November 28, 2007, - 5:44 pm

Letters to the Editor of the Week: Annapolis

By Debbie Schlussel
These “Letters to the Editor” from Monday’s Wall Street Journal are in response to an op-ed piece written by Jeff Robbins which appeared in the paper, last week. His op-ed was good. These letters are great, and I republish them here in their entirety (the best is the last one by Charles Plushnick of Brooklyn):

Jeff Robbins’ article “The Perils of Engagement” (op-ed, Nov. 21) should be a “must read” for the secretary of state, members of the State Department and our enlightened media. Mr. Robbins would do us all a great service if he publishes a follow up scholarly article on why the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, who escaped to Israel leaving all their possessions behind, are no longer refugees, while the Arabs who became refugees as a result of their violent rejection of the U.N. partition plan for two states, one Jewish and one Arab, are still living in refugee camps supported by the U.N., even at a time when, as Mr. Robbins reminds us, Arab countries are awash with petrodollars.

israeliflag2.jpgsnakecat2.jpgpalestinianflag.jpg

This is “Peace” in the Middle East

The so called moderate Palestinian leadership, to this day, refuses to accept the fact that Israel was created as the only (tiny) Jewish state in the world, pursuant to the U.N. resolution of 1947 and Israel’s war of survival and independence.
Ezekiel Bahar
Professor
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Neb.

****

One wonders whether the “poor choices” made by the members of the Arab League since 1948, so well described by Jeff Robbins, were actually intended to have the continuous irresolution we have witnessed. Mr. Robbins correctly asserts that a Palestinian state could have been formed by the League during the 1948-67 period, yet there was no attempt to do so.
More puzzling, however, is that since the 1967 war, Syria has been the only League member demanding the return of captured territory, the Golan Heights. When Egypt, and later Jordan, entered into discussions with Israel culminating in peace treaties, neither demanded a return of the territories they administered prior to the 1967 war as necessary conditions for their agreements to peace settlements.
Not only would that have been consistent with the League’s current demand for an Israeli return to the pre-’67 borders, but its consummation could easily have resulted in Egypt and Jordan collaborating in the formation of a new Palestinian state out of their returned territories. Since this condition never occurred, calling it a “poor choice” rather than a deliberate choice by two League countries not really wanting a new Palestinian state seems now to be obvious.
Bertrand Horwitz
Asheville, N.C.

****

Mr. Robbins assumes that the Arab World and Palestinian leadership want to improve the lot of the average Palestinian; not true. He assumes they want to solve the Palestinian refugee problem; not true. He assumes they want to live in peace with Israel; not necessarily true.
If PLO leaders wanted to improve the lot of the average Palestinian, they would not have started an intifada that resulted in numerous hardships and ill feelings between them and Israel. If they cared about the refugees, they would have resettled them decades ago, throughout the world and Arab world.
It’s time to look at the true goals of the Palestinian and Arab leadership. First and foremost they want to remain in power. One must look at their culture and understand what they find of value and what they don’t. Then and only then will peace become a reality.
Charles Plushnick
Brooklyn, N.Y.

AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

34 Responses

These are great letters and all right on. This “peace” conference is such a sham.
Sadly–the reality is that ultimately–based on what Bible prophecy states–Israel will enter into the phony peace covenant that will of course lead to all kinds of mayhem and death. It seems like this might happen right before our eyes in our own time.

BB on November 28, 2007 at 9:31 pm

So the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is what exactly?

Norman Blitzer on November 29, 2007 at 12:09 am

I sent the following to the Saudi embassy and Cc’d it to President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Hugh Hewitt.
This is the reason there will be no peace between Islam and Israel. It is an infidel state on land once controlled by Allah, and once Allah’s, always Allah’s:
Sirs,
No decent, rational human being can consider the evil cited below to be the will of a god.
Inexplicably, the President of the United States of America — a man who claims for himself the title “Christian” — appeases and calls “ally” some of those who consider such excrement to be “divine.” He defends their depravity, even equating such vile filth with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount in an Inaugural Address!
(Jefferson and Adams — two men whose Islamic counterparts were much more honest about their “sacred” right to Infidel blood than are today’s Muslim leaders — would be disgusted to see such craven dishonesty from the leader of the nation they helped create.)
No less shamefully, those pretend defenders of Western Civilization — lions behind microphones except when it comes to telling the truth about Qur’an and Sunnah — do the same.
This is the will of Allah and the example of Mohammed. This is what you defend:
“…fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).
“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . . ” (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).
“Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand'” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).
“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual “partner”], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”‘” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).
“War is deceit” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

Amillennialist on November 29, 2007 at 1:24 am

Amillennialist posted:
[No decent, rational human being can consider the evil cited below to be the will of a god.]
1 Samuel 15:3-1: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
Leviticus 18:22: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
Exodus 21:7-9: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.”
Leviticus 25:44-46: “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
The Judeo god,Yahweh, is no better than the Islamic god, Allah. BTW, Gigoloiani at the CNN Youtube debate called Islam a great religion.

