Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Is Peace Out Of Reach?
Show More
Loading...
Flag Vanillaangel February 8, 2009 1:43 AM EST
60 Minutes
Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.
January 26, 2009
Video Link


I think the answer is yes. When clearly it's not only the Palestinians that are working to effect terror and discord in the region. How is it that faith that any one god would approve the murder of women, children and men, on both sides, ever hope to effect peace in the end?! Is peace to be enjoyed when all of one's enemy are dead? Why can't people live and learn from one another? Glorify and enjoy the diversity that makes this world a living tapestry of unique differences that can serve to teach one another, as opposed to inspire one another to kill because there can be only one way to live a life?!

I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey.

It is said, blessed are the peace makers. And yet, can there ever be peace when it seems, for so many, war is ordained as sacred duty?
Flag Vanillaangel February 8, 2009 1:43 AM EST
60 Minutes
Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.
January 26, 2009
Video Link


I think the answer is yes. When clearly it's not only the Palestinians that are working to effect terror and discord in the region. How is it that faith that any one god would approve the murder of women, children and men, on both sides, ever hope to effect peace in the end?! Is peace to be enjoyed when all of one's enemy are dead? Why can't people live and learn from one another? Glorify and enjoy the diversity that makes this world a living tapestry of unique differences that can serve to teach one another, as opposed to inspire one another to kill because there can be only one way to live a life?!

I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey.

It is said, blessed are the peace makers. And yet, can there ever be peace when it seems, for so many, war is ordained as sacred duty?
Flag JAstor February 8, 2009 2:01 AM EST

Vanillaangel wrote:

60 Minutes
Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.
January 26, 2009
Video Link


As long as Hamas controls Gaza there is no chance for peace or even a 2-state solution. They have made that clear in their Charter. You should read it. Besides a call to genocide against Jews, they declare that they will not stop until every inch of what we call Israel is an Islamic Waqf, which is another way of saying a Taliban-like totalitarian state.

Read their Charter and tell me how peace is possible:

Call to genocide:
The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time that may take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah!, there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
--(Article 7)

Inspiring Suicide Mass Murder:
"Allah is its goal, The Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Charter, jihad its path, and death for the cause of Allah its most sublime belief." (Article 8).

Opposition to any type of peace process:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors." (Article 13).

http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html


Note that last one, Article 13, in relation to your question: "All initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors."

This is what they say. No one is making it up. It is not propaganda. It is what they say. And it is backed up by how they act.

"All initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors."

How can there be peace when such people are in control?

Perhaps the Gazan people can overthrow them. Yes, then you can talk about peace or at least a 2-state solution. But the Gazan people have to get rid of Hamas. Of course, since Hamas has executed some 200 Gazan people in the past few weeks and completely overturned democracy it will be difficult to unseat them. But that is what has to be done to even get to square one.

Vanillaangel wrote:

Glorify and enjoy the diversity that makes this world a living tapestry of unique differences that can serve to teach one another, as opposed to inspire one another to kill because there can be only one way to live a life?!


Israel is a very diverse country with just about every religion and ethnic group represented, including Arab, Muslim and of course Christian. Hamas is an extremist Islamist group that has no tolerance for Jews or even non-Arabs, who do not want democracy; only an Islamist theocracy.

Vanillaangel wrote:

I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey.


In Israel you would be allowed to visit pretty much anywhere you wanted. You, of course, would have to worry about terror attacks and missiles from Islamist terror groups, but you would be free to travel and see what you want to see. If you ventured into Gaza you would, as a woman, have no rights, have to dress in accord with Islamist standards, have no real freedom of movement and, especially as an American, have to worry about being abducted.

Flag JAstor February 8, 2009 2:01 AM EST

Vanillaangel wrote:

60 Minutes
Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.
January 26, 2009
Video Link


As long as Hamas controls Gaza there is no chance for peace or even a 2-state solution. They have made that clear in their Charter. You should read it. Besides a call to genocide against Jews, they declare that they will not stop until every inch of what we call Israel is an Islamic Waqf, which is another way of saying a Taliban-like totalitarian state.

Read their Charter and tell me how peace is possible:

Call to genocide:
The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time that may take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah!, there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
--(Article 7)

Inspiring Suicide Mass Murder:
"Allah is its goal, The Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Charter, jihad its path, and death for the cause of Allah its most sublime belief." (Article 8).

Opposition to any type of peace process:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors." (Article 13).

http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html


Note that last one, Article 13, in relation to your question: "All initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors."

This is what they say. No one is making it up. It is not propaganda. It is what they say. And it is backed up by how they act.

"All initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors."

How can there be peace when such people are in control?

Perhaps the Gazan people can overthrow them. Yes, then you can talk about peace or at least a 2-state solution. But the Gazan people have to get rid of Hamas. Of course, since Hamas has executed some 200 Gazan people in the past few weeks and completely overturned democracy it will be difficult to unseat them. But that is what has to be done to even get to square one.

Vanillaangel wrote:

Glorify and enjoy the diversity that makes this world a living tapestry of unique differences that can serve to teach one another, as opposed to inspire one another to kill because there can be only one way to live a life?!


Israel is a very diverse country with just about every religion and ethnic group represented, including Arab, Muslim and of course Christian. Hamas is an extremist Islamist group that has no tolerance for Jews or even non-Arabs, who do not want democracy; only an Islamist theocracy.

Vanillaangel wrote:

I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey.


In Israel you would be allowed to visit pretty much anywhere you wanted. You, of course, would have to worry about terror attacks and missiles from Islamist terror groups, but you would be free to travel and see what you want to see. If you ventured into Gaza you would, as a woman, have no rights, have to dress in accord with Islamist standards, have no real freedom of movement and, especially as an American, have to worry about being abducted.

Flag Boblight7 February 8, 2009 4:08 PM EST
I still think that Israel and it's Arab neighbors should work out a mutually acceptable Land for Peace, by returning most of the West Bank to Jordon, Gaza back to Eygpt, forget a Palestinian State.. I do believe that Jerusalem should be united under Israel.. Israeal will treat the HolyLand much better than Arabs where Jerusalem is not even mentioned once in the Koran( Third rate city after Mecca and Medina).. Anyone individuals caught inbetween should be offered financial help to relocate, or forever hold their peace!!
Flag teilhard February 8, 2009 8:37 PM EST
Unfortunately,
the MOST Effective "Peace Plan" LATELY
has been The Border Fence
between Israel and "The West Bank" ...

For NOW
perhaps a "Fence"
is the most REALISTIC Solution ... ???
Flag Santafe June 8, 2009 6:18 PM EDT

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was another Solomon? He could take many wives to make peace amongst them? ha ha


It is inevitable that all things must resolve themselves hopefully sooner than later and without violence. Truth is a big factor here and too much politics with many manipulaters behind the scene for power, and greed? Maybe God will step in and then sort out the bodies?

Flag judyinjerusalem June 9, 2009 7:02 AM EDT

What is US policy on Israel's settlements??  Dr. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, explains..


His main points:



1.    The Obama administration is demanding additional Israeli concessions beyond the 1993 Oslo Accords.


2.    Current settlement activity no longer diminishes Palestinian territory.


3.    The 2005 Gaza disengagement proves that a settler presence does not undermine future territorial compromise.


4.    Does the Obama administration reject defensible borders and settlement blocs and expect Israel to return to the 1967 borders?


 


To read the full report go to www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp...


Flag NahumS June 11, 2009 3:24 AM EDT

I have some hope that Netanyahu's new program (there's not much new about it....) will improve the situation.  Improving the lot of the Palestinian Arabs (economically, services, less Israeli interference in their daily lives) can make  adifference.


But it all depends on thier leadership. If they were smart, they would understand that a) Israel is here to stay, b)they are nowhere near ready for statehood. They would build a civil society, civil institutions (welfare, education, health, etc.) and convince Israel that they can realize their national goals and not pose a threat to Israel. But they are doing everything to convince us of the opposite!


I do not think that a Palestinian State is viable - even if Israel did not exist.  The area is too small for a Palestinian state, and it would not be able to absorb the "refugees" - and it's likely that if such a state is founded, the Arab countries will force out the "refugees" and flood it with the hope that the situation will explode and Israel will be harmed. If anyone is seriously looking for peace, the "refugees" (who have been cultivated as such for 60 years!) must be permanantly settled in the countries where they live and given citizenship there.


Evacuating hundreds of thousands of residents and destroying the Jewish communities that have grown in Judea and Samaria in the past 30 years is not a viable option. No gov't can make such a high percentage (about 5%) homeless - as was done to the expelees of Gush Katif. Logistically and socially, not to say morally, it's not an option - and Israel has to be clear about this, no matter what pressure the US president exerts. The Palestianian leadership will accept nothing less than 100% fulfillment of their dreams (especially if the US and Europe encourage them) - and that won't happen. So I don't see a resolution of th econflict in the near future.


