The Sharon-Bush Alliance

[John Reece]

Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon

By George Will

http://www.jewishworldreview.com

The United States government is not a speed-reader, but after 37 years of reading U.N. Resolution 242, the government finally read it accurately on Wednesday. The government saw what is not there — the missing definite article, "the."

Passed after the 1967 Six Day War, 242 required the withdrawal of Israel "from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Not from "the territories." Israel insisted on deletion of the "the" because it implied, as Arab and other powers acknowledged by vehement opposition to the deletion — withdrawal from all territories.

This was strategic ambiguity. On Wednesday ambiguity was abandoned. In his letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush said: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

It is fine to talk about "new realities," such as patterns of settlement, but this new U.S. policy also, and primarily, comes to terms at long last with an old reality. It is that 242 also recognized the right of every state in the region to "secure and recognized boundaries," which Israel's 1967 borders were not.

But wait. Palestinian spokesmen, denouncing the new U.S. position, speak not of the 1949 armistice lines but "the 1967 borders." It is not in the interest of the Palestinian Authority to have the world reminded — being willfully forgetful, it needs much reminding — that Israel's 1967 borders were accidents of the military facts on the ground 18 years before that.

Bush, by emphasizing 1949 rather than 1967, reminds those who forever say "Israel is being provocative" that for 56 years — since Israel's founding in May 1948 — the problem has been that, to Israel's enemies, Israel's being is provocative. Hostility to Israel predated 1967 and would not be cured by a return to 1967 realities.

The territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have been lawfully held because a nation that occupies territories in the process of repelling aggression launched from them can hold them until the disposition of the lands is settled by negotiations between the relevant parties. Palestinians and their supporters have tried to erase this fact by semantic infiltration of the world's political vocabulary, getting the territories routinely referred to as "Palestinian lands." Actually, in law the territories are unallocated portions of the 1922 Palestine Mandate, the final disposition of which is still to be settled by negotiations.

And there, for 56 years, has been the rub — the absence of a suitable interlocutor for Israel. Meaning a negotiating partner not committed to the destruction of the "Zionist entity," or completion of the project interrupted but not abandoned when the last Nazi death camps were liberated 59 Aprils ago. It is instructive — and wonderful — how few and optional have been references to Yasser Arafat in discussions of Wednesday's developments. In a life of terror, his only service to peace was his demonstration, at Camp David in July 2000 with President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, that the most that Israel could ever offer in the way of concessions is less than the current Palestinian leadership will accept.

Which is why Wednesday's policy flowed ineluctably from Bush's June 24, 2002, pronouncement that the first prerequisite for progress is for the Palestinian people to produce "regime change": "I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." That prerequisite being unattainable, Sharon has chosen unilateral disengagement — the fence — and a long wait for the time when, in Bush's words, "the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements."

In 1998 the then-governor of Texas, visited Israel and was given a helicopter tour of the nation's vulnerabilities. Bush saw the place where Israel, from 1949 until 1967, had been nine miles wide. Back home, Bush said: Why, in Texas we have driveways longer than that. Bush's host in the helicopter was Sharon.

Sharon, who is 76, is a reminder of why it is reasonable to prefer young doctors but old politicians. Young doctors, because recently in medical school they learned the latest panaceas. Old politicians, because, having lived long enough to not hope for miracle cures to political problems, they do what they can, on their own.

I am ambivalent about the history and status of the modern state of Israel.

On one hand, I do not believe in the presuppositions of modern Zionism, and I am very empathetic with the Palestinians in terms of the losses they have suffered in the process of, and in the wake of, the mass invasion of Palestine by European Zionists. But who can blame the Jews in view of what precipitated that migration? Not me.

On the other hand, I find it impossible to empathize with the radically irrational hatred of terrorists whose goal is the genocide of the Jews and whose means to that end include using Palestinian men, women, and children (!) to homicide bomb Israeli men, women, and children.

