(CNN) -- Roman Catholic bishops for the Middle East concluded a two-week conference with a call for the international community, especially the United Nations, to work "to put an end to the occupation" of Palestinian territories.THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There has been a lot of hysteria surrounding the statements of some Catholic prelates after the Vatican's holy synod on the Middle East. This mainly comes from Israelis and Evangelical Zionists in the United States. While I doubt my own comments will clear the air for any of these people, it may help some others confused by the whole situation.
"The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security," the group said in a statement Saturday at the end of a meeting headed by Pope Benedict XVI. "The State of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within their internationally recognized borders.
"The Holy City of Jerusalem will be able to acquire its proper status, which respects its particular character, its holiness and the religious patrimony of the three religions: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. We hope that the two-state-solution might become a reality and not a dream only."
read full story here
Zionism is not the same as Judaism. While Judaism is a religion, Zionism is a political philosophy based on false religious notions. Zionism is not attached exclusively to the Jewish religion either. In fact, there are more Christian Zionists than there are Jewish Zionists. This is because Zionism can come from either bad Jewish theology or bad Christian theology. Under bad Jewish theology, Jews are led to believe their dreams of restoring their Biblical ancestral homeland can be accomplished through modern Secular politics without the intervention of the promised Messiah. Many religious Jews object to this, pointing out that their traditions have always stated the promised Messiah must come first, then comes the return to Zion (promised land). Under bad Christian theology, many Evangelicals are led to believe the restoration of the State of Israel is a prophetic sign that God has decided to restore the ancient Biblical kingdom and it is to be supported by Christians without condition in order to gain the favor of Christ. Of course orthodox Christian theologians have pointed out for decades the first advent of Christ altered the traditional nature of God's covenant with Israel, making the Church into the new "Israel of God" and eliminating the separation between Jews and Gentiles. A proper understanding of Biblical prophecy points to the destruction of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, and the demolition of the Second Temple back in 70 AD, as the real prophetic event that defines the last 2,000 years. Christ is the new temple, and the Church is the new Israel. Therefore any attempt to restore the ancient Biblical "Kingdom of Israel" on some real estate in the Middle East is misguided and potentially blasphemous.
All that being said, Zionism (both in it's Jewish and Christian brand) became the dominate political force in the Middle East over the latter half of the 20th century. It came to be countered only by Islamic Fundamentalism which is the source of many of our problems with the Muslim world today. As of today, October 26th 2010, the State of Israel exists, and has become the homeland for millions of Jews (both religious and secular) as well as many Christians and Muslims. It is what it is, for better or worse, and these people have lived there now for almost three generations. They must be respected in their homes and persons. They are entitled to live in peace, just as any other people. While the modern State of Israel is a secular democracy (not a Biblical kingdom), and it promotes some policies that are anti-Christian in nature, it nevertheless has brought a higher standard of living to the Middle East as well as some religious freedoms unheard of in this region for nearly a thousand years. For this the Israelis should be commended.
On the other side of the coin, the State of Israel has a supremacist side that is a threat not only to the indigenous people of the region, but also it's own survival. The Israeli government has at times been influenced by Zionist fundamentalism which seeks to expand Israeli territory into the regions commonly known as Gaza and the West Bank, as well as make Jerusalem the "eternal capital of Israel," and rebuild the ancient Jewish Temple on the site where it once stood. This site is suspected to be just to the side of where the Muslim Dome of the Rock now stands. To accomplish these goals, Zionist Fundamentalists build Jewish settlements in disputed Palestinian territory with the consent of the Israeli government and often backed by Christian Zionists in the United States. They have also formed a society called the "Temple Mount Faithful" which has trained a small army of men to serve as Jewish priests in a new rebuilt temple. They have also restored all the sacred objects and vestments of the ancient Jewish priesthood. These groups also pressure the Israeli government to give them control of a portion of the Temple Mount next to where the Dome of the Rock now stands. Meanwhile they have already succeeded in getting the Israeli government to declare Jerusalem as it's capital, even though most foreign governments do not recognize this and place their embassies in Tel Aviv instead. It is this sort of influence behind the recent legislation in Israel that would force all immigrants in Israel to sign an allegiance to Israel as an exclusively "Jewish state."