I am not a big fan of the security fence. Security is created by rooting out dangers, not by building fences. The fence makes the lives of Palestinian Arabs difficult and creates an artificial border. It sould not be a permanent fixture.


Aside from all that - a visit to most places in Israel is quite safe. We go about our daily lives with a sense of security and optomism. It is not so easy to wander into Gaza by mistake! We live in an amazing and beautiful country and welcome visitors.

Flag KindredSai June 11, 2009 2:12 PM EDT

A Palestinian State is viable but Israel needs to pull her weight too.


Any critic of a Palestinian State is a support of unnecessary Zionist expansion which makes it perfectly acceptable world wide to systematically uproot a local population establish an encroaching State.

Flag browbeaten June 11, 2009 2:57 PM EDT

Jun 11, 2009 -- 2:12PM, KindredSai wrote:


A Palestinian State is viable but Israel needs to pull her weight too.


Do you have one shred of evidence that a Palestinian state is viable?


Any critic of a Palestinian State is a support of unnecessary Zionist expansion which makes it perfectly acceptable world wide to systematically uproot a local population establish an encroaching State.


If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion.  Does double-standard ring a bell?



.

Flag KindredSai June 11, 2009 5:26 PM EDT

Do you have a shred of evidence that Palestinian State is not? Given the fact


If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion.  Does double-standard ring a bell?


Not all, the case for a Palestinian State back in 1947 including Jews and Arabs was greater than a case for a "Jewish" State who's sole purpose was to displace people who weren't Jewish and giving priority to those who were Jewish.


A critic of a Palestinian State is most definitely a supporter of Zionist expansion, no doubt about it. Being a critic of Israel and being an anti-semite are not mutually the same thing.

Flag browbeaten June 11, 2009 6:23 PM EDT

Jun 11, 2009 -- 5:26PM, KindredSai wrote:


Do you have a shred of evidence that Palestinian State is not? Given the fact


If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion.  Does double-standard ring a bell?


Not all, the case for a Palestinian State back in 1947 including Jews and Arabs was greater than a case for a "Jewish" State who's sole purpose was to displace people who weren't Jewish and giving priority to those who were Jewish.


A critic of a Palestinian State is most definitely a supporter of Zionist expansion, no doubt about it. Being a critic of Israel and being an anti-semite are not mutually the same thing.



You actually misquoted me in the first sentence and then chose to answer a question with a question.  The mandate divided the land into two regions to be controlled by Arabs and Jews.  It did not, in any way, create or design statehood for either side.  The Jews, however, created a state and declared as such.  The Arab side has not yet, 60+ years later.  Furthermore, you keep harping on the idea of Arab displacement as the sole purpose for the creation of a Jewish State.  Was some displacement a RESULT of the creation, absolutely.  That is why they were given their own piece of the pie, which by the way, they turned down.


Your response that a critic of a Palestinian state must be a supporter of Zionist Expansion is so far from reality, I don't know how to respond.


.

Flag KindredSai June 12, 2009 5:33 AM EDT

You actually misquoted me in the first sentence and then chose to answer a question with a question.  The mandate divided the land into two regions to be controlled by Arabs and Jews.  It did not, in any way, create or design statehood for either side.  The Jews, however, created a state and declared as such.  The Arab side has not yet, 60+ years later.  Furthermore, you keep harping on the idea of Arab displacement as the sole purpose for the creation of a Jewish State.  Was some displacement a RESULT of the creation, absolutely.  That is why they were given their own piece of the pie, which by the way, they turned down.


Wrong, I answered your question with an answer. Regarding two regions, they were both designated to be States as proposed prior to 1947. As for displacement a result of the creation I too agree but go beyond that in saying it was Zionist plans as noted by the scholar Khalidi to expell as many Arabs as possible (the Jewish Agency denying as many Arabs as they could with Israeli citizenship was evident of that) and to eventually expand their existing State antagonsing a cycle of violence, 56% of the mandate wasn't enough for them.


 


Your response that a critic of a Palestinian state must be a supporter of Zionist Expansion is so far from reality, I don't know how to respond.


The fact that you have attempted to chosen to insult the fact rather to reply to it speaks volumes.


The fact is a critic of a Palestinian State, would rather Palestinians be expelled or put under Israeli citizenship. Both are in reality, serving Zionist purposes who believe Jews have a greater right to the Mandate area than Palestinians thus fulfilling encroachment.

Flag Ufaratzta June 12, 2009 8:47 AM EDT

Is peace possible? No, not in our lifetime. Will the Palestinians stop terrorism? Well, no. Will Israel give up? No. It is a fight to the end. So there you have it.

Flag Eat Cake June 12, 2009 9:03 AM EDT

 


Jun 12, 2009 -- 8:47AM, Ufaratzta wrote:


Is peace possible? No, not in our lifetime. Will the Palestinians stop terrorism? Well, no. Will Israel give up? No. It is a fight to the end. So there you have it.




Your pessimism puts you in a good position to be right.


Unless complete utopia comes to the region you can claim your clairvoyant vision.


 


I on the other hand believe that this complex issue is constantly changing and even though peace may not have been possible in the narrow window of Arafat and Ariel Sharon there are constant new developments and untried approaches to peace.

Flag habesor June 12, 2009 9:14 AM EDT

Is peace out of reach?


In my opinion the answer is no. But peace is also not certain. It all depends upon whether or not the Palestinians want a state more than they want to destroy the Jewish state. President Obama has put the USA government squarely behind the idea of two states for two peoples. Historically, the problem has been that though the Jewish people wanted a state and built one, the question of statehood for the Arab Palestinian people has been a miner secondary concern. If now the Palestinians see statehood as their primary goal, then there is a possibility for peace. If not, then the conflict will continue.


Habesor

Flag Ufaratzta June 12, 2009 11:02 AM EDT

I agree and disagree. The Palestinians certainly need to want a state for themselves more than they wish to destroy Israel. At the same time, what this demands of them is to also want a state for themselves upon a much smaller piece of land than what is 'historic Palestine,' which they believe is there's to begin with. So the demand is twofold and I do not fault them that the decision is very hard to make and very painful. Yet, the reasonable people out there are quite certain that the Palestinians have only one real choice that is both in their favor, albiet given the circumstances, and also life-affirming and that is to accept the state of Israel once and for all and to work on making a state in West Bank and Gaza. What terrorism shows, despite what the madman Fanon supposed in his book, which is essentially anarchistic, that the Palestinians, some perhaps more than others, are more willing to wreck war with Israel than they care about their lives, the lives of their families, and the prospects of their being a home for them. The only thing that would or should stop Israeli constructions of settlements is not rockets or terror but simply the acceptance of the state of Israel; once they do that, Israelis have no choice, but to evacuate from all the territories. If they continue to reject Israel, Israel will contine to reject Palestine and build settlements. This is the rule of the game; a stalemate that will not wither away, I am afraid, unless one really corageous Palestinian should stand up, with a really thick bullet proof vest and a million bodygaurds and declare to his people, "enough is enough." 

Flag LeahOne June 12, 2009 11:27 AM EDT

KS - How is it that you can continually speak of 'Palestinian refugees'  and evade any mention of the (GREATER NUMBERS) of refugees created by Arab nations ca 1947-49 *solely because they were Jews*?


If 'zionist expansion' is wrong - 'encroaching on an indiginous population' - then how can the actions of the many Arab nations in stripping their Jewish citizens of their possessions and property and ejecting them be ignored?

Flag LeahOne June 12, 2009 11:32 AM EDT

PS - Given the situation as described in my last post  I think the Aab nations who 'nationalized' the assets of their Jewish populations and didn't give them any compensation, should pay reparations.  Incidentally, it's been estimated that the area of land formerly owned by Jews and seized by such governments, amoounts to four TIMES the acreage of pre'67 Isael..... 


If Israel should give their 'illegally' gained land back - then so should the Arab states. 

Flag Ufaratzta June 12, 2009 12:00 PM EDT

Palestinians refugees should be given the choice, after a state for them has been established in West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as the capital whether they want to live in the new state or be integrated with the host Arab peoples they have been a part of since 1948.


The fact that many Middle Eastern Jews were expelled from Arab lands does not necesserily constitute a population exchange which can only be done by parties that are involved and which agree. Only the Israelis agree to this so far. Therefore, there is no point of comparing. Asking for compensations for the Jewish refugees is also baseless before the settlement with the Palestinians is made. What is crucial is the Palestinians figuring out a way to stop making their people think in extreme, fanatic terms, as possibly destroying Israel, and then working from there to create a state. The Palestinian refugees, largely due to moderate Palestinians' own desires, as well as Arafat, in engaging with Israelis and Americans during the Oslo and Taba years have been swept behind the more central issue of Palestinian terrorism and Palestinians state. In fact, Palestinian terrorism itself has swept this issue into oblivion because vile, extreme Palestinian terrorists made their borthers and sisters in shantytowns across the border be implicated as a "dangerous element" that cannot be allowed access into Israel.  