A number of years ago, I saw Ariel Sharon on TV citing the Bible as evidence of a Divine Mandate for the Jews to occupy Palestine. I did not then, and do not now, agree with Sharon’s biblical interpretation. But I don’t see any realistic way to deal with terrorists and terrorism than to utterly defeat them and to deprive them of any possible means of doing what they are so fanatically determined to do.

So, with regard to the above article, I side with George Will, George Bush, and Ariel Sharon.

This is a presentation of how I see it. Others or invited to think otherwise and to express their opinions in response to the above article and comment, without retort from me.

[kofh2u]

Mideast Realism: Why the prez backed Sharon

By George Will

http://www.jewishworldreview.com

The United States government is not a speed-reader, but after 37 years of reading U.N. Resolution 242, the government finally read it accurately on Wednesday. The government saw what is not there — the missing definite article, "the."

Passed after the 1967 Six Day War, 242 required the withdrawal of Israel "from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Not from "the territories." Israel insisted on deletion of the "the" because it implied, as Arab and other powers acknowledged by vehement opposition to the deletion — withdrawal from all territories.

This was strategic ambiguity. On Wednesday ambiguity was abandoned. In his letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush said: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

It is fine to talk about "new realities," such as patterns of settlement, but this new U.S. policy also, and primarily, comes to terms at long last with an old reality. It is that 242 also recognized the right of every state in the region to "secure and recognized boundaries," which Israel's 1967 borders were not.

But wait. Palestinian spokesmen, denouncing the new U.S. position, speak not of the 1949 armistice lines but "the 1967 borders." It is not in the interest of the Palestinian Authority to have the world reminded — being willfully forgetful, it needs much reminding — that Israel's 1967 borders were accidents of the military facts on the ground 18 years before that.

Bush, by emphasizing 1949 rather than 1967, reminds those who forever say "Israel is being provocative" that for 56 years — since Israel's founding in May 1948 — the problem has been that, to Israel's enemies, Israel's being is provocative. Hostility to Israel predated 1967 and would not be cured by a return to 1967 realities.

The territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have been lawfully held because a nation that occupies territories in the process of repelling aggression launched from them can hold them until the disposition of the lands is settled by negotiations between the relevant parties. Palestinians and their supporters have tried to erase this fact by semantic infiltration of the world's political vocabulary, getting the territories routinely referred to as "Palestinian lands." Actually, in law the territories are unallocated portions of the 1922 Palestine Mandate, the final disposition of which is still to be settled by negotiations.

And there, for 56 years, has been the rub — the absence of a suitable interlocutor for Israel. Meaning a negotiating partner not committed to the destruction of the "Zionist entity," or completion of the project interrupted but not abandoned when the last Nazi death camps were liberated 59 Aprils ago. It is instructive — and wonderful — how few and optional have been references to Yasser Arafat in discussions of Wednesday's developments. In a life of terror, his only service to peace was his demonstration, at Camp David in July 2000 with President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, that the most that Israel could ever offer in the way of concessions is less than the current Palestinian leadership will accept.

Which is why Wednesday's policy flowed ineluctably from Bush's June 24, 2002, pronouncement that the first prerequisite for progress is for the Palestinian people to produce "regime change": "I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." That prerequisite being unattainable, Sharon has chosen unilateral disengagement — the fence — and a long wait for the time when, in Bush's words, "the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements."

In 1998 the then-governor of Texas, visited Israel and was given a helicopter tour of the nation's vulnerabilities. Bush saw the place where Israel, from 1949 until 1967, had been nine miles wide. Back home, Bush said: Why, in Texas we have driveways longer than that. Bush's host in the helicopter was Sharon.

Sharon, who is 76, is a reminder of why it is reasonable to prefer young doctors but old politicians. Young doctors, because recently in medical school they learned the latest panaceas. Old politicians, because, having lived long enough to not hope for miracle cures to political problems, they do what they can, on their own.

I am ambivalent about the history and status of the modern state of Israel.

On one hand, I do not believe in the presuppositions of modern Zionism, and I am very empathetic with the Palestinians in terms of the losses they have suffered in the process of, and in the wake of, the mass invasion of Palestine by European Zionists. But who can blame the Jews in view of what precipitated that migration? Not me.

