Just wanted to see where everyone stands on the Middle-East conflict. What do you think should be done? Who's right, who's wrong? Where is this heading? Pastor G
You need another option. "I don't know if Isreal is right or wrong, but I think we should stay out of it."
My two cents: Isreal Had no right other then what was written in the bible to the Gaza strip and other Palestinian lands. THe United Nations just handed it over to them after World War II. How the heck would any of us like the United Nations to say - Oh tough, you can't live here any more because we gave it to the Bolivians( or whoever). THey gave them only a short time to get out and let the Isrealis do as they pleased. The palestinians feel as if there land, homes and farms were taken out form under them and given to another group of people by a third party. It sort of was. Hence all the hostility. Trust me when I say that Isreal bombs and kills just as many people but due to politics and propaganda we only here what the palestinians do. Isreal tried to build a wall - just like the communists did in Berlin - to keep the Palestinians out of the strip. They razed olive trees and houses in the name of this wall and were going to arm it just like the Berlin wall, with barbed wire and guns. Luckily, the Geneva Court or the UN said that this is wrong and it had to come down. How publicized was that? Not all that much. Because Isreal is our ally and even though they were doing something bad, we can't say they it's bad because they are our friends. If we stoppped aiding Isreal many other countries would stop hating us. I don't see the entire world running to their aid. Just good old big brother America out to help everyone. Keep out noses out of it and we all might be better off. Help our fellow Americans first. It's a war based on land ownership and religion. Americans supposedly don't get involved in religious wars but we are involved in the Gaza Strip mess. What about Protestant England and Catholic Ireland? Ireland has been under suppression and bombed by the english for years ,yet we do nothing because "england is our ally." All we ever read about is what the IRA does- never what England does. Pretty convienent? Oh and we also don't care because Ireland has nothing great to offer us as compared to the mid east. politics- we only stick our noses in when it's conveinent. I will grant you that the terrorist fractions of the middle east and the world will still find reasns to hate American no matter what we do. What right does Isreal have to these lands? Why can't they all live together? Why does Isreal insist on throwing out the Palestinians and visa versa? And before I hear that I am prejudiced...I know a very wonderful,giving, intelligent group of people who are Isreali,(not just jewish) and I also know a few Palestinians who would give you the shirt off their backs if you needed it.
It's scary how right Rush was when he did this op-ed piece back in 2001: Unleash Israel and Win Peace by Rush Limbaugh Friday, December 7, 2001 The only way some form of quiet will ever exist in the Middle East is if Israel is given the latitude to totally defeat its declared enemies. Only then will the terrorist attacks on Israel's civilians come to an end. Perpetual negotiations, diplomatic half measures, or land for peace deals will not bring peace to the Middle East. For those who believe this is an irresponsible notion, I use history as my guide. Today marks the 60th anniversary of Imperial Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, in which 2,500 Americans were killed. There are lessons to be learned from our victory in that war. In his April 16, 1945 address before a Joint Session of Congress, President Harry Truman stated: "So there can be no possible misunderstanding, both Germany and Japan can be certain, beyond any shadow of doubt, that America will continue the fight for freedom until no vestige of resistance remains. We are deeply conscious of the fact that much hard fighting is still ahead of us. Having to pay such a heavy price to make complete victory certain, America will never become a party to any plan for partial victory. To settle for merely another temporary respite would surely jeopardize the future security of the world. Our demand has been, and it remains, unconditional surrender." On August 6, 1945, just 16-hours after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, Truman issued a statement which said, in part: "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. … We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake: we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war." Truman understood that there could be no peace without total victory. This lesson has not been lost on President George Bush. On September 20, 2001, Bush also addressed a Joint Session of Congress and announced America's policy - "the Bush Doctrine" - in responding to the atrocities of September 11. He stated: " … Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Bush stated further: " … We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Since September 11, Bush has refused all offers by the Taliban regime to negotiate any settlement of the war - including the status of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants in the al Qaeda terrorist network - short of outright surrender. As Bush once eloquently put it: bin Laden is "wanted, dead or alive." And for over two months, the U.S. has been systematically bombing the Taliban and al Qaeda day and night. Already, the Bush administration is planning the next phase of the war, which may involve U.S. military action in Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. So, in the two most recent examples of the U.S. being attacked on its own territory, America's predicate for peace has been the total annihilation of its enemies. And there is every reason to expect Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to have learned the same lesson. Since 1948, Israel has been forced to fight 4 wars with the hostile nations surrounding her. Despite defeating her enemies on the battlefield, the international community has never permitted Israel to completely destroy any of these regimes - none of which are democracies. They've always been left largely in tact, free to start or support another war, including the current terrorist war now being waged against Israel's citizens. And between wars, Israel's enemies have convinced the world, including the U.S., that her borders and security are not only legitimate subjects of constant negotiations, but that Israel's refusal to accept most, if not all, of her enemies' demands is an obstacle to peace. This week Hamas and other terrorist groups - which, like certain of the countries that surround