Flag SherriMunnerlyn June 22, 2009 10:41 PM EDT

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:

60 Minutes Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible. January 26, 2009 Video Link I think the answer is yes. When clearly it's not only the Palestinians that are working to effect terror and discord in the region. How is it that faith that any one god would approve the murder of women, children and men, on both sides, ever hope to effect peace in the end?! Is peace to be enjoyed when all of one's enemy are dead? Why can't people live and learn from one another? Glorify and enjoy the diversity that makes this world a living tapestry of unique differences that can serve to teach one another, as opposed to inspire one another to kill because there can be only one way to live a life?! I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey. It is said, blessed are the peace makers. And yet, can there ever be peace when it seems, for so many, war is ordained as sacred duty?



I do not believe peace is out of reach. As a Christian, I have come to equate peace and Christ as one and the same. If I was to stop believing peace was possible, stop believing in peace, stop seeking peace, I would have to give up my faith in Jesus and  my reason to live.


The problem is that on both sides there are still too many people who choose violence over peace, too many people choosing to hate, hurt, and kill one another, too many people who spend their time letting other's acts dictate their own acts, rather than letting God dictate their feelings and actions.  


On a positive note, there is in fact a strong nonviolence movement operating in Israel and Palestine, and there are Palestinians, Israelis, Internationals, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Atheists who are all a part of this movement. You don't hear a lot about this movement in the mainstream news here in the US, but it is a vibrant, and very much living and breathing movement filled with people who passionately believe in peace, who reject violence as the answer, and who keep hope alive in their hearts. You can read about this more on the CPT Website, the Sabeel website, Jews For Justice Website, Combatants For Peace website, Come And See website, Sharing The Land Of Canaan website, and many others. 


Sherri

Flag SherriMunnerlyn June 22, 2009 10:49 PM EDT

Here is an illustration of some of the obstacles to peace, acts of Israel involving ethnic cleansing in the Jordan Valley, as reported by a French peace activist/photographer, Anne Paq:  


"Israeli authorities this morning carried out a series of demolitions in the Wadi al Malih area in the northern Jordan Valley. The area is primarily inhabited by Bedouin families, which have lived in the area for a number of years. The area is close to several Israeli settlements, including the settlements of Sdemot Mehola, Rotem (Nahal) and Maskiyyot (Nahal).

As a result of today's demolitions 3 families, a total of 20 people, including 9 children and 3 elderly persons over 65, have been displaced. In addition, 12 animal shelters belonging to the 3 families and 2 other families were demolished."


 chroniquespalestine.blogspot.com/


 Sherri

Flag SherriMunnerlyn June 22, 2009 11:45 PM EDT

The peacemakers include Israeli Jews, who are even going to jail because of their peacemaking acts, in the "democratic" nation of  Israel: 


"Work for Justice, Go to Jail?"


Ezra Nawi may well go to jail July 1st for non-violently protecting the homes of Bedouin Palestinians in the South Hebron Hills from being demolished. 


This story was reported by Haaretz and is addressed in an Isareli peace blog.


jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com


Sherri 


 

Flag SherriMunnerlyn June 23, 2009 12:13 AM EDT

I just found myself reading a blog post about pacifism, from a blog I was directed to by an EMAIL from a CPT website. There are some interesting comments made in this article about peacemaking, I just found myself thinking about the words in the Christian Bible, the New Testament, about peacemakers, Blessed are the Peacemakers. Notice something, there are no words that say only believers are being referred to. What happens to a person when they engage in active peacemaking, when they engage in protests, in acts of nonviolent resistance?


Here are excerpts from an article addressing these questions:


"Pacifism rejects the use of violent means despite the fact that the tree of violence reaches through contract and contractor into the main streets of most of our communities.  The contradiction inherent in modern economy brings the production, ideological formation and general culture of violence inside our homes and work life.  At one time it may have been possible to be a wedge into the organized violent suppression of violence by simply refusing military service. For most of us that expression of pacifism, refusal to join the military, is no longer the only critical boundary for a life of peacemaking. However, in some countries, like Israel, Colombia and Iraq the decision not to participate in the military is still the flashpoint.  In systems where there is no longer a draft the decision by active duty soldiers to get out because of moral convictions  is often transforming and costly. 


There are three possible responses to violence to which we are connected in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cleveland, violent opposition, passivity, or militant nonviolence.  The active even militant nonviolence inherent in pacifism transforms life from static hum drum and rules, to dynamic engagement with the power of active living. In the Bible peacemakers (the Latin translation used the term pacifist) are called Blessed.   


To be Blessed according to Roman Catholic tradition is to be beatified and worthy of veneration.  Perhaps not everyone who does peacemaking wants to be beatified by the Roman Church or venerated.  However the root meaning of pacifism, peacemaking with all the release of energy that it implies, still holds.  Being pacifist is not a rigid formula for action.  Pacifism is the awakened conscience and the willingness to act on it sometimes alone, but preferably with some support.  The blessing is inherent in the action itself, and the surprise that follows."


peaceprobe.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/the-...


Sherri 

Flag stevenlmeyer June 25, 2009 9:15 PM EDT

Peace is impossible.

Let's cut to the quick. There are two issues on which neither side can compromise.

The first is what Palestinians call a "right of return." An Israeli government cannot accede to a "right of return." Note the use of "cannot" as opposed to "will not". Short of the use of overwhelming coercion no Israeli Government can accede to a "right of return" for Palestinians. Any government that even hinted it was thinking along those lines might last in office for all of three nanoseconds.

On the other hand it appears that no Palestinian leader can give up on a "right of return".

How can this circle be squared? Money, it seems, will not do the trick. Anyway, how do you bind future generations?

The second issue is the simple fact that the wider Muslim world is unlikely ever to accept the existence of a Jewish enclave in the heart of what Muslims regard as the heart of Dar ul Islam.

Please note that I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of Muslims and Jews in this regard. I am simply stating the position.

Given these irreconcilable differences I am at a loss to see how peace is even possible. The best that we can hope for is armed non-belligerence. But even that may be unachievable.

Flag habesor June 27, 2009 1:17 AM EDT

Is peace out of reach?


No. But it will not be achieved easily either. The solution to the conflict is fairly simple but getting there is a very complex process.


Habesor  

Flag stevenlmeyer June 27, 2009 8:51 AM EDT

Well Habesor,


How would you propose to resolve the issue of what Palestinians call a "right of return?"


Do you truly believe this is just some "bargaining chip" that the Palestinian leadership will give up on? Let me assure, it isn't.


And if you cannot resolve that, how can you have peace?


Even if the right of return issue could be resolved, do you think the wider Muslim world will ever accept the existence of a Jewish enclave in Dar-ul-Islam? If you do I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.


 


 


 


 


 


 

Flag habesor June 27, 2009 5:19 PM EDT

Steven, you wrote:


 "How would you propose to resolve the issue of what Palestinians call a "right of return?""


Whoever wants to return can return to the Palestinian state. There will be no "return" to Israel. Even Obama agrees with this position. A Palestinian insistence on a right of return is a deal breaker pure and simple. If the Palestinians remain adamant then we will have positive proof that they are not interested in peace. 


"Do you truly believe this is just some "bargaining chip" that the Palestinian leadership will give up on? Let me assure, it isn't."


I don't know if it is a bargaining chip but not giving up on it will prevent any peace agreement.


 "And if you cannot resolve that, how can you have peace?"


That's a good question and there are a few other good questions as well. As a part of the left (not too far left) peace advocates, I used to argue with right wing critics of the various peace plans by challenging them to come up with a plan of their own. The sad fact (and in my opinion it is extremely sad) is that our plans did not work either. I know what a mutually beneficial peace arrangement would look like. However getting there isn't half the fun but 99 percent of the problem.  


"Even if the right of return issue could be resolved, do you think the wider Muslim world will everaccept the existence of a Jewish enclave in Dar-ul-Islam?"


It has happened before. For instance the Muslims of India have worked out a theological position for not being the ruling power there. Unfortunately the rest of the Muslim world has gone in the opposite direction as far as Israel is concerned.


By the way, I don't smoke anything but I have a preference for Jack Daniels or Jim Beam.


Habesor

Flag stevenlmeyer June 27, 2009 7:26 PM EDT

Habesor wrote,

"…the Muslims of India have worked out a theological position for not being the ruling power there."

Muslims in India are a minority. Probably no more than 20% of the population. The Hindu majority is highly intolerant of Islam and some Indans are prepared to massacre to make their point. As so often happens, theology bowed to the inevitable.

But Jews are an almost infinitesimal minority in Dar-ul-Islam and Muslims are at least as willing to massacre Jews as Hindus are to massacre Muslims. I see no sign that the wider Ummah is willing to even contemplate a Jewish enclave in Dar-ul-Islam. I certainly do not think the views of an American president, even one called Barrack Hussein Obama, could persuade them otherwise.

I also see no sign that any Palestinian leader would consider giving up on a "right of return". I do not think a Palestinian leader could give up on that even if he wanted to. He'd be killed.