On the other hand, I find it impossible to empathize with the radically irrational hatred of terrorists whose goal is the genocide of the Jews and whose means to that end include using Palestinian men, women, and children (!) to homicide bomb Israeli men, women, and children.

A number of years ago, I saw Ariel Sharon on TV citing the Bible as evidence of a Divine Mandate for the Jews to occupy Palestine. I did not then, and do not now, agree with Sharon’s biblical interpretation. But I don’t see any realistic way to deal with terrorists and terrorism than to utterly defeat them and to deprive them of any possible means of doing what they are so fanatically determined to do.

So, with regard to the above article, I side with George Will, George Bush, and Ariel Sharon.

This is a presentation of how I see it. Others or invited to think otherwise and to express their opinions in response to the above article and comment, without retort from me.

The European Jews, of course, were chased into Europe by the Europeans. There, they were almost burned in ovens to the last man. Then, they were sent home by Europeans, only to discover that Jordanians were living in the land.

They extended their hand in friendship and invited these migrants from another country to live in peace with them.

As soon as the British police left this new soverneign State, that is, the European British who had "owed" this Palestinia of Rome,.. these PLO -Nazi supporters (during the 1930-45) - attacked. They had the aid of our present enemies in terrorism, Syria and Iraq.

Sharon'sbinterpretation of Hebrew scripture seems clear to me, but all are entitled to make their bet.

I see Bush as a modern day Cyrus, and would remind those who post concerning the choosen "elect" that the Jews are specifically included.
Another bible double intendre'?

Isa. 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right
hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates (of Scripture, Old and New); and the gates shall not be shut;

Isa. 45:3 ... I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

Isa. 45:4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have
even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

[John Reece]

This relates to the article in the OP:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0404/blankley.html

It's titled "Beware of an old man in a hurry", the "old man" being Sharon.

[kofh2u]

This relates to the article in the OP:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0404/blankley.html

It's titled "Beware of an old man in a hurry", the "old man" being Sharon.

Many Israelis have rejected the acceptance of the soverneigny of the State of Israel because they look for a non-political solution and restoration.

In this, they are correct as concerns the solution. Neither they nor the Christians can find that Zechariah 14 and Is 60-62 go unfulfilled, replaced by war machines.

The "Love thy enemy" qoute is the sum of the teo commands, calling "Come" says the Spirit of Holiness, "come "....

If the Christians individually are "full of the Spirit".... go, go.... enmass... take money and tour the poor lands of Palestinia. Economic peace and Christian contact while Budh holds off Hamas....

Isa. 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

[Cherith]

...But who can blame the Jews in view of what precipitated that migration? Not me.

On the other hand, I find it impossible to empathize with the radically irrational hatred of terrorists whose goal is the genocide of the Jews and whose means to that end include using Palestinian men, women, and children (!) to homicide bomb Israeli men, women, and children.

...But I don’t see any realistic way to deal with terrorists and terrorism than to utterly defeat them and to deprive them of any possible means of doing what they are so fanatically determined to do.

Hey John,

You know, I have an above average IQ but sometimes all that mumbo-jumbo is hard to follow...

As for your comments, I would ask first what precipitated the "terrorist" actions of the natives? As the old saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." People can only take so much suffering and subjugation before they rise up and say enough! And secondly if your opinion would change at all if you knew for a fact that there were Jews who had the means of helping their fellow Jews and/or influencing policy but covered up the atrocities of what was occuring under Hitler so as to strengthen their Zionist position for Palestine at a later date?

History doesn't support the notion that there was a lot of conflict between Arabs, Jews and Christians in Palestine prior to the secret takeover by the Zionists - CONTRARY TO promises of British and American support to the native arab population if they would become allies against the Ottomon Turks in World War I.

Besides, all of this is presupposing that modern Jews are the descendants of Abraham and have a valid covenant with God. If the answer to these two questions is no, then what makes them any different from other terrorists who go into someone else's land and takes over?