Israel, seek the destruction of Israel, not co- existence or even the establishment of a Palestinian state - intensified their war against the Jewish state by unleashing 5 fanatic suicide bombers against innocent civilians, mostly children. The result: hundreds of casualties, including 26 dead. In the past 14 months, more than 230 Israelis have been killed - the proportional equivalent to the U.S. losing some 11,000 people. In addition to Hamas, which receives support from Palestinian expatriates, wealthy Saudi Arabians, and Iran, Israel is under attack from, among others, Hizballah, which is supported by Syria and Iran, and Islamic Jihad, which is backed by Iran, Sudan and militant Islamic groups. On December 4, in an address to his nation, Sharon stated: " … A war has been forced upon us. A war of terror. A war that claims innocent victims daily. A war of terror being conducted systematically, in an organized fashion, and with methodical direction. … We will pursue those responsible, the perpetrators of terrorism and the supporters. We will pursue them until we catch them, and they will pay a price." Ironically, the major obstacle to Sharon implementing the Bush Doctrine has been U.S. Middle East policy. When attacked by terrorists, Israel has been urged to show "restraint," to make more negotiated concessions and even accept the creation of a hostile Palestinian state on its border. This week's carnage appears to have caused some positive change in America's rhetoric and position. The president has now pointed the finger of responsibility directly at Yassar Arafat for ending the terrorism committed by his people. But accomplishing peace requires more - much more. Truman was right to insist that peace would only be realized after the "obliteration" of the Japanese war machine, just as Bush is right about "defeating" the Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. It is, therefore, necessary that in the pursuit of real and lasting peace, Israel also be free to destroy its enemies - meaning the terrorists and, yes, their sponsors, who are at war with her, and that she do so before they obtain devastating weapons of mass destruction.
What's it going to take for you to finally get it? It's obvious that watching burning people jumping out of the World Trade Center didn't do it. Will you finally get it when an Iranian nuke goes off in an American city? You do realize that Hizballah is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran and Syria, don't you? The same axis of evil funding the foreign terrorists shooting at our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Regardless, of where you fall on this subject 2 things are pretty sure. 1. History falls on the side of Israel (See the bible). 2. Watch the gas prices sore through the roof.
Gotta love Ben Stein. I think the answer to number 3 is YES! http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10092
Now was this written while Rush was doing pain pills and viagra. I'm sorry, but what's the use of a numb hard on?
I do not necessarily believe Israel needs us in any war between Lebanon and Syria. What I do believe is that the U.S. AND the U.N. have an obligation to engage if Iran begins threatening further instability in the region. We have already chastised Iran and we must react. Of course, as we all know, the Islamic world will back each other no matter what, so what we're looking at is a big mess many countries, including those we are depending on like the new Iraqi government and Pakistan.
Cant we all just get along. Cant we all just get along. Where is Rodney King when you need him? If he can stop the rights in LA he should be able to stop this.
Sometimes they measure the intelligence of animals by observing how many times they have to do something dumb and get hurt before they finally learn.
Israel took and returned the lands several times after they were attacked just after the creation of Israel in 1948. There was ans still is a state of war between Israel and many of the Arab nations, who refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The Israeli government got tired of giving the land back only to have it used for later attacks, so they have started colonizing some of the captured land, just as have other governments thoughout history (including the US) The statement concerning Gaza seems to ignore the fact the Gaza was under the control of the Palistinian government when this last attack occured. True, there is hostility but partly based on the Arab League's connection with the Axis during the war. No, the wall was to keep the Palestinians from having easy access to Israel not from the Gaza strip where they live. Everything in Israel is related to arms as they are still under a state of war with many of the Arab nations. I would suppose that might be due to the fact it has not come down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier On June 30, 2004, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that a portion of the barrier near Jerusalem violates the rights of Palestinians, and ordered 30 km of existing and planned barrier to be rerouted. However, it did rule that the barrier is legal in essence and accepted the Israeli government's claim that it is a security measure. On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that it is a violation of international law. At the beginning of September 2004, Israel started the southern part of the barrier. On February 18, 2005, the Israeli cabinet approved a new route. The new route is 681 kilometers and would leave approximately seven percent of the West Bank and 10,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side. Map: [12] Before that time, the exact route of the barrier had not been finalized, and it had been alleged by opponents that the barrier route would encircle the West Bank, separating it from the Jordan valley [13]. However, there is no indication in government plans or work on the ground that support such allegations. As of January 2006, approximately 31% has been constructed; another 16.5% is under construction; 43% has been approved and the remaining 9.5% requires final approval. No, it is a war based solely on relgious intolerance. Multiple conquests of the land when they were attacked by those who controlled the land? That seems to have been more than enough justification for every other country in history. Israel did give the land back several times before it got old having to just re-take it again. Because the Arabs do not believe Israel has any right to exist and will not rest until it does not. Because the Palesinians keep trying to kill the Israelis, for one thing. The fact is that many Palestinians work in Israel to support themselves and their families, so why would Israel allow that?
