Some thoughts on the relationship between "Good" and "God".


http://www.cavstheblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20071214-angry-god-sistine-chapel.jpg

9.10.2025:  There is something irretrievably arrid and depressing about atheism and you witness it in its proponents. Perhaps it is something to do with the arrogance and hubris of the 'know it all'; the self-centredness of absolutist and despot, charges that historically have been levelled against religion itself! As far as Christians are concerned, Jesus epitomised the godly life. He even claimed divinity to himself, saying he was not of this world. In so doing he drew the distinction between the physical and secular, between the spiritual and eternal. Science describes but it does not explain or satisfy the emotional life. It is difficult to conceive of such a meticulously ordered world, without an ordering 'mind', or morality without a fount of truth and justice. Human barbarism is an affront to the divine, and especially if it is carried out in its name. That is the message of the cross, which has lost none of its significance in the subsequent two millenia. We all witness it today - the stark contrast between temporal power and human virtues. God is not found in human institutions but in the soul of man and every man must rediscover it for himself. It is the eternal ultimate quest and the key to contentment and 'self actualisation'. Everyone at some point needs to see the 'light' and be 'born again' to be able to truly apprciate the divine which lurks in every man. https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=God+is+dead

Tim Veater

February 10, 2016 · 

I feel very uncomfortable with idea that evil is a “thing” in the same sense as a glass of water is, or that invisible evil spirits blow about the world as leaves on an autumn breeze. 

Humans believe in a lot of things. I have an acquaintance who treats football as a religion and players as gods. This does not mean that they are. We have to distinguish between subjective and objective opinions and often they may be confused. 

Similarly between the ‘internal’ emotional environment of perception, memory and feelings with the ‘external’ physical reality  in all forms and complexity. Even the most rational scientist is not devoid of emotion and it is this that contrasts him with even the most advanced computer. Evil is qualitative, it must be assessed against some objective standard. 

Historically this is where history and religion has played its part. Whether this emanated from god or a man such as Moses can never really be determined. Our belief that its origins were divine and ethereal, does not make it so, although believing such may help many to lead a ‘good’ life. 

When a lion gives chase to an antelope, we do not assume it is an evil act, even if we judge it a cruel one. We might apply the same criteria to the native tribesman killing it to feed his tribe. But what of the highly paid American dentist who shoots a well known lion? In fact the act may be less cruel but surely less defensible morally? Less good, in fact possibly positively evil? 

So we see how circumstances alter cases and what we consider to be good or evil, so to regard evil as just one ‘thing’ flowing from a formless inchoate being can surely not be at all helpful. Rather we should subject the beliefs, and the people that hold them, to a rational and objective examination, when we will probably discover alternative explanations for them and the actions they support. 

The scriptures contain many wonderful stories and sayings that can help to transform a person’s life and make it more useful and fulfilling. It may even make a better person. But quoting from it selectively to support a particular view is very risky. "The Ten Commandments", rather akin to other historical documents such as the "Magna Carta", have been epochal and axiomatic. In the case of the former it is quite remarkable that after about four thousand years, other than the injunctions predicated on the personal nature and existence of a divine being itself, the precepts have remained relevant. 

The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, found in the Ark of the Covenant are:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.

It is the application of the primary rules that are more liable to redundancy, which in the case of the Old Testament are contained in the detailed bureaucratic rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. 

For example in Leviticus 19 this is expanded to over thirty rules. No one could reasonably claim that all of these should be applied or are relevant today including reference to slaves and other archaic practices such as animal sacrifice.

20. "If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another manbut who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed."

It perhaps illustrates despite all the technological innovation since, the human condition the basic moral imperatives of 6 -10 are relatively unchanged. Post Nietzsche, analysis of Christian belief and his assertion that "God is dead"(1), the question emerges to what extent the Commandments and particularly 1 - 4, retain their authority?

The god of the Old Testament, and perhaps even of the New, is clearly not averse to torture, capital punishment and even mass genocide! This rather puts a question mark to the rather simplistic ‘good = god’ and ‘evil = devil’ hypothesis doesn’t it? No, it is more important that humans develop standards based on more objective criteria that may or not accord with a biblical one. 