Norman Blitzer on November 29, 2007 at 2:26 am

That’s impressive, Norman Blitzer.
A false moral equivalence between YHWH and Allah easily refutable by anyone who can read, a tu quoque argument, and an appeal to authority contradicting your previous point — all in one brief post.
The passages from Qur’an and Sunnah I cited make “divine” pedophilia, lying, terrorism, and offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse to submit to the tyranny of Allah.
The Biblical passages you cite do not.
The first was a limited, one-time command in the context of Israel’s on-going wars under their first king against a nation that had harmed it, not a command for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew.
The second, the punishment for Hebrews under the Mosaic Covenant, not a command for offensive warfare to make the world Israel.
The third, protections for a daughter in a world in which slavery was commonplace. No commands to enslave Gentiles nor for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew.
The last, more accommodations reflecting the ubiquitous nature of slavery, not commands to enslave non-Hebrews nor for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew here, either.
As for Rudy, which is it? Is Islam “just as bad” and Judaism, or is it a “great religion”? Or are you saying that Judaism is also a great religion?

Amillennialist on November 29, 2007 at 3:11 am

Amillennialist ,
All you’re doing is splitting hairs and defending your god. Whether an evil act is committed once or several times; against one person or many, it’s still evil. As for your ridiculous explanations of slavery, God makes the rules not man. Your God’s “protection” for a daughter amounted to making her a sex slave. Morally speaking, there’s little difference between the OT and the Koran. Yahweh and Allah are one in the same. Maybe Christopher Hitchens is on to something…

Norman Blitzer on November 29, 2007 at 4:34 am

If Israel defends itself from attacks, it is condemned, and the attacks continue.
If Israel does NOT defend itself, the attacks continue.
If Israel offers the ‘palistinians’ everything they ask for, the attacks continue.
So, norman blitzer, what is YOUR peace plan?

Gary on November 29, 2007 at 5:19 am

Gary,
I asked the question first and so far no one has answered it. Right wingers keep knocking Bush and Rice for their initiatives, but I’ve yet to see any viable alternatives offered by those right wingers. So Debbie et al. enlighten me. What is the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it a two state solution or should Palestinians just live under Israeli rule as one country?

Norman Blitzer on November 29, 2007 at 5:51 am

Could the Arab League have established a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967. Of course they could, but they did not want one. Jordan in particular, since it is in fact already the de facto Palestinian State, but governed by a Hashemite monarchy dragged over from Saudi Arabia by the Brits during the mis-management of the British Mandate created by the San Remo Conference (1921 IIRC).
A rather cursory look at the map emanating from the San Remo Conference reveals the name of that particular British Manadate is “Palestine: The National Jewish Homeland.” The Mandate delineates rather more territory than that eventually ceded to Israel in 1948…in fact less than 20% of the orignal Mandate after “Jordan”, plus some other pieces, were lopped off the package, unilaterally, and handed to Palestinian and other Arabs. Then, post 1967 War, figure in the expulsion of Palestinian “activists” from Jordan in 1969 (Black September)and it’s pretty obvious no Arab state gave a rat’s tinker about Palestinians, other than as a hostile buffer against Israel….kept hostile by deprivation.
Egypt? Yep, they have a uneasy treaty with Israel. Out of good will? Hardly…the Egyptian Army was surrounded on their own side of the Suez Canal, all the way across the Sinai, by the IDF, in the ill advised Arab instigated 1973 War. After that, the Egyptians just said screw it. Jordan? Why should they care, as they already dumped more Palestinian “refugees” in to the West Bank in 1969 than anything Israel displaced in 1947-48. Do they demand a “right of return” to Jordan, completely with property reclamation? Not that I have heard about in my dim corner of the world….which happens to be Fallujah West, aka Dearbornistan, aka Bint Jbeil West, et al. You’d think I’d hear something right?
So what have we? 86 years of deceit and horse crap, a European Holocaust, and a global expectation that Israelis should bear all blame and no benefit. The truth is that no one has tried very hard to carry out the intent of the San Remo Conference. And I’ve not bothered to mention the Balfour Declaration. Israel need not give up one more inch of land for anything, anymore than the USA should give up Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California. Manifest Destiny still applies. The winners are supposed to make the rules. I hope Israel never forgets that.
Even to my Irish ancestored dumb ass it all sounds very familiar.