--C

P.S. Here's an article that I came across the other day but haven't yet had time to read: Palestinian Christians, Strangers in a Familiar Land (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/131/53.0.html)

A site I have found particularly interesting in the past is: www.Cactus48.com (http://www.cactus48.com/)

[John Reece]

Hey John,

You know, I have an above average IQ but sometimes all that mumbo-jumbo is hard to follow...

As for your comments, I would ask first what precipitated the "terrorist" actions of the natives? As the old saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." People can only take so much suffering and subjugation before they rise up and say enough! And secondly if your opinion would change at all if you knew for a fact that there were Jews who had the means of helping their fellow Jews and/or influencing policy but covered up the atrocities of what was occurring under Hitler so as to strengthen their Zionist position for Palestine at a later date?

History doesn't support the notion that there was a lot of conflict between Arabs, Jews and Christians in Palestine prior to the secret takeover by the Zionists - CONTRARY TO promises of British and American support to the native Arab population if they would become allies against the Ottoman Turks in World War I.

Besides, all of this is presupposing that modern Jews are the descendants of Abraham and have a valid covenant with God. If the answer to these two questions is no, then what makes them any different from other terrorists who go into someone else's land and takes over?

--C

P.S. Here's an article that I came across the other day but haven't yet had time to read: Palestinian Christians, Strangers in a Familiar Land (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/131/53.0.html)

A site I have found particularly interesting in the past is: www.Cactus48.com (http://www.cactus48.com/)


Hi Cherith,

George Will’s article is hardly mumbo-jumbo, especially for someone with an above-average IQ.

Regarding your response to my comment, I can agree with practically all you have written, except the justification of the Islamic terrorist tactic, and the equating of the Islamic terrorist tactic with anything in the history of Jewish behavior.

I do not know of any credible report of the Jews purposely and systematically targeting innocent women and children, as well as non-combatant men, for random mass murder.

I know of no history of the Jews strapping bombs on their own women and children and sending them into Palestinian population centers to be blown up in hopes of killing as many Arab civilians as possible.

I do not know of any history of the Jews mass-educating their children to hate and to desire to kill, and to celebrate the killing of, any and all Islamic Arabs.

By the way, the destruction of the World Trade Center was an example of the Islamic terrorist tactic. Do you justify that killing of approximately 3,000 non-combatant people within the USA the same way you justify the same mode of murder against Jews in Israel?

The goal of the Islamic terrorist tactic is the elimination of Jews and Americans from the Middle East.

Do you justify the goal as well as the tactic?

John

[Cherith]

I do not know of any credible report of the Jews purposely and systematically targeting innocent women and children, as well as non-combatant men, for random mass murder.

That must be because you are part ostrich.

In the early morning hours of April 9, 1948, terrorists from the Irgun group (led by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang (led by future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir) attacked the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin and massacred over 100 civilians. This massacre was followed by others in numerous towns and villages. While Deir Yassin was not the only massacre of Palestinians, and not even the largest, it came at a crucial stage. In response to the terror at Deir Yassin, many Palestinians fled for their lives; others were forcibly expelled. Almost one million Palestinians were never allowed to return to their homes and became refugees. Over 450 Palestinian villages were destroyed and wiped off the map. On the remnants of these destroyed Palestinian villages and society, the State of Israel was born.

Deir Yassin, a peaceful village of some 750 Palestinian residents, was outside the area which was assigned by the UN for a Jewish state. But the Zionist movement was determined to seize Deir Yassin and all Palestinian towns and villages located in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Irgun and Stern Gang in agreement with the larger Jewish militia, the Haganah, precursor to the Israeli army, overran Deir Yassin.

During the attack over 100 men, women, and children were brutally and deliberately murdered. 25 men from Deir Yassin were loaded into trucks, paraded through the Zakhron Yosef district in Jerusalem, and then taken to a stone quarry and murdered. All the survivors of the massacre were expelled to Arab East Jerusalem. Fifty three children orphaned during the massacre were simply left by the wall of the Old City where they were found by Miss Hind Husseini and brought to her home which became the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi orphanage.