This was the revolutionary power of the teachings of Jesus and which Christians imperfectly seek to emulate. They may be boiled down to this one simple precept: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ later interpreted by thinkers to the injunction to endeavour to ‘do good and avoid doing harm’. Once applied it would of course cure all the ‘evils’ of the world. Conversely that such hatred, selfishness and violence continues indicates how little, and presumably how difficult, it is to fulfil and be fulfilled.

1. From Wiki: "

God is Dead" is a widely quoted statement by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It first appeared in Nietzsche's 1882 collection The Gay Science (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, also translated as "The Joyful Pursuit of Knowledge and Understanding")

Cambrils Shootings - More Questions

Below the car in question, from which it is alleged five young terrorists emerged. It appears to have come to rest against some form of official barrier. At some subsequent point they were all shot dead - four by the same officer. We need to ask how reliable and accurate is this version of events?


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/C74F/production/_97432015_mediaitem97432014.jpg

Another image of the scene:


http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11008260.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/Police-investigate-at-the-scene-of-an-attack-in-Cambrils-south-of-Barcelona.jpg  "Lone hero police officer shot dead FOUR terrorists armed with machetes and guns in second Spain attack - Mirror Online"

Today 20th August, 2017, the Daily Mail published the following report by journalist Tom Worden, the thrust of which identifying a "hero" policeman, who it claimed shot dead four terrorists, "thus saving many people's lives". The full article may be located here: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4806658/Pictured-soldier-gunned-jihadis-Cambrils.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Now every detail of the story may in fact be an wholly accurate and reliable record of the official story but we would be wise to keep in mind that this is not necessarily the same as an accurate and reliable record of what actually happened. 

These so-called ISIS terror attack are so formulaic and filled with so many inconsistencies and doubtful details, that people need to remain objective and not be swept along with the media-encouraged panic and hysteria.

The Daily Mail article typically asks no questions or doubts about the Cambrils operation that resulted in five young men being shot dead at about one a.m. on a public road. Why is there is no real analysis of what really happened, the actual threat posed by the men or why it was necessary to shoot them all dead, rather than challenge and arrest them? 

Nor is there anything about how the car came to be identified and targeted. Was it being tracked and followed or are we to believe that an off duty policeman, trained in weapons, just appeared on the scene at the right time? Nor is there any real explanation of how the car ended up on its roof. Individuals in a car on its roof after such an accident are surely vulnerable and most amenable to proper arrest? 

Were they not injured or rendered unconscious? Upside down and presumably entangled in safety belts, they had somehow to extricate themselves through those smashed windows before posing a danger or confronting the policeman with the gun.

Reports about what happened and the risk the five occupants posed are suspiciously indecisive and conflicting. Did they have suicide vests on or only fake ones as has been reported? If the latter what sort of self-respecting Jihadist terrorist would that be? This Mail report claims they emerged from the car "armed with an axe and knives". No guns or explosives then? So what would justify the lethal response with firearms?

There seems to be no video or photographic images to support this version of events. It is not clear who shot the one video clip that has been widely circulated including on the Mail article, but what it does show briefly is even more disturbing.

It shows two men in the foreground shooting what appears to be an unarmed man in a pink tee-shirt on the opposite side of a crash barrier. He appears to collapse, presumably after being hit and then gets up again, waving his arms. In no way can this be interpreted as presenting a danger. Indeed it could equally be interpreted as a plea of innocence and submission.

It appears in this clip https://www.facebook.com/WorldNewsTonight/videos/vb.214832449817/10156193326478812/?type=2&theater (note title!) that after falling down, apparently shot, the target appears to get up and actually proceed to cross the road. What happens after this is not shown.

The action of shooting an unarmed man with no real certainty of guilt for anything, is so contrary to normal police procedures as to raise serious questions as to the real motive of the action. 

And in these images there is no evidence of the upturned car from which it is claimed he has emerged apparently quite unscathed and free of any signs of blood or injury. Indeed as can be seen he appears quite pristine!

As always we need to ask who shot the video and why is it this is the only clip available? Why did the person with the filming device - whatever it was - not continue the filming to show us what happened subsequently? What we are dealing with is edited footage which always raises questions. Of course there is no real proof that live rounds were fired or the victim died from the encounter.

Of course all these basic question are not even hinted at in the article, all swept away in hailing the extreme bravery of the unidentified police officer, who it is claimed, despite being ex-army and in a special police unit called the Mossos d'Esquadra (1) - a small quasi-military Catalan police unit - we are told was employed on a day-to-day basis educating children on terror risks? Excuse me! But how credible is it that a trained fire arms officer would be so deployed in the current climate? If true, it hardly indicates sound use of resources.

