manner). To both sides I would say that: You can't undo what has been done. The only way forward is to make lemonade of the lemons you've been given. There is no way Israel is going to go away, especially when they are winning. And there is no way the Palestinians are going to stop fighting when the Israelis continue to make their lives worse instead of better. And until both sides use that as a basis for their approach to the situation they deserve less of our attention, and I am happy to say that to the supporters ($$) of either side here in the US.

The fact of the matter is that I agree with what you have mentioned as one of the most outrageous of the facts in the progression to the current situation. The remaining Jews should have been restored to their rightful homes as soon as WWII ended, and Germany should have been required to make reparations for damaged property and for stolen belongings. As you can imagine, that opinion has roots in my general dislike for religion of all sorts.

That is also why I was nowhere near as offended, as people who considered it to be anti-Semitic, when that famous female journalist (middle eastern heritage) said the Jews should go back to where they come from. The result might not currently be any less dislike for Jews, among those who are so disposed. However just as the Jews, who were uprooted by WWII, should never have been forced from their homes, it should never have happened to those who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Israelis.

Enough until next Wednesday. ~ Bill


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: You've Drunk The Kool Aid !!!
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, August 27, 2014 11:08 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Thank you very much for you e-mail.

I enjoyed immensely reading your comments and agree with many of them.

However, you concluded with -- "However just as the Jews, who were uprooted by WWII, should never have been forced from their homes, it should never have happened to those who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Israelis."

One of my major points was that the UN Resolution Partitioning Palestine was based on who owned what, even if both the resulting "Jewish State" and "Palestinian State" comprised zillions of small islands within the other state.

The Arabs immediately launched a war resulting in many displaced persons on both sides.

And the Arabs have continued to launch wars and acts of terrorism which have resulted in many displaced persons -- including Hamas constantly raining rockets on Israel ever since it took control of Gaza shortly after the Israelis pulled out in 2005, forcing the Israelis to defend themselves.

Digressing for a moment, Israel is often criticized because its responses to Arab aggression are allegedly (demonstrably in some cases) not proportional to the provocation.

So was America's response to Pearl Harbor proportional??? Or America's entry into World War I because of the sinking of the Lusitania proportional???

History teaches that aggression must be countered with enough force to either defeat the aggressor or to deter the aggressor, once the smoke clears, from further aggression.

So some questions for you --

Do you really believe that everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War II, and everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War I, should be blamed on America???

Not to mention blaming America for all of the deaths that occurred after its entry into WW-II and WW-I???

If not, why is Israel responsible for not "turning the other cheek" when attacked???

Besides which (since you are an agnostic), "turning the other cheek" is a Christian principle (i.e., Biblical New Testament rather than Old Testament, aka Jewish Bible).

My questions are not intended to be rhetorical. And I'm sure you will have a response, but I will not anticipate what it will be.

Your friend,

John K.


**************************************************************************************************
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
by BillLee » Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:34 am
.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: But Your Kool Aid Was Spiked
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 5:47 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Yesterday afternoon, you responded to my e-mail of yesterday morning by interspersing your comments inside a copy of my e-mail. There follows immediately below my e-mail, your interspersed comments and my interspersed replies to your comments.

One of your previous e-mails had suggested that we let matters rest.

Since all of the essays that I posted on our bulletin board last week regarding our 9/3/2014 meeting on The Islamic State, and now all of the correspondence with you about the Palestinian issue, have really wreaked havoc with my time budget for working on “Inner-City Holocaust and America's Apartheid "Justice" System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin),” I agree with your suggestion.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message With Interspersed Responses and Replies To Those Responses ----------------------------
Subject: You've Drunk The Kool Aid !!!
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, August 27, 2014 11:08 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Thank you very much for you e-mail.

I enjoyed immensely reading your comments and agree with many of them.

However, you concluded with -- "However just as the Jews, who were uprooted by WWII, should never have been forced from their homes, it should never have happened to those who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Israelis."