What the Western World, particularly the United States, has failed to see is that Israel is a multi-religious country. Granted, most Israelis identify themselves as "Jews," but only a small percentage actually practice Judaism. A good number of those "Jews" are completely Secular, respecting no religion at all. Some of them are Buddhists and New Agers. Still others practice an occult variation of Judaism called Kabbalah. There are a good number of Christians in Israel, of various different denominations, as well as many Muslim Israelis. There are even Israeli Mormons! who are actually working to build a Mormon temple there someday. To say Israel is an exclusively "Jewish" state has no basis in reality unless one were to make it as a political statement exclusively. If it's political, than it's Zionism not Judaism.
What the Western World, particularly the United States, has also failed to see is that the regions specifically referred to as Palestine are also multi-religious. While the vast majority are Arab Muslims, there is also a sizable Arab Christian population. These Christians are generally non-political and have nothing to do with the militant actions often associated with Palestinian advocates, but they nevertheless suffer the penalties of simply being Palestinians under the heel of Israeli occupation. Many Evangelical Christians in the United States are indifferent toward the plight of their Christian brethren in Palestine. Many would take the position that it's better for Christians to leave Palestine than remain in a disputed area that "rightfully belongs to the Israelis." This is in spite of Christian justice, which unequivocally calls for the peace and respect for all indigenous people in Palestine as well as Israel, regardless of their religious persuasion.
It is in this backdrop the Vatican assembled the holy synod on the Middle East, presided over by Pope Benedict XVI. From this synod came a voice of clarity. The State of Israel, while deserving peace and security, is not entitled to unlimited expansion into the territories commonly known as Palestine, and that Christian justice demands the indigenous people of Palestine are themselves entitled to their own homeland, a sovereign state with real borders and real autonomy.
The implication of this, which has caused so much controversy, is the assertion that there is no Biblical argument, neither Jewish Zionist nor Christian Zionist, that can rightfully justify the immoral and Antichrist notion of Israeli supremacy over the Palestinian territories. The State of Israel exists, for better or worse, and the people of Israel are human beings deserving respect and peace. We must all learn to live with that, especially the Arab peoples. However, that does not give the Israelis the right to occupy conquered territories for decades, and oppress the people that live therein. The Palestinians are people too, deserving respect and peace, and so for better or worse, Christian justice mandates that it is time to create a sovereign and autonomous Palestinian State alongside Israel.
20 comments; post here:
the zionists have only a limited time, Sir Knight. Given the demographics, Jews (of whatever stripe) will soon be a minority within current Israel. Arab birth rates are surpassing those of the european jews. Israel does not have a long term survival prospect. I agree 100% with your observations; part of the problem is also the role of the church in buying into the pro-Israeli viewpoint; this despite the recent comments from eastern Christian bishops, and the predictable howls from the Israeli lobby. As Pat Buchasnan is wont to say "Washington DC is israeli-occupied territory." Pete Frey
Sir Knight, It would be nice if things could be settled by all parties in a way that would be fair to everybody, but I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening.
The Zionist's and the Muslims are absolute fanatics who want to kill each other, and our poor Christians are caught in the middle of this feud. The Zionist's and Muslims would never consent to any compromise, so how do we handle this mess?
I think to only way to ensure a modicum of safety there is to have a multi-national European polictical authority set up in the Holy Land. This authority would as its first order of business, would be to supress Zionism, Muslim extremist groups, and any other groups advocating violence to achieve its goals. Jews and Muslims who didn't support the extremists must be told up front they are not in any danger, but they must obey the laws and expect no special privileges because they are Jewish or Muslim. And harassment of the Christian population by the Jews and Muslims will be severely punished. No more peeing on Christian churches, or any other outrage toward the Christian people of the Holy Land.
