Posted on 06/25/2002 1:20:13 PM PDT by Johnny Shear
We were, until we no longer felt we needed to be, remember?
Manifest Destiny.
But I don't think we want Cuber though.
There's an very definite reason for this. Israel has done much to try to appease the Muslim factions, including giving up land (almost unheard of for a victorious nation). The PLO, on the other hand, has rejected, denounced, violated, or failed to uphold virtually every term of every charter ever conceived, including Clinton's version which would have given Arafat 95% of everything he was asking for. The sad part is that most of the "concessions" that the Muslims are asked to make mostly center on not killing innocent people anymore... and they are unwilling and/or unable to comply.
In short, there can never a compromise, because the Muslims simply will accept nothing less than the expulsion or eradication of the Jewish peoples there. Given this fact (by everything fair, moral, justifiable, and civil), those lands are Israel's to occupy and administer as they see fit.
Wrong. We believe there was no history before Genesis.
Your profile page says that you dislike both right and left extremists. Question: Isn't the statement of yours that I placed in bold "extreme?"
If you can refer to them as "subhuman," I could only guess what you truly feel about someone who looks like me.
And I hope that the AdminModerator doesn't remove this post. No, I didn't hit "abuse." This should serve as a glowing example to any and all.
You obviously read it. So, do you agree with that?
We need to walk away from this mess. Palestinians, just like our home-grown poverty pimps, will maintain their "oppressed rabble" status to keep the UN money flowing. (After all, they can unilaterally declare their nationhood any time they want.) The Israelis are able to maintain their socialist economy thanks to our generous foreign aid. The U.S. remains committed to the "peace process," i.e., jobs for 5,000 civil servants.
As the prophet Isaiah said, "The whole head is sick."
But lately I've adopted a more subtle view. The Jews are modern. The Arabs, medievil. Two such societies could never mix - and if they did the Jews would dominate.
So it's a tragedy. It doesn't change my actions because I don't believe the Israelis have the luxury to be generous. But it makes me a little-less hard-hearted.
Well, that's a pretty danged hateful thing to say. I'm a Christian, and I'm a Zionist. Those Zionist leanings are based on my (Biblical) belief that God wants his chosen people to have a home in E'retz Israel, the land that He promised them.
I don't want (and Israel doesn't need) Christians "over there on the front lines." Of the anti-Israel statements I've heard from non-Muslims, that is the most bizarre. Where did that come from?
If you're so enamored of spending your money and risking your life because of inter-tribal disputes in the Middle East, I suggest you move there.
I was in Israel about 20 years ago and was shocked when I saw the "mighty" Jordan. ;^)
You could easily cross it by jumping from rock to rock for about 50 feet.
DITTO!
Well, I will eventually live in the New Jerusalem, but not yet.
But you didn't answer my question. Do you feel the same as Neckbone in that those over there are "subhuman?" Yes or no?
Do you have any problem with American settlements in New Mexico, Arizona and California?
These territories were won by conquest, in the Mexican War, just as the Israelis conquered the West Bank in the 1967 War. While our occupation of the American Southwest was secured by cession in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, there has been no comparable treaty in the Mid East. At least, as it relates to the West Bank.
Recall, though, that Jimmy Carter, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin negotiated the so-called Camp David Accords, which had the effect of a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. As a consequence, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Desert and a firm border was resolved between Egypt and Israel, which also reserved the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians.
There has been no corresponding peace treaty between Israel, Syria and Jordan to define the status of the West Bank. Under the laws of war, the Israelis would have been entitled to forcibly remove any part of the population which objected to their annexation of the land. That Israel chose occupation, instead of annexation, should be counted to their credit -- even though it might now be reasonably considered as a mistake.
The Israeli settlements are, thus, in perfectly good order. That the Palestinians and other Arabs don't approve of them comes under the international law equivalent of "Tough".
2. You insist that my money be taken and sent to Israel and my life endangered from terrorist attacks because you insist the government choose sides in a tribal war which does not concern me.
Now between these two options, which one can be characterized as hateful?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.