Besides the shocking video clip, several photographs are used to illustrate the article one of which purports to show the back of the head of the officer concerned. I will reproduce it below with the Mail description: 



The officer (pictured circled above), now with the Catalan police force the Mossos d'Esquadra, was on patrol working overtime when five terrorists launched an attack in the seaside town of Cambrils, Spain.

It is claimed that he shot dead four of the five. The fifth man the article states tried to escape but after "stabbing a woman in the neck, fled before he was shot by another officer."

The major problem with this is that neither claims are supported by the brief video clip that show two very casually dressed men, clearly NOT in police uniform, shooting the man in the pink tee-shirt, apparently fatally, neither of whom approximate in head features to the man circled above. 

The man on the right who appears to be the shooter is in shorts and what appears to be a protective vest but even from that distance it can be seen that his shaved head does not match the circled officer above. 

The video suggests the man in the Bermuda shorts standing beside him arrives wearing a black shoulder bag. He appears to show no fear in contrast to the stereo-typical panic in these situations and is accepted by the shooter. Does it indicate this was just a member of the public who arrives on scene or was he police related?  Check for yourselves. (See below a still from the video referred to. The video itself can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8YR85lEsGk )

"Using his army training and experience, the officer pulled his weapon and shot dead four of terrorists"


Clearly the Mail, presumably with official approval, identifies this as the same officer but this raises another problem as to the account. If as is claimed he shot dead FOUR, how can this one isolated man be explained? This would better fit the one who attempted to get away but this would rule out THIS  officer as apparently that was another one.

So there is clearly something seriously wrong with the "heroic cop" cop account, leaving aside the very serious question why the five, and particularly the man in the pink tee-shirt were not properly challenged and arrested.

The officer in question may have been heroic in the face of a presumed danger, but on the face of it it appears unlikely that the two pictured are the same individual. But if they are, it raises other questions of how and where he shot another three men dead, especially considering his and their location and the number of bullets fired on the video. (I counted ten shots - a full magazine on just this one suspect).

It would be nice if the Daily Mail could have resolved some of these questions to reassure us that this was not a modified story to present the police in best light and distract from a more accurate account. Or was this yet just another case of extra-judicial killing by armed individual(s) for some other unspecified motive?

UPDATE: Today (21.8.2017) it has been announced that the van driver was Younes Abouyaaqoub aged 22. (2) What of course none of the media point out is that if reliable, the two previously named individuals - Driss Oukabir, 28 and his brother  Moussa Oukabir, 18   - were falsely accused of the act. 

How could such grievous mistakes have been made? What guarantee is there that the third person to be accused of driving the van is any more reliable?

It is claimed that Abouyaaqoub fled the scene of the attack on foot and hijacked a car to escape. Police fired on the car after it rammed through a checkpoint Thursday night but Abouyaaqoub was able to flee a second time. The car's owner, named as Pau Perez, was found stabbed to death in the vehicle. He becomes the 15th victim of the attack.

Even this account raises serious questions. Did he abandon the car and flee on foot after it rammed the checkpoint or did he drive on abandoning the car later? If the checkpoint was manned by armed police, how was he able to escape so easily? At what point did he stab dead the owner of the car and why if his objective was to escape capture? And why if this all happened on Thursday night, effectively identifying the true perpatrator, did the police still perpetuate the story that it was one or other of the Oukabir brothers?

Here are the images of four of the alleged "terrorist cell", Abouyaaqoub bottom right, put out by the Spanish Interior Ministry and published by CNN:

Now compare and contrast with the following images that are said  to be of him also published by CNN:


https://twitter.com/interiorgob/status/899587639652872193/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2017%2F08%2F21%2Feurope%2Fbarcelona-attack%2Findex.html

It is hard to see how these facial images can be reconciled as being the same person. The shape of face and nose appear quite different! The above images were said to be taken in Ripoll the day before the attack, whilst the one below the next day in Barcelona after he has carried out the outrage. Note he is wearing identical clothing sometimes with dark glasses or not.


A CCTV still said to show Younes Abouyaaqoub in La Boqueria market after the attack. http://news.sky.com/story/europe-wide-alert-for-barcelona-van-driver-10999108


Here is another image that claims to be Abouyaaqoub escaping through the market after the attack. Am I the only one to raise doubts that these different images accord with one another?