The leaders (and followers) of the various extremist groups are to be told that they can not teach or carry out any extreme ideology in the Holy Land. If they persist in doing so, punishments ranging from banishment to the death penalty will be applied, depending on the nature of the crime(s).
The issue of seized or stolen land must be addressed. All land that was taken by fraud or violence must be returned to it's original owners.
I think if a government can be set up that will carry out these actions, a good deal of peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
ps, as far as maps go - the one at the top of this pages hardly goes back far enough. Let's look back to the times of the kingdoms of King David (970 B.C), and King Soloman (930 B.C) and you'll see that Israel was actually very much bigger than it is now - it stretched all theway to the Euphrates river. MAP. The map HERE dated 1926 also shows the area (inset, top right).
In fact, before 1948, the whole area was known as "Palestine" and even Jews were called "Palestinians" - it's a generalized name. There is no Palestinian land, culture, language - never has been. Modern Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc
Fletcher, I could not publish your first comment because it looked like it was copied from another text or book and credit was not given to the original source. You are more than welcome to repost your own paraphrase of the content instead.
Now in response to the comment above, I must point out that the Catholic bishops do not accept Biblical arguments as support for the current Zionist agenda. By the same Biblical argument we could say that Italy is entitled to all the land from Spain to Northern Africa because it was once owned by Rome, and Jesus said to Pilate that this authority was given to the Romans by God.
Of course that's a ridiculous argument, and it is likewise ridiculous for modern day Zionists to insist that Jews have entitlement to the Holy Land now because their ancestors once owned it two-thousand years ago.
The same Bible that records God giving the land to the Jews, also records that God took it away from them - TWICE! The first time came when they were conquered by the Assyrians and Babylonians (BC 721 - 539). The second time came when they were conquered by the Romans (AD 70 - 130). In both cases these were the result of God's punishment upon the Israelites because of their failure to obey the law. In the case of the second fall of Israel, it was not only failure to obey the law, but also failure to accept the Messiah - Jesus Christ. This punishment was prophesied by Jesus himself in Matthew 24.
Since the time of the last exile by the Romans, the Jews have returned to the Holy Land multiple times, and they have attempted to rebuild the Temple no less than three times. They even began construction on it twice. Both times they were met with violent eruptions from the earth consisting of earthquakes and fireballs of methane gas. God clearly does not want this temple rebuilt. Prophecies from the New Testament, and writings from Christians in the early Church point out that God will not allow the reconstruction of the temple until the final chastisement, the time of great tribulation, when Antichrist will be permitted to do the deed. Any assistance of the Jews in the rebuilding of the temple is to cooperate with the Antichrist. That's not to say the Jews are "antichrist" in themselves, but the general consensus of the early Church was that any attempt to rebuild the Temple was the "work of Antichrist." Therefore, Christians should take into serious consideration just what it is they are supporting when they support the Zionist agenda.
The Zionist agenda is threefold...
1. Take all territories currently inhabited by indigenous Palestinians.
2. Make Israel a politically "Jewish state" with Jerusalem as its "eternal capital."
3. Rebuild the Jewish Temple.
To support any one item of the above agenda is to support all three items. They are all part of one single agenda, and one item does not make any sense without the other two. All three items are currently in progress. The Israeli government has already given the Zionists item #2, and is working on item #1. Item #3 is currently being prepared behind the scenes privately.
Now to say there is no such thing as a "Palestinian" because there has never been an official Palestinian state is silly. By the same logic we could say that America is illegitimate, because there was no such thing as an "American" prior to 1776. The colonists who rose up in armed insurrection against the king were actually "British" not "Americans." Do you see how silly that sounds? If the people of Palestine are not Palestinians, than by the exact same logic, the British colonists were not Americans.