In short, the differences are too fundamental. All talk of peace is wishful thinking. This is a fight to the death.

Deep down, Habesor, I think you understand that. I think most Israelis understand it. The only difference between you and me is that I am prepared to admit to myself that I was wrong in ever thinking peace was possible. You have not yet reached that stage.


The thought of war to the death is horrible because the odds are that, in the long run, Israel will lose. But you do not plan to save a people by indulging in cloud cuckooland thinking. You achieve things by facing reality however unpleasant.


 


 

Flag habesor June 27, 2009 11:24 PM EDT

Steven,


We do not differ very much on our assessments of the current situation. Also my point about the muslims of India is that theology does change to accommodate reality. There are many differences in the objective situations of Hindu-Muslim relations and Jewish-Muslim relations but I think it is significant that the Muslim religious thinkers in India adapted what is a proof of the faith so that they could continue to believe in Islam even though the proof was lacking. It happens that Christianity and Judaism both went through the same process but very long ago.


As for peace and wars to the death; First, the current Israeli task is to live long and prosper in the absence of peace. Second, Israel must remain aware of what changes are happening on the other side so that real opportunities for peace are not missed. Third, Israel must learn from past experience. For instance, Natanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jews to have a state of our own here, is in my opinion one of the lessons of the Oslo Peace Process.


None of the above is a method for achieving peace but it presumes that in principle peace is not out of reach to the extent that this conflict must be fought to the death; though there are several outside parties (not you) who are pleased to use Jewish and Arab blood to grind their own axes and once in a while some of them post on these forums.


Habesor

Flag stevenlmeyer June 27, 2009 11:29 PM EDT

Habesor,


I hope you and I live long enough for me to be proved wrong. And you can interpret that any way you wish.


 


 

Flag shmuelgoldstein June 29, 2009 7:55 AM EDT

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:


I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey....



Israel is safer than many, if not most, locations in the US.


- This from a US expatriate, who lives in Israel and visits the US frequently.


You think it is not because of certain news stories. But remember, the news reports on the spicy stuff, not the boring stuff. It's not reality.

Flag KindredSai June 29, 2009 10:21 AM EDT

Israel is safer than many, if not most, locations in the US.


For who? Israeli Jews and Israeli-Arab citizens?


But what about Palestinians living under Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza?

Flag Messiahobama August 17, 2009 2:05 AM EDT

The Messiah Barack Obama will pressure all sides into a peace agreement.   Already, Israel agreed to stop some settlements, and the Muslims all like him.


The only thing stopping a peace is that the Messiah Obama is preoccupied with domestic matters in the US.  When he wraps that up, then he'll turn to the Mideast.  On an Easter Sunday, he will ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, and people will throw palms at his feet.


If the Republicans would just stop spreading lies and taking up Obama's time, then he'd have time to negotiate peace in the world.


Obama is the Messiah, come to bring peace to the world, to heal the sick.  If he doesn't succeed, it's only because of the devious Republicans, a vast rightwing conspiracy, and in particular Sarah Palin's fault.  She's to blame for everything.  If the economy doesn't improve, it's Sarah's fault.   She wields much too much power.   Obama could be rendered impotent with such a devious woman.   Obama is the Messiah, and Sarah is the Great Satan.


Her supporters quote Thomas Jefferson that "it's time to water the tree of liberty."  How unamerican, the words of nazis and violent subversives.  We need to crack down on these treasonous people spreading evil propaganda.  Tree of liberty indeed.

Flag Messiahobama August 17, 2009 2:09 AM EDT

May Messiah Barack Obama (pbuh) bring peace to the world.   It's so blasphemous that people oppose him.   Rachel Maddow knows Obama's opponents are unamerican, hateful nazis.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows our country is in peril if anyone dissents too strongly.  But treason aside,  it's blasphemous to say anything critical of Messiah Obama.

Flag Stardove August 17, 2009 2:29 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2009 -- 2:09AM, Messiahobama wrote:


May Messiah Barack Obama (pbuh) bring peace to the world.   It's so blasphemous that people oppose him.   Rachel Maddow knows Obama's opponents are unamerican, hateful nazis.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows our country is in peril if anyone dissents too strongly.  But treason aside,  it's blasphemous to say anything critical of Messiah Obama.




So are you yanking our chains? 


Or do you as a Muslim believe that God has appointed certain members of humankind to be the leaders of those who believe in God and practice God's religion. When God's prophet has taught the people the religion, he will then appoint a leader, in accordance with God's orders, to guide believers towards perfection. The Imamat, or belief in the divine guide is a fundamental belief in Shi'i Islam and is based on the concept that God would not leave humanity without access to divine guidance.


You do understand that President Obama has declared himself to be a Christian, don't you?

Flag theinterpreter August 23, 2009 4:49 PM EDT

First the Battle of Ar Mageddon must be fought against demon-possessed kings of the east and then there will be 1000 years fo peace. I believe the Battle of Ar Mageddon began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry.

Flag Roodog August 23, 2009 11:14 PM EDT

Aug 23, 2009 -- 4:49PM, theinterpreter wrote:


First the Battle of Ar Mageddon must be fought against demon-possessed kings of the east and then there will be 1000 years fo peace. I believe the Battle of Ar Mageddon began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry.




That may happen, Intepreter, but I hope not in my lifetime.


 Besides, it's been more than seven years since 9-11

Flag Stardove August 24, 2009 2:02 AM EDT

I am so grateful I found the lid on the religious box I was raised in and had the good sense to get out of that box.


Some of Mankind may be pushing for "the end", but I don't believe that is Creator's plan.


I surely hope Creator win this battle.  Innocent


 

Flag Stardove August 24, 2009 2:02 AM EDT

I am so grateful I found the lid on the religious box I was raised in and had the good sense to get out of that box.


Mankind may be pushing for "the end", but I don't believe that is Creator's plan.


 

Flag theinterpreter September 1, 2009 4:54 PM EDT

First the Battle of Ar Mageddon must come. Then there will be piece for a thousand years.

Flag theinterpreter September 1, 2009 5:02 PM EDT

make that peace

Flag habesor September 2, 2009 12:46 AM EDT

Shmuel wrote:



"Israel is safer than many, if not most, locations in the US."


To which Kindredsai replied:


For who? Israeli Jews and Israeli-Arab citizens?


But what about Palestinians living under Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza?


 


I don't know about the situation for Arabs in the USA. There are a lot of complaints but I suspect that they are exaggerations. However, Palestinians living under Israeli occupation are far safer than Palestinians living under the occupation of the Tunisians, oops, I mean under the PLO and are safer than those living under Hamas rule in the Gaza strip and are by a very wide margin safer than Palestinians living in Lebanon, Iraq or Kuwait.


Habesor


Flag KindredSai September 2, 2009 6:51 PM EDT

Sep 2, 2009 -- 12:46AM, habesor wrote:


Shmuel wrote:


 


"Israel is safer than many, if not most, locations in the US."


To which Kindredsai replied:


For who? Israeli Jews and Israeli-Arab citizens?


But what about Palestinians living under Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza?


 


I don't know about the situation for Arabs in the USA. There are a lot of complaints but I suspect that they are exaggerations. However, Palestinians living under Israeli occupation are far safer than Palestinians living under the occupation of the Tunisians, oops, I mean under the PLO and are safer than those living under Hamas rule in the Gaza strip and are by a very wide margin safer than Palestinians living in Lebanon, Iraq or Kuwait.


Habesor


 




 


This is a very fallacious argument with intention of distracting us from the actual Israeli occupation, one could argue for example Palestinians would not be living under Tunisian, PLO and Hamas occupation were it not for Israel.


 

Flag habesor September 3, 2009 12:58 AM EDT

Kindredsai, you wrote:


"This is a very fallacious argument with intention of distracting us from the actual Israeli occupation, one could argue for example Palestinians would not be living under Tunisian, PLO and Hamas occupation were it not for Israel."


Were it not for Israel the Palestinians would be living under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. In neither case did those occupations allow the Palestinians more rights than the Israeli occupation and in fact allowed for significantly less rights. Indeed, if we examine the score card, the Jordanian army has killed far more Palestinians than the Israeli army or for that matter any other army, save for the Palestinians themselves, who seem to have won the prize when it comes to killing other Palestinians.


Habesor


PS - But I know that we are supposed to be focused exclusively on Israel. But then again, I think that the welfare of the Palestinians is important. But that is only a value judgement on my part. 


Flag Lighting September 12, 2009 11:16 AM EDT

This is a very sad situation and it horrible what is happening in the middle east, there are many people that would go visit the middle east if it was a safe country.  People are courious about other people and places.  If the world was at peace and there was no war, good trade agreements between all and freedom for all people, men and woman and all races and religious freedom.  That would be wonderful.  But to fight because you are not the same kind.  Is wrong.  I wish and pray that there would be peace among all people. 