CCTV images have emerged appearing to show Younes Abouyaaqoub making his escape on foot through Barcelona’s La Boqueria market CREDIT: EL PAIS

It is beyond dispute that the first two individuals accused of driving the van were completely wrong. Is there any reassurance that this latest named individual is any more reliable, or indeed that the images correlate with the individual named or in any way tie him to the van in question? In other words where are the CCTV images that show him getting out of the van immediately after it came to a stand-still?

Younes Abouyaaqoub is said to be on the run and sought by European police forces. Given the fate of his friends shot dead it is not surprising that he should fear the same fate and want to run and hide. The fact that he does cannot be automatically taken as proof of guilt and should not be although all media outlets propagate that assumption. This is classic patsy-territory and we should be very wary of it. 

The cell has been nick-named the "Dirty Dozen" another red flag of western instigation. "The Three Muskateers" was applied to this group of alleged terrorists. (3) Jihadi John and the suggestion this was linked to the Beatles (4) Note these are not indicative of Eastern or Muslim thinking but of Western.

In passing, note the now familiar subliminals at work in this image here: 


Civilians mourn at an impromptu memorial at Las Ramblas, Barcelona CREDIT:  REUTERS

Here is the suggested terrorist cell members as deduced by https://firenewsfeed.com/incident/377760




FURTHER UPDATE!


AFP. Spanish police have shot dead the main suspect in last Thursday's Barcelona attack, Younes Abouyaaqoub.

So my ominous prediction is realised! Younes Abouyaaqoub aged 22, has also now been shot dead by Spanish forces. He is apparently the sixth person shot dead by police in connection with the incident and the eighth suspect to die. This comes not long after he was finally identified as the driver of the white van that crashed into people on a Barcelona street. 

A number of conflicting images have been published purporting to prove the claim. 

Of course they do no such thing, merely showing a young man both before and after the event walking through a public space wearing the same clothes. To date nothing shows this young man getting out of the van when it stopped. 

Nor is the fact that he is but the THIRD person so accused, and that the previous two, also accused with the same degree of confidence to be the driver, proved to be quite untrue, notwithstanding that one of them, only eighteen years of age, was shot dead on a very questionable pretext of danger a couple of days after the attack. 

Now we are told this latest suspect was shot dead also.

Police say (the BBC reports (5))  he was "shot in the Subirats area, close to Sant Sadurní d'Anoia, after someone spotted him at a petrol station". This time the excuse for killing him was that he was allegedly wearing some sort of "fake explosive belt". 

Yet again we are told "when confronted he shouted 'Allahu Ackbar' ('God is Greatest') This appears to be an essential ingredient in the terror act mix though often disputed by witnesses. 

What serious Jihadist terrorist would employ a mock suicide belt in remote place whilst on the run, I ask myself? 

It appears from the published air-photo, to have taken place in woodland to the south of a sewage treatment plant. The circumstances of his location are not provided so we are left to guess how he was found and why he was there. 

Nor are there any details of the shooting, although there is no suggestion that Abouyaaqoub was armed or offered any real threat to the officers concerned - if indeed it was officers that shot him. 

What I would like to know is why Europe appears to have adopted this brutal form of law enforcement where suspects are shot on sight? 

Apparently traditional methods of arrest are as obsolete as the policy of 'shoot-to-kill' is uniformly popular. It would appear that this new approach needs only a suggestion of "terrorism" to normalise it, whether the individual resists arrest, offers a threat or even proved to be guilty of the accusation. 

No one in public life or the media appears to raise the slightest reservation regarding this wave of officially sanctioned killings, that replace any necessity for due process or enquiry as to whether the person is guilty or not.

Needless to say a dead accused is never afforded the opportunity to defend himself or for that matter spill the beans on an illegal official conspiracy to blame the wrong people.

These incidents do nothing for Muslim fundamentalism or benefit whatever group currently constitutes 'ISIS', but it is certainly very successful at achieving other objectives, more the province of a US/Israeli 'deep-state' agenda: to create social division and animosity along sectarian lines; create irrational panic and fear; stoke hatred of Muslims in particular; and facilitate repressive measures, of which the normalisation of 'shoot-to-kill' is just one extreme example.