Meir Pail, who took part in the attack as an observer for the mainstream Jewish forces, the Haganah, said “the people from Stern and Irgun went rushing from house to house shooting, slaughtering, killing and looting, with quite a lot of disorder. Arab men were taken to an old quarry between Givat Shaul and Deir Yassin. They lined them up with their backs to the wall of the quarry and shot them all. I had a soldier with me who took pictures of it.” The pictures of the Deir Yassin massacre have never been released by the Israeli authorities. ...

Here's an excerpt from another account:

...The initial resistance of the men of Deir Yassin to the attack was soon overcome, and all of the town's inhabitants were ordered out into a square, where they were lined up against the wall and shot. According to the recital in O! Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, the daughter of one of the principal families of Deir Yassin, declared that she saw "a man shoot a bullet in the neck of my sister Salhiyeh, who was nine months pregnant. Then he cut here stomach open with a butcher's knife."24 Another woman was killed when she tried to extricate the unborn infant from the dead mother's womb. A sixteen-year-old survivor, Naaneh Khalil, claimed she saw a man take "a kind of sword and slash my neighbor Jamil Hish from head to toe and then do the same thing on the steps to my house to my cousin Fathi."25

According to accounts of survivors, the female members of the two terrorist groups matched the savagery of their male counterparts. "Bit by bit, Deir Yassin was submerged in a hell of screams, exploding grenades, the stench of blood, gunpowder and smoke. Its assailants killed, they looted, and finally they raped." Another survivor, Safiyeh Attiyah, saw one man open his pants and leap on her. "I screamed," she said, "but around the other women were being raped, too. Some of the men were so anxious to get our earrings they ripped our ears to pull them off faster."27

Fifteen houses in Deir Yassin were dynamited to drive out the owners, and when the terrorized survivors fled to those homes still standing, the Irgun commanders began to systematically work their way through those remain buildings with Sten guns and grenades.

Most of the men of the village were absent because they worked in Jerusalem. When the terrorists entered, there were only women and children and older people. For two days afterwards, while they tried to tidy up the mess they had made, the Irgun allowed no one else to enter except a Jewish policeman, who reported that one Arab had been killed.28

When the British authorities refused to investigate the incident, the Arabs of Jerusalem prevailed upon the International Red Cross to look into the facts. Swiss representative Jacques de Reynier led the first party to reach the site and found 150 dead bodies thrown into a cistern and another 40 or 50 at one side. In all, he counted 254 dead, including 145 women, of whom 35 were pregnant. He found a six-year-old girl still living under the heap of corpses. Eyewitnesses said later that it was not possible to go near the village without becoming nauseated.29

...The other surviving women and children were stripped and paraded in three open trucks, their hands over their heads, up and down King George V Avenue, where they were spat on and even stoned.31

Shaltiel and his Haganah command had been occupied in fighting [elsewhere] when he arrived at the edge of Deir Yassin... When Irgun Commander Mordechai Ramaan announced the vilage was completely under control and a Haganah unit should be sent in to take over, Shaltiel replied, "We're not going to take responsibility for your murders."33 The claim later made by the Irgun that those killed had been fiercely resisting was totally disproved by another [b]Haganah member commander of the youth organization, Eliyahu Arieli, who stated: "All of the killed, with very few exceptions, were old men, women or children. The dead we found were all unjust victims, and none of them died with a weapon in their hands."34

...The Jewish Agency posted leaflets descriptive of the massacre in many Arab villages. Loudspeaker vans toured Arab Jerusalem broadcasting in Arabic, "Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate."35