Zoyadog on November 29, 2007 at 7:04 am

Naorman, a two-state solution presumes that the ‘palestinians’ want a two-state solution.
from the Hamas charter:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [endowed] to all Muslim generations until the day of resurrection. It is not right to give up it or any part of it. Neither a single Arab state nor all the Arab states, neither a king nor a president, not all the kings or presidents, not any organization or all of them be they Palestinian or Arab have such authority, because the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [endowed] to all Muslim generations until the day of resurrection. [So] who has the legitimate right to represent all Islamic generations until the day of resurrection?
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem all contradict the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Indeed, giving up any part of Palestine is tantamount to giving up part of its religion. The nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion, and it instructs its members to [adhere] to that and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they wage their Jihad.
From time to time, a call goes out to hold an international conference to search for a solution to the [Palestinian] problem. Some accept the idea, and others reject it for one reason or another, demanding the fulfillment of a condition or conditions [as a prerequisite] for agreeing to convene the conference and to participate in it. [But] the Islamic Resistance Movement knowing the parties comprising the conference and their past and present attitudes toward the problems of the Muslims does not believe that the conferences are capable of fulfilling the demands or restoring the rights of or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are nothing but a means of enforcing the rule of the unbelievers in the land of the Muslims. And when did the unbelievers do justice to the believers?
But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah. (Sura 2, al-Baqara, v. 120)
The initiative, proposals, and international conferences are but a waste of time and sheer futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, rights, and destiny [subjected to] vanity….
From the PLO charter:
Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.
Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.
Fatah charter:
Fatah Constitution Article 12: “Complete liberation of Palestine and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.”
Fatah Constitution Article 19:
Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.

Gary on November 29, 2007 at 7:06 am

So the point of these diatribes is to what? Ignore efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Not to create a Palestinian state? Seems to me most people here rather see continuing violence.

13 Martyrs on November 29, 2007 at 7:16 am

I apologize, a correction to my comment above…just checked a copy of the map from the San Remo Conference. It was 1920, not 1921, and the correct title for that “Palestine” Mandate is: “Area allocated for ‘Jewish National Home'”. A link to a simplified verison of the map is here: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/pmap.jpg Note that the Mandate includes all of present day Jordan.

Zoyadog on November 29, 2007 at 7:18 am

13 Martyrs….
You’d be rather wrong about “most of the people here.” Off hand, tell me how many rockets Israel fired in to Gaza in the first 24 hours of its liberation? Compare to those fired in to Sderot by the newly “liberated” Gazans. If you pay attention, it seems rather obvious that the desire to continue violence is outside of Israeli hands….in fact continued violence appears to be the interst of adjacent Arab states per se.
Now go north a bit. How many rockets have the denizens of Kiryat Shmona (sic?) fired in to Lebanon. Compare to those fired in to Kiryat Shmona from Lebanon. I have a pretty good idea of the answer on that one, since I have friends who frequent Kiryat Shmona (Qiryat Shemona), and were there last July under bombardment. Heaven forbid that the IDF rolled up the M109’s and fired back. How dare they? Right? Given my rather Irish temperament, were it up to me, there’d have been Arc Light strikes all the way to the Litani River….but I am a violently inclined man, when attacked, while the Israelis are not so much. Go figure.

Zoyadog on November 29, 2007 at 7:33 am

13 martyrs: can you explain to us why the ‘palestinians,’ upon the Israelis pulling out of ANY parcel of land, immediately come in and DESTROY any and all infrastructure that might actually HELP them get back on their feet?

Gary on November 29, 2007 at 7:48 am

Debbie: I will never understand people like norman, who expect PEACE where one-half of the parties involved make it expressly clear that peace can only happen by removal / destruction of the other half.
And when one points this out, they get accused of warmongering. The disconnect from reality is staggering.