Flag KindredSai September 12, 2009 5:21 PM EDT

Sep 3, 2009 -- 12:58AM, habesor wrote:


Kindredsai, you wrote:


"This is a very fallacious argument with intention of distracting us from the actual Israeli occupation, one could argue for example Palestinians would not be living under Tunisian, PLO and Hamas occupation were it not for Israel."


Were it not for Israel the Palestinians would be living under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. In neither case did those occupations allow the Palestinians more rights than the Israeli occupation and in fact allowed for significantly less rights. Indeed, if we examine the score card, the Jordanian army has killed far more Palestinians than the Israeli army or for that matter any other army, save for the Palestinians themselves, who seem to have won the prize when it comes to killing other Palestinians.


Habesor


PS - But I know that we are supposed to be focused exclusively on Israel. But then again, I think that the welfare of the Palestinians is important. But that is only a value judgement on my part. 





 


 I would firstly like to point out that Israel's creation has created a refugee crisis as well as putting Palestinians under occupation, being under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation is beside the point. The reality is no occupation is good regardless of which offers the best rights.


There is no evidence to show that Palestinians for the past 60 years have been killed by more Jordanian and fellow Palestinians than Israel. If you have this documented evidence show me.


As I understand regarding deaths in territories, Israel has caused more Palestinian civilians more than any foreign entity.


Zionism and Islamism are brothers from a mother of aggression.



Flag Mubzxay September 13, 2009 9:44 PM EDT

Firstly... Peace is ALWAYS pssibe...(and not just the, "rest in..." variety)


Secondly, i would love to go to Tel Aviv, have to persuade my wife to have a much-delayed honeymoon there... (Going to Tel Aviv would have the added advantage of me not being allowed to go to my in-law's country (figure that out yourself)


 


There used to be go to Is-ra-ell TV adverts when i was younger...


 


Sorry, but just to re-iterate... Peace is ALWAYS possible, and (nearly) ALWAYS prefereable


 


(Imagine if there was an Olympic Games In Jerusalem...or the FIFA World cup... or a continental Football championship (Israel's lucky enough to get to pick from two! So not fair!) But without peace...it's not going to happen)

Flag habesor September 14, 2009 3:48 AM EDT

Kindredsai, you wrote:



"I would firstly like to point out that Israel's creation has created a refugee crisis as well as putting Palestinians under occupation, being under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation is beside the point. The reality is no occupation is good regardless of which offers the best rights."


Israel's creation did not create the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arab refusal to compromise and accept Israel's creation along side an Arab Palestinian state and the Arab resort to armed warfare to attack Israel created the Palestinian refugee problem. The perpetuation of that problem was a partnership between the United Nations and the Arab Middle Eastern states which refused to make peace with Israel as well as refused to let the Palestinian Arabs create their own state. Hence, Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territory is anything but beside the point.


There is no evidence to show that Palestinians for the past 60 years have been killed by more Jordanian and fellow Palestinians than Israel. If you have this documented evidence show me.


There is plenty of evidence, its just that you refuse to see it. Read almost anything about Black September in Jordan or the War of the Camps in Lebanon and you will see numbers of dead Palestinians at the hands of their Arab brothers higher than anything Israel has even been accused of. As for Palestinians killing Palestinians, well it doesn't make headlines in the western press but here is just one example:




hmicahhalpern.com/archives/2006/04/palest...


Habesor




Flag Stardove September 14, 2009 10:44 AM EDT

Habesor, can you edit you last link...it is not working.  If B'net wouldn't shorten them things would be a lot better.  IMO. Sealed

Flag habesor September 14, 2009 12:21 PM EDT

I used the Tiny URL option and got the following:


 


tinyurl.com/kvud4l


 


I hope that works.


Habesor

Flag KindredSai September 14, 2009 6:36 PM EDT

Sep 14, 2009 -- 3:48AM, habesor wrote:


 


1) Israel's creation did not create the Palestinian refugee problem. The Arab refusal to compromise and accept Israel's creation along side an Arab Palestinian state and the Arab resort to armed warfare to attack Israel created the Palestinian refugee problem. The perpetuation of that problem was a partnership between the United Nations and the Arab Middle Eastern states which refused to make peace with Israel as well as refused to let the Palestinian Arabs create their own state. Hence, Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territory is anything but beside the point.




 2) There is plenty of evidence, its just that you refuse to see it. Read almost anything about Black September in Jordan or the War of the Camps in Lebanon and you will see numbers of dead Palestinians at the hands of their Arab brothers higher than anything Israel has even been accused of. As for Palestinians killing Palestinians, well it doesn't make headlines in the western press but here is just one example:


 



hmicahhalpern.com/archives/2006/04/palest...


Habesor



 


 




 


1) You are forgetting that 80% of Arabs who were left within the newly created  State of Israel were either expelled or exterminated by Jewish forces, this contributed towards the decision for Middle Eastern States to go to war with Israel. Also I believe that the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territories were imperative to prevent Israel acquiring more Palestinian land.


It was the never the intention for the West Bank to be be a part of a neighbouring Arab State rather part of the Jewish State as aspired by Jewish leaders.


You are simply sweeping away the fact, were it not for Israel there would be no Palestinian refugees.


2) I am talking about designated Palestinian territory murders which have for the most part been caused by Israel, you are also denying the fact that Israel has in essence created a climate for refugees to be poured into States such as Lebanon which has led to their deaths i.e. Sabra and Shatila.


As for your mere sources, you can try and distract us from IDF murders all you want, though you have a cited examples of Palestinians V Palestinians. It doesn't really take the attention off Israel which has created an unstable political climate in the Levant region.

Flag Magical September 17, 2009 3:21 AM EDT

I believe that when the Palestinians were given the Gaza Strip for free, many were refugees from Beirut, Lebanon where they were unwelcome by the Hezbollah or the Iranian/Russian influence. However Israel put their differences aside and paid plenty for that housing they blew up. But America spent 4 billion of our Tax dollars as well to help them! Now who should do what? I was raised to appreciate everything no matter what or who. For no one owes us anything! After all the crap the Israeli has put up with to make that a Democratic Society and take in many refugees as well as the Palestinians, IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THEM! Recently 1000 East Indians that were Hindi but Jewish were persecuted in India and allowed to migrate to Israel and take refuge, many more have been welcome over the years and still today. The Gay People who wish to be married and live in peace are also welcome in Israel. Only an anti-semite, or a Jew hater thinks that Israel is the aggressor. From Chicago, Illinois many years ago there was a pilgimage of Black Hebrews that seeked refuge to Israel and they got it. Palestinians are very selfish, and Islamic Religion is as well. There is no way on earth that there is any God that is real, that would seek the death of any people. Especially when he said Thou shalt not Kill! Who are these selfish people that are trying to Lord over us with this false God of theirs! Insane is the best bet on that subject! Any fanatic that thinks that they have the right to kill any people in the name of God is a Criminal. Seems to me we forget that the Jew nor the Israeli, destroyed the WTC, and that there has never been an Israeli strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up restaurants, nor Temples, or Churches! How soon we forget? And if Palestinians wish to have a state then cough up the money, why doesn't the Saudi King help them out? ha ha Because they are like the Irish were to the British they were expendable, so they keep them there to keep their foot in the door for when they want to do damage and any moron knows that, for if they are so great and Islamic Brotherhood, then why doesn't their Islamic Bros help them rebuild their housing that they are responsible for destroying all by themselves! Just another Ghetto, that is whining about oppression and all we do is appease them in America, I hope Israel doen't anymore!

Flag shmuelgoldstein September 21, 2009 5:25 AM EDT

Whatever happened to people learning basic compositional skills?


Do we all live in an age of "text-speak"?  Did we learn how to write on Facebook and Twitter?

Flag KindredSai September 27, 2009 11:35 AM EDT

Sep 21, 2009 -- 5:25AM, shmuelgoldstein wrote:


Whatever happened to people learning basic compositional skills?


Do we all live in an age of "text-speak"?  Did we learn how to write on Facebook and Twitter?




Text speak has always existed Shmuel, as you know Arabic and Hebrew idioms ommit vowels. It seems like the English language is now following these rules with it's youth.

Flag Agnostic October 16, 2009 1:50 PM EDT

Palestinian and Israeli leaders turned down Obama's invitation to have beer together at the White House, with Biden and Gates.    Obama's foreign policy is to let people do whatever they want, but make big campaign speeches to sound like he's doing something.  Obama had the opportunity to give up the missile shield over Poland in return for Russia's helping sanction Iran.  But Obama was too weak to do anything, except capitulate without anything in return.


Israel plans to bomb Iran, if no sactions are in place by Christmas.  Obama blew his chance to get sanctions.   Obama knew all about Iran's "undisclosed" nuclear facilities and did nothing, because it would interfere with his fake UN charade and vote to end nuclear weapons.  Then Iran openly disclosed what Obama already knew, so Obama pretended to be upset, in Pittsburg.