On a personal note, I met just such a survivor in Dallas the weekend before last. I was standing in line at an Old Navy store buying a jacket and started talking with a short, old, white-haired man in the line next to me tickling a light-haired, light-eyed baby. I asked about his accent and he told me he was from "very far away," when I pressed he said he was born in Jerusalem. I asked how long he had been in this country and he replied since 1940. I marvelled that he would leave his homeland only 8 yrs prior to Israel becoming a nation. His face clouded over and he responded "I am no Jew." He told me that the Jews had siezed his home. Of course, I immediately apologized profusely and explained that I too shared no love for the Zionist terrorists who took over his land. We chatted on about the fact that their whole basis for displacing the native population was founded on the unprovable assumption that they are the literal descendants of Abraham and have a Divine [i]right to the land of another. We talked on and I commented that at least he got out of Palestine prior to the current terrorism being carried by the Israelis on his people. His voice broke and said "yes" that he was fortunate, but many of his family still lived under horrible conditions... All the while his 30-something daughter was listening attentively to our conversation. He commented that at least his daughter had been born here and had never experienced first-hand the terrors that he had lived through. The clerk was wrapping up my purchase and I told the old man that I had enjoyed speaking with him and that "we" were very glad to have him and his family as Americans. His eyes became moist and he wiped at them and softly said "Thank you. I appreciate that very much."

See: http://www.deiryassin.org/index1.html

[Timothy Leary]

● Independent analyses by SIPRI, B'Tselem, and other agencies indicate that no more than 20,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since 1948. Meanwhile, Israel has lost 20,297 military personnel since the War of Independence.

● The actual number of Arab refugees in 1949 was, according to Israeli sources, 538,000. (The UN puts the figure at 720,000.) Due primarily to neglect by Arab leaders, their descendents have reached over 4 million.

[Cherith]

● Independent analyses by SIPRI, B'Tselem, and other agencies indicate that no more than 20,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since 1948. Meanwhile, Israel has lost 20,297 military personnel since the War of Independence.

"The War of Independence" Tell me, Yoshi, how can non-native immigrants who were never under the subjugation of the native population fight for "independence"? Independence from whom? For what?

In fact, your own figures disprove the notion that the killing is all one-sided in favor of "Islamic terrorists."

● The actual number of Arab refugees in 1949 was, according to Israeli sources, 538,000. (The UN puts the figure at 720,000.) Due primarily to neglect by Arab leaders, their descendents have reached over 4 million.

I cannot believe that you claim to be a righteous person and put the blame on "Arab leaders"!!! What about the Israeli leaders, Yoshi or the Israeli people themselves, do they bear no responsiblity for their actions and usurption of another people's land and the subsequent displacement of those people? Are you advocating that neighboring Arab nations should have taken in the entire foreign Palestinian populace and that the Palestinians should have just left their homeland quietly without a fight?!?! Jews in this country and Britain lobbied intensively not to allow such a thing (i.e. the rescue and provision of aslyum to hundreds of thousands of persecuted Jews) to occur during Hitler's reign so that their chances of acquiring Palestine would be even greater after all of the death and destruction to their own people!

And what about you, Yoshi, if your dream ever comes true and you actually move to Israel - whose former home do you intend to inhabit? Which new settlement would be acceptable to the conscience of a "righteous" person?

[GrayPilgrim]

Cherith,

You only stated a portion of the history as ensconced in popular American lore do to Hollywood, but Hollywood got it wrong. You said that the Brits promised the land that is now Israel to the Palestinians if they supported them in the fight against the Ottomons, that is not technically correct, a half bit, nincumpoop with a good press agent promised it to them, Lawrence of Arabia, he was not deputised by the Crown to promise them any such thing. Meanwhile Balfour did in fact promise the land to the Jews after Alleby took Jerusalem. Moreover the land that was in question also included what is now the Hasmaite Kingdom of Jordan (after WWI it was called Trans-Jordan because it covered both sides of the Jordan River). However, as the Brits were wont to do to maintain control in their colonial holdings they played off the factions, to see how dispicable this was just look at their involvememt in India for a view of their modus operandi. They did in fact bar Jews from entering Palestine. They could not leaving Europe, thus feeding more people to Hilter's killing machine when the renigged on the Balfour Declaration. As to your inclusion of the AMericans, um let's see France and Great Britain took control of the holdings of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the US adopted isolationist tendencies again, so I find your historical back drop problematic. BTW, I think that you should really examine the history of Syria-Palestine under the Ottomons and Brits before you make your accusations, because they don't fit the facts of this time frame.