We can play the game of semantics all we want. It doesn't change the fact that Israel has never annexed these territories and given the people there citizenship. Furthermore, the people who live there have been begging for independence for decades. Just like the American colonists 200 years ago. If they want to be "Palestinians" than they have just as much a right to it as the British colonists who wanted to be "Americans."
Knight, yes but there? The site HERE makes a point -
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Arabs in the Holy Land. When General Alenby, the commander of the British military forces, conquered Palestine in 1917/1918, only about 5000 Arabs resided there. They did not call themselves "Palestinians". The concept of a "Palestinian" to describe the local residents has not yet been invented; neither was there ever in history a "Palestinian Arab" nation. None of today's Arabs have any
ancestral relationship to the original Biblical Philistines who are now extinct.
In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."
Some more quotes from the same site -
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nation... Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews... Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us?
"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity." -- Golda Meir [the forth prime Minister of the State of Israel] quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995
and
Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. -- from "Myths of the Middle East", Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000
So, you talk about Palestinians having rights, just like the British colonists who became Americans, but what about the Israelis? Do they not also have the right to exist? For a comparison, Israel is only just bigger than New Jersey, it's tiny
I'm sorry, but "Palestinians" have no historical claim on the land. Why can't some of the other Arab lands give them some? They wouldn't accept it, because it doesn't help them in their struggle with Israel, which has been going on since Jacob (who became "Israel") and Esau, who even fought each other in Rebekah's womb, according to Genesis, and that one would serve the other.
ps, you can see from the first map you have, is the UN partition plan, giving half each for Israel and 'Palestine'. It looks pretty much half and half to me, with Jerusalem under international control. Israel accepted the plan, the Arabs did not, and after Israel officially declared it's independence, six of those arab nations attacked Israel (and lost). So, they could have had half then. Whose fault is that? It is the Arabs' own fault.
Thank you Fletcher for your comments. However I must disagree about some things. First and foremost, this isn't about how the land looked in 1900 or 1949 or even 1962. Second, it's not about the demographics of the land during those times. Third, it's not about "who started it" in regards to armed conflict. Fourth, the people now living in Gaza and the West Bank had nothing to do with Arab nations attacking Israel some forty years ago. Israel's beef is with Syria, Jordan and Egypt, not these farmers and merchants in their own backyard.
This is about right now. Specifically it's about the people who live there right now. The fact is there are now millions of Arabs (both Christians and Muslims) living in the West Bank and Gaza. Jordan has renounced all claim to that land and so has Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt will accept these people into their territories. The Israelis WILL NOT grant them citizenship either. They are effectively people without a country to call their own. So you're right in this respect. These people made up the "Palestinian" identity because they have no national identity outside that. Granted, we all know there have been exteemists who have used their plight to their advantage, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their plight.
The problem with Israel is that it is a country created by UN mandate. The only mandate they can honestly make claim to is the borders granted to them by the UN. That is UNLESS they were to lawfully annex a territory they gained through conquest and grant the people who live there full citizenship. Unfortunately, Israel has never done this with Gaza and the West Bank. Hence we have the problem that currently exists. What the Israelis are trying to do is squeeze these people into ghetto like conditions by gradually taking the disputed land bit by bit without ever granting the people citizenship rights. If the Israelis would make them citizens and just annex the territory the problem would be solved. They won't do that though, because it contradicts the Zionist political agenda. So the only solution there is left is the two-state solution. If Israel doesn't like it than it should annex and grant citizenship. Anything other than that is imperialism and tyranny.
I still believe that the Palestinian demands are really a front. Take the negotiations at Camp David in 2000 that Clinton arranged. Prime Minister Ehud Barak shocked the world by offering the Palestinians virtually everything they had been demanding, including a state with its capital in Jerusalem, control over the Temple Mount, a return of approximately 95 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, and a $30 billion compensation package for the 1948 refugees.
Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was there serving as an intermediary and he urged Arafat to "take this deal." Could you ever get "a better deal"? he asked. Would you rather negotiate with Sharon? As Arafat vacillated, Bandar issued a stern warning: "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is going to be a crime." He also said, “Either you take this deal or we go to war. If you take this deal, we will throw our weight behind you. If you don’t take this deal, do you think anyone will go to war for you?”