The world is just photo op for Obama, a place to make campaign speeches, and watch crowds adore him, while doing nothing to stop real nuclear weapons.   Obama will do nothing.  Iran will get nuclear weapons, but Israel will bomb Iran to stop it.  Russia will come to Iran's aid.  Obama will, as usual, do nothing, except give another campaign like speech, urging peace and the end of nuclear weapons.    Obama is out of his league.  He's more interested in feeding his own ego than doing anything constructive.   Peace chances in the mideast ended when we elected Obama president.

Flag Roodog October 16, 2009 2:55 PM EDT

Oct 16, 2009 -- 1:50PM, Agnostic wrote:


Palestinian and Israeli leaders turned down Obama's invitation to have beer together at the White House, with Biden and Gates.    Obama's foreign policy is to let people do whatever they want, but make big campaign speeches to sound like he's doing something.  Obama had the opportunity to give up the missile shield over Poland in return for Russia's helping sanction Iran.  But Obama was too weak to do anything, except capitulate without anything in return.


Israel plans to bomb Iran, if no sactions are in place by Christmas.  Obama blew his chance to get sanctions.   Obama knew all about Iran's "undisclosed" nuclear facilities and did nothing, because it would interfere with his fake UN charade and vote to end nuclear weapons.  Then Iran openly disclosed what Obama already knew, so Obama pretended to be upset, in Pittsburg.


The world is just photo op for Obama, a place to make campaign speeches, and watch crowds adore him, while doing nothing to stop real nuclear weapons.   Obama will do nothing.  Iran will get nuclear weapons, but Israel will bomb Iran to stop it.  Russia will come to Iran's aid.  Obama will, as usual, do nothing, except give another campaign like speech, urging peace and the end of nuclear weapons.    Obama is out of his league.  He's more interested in feeding his own ego than doing anything constructive.   Peace chances in the mideast ended when we elected Obama president.





Should we really be surprised?


Even without the Bible we knew that it would come to this.

Flag Agnostic October 23, 2009 7:41 PM EDT

Obama has the Final Solution.  As Obama indicated during his campaign, he's ready to talk to Iran's leaders.   Iran plans to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear weapons.  Obama knew Iran had undiscosed nuclear facilities, and did nothing, until Iran was so bolden as to talk about them.   Then Obama still waited until he did his phony UN vote on abolishing nuclear weapons. To do that he opposed France and took Iran off the UN agenda.  Then he waited until Pittsburg and did a good acting job of pretending to be upset at Iran.    Obama's underlying plan is to let Iran get nuclear weapons, let Iran destroy Israel, and then peace will come, at least between Israel and Palestine, as they will never have a war again, without an Israel.    The Arabs will go back to fighting among themselves, and peace will be as ellusive as ever.  Only this time, the Nazis will have won, with Obama's help. Remember, Obama was a member of an antisemitic church in Chicago for 20 years, and only disowned the antisemitic Rev. Wright, when he became a political liability.  Obama supports Palestinian terrorists.    Israel had a chance to survive, until we elected Barack Hussein Obama, the closet Moslem.  As the NYT reported, Obama sang the Islamic "Call to Prayer" in perfect Arabic, the "sweetest sound" Obama has heard.   The Trinity Church of Christ did not require christianity as a belief system for membership.  Moslems were very welcome, moslems like Obama.

Flag Roodog October 23, 2009 11:19 PM EDT

Oct 23, 2009 -- 7:41PM, Agnostic wrote:


Obama has the Final Solution.  As Obama indicated during his campaign, he's ready to talk to Iran's leaders.   Iran plans to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear weapons.  Obama knew Iran had undiscosed nuclear facilities, and did nothing, until Iran was so bolden as to talk about them.   Then Obama still waited until he did his phony UN vote on abolishing nuclear weapons. To do that he opposed France and took Iran off the UN agenda.  Then he waited until Pittsburg and did a good acting job of pretending to be upset at Iran.    Obama's underlying plan is to let Iran get nuclear weapons, let Iran destroy Israel, and then peace will come, at least between Israel and Palestine, as they will never have a war again, without an Israel.    The Arabs will go back to fighting among themselves, and peace will be as ellusive as ever.  Only this time, the Nazis will have won, with Obama's help. Remember, Obama was a member of an antisemitic church in Chicago for 20 years, and only disowned the antisemitic Rev. Wright, when he became a political liability.  Obama supports Palestinian terrorists.    Israel had a chance to survive, until we elected Barack Hussein Obama, the closet Moslem.  As the NYT reported, Obama sang the Islamic "Call to Prayer" in perfect Arabic, the "sweetest sound" Obama has heard.   The Trinity Church of Christ did not require christianity as a belief system for membership.  Moslems were very welcome, moslems like Obama.





You are either reading News Watch and listening to Glenn Beck or you are pulling our leg!

Flag habesor October 24, 2009 1:10 AM EDT

Kindredsai, you wrote:


 



"1) You are forgetting that 80% of Arabs who were left within the newly created  State of Israel were either expelled or exterminated by Jewish forces, this contributed towards the decision for Middle Eastern States to go to war with Israel."


The Arab states had decided and announced that they were going to war against the establishment of a Jewish state long before the state was actually established and before there was even one Arab refugee. They certainly did not go to war because of the refugees and in fact the whole refugee question became an issue only after the war was mostly over.


"Also I believe that the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territories were imperative to prevent Israel acquiring more Palestinian land.


It was the never the intention for the West Bank to be be a part of a neighbouring Arab State rather part of the Jewish State as aspired by Jewish leaders."


Sai, now you are making excuses for the Jordanian and Egyptian leadership. Jordan asked for and received  permission from the British government to invade, occupy and annex the West Bank to the territory of Jordan before the State of Israel was established. Jordanian occupation was imperative not to prevent Israel from occupying that territory but for the expansion of Abdullah's little kingdom and to prevent his enemy, the Mufti of Jerusalem from gaining power by becoming the leader of an independent Arab state. The Egyptian cabinet had decided not to go to war but was over ruled by King Faruk when he found out that his hated enemy, Abdullah planned to invade and annex territory, including Jerusalem, to his kingdom. The Egyptians seized war supplies heading for Jordan and while one axis of their advance into the territory was directed towards Tel Aviv, a second axis was directed towards Jerusalem primarily to head off the Jordanian army's bid to capture that city.


So right from the start it was the intention of one Arab state to make the West Bank part of its territory. 


"You are simply sweeping away the fact, were it not for Israel there would be no Palestinian refugees."


You are simply sweeping away the fact that the goals of the Arab states to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state by force and in the case of some of them (including Syria, by the way) of territorial expansionism at the expense of the creation of any Arab Palestinian state, there would have been no Arab refugees. 




"2) I am talking about designated Palestinian territory murders which have for the most part been caused by Israelyou are also denying the fact that Israel has in essence created a climate for refugees to be poured into States such as Lebanon which has led to their deaths i.e. Sabra and Shatila."


Which massacre at Sabra and Shatila are you talking about; the one carried out by Christian Lebanese troops during the first Israel-Lebanese war or the far larger massacre carried out by Syrian sponsored and supported Hizbollah forces during the War of the Camps?


"As for your mere sources, you can try and distract us from IDF murders all you want, though you have a cited examples of Palestinians V Palestinians. It doesn't really take the attention off Israel which has created an unstable political climate in the Levant region."


That's right, Kindredsai, don't let mere facts disturb the false picture of events and Middle Eastern political dynamics in which you faithfully believe.


Habesor


Flag rocketjsquirell October 24, 2009 1:24 AM EDT
Habesor

I was going to say hi to a fellow insomniac, but then I remembered it is actually day time in Israel.

I always find it interesting that there are posters on this board who have absolutely no concern for the facts surrounding the re-establishment of the State of Israel or the intentions or actions of the Arab powers before and after the re-establishment of Israel. I am also find it interesting that they choose to ignore any information brought to them by someone actually living in Israel about what is occuring and has occured in Israel.

Oh well, maybe that is what is keeping me up nights.  :-)
Flag habesor October 24, 2009 2:03 AM EDT

Rocket,


There is a lot of room for interpretation of events when looking at history. In fact, it is difficult to analyze any historical event without distorting it in some way. Such distortions may come from methods of analysis, the application of certain historical theories or the political, religious or other beliefs of the person doing the analysis.


Here in Israel it was several decades before we took a hard critical look at our own history. This really didn't become main-stream until the so-called "new historians" began to take part in the debate. Unfortunately, the Arabs have not produced anything similar, though I think that Edward Said, towards the end of his life, showed the beginnings of a reappraisal of modern Arab history. 


Most Arab history is written to justify the political position of the leadership at the time the history was written. I learn a lot by going back to the archives and digging up  articles and books written by Arabs or pro-Arab westerners from every decade of the twentieth century. For instance, I once came across an anti-Zionist article in the Atlantic Monthly (I think) which was written in the early 1920's and proclaimed that there was no archeological evidence that a Jewish Temple had existed in Jerusalem and that this was simply a religious myth of which the Zionists had taken advantage. This kind of intellectual position fit very nicely within the context of a modernism which took delight in denying the historical validity of the entire Jewish bible.  This article predated most of the archeological work that has since revealed quite clearly the existence of the Temple, but the Arab position on this issue was abandoned a little while after the article was written and revived only by Palestinian nationalism in the last decade of the twentieth century as part of the attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel and legitimize a Palestinian Arab state.