Gary on November 29, 2007 at 7:51 am

Norman,
“All you’re doing is splitting hairs and defending your god.”
It’s called “reading.”
That and a little intellectual integrity will go a long way.
“Whether an evil act is committed once or several times; against one person or many, it’s still evil.”
A Divine judgment may offend your amoral sensibilities, and certainly it is terrifying, but that doesn’t justify calling it “evil.”
Commanding an entire religion to kill all who refuse to convert or submit to Allah is evil on a scale incomprehensible. That you are unable to admit that says a lot about you.
“As for your ridiculous explanations of slavery”
Perhaps re-reading for comprehension would help.
I was not “explaining” nor justifying slavery (neither were the Biblical texts you cited); I was pointing out that what you misrepresent as commands to enslave (or as “God’s rules, not man’s”) were in fact concessions made to corrupt people in a sin-sick world.
This same principle is evident in allowing divorce under certain circumstances. Though YHWH says He hates the practice, yet He set boundaries on it because of the “hardness of men’s hearts.”
Neglecting the numerous New Testament passages regarding Liberty and emancipation calls into question your willingness or ability to tell the truth.
“Your God’s “protection” for a daughter amounted to making her a sex slave.”
Your historical illiteracy is showing. Why do you think the commands were given? Because otherwise ordinary, decent people would refrain from enslaving their children, or because without such limitations even worse would occur against them?
By the way, I’ve checked three different translations of the Exodus 21 passage. None of them render it the way you do.
Here’s the way the ESV says it:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
“If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
“And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”
Without such restrictions, what do you suppose happened to a female sold into slavery?
“Morally speaking, there’s little difference between the OT and the Koran.”
“Little difference” is better than, “no better,” I suppose. It looks like we’re making progress! :)
So, in your opinion, limitations on the evil of an institution foundational to the ancient world is little different than universal, open-ended commands to genocide.
“Maybe Christopher Hitchens is on to something…”
Yes, if you consider intellectual dishonesty, moral inversion, and logical fallacies fashionable.

Amillennialist on November 29, 2007 at 8:27 am

Amillennialist, I’ve been reading here for about a year and from what I can gather, he has no integrity.

John Cunningham on November 29, 2007 at 9:32 am

Today on WCBS NewsRadio 88 NY, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee had a piece that essentially says the same thing. Good job, Deb.

hairymon on November 29, 2007 at 12:21 pm

I see Mr.Blitzer has got a big mouth to attack bible abiding conversatives, always drawing a comparison between right wingers and nazis. You want to talk about xenophobe, you come across as a spitefull jew hater and yet you grow cold turkey when it comes to dealing with radical islam which is the current problem we face. You seem to be having a ball quoting biblical verses but you are just as shcolarly as any bible hating leftist. Whats the matter with you? Are you intimidated by CAIR to voice your opposition of them? And how excatly would you deal with these two faced throat cutters who religion centers around bloodshed,child-rape,and violence against the dhimmis? By having a peace conference with them? Its equivalent to telling a pack of hungry lions to stop preying on zebrahs and gazelles. Lets be real here. Its the p.c. lunacy policies that you liberals established thats detering us from combating the threat we face. You wanted to eliminate racial profiling fear that it may offend arabs.But our safety should precede over their sensibilities. If Achmed was on the wanted list, he would not be hiding in a Catholic community. Its common sense,man. It doesn’t take in depth criminological studies to understand that our security is in the red zone. Its just astonishing that you have more contempt towards the fundamental christains and jews who are trying to ensure your freedoms and security and much admiration towards the islamists who would kill you as they would your fellow americans. Your twisted notion just shows me how deranged and out of touch with reality you are. I suggest you take a reality check soon while you can save yourself,darling. Good luck.

Jew Chick on November 29, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Thank you, John and Jew Chick!
Regards,
Amillennialist

Amillennialist on November 29, 2007 at 1:57 pm

The willfully stupid Jew Chick strikes again. First, I’ve never ever expressed any anti-Semitic sentiments because I’m neither an anti-Semite nor anti-Israel. I’m not pro-religion either so if someone is going to post negative excerpts from the Koran then be prepared to see similar excerpts from the Bible posted.
Gary posted:
[Now, Norman, how does one achieve peace / a two-state solution, in the face of that?]
An Annapolis Summit for starters perhaps? Of course the Palestinians have to renounce terror and recognize Israel’s existence, but once that happens then what?
Personally, I think the UN should just come up with a fair two-state solution and enforce it with UN forces. Granted this is what sort of happened in 1947 but this time the measure will be militarily enforced by the UN and the US.
————————–
Amillennialist posted:
[Norman,
“All you’re doing is splitting hairs and defending your god.”
It’s called “reading.”]
No, it’s called splitting hairs or playing semantics. To make this short, I encourage everyone to read the OT from start to finish to find out for themselves exactly what is in there.
There’s no excuse for God to order the killing of children and infants or to uphold the institution of slavery. It’s still evil.
1 Samuel 15:3-1: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
[“Maybe Christopher Hitchens is on to something…”
Yes, if you consider intellectual dishonesty, moral inversion, and logical fallacies fashionable.]
Sounds like something you did.
———————–
Posted by: 13 Martyrs
[So the point of these diatribes is to what? Ignore efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Not to create a Palestinian state? Seems to me most people here rather see continuing violence.]
Thank you for your insightful post 13 Martyrs.