REFERENCES.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossos_d%27Esquadra

2. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/21/europe/barcelona-attack/index.html

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/three-musketeers-terrorist-gang-jailed-life-lee-rigby-style/

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadi_John

5.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41004603

 Jews Say Stop Arming Israel

May 17, 2024 – From The Indypendent

 7535 views

27.5.2024: (TTV)  THE LATEST ISRAELI OUTRAGE! (I hope someone is keeping note) Not only are these Zionists merciless killers (talk about 'Right-wing Extremism'!) they lie with turpitudinous and shameless impudence. With 'two fingers' to the ICJ, ICC, the UN and international public opinion, they target civilians with their American-supplied bombs and then have the audacity to claim it was a 'mistake'. He and the nation he represents, deserve only the opprobrium and destestation of all and every right-thinking person, who still clings to a sliver of humanity or compassion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjjj26d0eqxo

I’ve been thinking about Moses and his rage when he came down from the mount to find the Israelites worshipping a golden calf.

The ecofeminist in me was always uneasy about this story: What kind of God is jealous of animals? What kind of God wants to hoard all the sacredness of the Earth for himself?

Naomi Klein gave this speech at an April 24 Jewish Voice for Peace-led demonstration in Brooklyn’s Grand Army Plaza where more than 200 Jewish Voice for Peace members and supporters were arrested.
Lynne Foster

But there is a less literal way of understanding this story. It is about false idols. About the human tendency to worship the profane and shiny, to look to the small and material rather than the large and transcendent.

What I want to say to you tonight at this revolutionary and historic Seder in the Streets is that too many of our people are worshipping a false idol once again. They are enraptured by it. Drunk on it. Profaned by it.

That false idol is called Zionism.

It is a false idol that takes our most profound biblical stories of justice and emancipation from slavery — the story of Passover itself — and turns them into brutalist weapons of colonial land theft, roadmaps for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

It is a false idol that has taken the transcendent idea of the promised land — a metaphor for human liberation that has traveled across multiple faiths to every corner of this globe — and dared to turn it into a deed of sale for a ­militaristic ethnostate.

Political Zionism’s version of liberation is itself profane. From the start it required the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and ancestral lands in the Nakba.

From the start it has been at war with dreams of liberation. At a Seder it is worth remembering that this includes the dreams of liberation and self-determination of the Egyptian people. This false idol of Zionism equates Israeli safety with Egyptian dictatorship and client states.

From the start it has produced an ugly kind of freedom that saw Palestinian children not as human beings but as demographic threats — much as the pharaoh in the Book of Exodus feared the growing population of Israelites and thus ordered the death of their sons.

Zionism has brought us to our present moment of cataclysm, and it is time that we said clearly: It has always been leading us here.

What kind of God wants to hoard all the sacredness of the Earth for himself?

It is a false idol that has led far too many of our own people down a deeply immoral path that now has them justifying the shredding of core commandments: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet.

It is a false idol that equates Jewish freedom with cluster bombs that kill and maim Palestinian children.

Zionism is a false idol that has betrayed every Jewish value, including the value we place on questioning — a practice embedded in the Seder with its four questions asked by the youngest child.

Including the love we have as a people for text and for education.

Today, this false idol justifies the bombing of every university in Gaza; the destruction of countless schools, of archives, of printing presses; the killing of hundreds of academics, of journalists, of poets — this is what Palestinians call scholasticide, the killing of the means of education.

Meanwhile, in this city, the universities call in the NYPD and barricade themselves against the grave threat posed by their own students daring to ask them basic questions such as, “How can you claim to believe in anything at all, least of all us, while you enable, invest in and collaborate with this genocide?”

The false idol of Zionism has been allowed to grow unchecked for far too long.

So tonight we say: It ends here.

Our Judaism cannot be contained by an ethnostate, for our Judaism is internationalist by nature.

Our Judaism cannot be protected by the rampaging military of that state, for all that military does is sow sorrow and reap hatred — including against us as Jews.

Our Judaism is not threatened by people raising their voices in solidarity with Palestine across lines of race, ­ethnicity, physical ability, gender identity and generations.

Our Judaism is one of those voices and knows that in that chorus lies both our safety and our collective liberation.