[Socrates]

You know, I have an above average IQ but sometimes all that mumbo-jumbo is hard to follow...
Seemed easy enough for me.

As for your comments, I would ask first what precipitated the "terrorist" actions of the natives? As the old saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."
Crap. Terrorism is deliberately targeting non-combatants that have nothing to do with their aims. Passengers on hijacked planes, the people in the twin towers, and Israeli women and children and other civilians are not legitimate targets. Freedom fighters like the Maquis target occupying enemy soldiers and military tagets.

People can only take so much suffering and subjugation before they rise up and say enough!
So why are there no Tibetan suicide bombers? They have far more reason to hate the Chinese than the Palestinians do to hate Israel, the original inhabitants.

History doesn't support the notion that there was a lot of conflict between Arabs, Jews and Christians in Palestine prior to the secret takeover by the Zionists - CONTRARY TO promises of British and American support to the native arab population if they would become allies against the Ottomon Turks in World War I.
GP has covered that. Balfour's promise to the Jews was official policy, Lawrence of Arabia's to the Arabs was not -- and even he later felt guilty about making promises he couldn't keep. The artificial tripartite nation of Iraq, is one residue of his folly, given as a consolation prize to Faysal, the Arab leader. At least Faysal wanted to work with the Jews and allow them to live in peace, and had a good relationship with Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader.

Besides, all of this is presupposing that modern Jews are the descendants of Abraham and have a valid covenant with God.
Of course they are. This is shown by history and genetics, as shown by the AiG article Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp)

[Cephas]

Let us not forget--"Palestine" does not exist. The name itself was invented by the foul Romans to humiliate the Jews living in the area. "Palestine" is, of course, named after the perennial enemy of the ancient Israelites--the Philistines.

King Hussein (?) himself said "Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine." The Arab world denied the right of return to multitudes of Arabs within the region, for no other reason than to kindle hatred against the Jews for (re)taking their land.

It worked--there have been two generations of Palestinians roaring for the blood of Jews.

If anyone should be blamed for the Israeli-Arab conflict today--blame Jordan.
Here are some facts conveniently glossed over by the anti-Israel crowd: http://www.la4israel.org/wordpress/2004/04/18/1383/#comments

[kofh2u]

"Beware of an old man"... soon to pass away with unfinished Christian business...?


.


IQ?
How smart do we have to be?
It seems that debates, even on Tweb can run on for ever. Ignofing points and taking new perspectives. That's the way things work in this system of things.

I do not fault Europeans (and the Americans who proceeded from them) for the crimes of their ancient Roman politicians against the children of Israel. Even though,"Europeans" created and have long exerbated the problem in this Christian Holy Land. It is NOT a Jewish problem, ally. It is not a problem of immigrant West Bank Jordanian encroachment in the void. It IS a "European/American" problem which demands a European/American solution.

But, I do point my finger at Eutopean/American Christians who tolerate the tragedy in the Promised Land, at a time in history when the Second Coming is imminent. Is it not? Does the symbolic fig tree have leaves?

Yes, the Jews say the messiah MUST be the one who establishs the legitimate New Israel. Yes, Christ is that spirit now in the body of his church. Yes, Christians wait.
They wait for the crucifixion again, not of one Jew, Jesus, but for all his blood relatives. Idle. Safe. Waiting for world salvayion from the growing specter of massive world wide war and destruction. The question of Israel's righg to survive, of the righg to livd on earth and be a Jew, this feuls the terror that nkw has become a world side tool for extortions well beyond Israel.

It is a tool in Kosovo, in Kasmir, in Russia, in Northern China, in Indonesia, in Saudi Arabia even, and in Frsnce, Spain, and here, in America. Whats a real Christian yo do? Talk. Talk politics? Or, walk the walk of possible marttyfom, love, peace making?

Zech. 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.

Zech. 8:14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; As I thought to punish you, when your fathers provoked me to wrath, saith the LORD of hosts, and I repented not:

Zech. 8:15 So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not.