Habesor  

Flag Cohenba November 8, 2009 4:43 AM EST

To give you an idea if peace is out of reach, visit


www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp...


to see the presentation slides from the Gold vs. Goldstone debate at Brandeis University.


 


Also see the footage at jcpa.org

Flag Brianp January 5, 2010 9:04 AM EST

Do you want to know who wants peace  visit the website of an Israeli who takes rockets and turns them into roses.


www.rocketsintoroses.com

Flag Agnostic May 31, 2010 8:20 PM EDT

We now know the real reason Obama wants to end nuclear weapons.  He doesn't care about disarming Iran or North Korea. He wants to disarm Israel.


If Jews had known Obama's real attitudes towards Israel, Obama would have lost the election. Instead he fooled Florida, New York and the entire American Jewish community.


Obama is a fake.  A dangerous fake.   When the next holocaust happens, with Iran's nuclear bombs landing in Israel, we can all thank Barack Hussein Obama. 

Flag Mlyons619 May 31, 2010 9:23 PM EDT

That really sounds awful dramatic, but I just don't see that happening. 


Nonetheless, it does not appear there will ever be any consensus for peace in the Mideast - not with fanatics on both sides out to sabotage any hopeful initiative that comes up.

Flag Heidi2027 May 31, 2010 10:29 PM EDT

Peace is not the objective of the Palestinians.  They are merely the catalyst -- a means to an end.


"We shall oppose the establishment of this state to the last member of  the Palestinian people, for if ever such a state is established it will  spell the end of the whole Palestinian cause [the obliteration of  Israel]."


- Yasser Arafat

Flag Mlyons619 May 31, 2010 11:34 PM EDT

Arafat is dead and buried.


Seems the Hamas are carrying on his legacy tho...

Flag Jcpa-jerusalemcenter September 16, 2010 6:10 AM EDT

In order to assess the situation, a few principles must be made clear:


Israel is unambiguously the nation-state of the Jewish people.  Furthermore, Palestinian national identity would not have developed without Zionism: tiny.cc/smzq0


The PLO platform, as reaffirmed in the Fatah Congress in August 2009, states that their struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated. As a logical corollary, they refuse to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.  One cannot expect a plausible, peaceful solution in the foreseeable future unless the PLO leadership changes its mind, heart, and writings: tiny.cc/8amia


 

Flag CharikIeia September 16, 2010 10:23 AM EDT

I wonder if we shouldn't invite some professional Hamas and.or Fatah op-ed services to post here as well.


What do you think, Jcpa?

Flag rocketjsquirell September 16, 2010 5:18 PM EDT

Chari


They already do. They just do not identify themselves as such. 


 

Flag theinterpreter November 15, 2010 6:57 PM EST

Yes, peace in our time is a pipedream. Hamas and Al Qaida are both part of the 7th head of the beast which is hell bent on starting the Battle of Ar Mageddon. The Euphrates was dry on 9/11 when the first shot was fired.

Flag Mlyons619 November 16, 2010 1:54 AM EST

Not going to debate over Bible prophecy, particularly since this is a multifaith forum.

Flag IamJoseph December 19, 2010 5:04 AM EST

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:

60 Minutes Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.




 


Firstly, its not a 2-state:


 


"IT WILL BE A HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS - AND ONE FOR THE ARABS" - A cigar chomping Churchill when Jordan was created in 1948.


 


The second factor is, Briton's corruption of the Balfour and its creation of Jordan, its description of calling the carve off of 80% of a tiny land as a 'COMPROMISE' was both immoral and illegal. It may also come under a genocidal aspiration. It remains illegal because this deed was perpetrated under extreme duress when the Jews were totally helpless following W.W.II. It is immoral because 22 ficticious new Islamic states were created, which never existed 100 years ago, in secret, without the world's nations voting [unlike with Israel] - in sizes upto 2.2 M Sq Kms each. Israel is 220K Sq Miles.


Why create Jordan on the only miniscule land allocated for the Jews? Why transfer the name Palestinean onto those hell bent on another genocide - when it was Europe who applied this name on the Jewish homeland of Judea [not any Islamic or Arab land]? Why call a 3-state as a 2-state? Should one study rocket science to see what these deeds are pointing to? These don't appear as concern for any Muslim Palestineans - they seem more excited over a pet hate. Every cell in every Christian knows Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 history - despite being a people most dispersed from their land. Now the one who displaced and then denied them return are the accuser - but this is still not a genocidal aspiration!? Wow! At least the Nazis were honest about it. 


The above are the only factors in the preamble: nothing to do with Jews, but only applicable to Christians and Muslims - their deeds - their blatant and impudent denials. The so-called neo Palestineans are the least effected refugees in Geo-History, with more options and facilities than any other peoples anywhere else. It seems one cannot really talk with Christians and Muslims any more. But I bet if Jesus was to confront today's Christians, they would not be able to climb Mount Salvation even by their nails: the baggage is greater than the mount, and you have straight jacketed Jesus by a host of post-W.W.II crimes.


Aside from anything Jewish, Israel, the Hebrew bible - Christians are among the best humans in the world.

Flag IamJoseph December 19, 2010 5:22 AM EST

Sep 16, 2010 -- 10:23AM, CharikIeia wrote:


I wonder if we shouldn't invite some professional Hamas and.or Fatah op-ed services to post here as well.


What do you think, Jcpa?




 


Good if you first discuss the elimination of Christians from the Middle-east, then get onto Israel. Israel is not their only target, and you are the big guys, controling 4 of 5 UN Security Council votes, able to write blank cheques and any anti-Israel Resolutions to suit on UN letterheads. But this is least about Israel. There is only a clear belief today there is none to judge the deeds of Christians and Muslims. This is an error: Eurostan is happening, using the same weapons planned for Israel: Islamisation overwhelming till there is none.


 


Get the Coptics and Lebanese Christians, who predate Islam, to get back control of their land - then turn cheek to Israel. Or why not think of restoring the Balfour, re-examing the terror regimes created by Britain - and initiating a Nuremberg II Trial? Because:


FIRST THE SATURDAY PEOPLE - THEN THE SUNDAY PEOPLE.

Flag Jcpa-jerusalemcenter June 21, 2011 8:00 AM EDT


"Land Swaps" and the 1967 Lines 



Dore Gold - The Weekly Standard 


June 20, 2011 


 


When President Barack Obama first made his controversial reference to the  1967 lines as the basis for future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on  May 19, 2011, he introduced one main caveat that stuck out: the idea  that there would be "mutually agreed swaps" of land between the two  sides. He added that both sides were entitled to "secure and recognized  borders." But the inclusion of land swaps also raised many questions.


Several months after Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 Six Day War, the U.N. Security Council defined the  territorial terms of a future peace settlement in Resolution 242, which  over the decades became the cornerstone for all Arab-Israeli diplomacy.  At the time, the Soviets had tried to brand Israel as the aggressor in  the war and force on it a full withdrawal, but Resolution 242 made clear  that Israel was not expected to withdraw from all the territories that  came into its possession, meaning that Israel was not required to  withdraw from 100 percent of the West Bank. 


Given this background, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear in his  last Knesset address in October 1995 that Israel would never withdraw to  the 1967 lines. He stressed that Israel would have to retain control of  the Jordan Valley, the great eastern, geographic barrier which provided  for its security for decades since the Six Day War. He didn't say a  word about land swaps. For neither Resolution 242 nor any subsequent  signed agreements with the Palestinians stipulated that Israel would  have to pay for any West Bank land it would retain by handing over its  own sovereign land in exchange.


So where did the idea of land swaps come from? During the mid-1990s  there were multiple backchannel efforts to see if it was possible to  reach a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The  Palestinians argued that when Israel signed a peace agreement with  Egypt, it agreed to withdraw from 100 percent of the Sinai Peninsula. So  they asked how could PLO chairman Yasser Arafat be given less than what  Egyptian president Anwar Sadat received.


As a result, Israeli academics involved in these backchannel talks  accepted the principle that the Palestinians would obtain 100 percent of  the territory, just like the Egyptians, despite the language of  Resolution 242, and they proposed giving Israeli land to the  Palestinians as compensation for any West Bank land retained by Israel.  This idea appeared in the 1995 Beilin-Abu Mazen paper, which was neither  signed nor embraced by the Israeli or the Palestinian leaderships.  Indeed, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) subsequently denied in May 1999 that  any agreement of this sort existed.


There is a huge difference between Egypt and the Palestinians. Egypt was  the first Arab state to make peace, and in recognition of that fact,  Prime Minister Menachem Begin gave Sadat all of Sinai. Moreover, the  Israeli-Egyptian border had been a recognized international boundary  since the time of the Ottoman Empire. The pre-1967 Israeli boundary with  the West Bank was not a real international boundary; it was only an  armistice line demarcating where Arab armies had been stopped when they  invaded the nascent state of Israel in 1948. 