Our Judaism is the Judaism of the Passover Seder: the gathering in ceremony to share food and wine with loved ones and strangers alike, the ritual that is inherently portable, light enough to carry on our backs, in need of nothing but each other. No walls, no temple, no rabbi, a role for everyone, even — especially — the smallest child. The Seder is a diaspora technology if ever there was one, made for collective grieving, contemplation, questioning, remembering and reviving the revolutionary spirit.

So look around. This, here, is our Judaism. As waters rise and forests burn and nothing is certain, we pray at the altar of solidarity and mutual aid no matter the cost.

We don’t need or want the false idol of Zionism. We want freedom from the project that commits genocide in our name. Freedom from an ideology that has no plan for peace other than deals with murderous theocratic petrostates next door, while selling the technologies of ­robo-assassinations to the world.

We seek to liberate Judaism from an ethnostate that wants Jews to be perennially afraid, that wants our children to be afraid, that wants us to believe the world is against us so that we go running to its fortress and beneath its iron dome, or at least keep the weapons and donations flowing.

That is the false idol.

And it’s not just Netanyahu, it’s the world he made and that made him ­­— it’s Zionism.

What are we? We, in these streets for months and months, are the exodus. The exodus from Zionism.

And to the Chuck Schumers of this world, we do not say, “Let our people go.”

We say, “We have already gone. And your kids? They’re with us now.”

This is a transcript of a speech delivered April 23 at the Emergency Seder in the Streets held in Grand Army Plaza near Sen. Chuck Schumer’s home where approximately 200 of the demonstrators were arrested.

The Indypendent is a New York City-based newspaper, website and weekly radio show. All of our work is made possible by readers like you. During this holiday season, please consider making a recurring or one-time donation today or subscribe to our monthly print edition and get every copy sent straight to your home. 

See also:  "The Mess of Pottage and the Despised Inheritance"  https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=Abraham

Could Israel and Major Disasters and 'Terrorist Incidents' be Connected?

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=God+israel

Report from Gaza: Incredible Bravery in the face of Death and Destruction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpI8sezLqX0

As Israel orders the evacuation of Rafah, many Palestinians are returning to their destroyed homes in Khan Younis after Israeli forces left the city on April 7. Bisan returns to Gaza’s second-largest city, which once had a population of around 400,000 people. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians sheltering in Khan Younis were forced to flee in February when Israeli forces besieged the city for months. Now, as Israel bombs Rafah, many Palestinians are being forced to evacuate back to Khan Younis. Bisan visits a mass grave site behind Nasser Hospital where almost 400 bodies have been uncovered. Despite the destruction, Bisan interviews Palestinians who are determined to rebuild the city. Subscribe for more videos: https://ajplus.co/subscribe Follow us on Instagram:   / ajplus   Like us on Facebook:   / ajplusenglish   Follow us on Twitter:   / ajplus  

23.5.2024: TTV: In reply to Jure Grbavac: In theological terms Jure, the 'New Covenant' replaced the Old one. The Old Covenant' or 'contract' was with Abraham and his descendants. Religious Jews rejected Jesus as Christ (and still do) The New Covenant was with all believers - Jews and Gentiles. As to the current Zionist occupiers of a territory, they are largely atheists, so to rely on Old Testament history and Divine prophesy, can only be hypocritical and false. In fact Hasidic Jewry appears to pour scorn on the current political Israel. You will remember that Moses struck dead the man that mistreated another and God in the Bible condemns outright the sort of behaviour the Zionists have demonstrated throughout their brief history . To equate them with any divine status or future is I believe a grave error. It has allowed America, founded on Christian principles, to to back mass murder and destruction, not seen on such a scale since Iraq and Libya. "By their works ye shall know them", and by that standard it is clear, if there is a Devil, they are its children. In the words of Christ, as they are recorded: "I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." How could I better that?

23.5.2024: As Mearsheimer has pointed out there are four obvious scenarios: A two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders; A united Israel/Palestine replicating current 'greater Israel'; the occupation and subjugation of Palestine in an apartheid state; or another forced 'Nakba'. Despite pretending otherwise the Zionists will never agree to 1. Nor will they agree to 2 as this would involve affording equal rights and likely control to Palestinians. So they have opted for 3 and 4, the terrible consequences of which we have all been witness to. The scenario he does not allude to is either an economic or military collapse of the State of Israel itself, in which case it would be back to the drawing board for all. https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2024/05/say-stop-arming-israel-may-17-2024-from.html