One of my major points was that the UN Resolution Partitioning Palestine was based on who owned what, even if both the resulting "Jewish State" and "Palestinian State" comprised zillions of small islands within the other state.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

Bigots and the fearful have, since the dawn of time, felt it necessary to resist when others enter what they consider to be their territory. I am quite sure that even the feet on the ground (as well as the rest of the regional "Arabs") felt invaded when large numbers of "foreigners" were deposited in their "backyard". I am sure that would have been the reaction if the Jews were deposited next to Christian neighborhoods in the same concentration in small regions almost anywhere in the world. Not to mention, in the same approximate time frame as that "resettlement", small sectors of the Jewish population were banding together and doing their own bombings (etc.) in terrorist fashion. (see: Etzel and Lehi)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Re your comments excluding momentarily your last sentence, you seem to be confused regarding the sequence of events. And confused regarding your use of such terms as “invaded” and “deposited.”

When what became Palestine was owned by the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks from the mid-1000’s to 1917, the Turks permitted anyone of any ethnicity/religion to purchase individual plots of land freely.

And, indeed, the UNSCOP Report shows the population of the Palestinian Mandate at 12/31/1945 and 12/31/1946 after THE BRITS PERMITTED VIRTUALLY NO JEWISH IMMIGRATION 1917-1943 and ABSOLUTELY NO JEWISH IMMIGRATION 1944-1946 as 1,077 thousand Muslims out of a total population of 1,846 thousand = 58.3%.

As can be seen from my detailed discussion regarding how the movie “Exodus” starring Paul Newman was a hoax, the Brits continued to permit ABSOLUTELY NO JEWISH IMMIGRATION until the end of their League of Nations “Mandate” over Palestine on 5/14/1948.

[And, yes, there may have been a small number of Jews who evaded the British ban on immigration to become sheltered on Jewish-owned land but, as previously discussed at length, the impression created by the “Exodus” movie hoax that there were significant numbers involved is false.]

On the same date 5/14/1948 that the British “Mandate” was terminated, Israel declared its independence IAW U.N. Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into a “Jewish State” and a “Palestinian State” based on the UNSCOP Report of who owned what -- and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon immediately invaded the “Jewish State” that had been created by U.N. Resolution 181.

ACCORDINGLY, THE TIMING OF WHAT YOU TERM “INVADED” AND “DEPOSITED” OCCURRED AFTER THE CREATION OF THE “JEWISH STATE” AND THE “PALESTINIAN STATE.”

So why do you apparently think that after American Independence, it was any business of Canada what America’s going-forward immigration policy was AND why it was any business of America what Canada’s going-forward immigration policy was???

*****
Re your last sentence = “Not to mention, in the same approximate time frame as that "resettlement", small sectors of the Jewish population were banding together and doing their own bombings (etc.) in terrorist fashion. (see: Etzel and Lehi)”

Since you are confused about the timing of when the Brits, French and Americans finally released from Hitler’s concentration camps beginning 5/14/1948 (and not ending until 1951) Europe’s surviving Jews, your sentence is non-sensical.

But even granting your false premise, which would make the sentence relate to pre-5/14/1948, your sentence then relates to the attacks by the Jewish Irgun against the occupying Brits.

But what is your point??? Especially since the attacks against the Brits did NOT cause them to abandon their ban on Jewish immigration!!!

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

The Arabs immediately launched a war resulting in many displaced persons on both sides.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

Unfortunate. But what is the statute of limitation on that crime, as well as the statute of limitation on the responses by the Israelis. My point is that there is no progress to be made justifying actions based on the distant past (I recognize that "distant" is a relative and somewhat nebulous term in this particular instance). No problem with the criminal prosecution of individual offenders (There is not statute of limitation on murder). But forward progress is the only thing that interests me.

(I'm also not interested in current US members of the non Native American populations or non African American populations suffering in order to compensate descendants. That is as long as we are doing our best to help members of those communities [and others] who are currently suffering. I have to hold my nose when I hear IRA remarks about what was done to them 800 years ago. The same goes for members of Islam, Jews, and Christians who justify current tyranny based on religious garbage that supposedly happened hundreds of years ago.)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Your second paragraph will be ignored in order to maintain our focus.

From your first paragraph, it would appear that at the height of World War II when the Nazis had successfully invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, France, Denmark, Norway, Greece and much of the Soviet Union, Bill Lee would have imposed himself on the situation --

(1) to lecture the occupied countries that the fact that they used to be independent countries and the fact that the Nazis were aggressors are irrelevant!!!

AND

(2) to lecture the occupied countries that they would just have to find a way to get along with the Nazis!!!

If that’s what you really believe, then there’s nothing I can do to help you.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

And the Arabs have continued to launch wars and acts of terrorism which have resulted in many displaced persons -- including Hamas constantly raining rockets on Israel ever since it took control of Gaza shortly after the Israelis pulled out in 2005, forcing the Israelis to defend themselves.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(see above)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

See above.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

Digressing for a moment, Israel is often criticized because its responses to Arab aggression are allegedly (demonstrably in some cases) not proportional to the provocation.

So was America's response to Pearl Harbor proportional??? Or America's entry into World War I because of the sinking of the Lusitania proportional???

History teaches that aggression must be countered with enough force to either defeat the aggressor or to deter the aggressor, once the smoke clears, from further aggression.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

Agreed. Although that raises other issues. The discussion of which would be equally as time consuming. For instance: When do you recognize that that approach isn't solving the problem either? There are many examples that could be used as fodder in that discussion, including our attempts to use that principle in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the "principle of disproportionate response" to work there has to be a large enough body of people who control those who would act out. And those people have to be uninterested in suffering the affects of that disproportionate response. The first of those elements is lacking in Palestine.

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

So what makes you think “that approach” isn’t solving “the problem” and what do you think “the problem” is???

I have suggested that “the problem” is that the Soviet Union constantly fomented against American influence in the Middle East throughout the Cold War and Iran has continued to do the same ever since.

Which is the basic reason why the Palestinians continue their unwarranted Wars of Annihilation and Other Terrorism.

Against which Israel has been forced to defend itself and has done so.

So is the real problem that you are squeamish that Muslims, who as we have studied many times believe that every martyr (together with 70 relatives) by-passes a Fearsome Judgment Day to enter Paradise, want to become martyrs and want their children to become martyrs???

And that you feel uncomfortable about watching the results of their Quest for Martyrdom on your living-room TV???

And why do you think that you have the right to require Israel to acquiesce in Arab/Palestinian demands that they cease to exist in order to make you feel more comfortable in your TV viewing???

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

So some questions for you --

Do you really believe that everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War II, and everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War I, should be blamed on America???

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(blame is irrelevant see above)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Blame is NOT irrelevant (see above). Though I take your apparent point that the victims of Nazi aggression during WW-II should have learned to get along with the Nazis.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

Not to mention blaming America for all of the deaths that occurred after its entry into WW-II and WW-I???

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(Again)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Again. Though I again take your apparent point that the victims of Nazi aggression during WW-II should have learned to get along with the Nazis.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

If not, why is Israel responsible for not "turning the other cheek" when attacked???

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(Again above. Although in this case I will point out that Israel appears to act as if they fail to recognize the degree of lack of success resulting from that approach. The fact that they do not couple it with others might be considered by some as evidence of a lack of interest in changing the dynamic.)

********************
John Karls Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Please see my previous comments questioning what you think “the problem” is.

In my terms, why should Israel acquiesce in the Arab/Palestinian demand that they cease to exist just in order to make Bill Lee feel more comfortable in watching his living-room TV???

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

Besides which (since you are an agnostic), "turning the other cheek" is a Christian principle (i.e., Biblical New Testament rather than Old Testament, aka Jewish Bible).

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

That one is actually laughable. One obviously weak argument for not abandoning religion is the "moral society and individuals" that supposedly result from the practice. The obvious rebuttal is that you do not have to be religious to be moral. I have little doubt that individual members of early humanity felt compassion toward other members and were often interested in imparting a "turn the other cheek / do onto your neighbor" philosophy in the hope of avoiding violence. It would take a huge body of evidence to convince me to accept that the Bible is the origination of that concept.

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Yes, I thought you would enjoy my humor!!!

Obviously, you were NOT trying to impose YOUR Christian principle on Israel since you are an agnostic!!!

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

My questions are not intended to be rhetorical. And I'm sure you will have a response, but I will not anticipate what it will be.

[Bill Lee Editorial Comment - I did in fact have responses as set forth above and John, as always, re-responded as set forth above.]

Your friend,

John K.