In July 2000 at the Camp David Summit, the Clinton administration raised  the land swap idea that had been proposed by Israeli academics, but  neither Camp David nor the subsequent negotiating effort at Taba  succeeded. Israel's foreign minister at the time, Shlomo Ben-Ami,  admitted in an interview inHaaretz on September 14, 2001: "I'm  not sure that the whole idea of a land swap is feasible." In short, when  the idea was actually tested in high-stakes negotiations, the land swap  idea proved to be far more difficult to implement as the basis for a  final agreement.


After the collapse of the Camp David talks, President Clinton tried to  summarize Israeli and Palestinian positions and put forward a  U.S. proposal that still featured the land swap. But to his credit,  Clinton also stipulated: "These are my ideas. If they are not accepted,  they are off the table, they go with me when I leave office." The  Clinton team informed the incoming Bush administration about this point.  Notably, land swaps were not part of the 2003 Roadmap for Peace or in  the April 14, 2004 letter from President Bush to Prime Minister Ariel  Sharon.


It was Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who resurrected the land swap idea in  2008 as part of newly proposed Israeli concessions that went even  further than Israel's positions at Camp David and Taba. It came up in  these years in other Israeli-Palestinian contacts, as well. But Mahmoud  Abbas was only willing to talk about a land swap based on 1.9 percent of  the territory, which related to the size of the areas of Jewish  settlement, but which did not even touch on Israel's security needs. So  the land swap idea still proved to be unworkable.


Writing in Haaretz on May 29, 2011, Prof. Gideon Biger, from  Tel Aviv University's department of geography, warned that Israel cannot  agree to a land swap greater than the equivalent of 2.5 percent of the  territories since Israel does not have vast areas of empty land which  can be transferred. Any land swap of greater size would involve areas of  vital Israeli civilian and military infrastructure.


Furthermore, in the summaries of the past negotiations with Prime  Minister Olmert, the Palestinians noted that they would be demanding  land swaps of "comparable value" - meaning, they would not accept some  remote sand dunes in exchange for high quality land near the center of  Israel. In short, given the limitations on the quantity and quality of  territory that Israel could conceivably offer, the land swap idea was  emerging as impractical.


In Jerusalem,  the old pre-1967 armistice line placed the Western Wall, the Mount of  Olives, and the Old City as a whole on the Arab side of the border. From  1948 to 1967, Jews were denied access to their holy sites; some 55  synagogues and study halls were systematically destroyed, while the Old  City was ethnically cleansed of all its Jewish residents. If land swaps  have to be "mutually agreed" does that give the Palestinians a veto over  Israeli claims beyond the 1967 line in the Old City, like the Western  Wall? 


The land swap question points to a deeper dilemma in U.S.-Israel  relations. What is the standing of ideas from failed negotiations in the  past that appear in the diplomatic record? President Obama told AIPAC  on May 22 that the 1967 lines with land swaps "has long been the basis  for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S.  administrations." Just because an idea was discussed in the past, does  that make it part of the diplomatic agenda in the future, even if the  idea was never part of any legally binding, signed agreements?


In October 1986, President Ronald Reagan met with Soviet leader Mikhail  Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, and made a radical proposal that both  superpowers eliminate all of their ballistic missiles, in order to focus  their energies on developing missile defenses alone. The idea didn't  work, Reagan's proposal was not accepted, and the arms control  negotiations took a totally different direction. But what if today  Russian president Dmitry Medvedev asked President Obama to implement  Reagan's proposals? Would the U.S. have any obligation to diplomatic  ideas that did not lead to a finalized treaty?


Fortunately, there are other points in President Obama's recent remarks  about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that can take the parties away  from the 1967 lines and assuage the Israeli side. At AIPAC, the  president spoke about "the new demographic realities on the ground"  which appears to take into account the large settlement blocs that  Israel will eventually incorporate. Using the language of Resolution  242, Obama referred to "secure and recognized borders," and importantly  added: "Israel must be able to defend itself-by itself-against any  threat."


However, for Israelis, mentioning the 1967 lines without these  qualifications brings back memories of an Israel that was 8 miles wide,  and a time when its vulnerability turned it into a repeated target of   hegemonial powers of the Middle East, that made its destruction their  principle cause. Sure, Israel won the Six Day War from the 1967 lines,  but it had to resort to a preemptive strike as four armies converged on  its borders. No Israeli would like to live with such a short fuse again.  The alternative to the 1967 lines are defensible borders, which must  emerge if a viable peace is to be reached.


Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 

Flag SherriMunnerlyn April 14, 2012 9:41 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:58PM, theinterpreter wrote:


There will be no peace in the Holy Land until after the Battle of Ar Mageddon is fought. Then there will be peace for a thousand years.




theinterpreter,


Those with preconceived  ideas of what is to come are the losers.


Sherri

Flag exile3 July 10, 2012 7:22 AM EDT

I confess I have not read all of this thread... it is long and much of it is old. But it seems that people on this forum have strong opinions about Israel and Palestine.


I would like to suggest a couple clarifications to some of what I have read on this thread


1) The Palestinians have lived on the land being occupied by Israel for tens of hundreds of years. They were not created by any other nation, no more than Native Americans were created by the colonists of the United States.



2) It is no doubt true that Western powers carved up the middle east, including the creation of a jewish state in the heart of Muslim territories. The Muslims welcomed their Jewish "cousins" until the western powers created a "jewish state" on palestinian land.


3) While no group of people are without fault and there will always be extremists, the Palestinians are not terrorists. Their rocks are thrown against a brutal occupation that the world recognizes as illegal. (the rockets that are fired into an empty desert can hardly be equal to the immoral, crippling embargo Israel, with the US as its allie, has placed on Gaza.


4) the extemeist settlers in the west bank terrorize, maim and kill Palestinians, destroy their property. They do so without fear of Israeli law... Israel does not hold them accountable.


I could go on and on, but I will stop here. If anyone is interested in dialogue... well, I hope there is that chance. I speak from my own experience, having lived in the West Bank for half of the last 3 years) and can also provide unbiased documentation.


peace


marie

Flag LeahOne July 10, 2012 11:37 AM EDT

Yes indee you could go on and on - but your first four 'points' are each misrepresentation, distortion and outright lie.


You speak of 'peace' while excusing and justifying the rocket attacks which indeed constitute a valid causus belli.


Flag YHWH-Shammah July 16, 2012 10:51 PM EDT

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:

60 Minutes
Has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible.
January 26, 2009
Video Link


I think the answer is yes. When clearly it's not only the Palestinians that are working to effect terror and discord in the region. How is it that faith that any one god would approve the murder of women, children and men, on both sides, ever hope to effect peace in the end?! Is peace to be enjoyed when all of one's enemy are dead? Why can't people live and learn from one another? Glorify and enjoy the diversity that makes this world a living tapestry of unique differences that can serve to teach one another, as opposed to inspire one another to kill because there can be only one way to live a life?!

I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land. To feel what the energy of a culture thousands of years older than my own, in the States, has to offer. And yet, the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey.

It is said, blessed are the peace makers. And yet, can there ever be peace when it seems, for so many, war is ordained as sacred duty?


Matthew 10:34-36


Jesus brought the sword, not peace.  We are in judgement.  The Holy Spirit is wind and fire.  Like a potter God is trimming the rough edges from us.  We feel the heat when the Potter flakes away our fragments from us that are not His, not righteous.  We feel the wind when we are lifted up to reflect His glory!

Flag Harrygrant January 21, 2013 12:32 AM EST

Nothing's impossible if the people involved will talk and just make an agreement instead of war. They'd be better think of their citizen rather than anything else.


Flag rangerken January 21, 2013 1:16 AM EST

First, welcome to this forum and to  Beliefnet, Harrygrant.


Second, I agree with your post too :-)


Rangerken, forum co-host



PS. Bist du Deutsch???

Flag shmuelgoldstein January 21, 2013 2:12 AM EST

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:

Why can't people live and learn from one another?



I live in the Shomron. On a day-to-day basis, things are pretty quiet here.


 

Feb 8, 2009 -- 1:43AM, Vanillaangel wrote:

I've always wanted to travel to the Holy Land ... the violence and bloodshed make it a frightening thought of a perilous journey.



It's actually pretty safe here.


Arguably more than many places in the U.S.


And it's certainly safer for a Jew to come here, than to, say, Paris.

Flag rocketjsquirell January 21, 2013 12:25 PM EST

It is safer for Jews in Israel than in Malmo, London, Marseille, and most other European cities. n general it is safer in Israel than the US for everyone. On the other hand it is fairly expensive to fly from the US to Israel and walking is not an option. 


I am still predicting a settlement agreement between Israel and the PA in the next few months. It will not result in peace. The PA "leadership" doesn't want peace.


 

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook