Looking forward now that Israel has shown it's true colors

July 2006. A big moment just happened. Israel showed it's true colors... it is preparing Lebanon for invasion. They have bombed bridges, airstrips, factories, Hezbollah headquarters. Israel has been in a bubble of nationalistic fervor for a long time. Being that they have a different language, it means that they are insulated from opinion in the english speaking world.

I don't think we'll see a direct response from Syria or Iran. They have no desire to commit suicide, as the Israeli government apparently does.

The Associated Press and Reuters and other mainstream news services in the usa changed their tune about the Iraq war dramatically in September of 2004, in the wake of hurricane Katrina...and after some incidents with Reuters' reporters being blatantly targeted by usa soliders.

The blogosphere has accentuated this critique tremendously.

It was hard to tell two weeks ago what all was going to happen in the middle east. Now, I think I see what's going to happen. This is going to be known in the english speaking press - (ie Canada, usa, Australia, Britain, New Zealand) - as simply a blatant Israeli aggression. And what's going to occur is that Israel is going to be forced over the next several years to give up it's nation status. It's going to follow in the pattern of South Africa. There will be a Palestinian government, with plenty of room for ethnically european Israelis.

Because there will not be a jewish nation, the Jewish religion will vanish over the next few decades. And when this happens, Christianity will abandon the old testament as something which is regressive, and a history of totalitarian sadistic warring governments.

Christianity will go through a metamorphosis... and probably become a lot more like Buddhism.

Also, we will now, assuredly see the end of the practice of war in our world. Upon seeing these events unfold, the Christians will no longer be able to justify the Israeli acts of sadistic aggression and oppression. And the Christians are the only holdout in the usa in the 1990s and first decade who still believe in the glory of war. This means that all english speaking nations will renounce war... because there is no large subsection of society which believes in the practice, anymore.

And because the english speaking nations are so influential in the world, others will follow this precedent, and also end the practice of war.

What undergirds this analysis? Those who suffer a problem, don't want that problem. This is common knowledge about human nature. Who is the aggressor and who is the victim if I give you a list of peoples and nations: the usa, Britain, iraqis, afghans, israelis, palestinians, lebanese. If you were to answer this for a school exam, you would make certain to answer correctly. There are only three aggressors in that list: the usa, Britain, and Israel. The other nations are victims. For people to use a strawman argument and say that the arab religious extremists are the ones causing problems - that's to tout an absurdity. It's the same argument which has been used since time began - "Dirty people are unkempt, and therefore they are the root of social illness in our society." Everyone with access to photos and video from the middle east, knows which nations are aggressive and which nations are victims.

Once the victims cease suffering the actions of the aggressors, the war will certainly cease. My analysis relies on this footing.

_______________________

Wow... this was selected for the front page of newsvine. I suppose I should take my evening and expand on this article a little bit. Ooch. Without the social models graphed out clearly here, it's difficult for a casual reader to get a bearing on the whys and hows behind what I've predicted.

The basic premise is that people's opinions are molded and guided by the mainstream media - whatever form it happens to take in that era. Today, that's the associated press and such syndicating news organizations. Tomorrow, that press may be an entirely different thing. What I've seen, in the past few days, is an eagerness in the press in the usa to generally portray the Israeli invasion as an unprovoked matter. And that sentiment has already reverbated through the other forms of internet media in a very loud manner. I don't see that the mainstream media has any impetus to change it's tune about this. This sentiment seems to infuse the rest of english speaking press across the globe, as well.

The other premise is that obviously the israeli government is practicing an apartheid system.... they are oppressing the native peoples... in a very similar manner to how native africans were oppressed in the nation of South Africa, before about 1990. Readers might believe this or not believe it - but it's documented if you want to do the research. Israel has explicitly diverted natural resources like water.. denying this vital nutrient to palestinian villages, and giving it instead to israeli villages. The israelis have chosen to make a web of checkpoints in the occupied territories, which makes it impossible for palestinians to freely travel and lead normal lives.

The next premise, is that there has already been precedent set in our world, for how we as a global community deal with dangerous and oppressive apartheid practices when we finally come to terms with the fact that they exist in a certain corner of the world. The international pressure put on South Africa is what forced them to change their political and social system. Human beings - societies - tend to follow precedent. No one seems to know how to innovate new forms of social discussions, or customs or ways. They simply put themselves into the social dance as they see it around themselves, at the time.

The next premise is that war is inherently unethical. A country's government would never tolerate wanton violence inside it's own boundaries, if it had the power to prevent it. And thus, we as a global community ought to also not tolerate wanton violence between government powers. Unfortunately, the lebanese do not vote for the government of Israel, and nor do the iraqis or afghans vote for the government of the usa. Taking of human life wantonly is to promote chaos and animosity... and it has been observed that societies will always keep declining in a downward spiral when this becomes one of their social customs.

Now about Judaism:

Judaism originated as the tradition of immigrants who brought their religion - Islam - to Europe... and in these foreign lands, the religion morphed and changed somewhat. So, in reality Judaism is a branch of Islamic tradition. Christianity certainly did not originate in Israel. It was a greek antiwar protest movement of some sort. Today, what holds up the jewish religion is a vision which is very unique... and quite beautiful on it's surface... that a large group of people can come together and devise a new language, and create new customs, and create a new nation. In this gridlocked world which is populated with 6 billion people.. this kind of opportunity is very rare these days.

The next premise is that we have a new system of communicating in our society - the computer and the internet... this changes the social dynamics of our world a lot. Especially, it changes how ideas are exchanged, and how they get seeded, and grow into ideologies. We have instant photos and video from around the globe. We have access to the wealth of information and ideas... and we can talk about these things with people halfway around the world.

At a certain point, jewish people have to realize that the foundation of their religion - what christians call "the old testament" - is the same kind of trash that Saddam Hussein was spouting to try to keep his people in line with his rule. That kind of writing was a tool of the oppressive governments which the israelis now are so critical of. Now how long does it take for jewish people to realize this in an internet age? Not very long, necessarily... but they still have a utopian vision of what their nation can become. Because they have this agenda, they will suspend their disbelief for a moment, and go on with their jewish traditions for a time.

Now, the mention of a projection that the Christian religion will change is built on the idea that if Judaism fades away into the mists of time... then Christians, who swear fealty to two books - the old testament, and the new testament - will be forced to reconsider their own religion and their course therewith. Now honestly, young vibrant Buddhism has the same form of rhetoric that young vibrant Christianity has. Jesus is said to be the light the life and the way. Buddha is also talked about in an identical manner. So, if the christianity of the younger generation, is already taking a cue from Buddhism, won't this change naturally progress and transform Christianity, altogether, as those young people mature into their thirties forties fifties and sixties?

Now, one thing I mentioned is that the only subgroup of people in the usa who still glorify war are Christians. Well, you might not see this, being immersed in your culture as much as you are... you might say "Politicians have a zeal for war." But, if you research people's personal lives, you'll see that those politicians who are so gung ho for war are also faithful christians.

_______________
_______________

For further research, you might like to read Al Ahram.... (although the news is only is written up on a weekly basis there)

Back To Top