Of course, Arafat said NO. You can read Elsa Walsh's interview with Prince Bandar in the New Yorker, download PDF HERE
Why didn't he take the deal? I believe it is because they want to destroy Israel and want them as an enemy - most of all publicly. It's like trying to make up with a class bully and give him everything he is actually asking for. He doesn't want that because he loses face.
Arafat was the fake, not the Palestinian people. That man betrayed them in the worst way imaginable. He lost all his credibility at that point. (In my book he never had any to begin with.) Later, after his death, we found out that he was just using the Palestinian cause to get rich. That was no surprise to me.
You can't take the faults of one criminal and paint every single Palestinian with a broad brush. Arafat was a criminal and a fake. He used the Palestinians, just like Hamas (supported by Iran) is using them now.
The whole thing is about PEOPLE more than anything else. The land issue is a secondary matter. If Israel had done the right thing with the occupied people of the West Bank and Gaza, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Israel could have either (A) withdrawn and allowed the UN to set up a Palestinian state, or (B) annexed the disputed land and given those living there full Israeli citizenship.
Did either one of those things happen? No. Instead we have endless occupation with a people who have no homeland, no identity and ultimately no peace. Radical Muslim groups use them as pawns in a chess game with Israel. Does that mean they like being pawns? I doubt it. I actually know some Palestinians. How many do you know? Some of them are Christians, and a few are Muslims. Guess what! Suffering knows no religious boundaries. The average Palestinian lives in a small home with three generations. Why? It's not because they're poor and they can't afford another house. It's because the Israelis won't let them build another house. They bulldoze it before it's finished. The Israeli government won't issue building permits to Palestinians, but it does issue plenty to Israeli "Jewish" citizens. Do you see something wrong with that?
This isn't about politics anymore. It hasn't been for some time. It's about people. Eliminate their suffering, and you'll eliminate the ability for radicals to take advantage of it. The root cause is the Israeli occupation.
Look, I just don't buy it. Everyone's on at Israel about what it has to do - it has to do this, and it has to give up that. What do the Palestinians have to do? To contribute to the roadmap to peace? Nothing - it's all one way.
Hell, in 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. And what happened? They got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Missiles fired at Israel for 8 years; and that did the UN do? Nothing. They don't care. The United Nations is worse than useless these days, unless they are defending anything Muslim.
As a syndicated columnist, Clifford May said -
That summer, Israel pulled every soldier and settler out of Gaza. Every house of worship and cemetery was removed. But greenhouses were left behind.
Palestinians might have responded by using those greenhouses to grow flowers for export. They might have built factories, schools, hospitals and hotels along their Mediterranean beaches. Had that been their choice, moderate Israelis surely would have made further concessions - for example, uprooting Israelis from the West Bank as well, and offering to negotiate a division of Jerusalem.
Instead, of course, Palestinians smashed the greenhouses and put Hamas in charge. Since then, Hamas has done nothing to spark economic development. Nevertheless, it has bemoaned the increasing destitution of unoccupied Gaza - now blaming it on Israel's "siege" - and demanding aid, not least from Israel, which has given it, even as the rockets have fallen.
So, once bitten, twice shy, I say. If I was Israel, I wouldn't give them any land back either, just to see it used as a launching ground for more missiles. They're not suicidal.
The reason why the likes of Arafat and Hamas are able to use (and abuse) the plight of the Palestinian people is because the Palestinians find themselves in such an occupied situation. Look, there are millions of Palestinians. Are you trying to tell me that every single one of them, every man woman and child, even the Christians, are all terrorists? I don't buy that and I don't think you do either.
As I said above, from a Christian perspective, this isn't about land, it's about people. The land is secondary. What are we to do with millions of people who have no country, no rights, and no identity. The failure of Israel to deal with the people they conquered and occupied is the source of the problem. If the United States did this to the Japanese after World War II, would you expect any different result? Let's take a look at the Mexican-American War for example. After the United States conquered Mexico and took over half of her territory as the spoils of war, from Texas to California, what did the United States do with the hundreds of thousands of Mexicans who lived in this territory? We annexed the land, and give them the option of becoming full-fledged states with full-fledged citizenship for every one of them. We've given the same opportunity to the Native Americans (in spite of our treatment of them) and we did it for Hawaii and Peurto Rico as well. Though the Peurto Ricans have chose not to join us, we still give their people full citizenship, minus voting rights in national elections, and allow them to completely govern themselves even with their own tax code. They can leave us at any time, and we've given the option for them to do so. However, we've been so good to them, they don't want to leave.
This is what I'm talking about Fletcher. The Israelis didn't deal with the Palestinians properly after they conquered them. They've kept them in refugee status, so as to drive them out. The only problem is, these people have nowhere to go. They are wards of a state that does not recognize their basic civil rights. Because neither Israel, nor the Western world, will deal with this problem, the radical Islamists are more than willing to take up their cause. Of course we all know that whenever the Islamists “give” to the Palestinians, there are always strings attached. Whenever the Islamists “help” the Palestinians they also help themselves to some new way to attack Israelis. That's what the Vatican synod on the Middle East was all about. It is not enough to throw you hands up in the air and say “Oh well, I guess there will never be peace there until Jesus returns.” Jesus called us to be the peace makers. If you want to bring peace to the Middle East, and help the plight of our Christian brethren there, the Palestinian problem must be remedied. Then we can go forward into Muslims countries with some credibility and demand reciprocity for the Christians there.
IN actuality there are plenty of surrounding Arab countries that could take them in - they don't, because it suits them to have a refugee problem that they use as a pawn against Israel.
I have to say, Fletcher raises some good points. I do not support Israel for religious reasons (i.e., I'm not a Zionist) but at the same time they are a sovereign democracy (the only functioning democracy in the Middle East)and have been repeatedly attack on all sides by their Arab neighbours and various terrorist organisations.
I can't support that. Israel has a right to its own territories.
Matariel, you are right in saying Israel is entitled to live in peace with secure borders.
At the same time they must do right by the Palestinians and eliminate the problem that exists. Perpetual occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is just as much a threat to Israel as it is to the Palestinians. It puts Israel in this awkward position as an oppressive tyranny. That reputation has hurt Israel's status in the world, and has brought the whole world against it.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the two-state solution, though after everything that has happened over the last forty years, it may be the only thing left that will work. I would have preferred to see the Israelis deal with this problem the same way the United States did, by annexing the territories and giving the people who live therein full citizenship. This solves the problem for everyone, except the Muslim extremists of course, who will never be satisfied and will no longer have a "Palestinian problem" to exploit. It also foils the plans of the Zionists, who seek to establish a pure "Jewish" state. Maybe that's why Israel has never seriously considered the annexation with citizenship option.
Fletcher, why won't the Israeli's just annex Gaza and the West Bank and give the people living there full citizenship? The United States did that for the Mexicans after the Mexican-American War. We did that for the Native Americans. We did that for Hawaii and Peurto Rico. So why won't the Israeli's do it for the Palestinians?
Arafat was acting as leader of the Arab peoples who call themselves "Palestinians;" the people accepted him as their negotiator. Therefore, his rejection of the plan Prince Bandar urged upon him was a rejection by the "Palestinian" people themselves, not a unilateral decision by one man
As for Israel offering citizenship, the "Palestians" do have citizenship in Israel. They are welcomed, they vote, and they have representation in congress.
To call a tiny nation defending itself, as well as showing good faith to the point of giving up land repeatedly with nothing in return, is inflamatory. What compromises have the "Palestians" ever offered in dealing with the Israelis? What have they done with land, such as Gaza, that Israel has given to them? (Obviously, used it to further endanger the lives of their benefactors.)
None of surrounding Arab countries are willing to take the "Palestinians" in; what is their explanation?
When you put all the facts together -- the claiming of Christian and Jewish sites by Muslims, the refusal to negotiate, the numerous Israeli compromises rejected, the lack of interest in this group by Arab countries (except as a weapon against the existence of Israel), and add the election of Hezbollah and gradual taking over of Lebanon as yet another Islamic land....
When you put these all together, the idea that Israel should play the part of victim (which they have refused repeatedly when attacked by Arab countres) shows bias against the Jewish people and Evangelical Christians who support them.
If the Palestinians have the land and goods that Israel gave them, like Gaza and the greenhouses, why didn't the Palestinians use those to start their own government on their own land?
It is confusing to read that Israel should annex, yet that the Palestinians should be sovereign. Doesn't one contradict the other?
Granted, there are two types of annexation. In one, as with Mexico,we annexed the land and the people became American citizens under our laws. But I do not think the Palestinians want to be under Israeli law, right?
The other kind of annexation is like Puero Rico, where they have the benefit of our tax money as aid, but have their own government. But Puerto Rico does not use our aid to make war on us. The Palestinians WOULD do that with Israeli tax aid, so that makes no sense as far as self-preservation goes.
What kind of "annexation" are you talking about that would allow them to be citizens of Israel, yet not follow Israeli law?
Christian's Husband,
I used the illustration of annexation just to make a point. What I was saying was that the Israelis have dealt with the Palestinian problem in a totally incompetent way. Upon conquering a territory a nation must immediately decide to do one of two things - annex or formulate an exit strategy. Israel has done neither, and therein lies the problem.
Had Israel chosen to annex the territories, she would have committed to giving full citizenship to all the Arabs living therein. They would become Israelis, and live under Israeli law, with the ability to vote and petition for a redress of grievances. They would also have rights, on par with any other Israeli. This would have solved the "Palestinian problem" before it ever had a chance to fester, and the only people the Israelis would have to worry about would be their Arab neighbors who would naturally protest the annexation but be powerless to do anything about it.
However, in the absence of any clear commitment on annexation, the Israeli's should have then formulated a quick exit strategy instead, evacuating the disputed areas within ten years maximum time, so as to allow for the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state. That didn't happen either.
What did happen is this. Israel refused to annex. The reason why probably had to do with the Arab peoples in those territories themselves. The Israelis didn't want to give them full citizenship (and equal rights) because to do so would compromise the Zionist pipe-dream of creating an "ethnically and culturally Jewish state." Israel also refused to exit the occupied territories. The reason why probably had to do with Zionists influencing the Israeli government to allow settlements, so as to annex the territory using Non-Arab Jewish settlers incrementally. The effective strategy was to squeeze the Arabs into an increasingly smaller and smaller occupied territory, while simultaneously denying Palestinians the right to build on the very same land Israeli Zionists would soon settle. This was done through building permits which made it virtually impossible for a Palestinian to build, but easy for a Zionist settler to build. It's a very clever strategy of land THEFT, and it's been going on for decades.
Of course we cannot sympathize with the terrorism of Islamists either, but we must recognize that they are using this situation to their advantage. So long as the Palestinian Arabs (Muslim and Christian) are made second-class citizens by the Israeli government, the radicals will have excuse to justify their mayhem among their fellow Arabs. Radical Arab states will have excuse to justify their supply of such radicals within Palestine. Israel's failed policy of occupation and incremental annexation through settlements now threatens it's own existence. Everybody loses in this. Israel must chose one or the other. Either annex the whole territory and give all the Arabs living there full citizenship with full voting rights, full representation, and full civil rights, or else implement the exit strategy, and allow the creation of a fully sovereign Palestinian state. It has to be one or the other. Perpetual occupation is not an option.
You are amazing. This blog is amazing, and the comments are amazing.
There is NOTHING crazy about this.
Post a Comment