Norman Blitzer on November 29, 2007 at 2:08 pm

martyr’s ‘insightful’ post is absolute BULLSHIT.
Every meeting for peace ever put together had ended up badly for Israel.
Norman, we can have summits for the next 200 years and Israel- if any of it is left- will still not see peace.
I suspect you and martyr won’t understand that until Israel is destroyed by those you want them to have peace’ with.
PALESTINIANS DO NOT WANT PEACE. No matter how much you and yours (and ME) would like to see it.
What the Hell does it take to get that through to you?
btw, your Bible quotes are still specious at best.

Gary on November 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Gary, what the HELL does it take to get through to you that a peace agreement must be reached? The fact that President Abbas and PM Olmert are willing to come this far means both parties are interested in a peace agreement. And even if the Palestinians don’t want peace, I’ve already offered a solution to that problem:
“Personally, I think the UN should just come up with a fair two-state solution and enforce it with UN forces. Granted this is what sort of happened in 1947 but this time the measure will be militarily enforced by the UN and the US.”
Unless I’ve skipped over it, I don’t think you’ve offered a peace plan, Gary.
[btw, your Bible quotes are still specious at best.]
Then go read the OT, and find out for yourself!

Norman Blitzer on November 29, 2007 at 2:58 pm

‘A peace agreement must be reached’
There will be NO peace until Israel is Destroyed.
‘The UN should come up with a fair two-state solution.’
There will be no two states because they want Israel Destroyed.
‘Go read the OT and find out for yourself.’
I’ve read the OT and I don’t see any Christian or Jew emulating it anywhere on the face of the Earth.
And the palestinians will still work to Destroy Israel. Even if they sign another 1000 peace treaties.
’tis too bad you do not have a blog, Norman. I’d really like to see what you would have to say 10 years from now, when the Intifada is still going on and Israel has been reduced to a fraction of its present size due to the likes of Olmert.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME
that Israel has given up land for Peace, palestinians – and now, soon, Syrians- have moved in, destroyed everything in sight that could have helped them create a better future, and then begun shelling Israel from those new vantage points.
You could bring Hezbollah to the peace table, get Nasrallah to sign the documents himself, and they’ll be bombing Israel again within the year.
I can’t understand your blindness in the face of the Obvious. *sighs* ISRAEL WANTS PEACE. But There will NEVER be peace so long as Israel exists.

Gary on November 29, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Norman Blitzer said: ” Of course the Palestinians have to renounce terror and recognize Israel’s existence, but once that happens then what? ”
Well, donno, Norm…that’s never happened. How about it happens first, then we see what happens next? As in does it last or is a momentary. What you seem to fail to recognize or acknowledge is Israeli Realpolitik…there are plenty of Israelis who would gladly give up land for peace, and it’s a daily debated issue within Israel….a democracy not dependant upon gunfire for its elections.
Simply put: show me the Palestinian peace, then Israel can show you the land. Screw the “plan”…talk is cheap, whiskey costs money.
Norman Blitzer said: ” Personally, I think the UN should just come up with a fair two-state solution and enforce it with UN forces. Granted this is what sort of happened in 1947 but this time the measure will be militarily enforced by the UN and the US. ”
Normally, Id’ roll on the floor laughing at that idea, but I think you are serious. I have to guess you don’t spent much time on history of “Mandates” by thrid parties from distant lands. If the British Mandate for “Palestine” had been carried out as intended, Israel today would include Jordan. Then in time of strife Israel could liberate Jordan…no wait, that’d put us where we are today.
Then there’s the Geneva Conference of 1954 where a bunch of white guys sat down a divied up Indo-China, creating a country called Vietnam, with multiple ethnicities, dialects, and 3 fundamental regions, Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China. Then they established Laos and Cambodia as separate nations, whihc turned out badly for about 2 Million Khemers if you recall. Great plan, since the Tonkinese had been busy invading and trying to take over Cochin China since the days William of Normandy invaded England…1066. And then whitey the world over wondered whey the souterners didn’t particularly like the northerners.
No thanks, my friend, 58,700 Americans never came home, I was just one of the lucky ones who did. BTW…immediately after 30 April 1975 a virtual pogrom against ethnic Chinese in Cochin China was caried out by the PAVN…don’t recall any protest marches over that in the West. do you?

Zoyadog on November 29, 2007 at 4:30 pm

“I’ve never ever expressed any anti-Semitic sentiments”
In response to a religion sworn to the enslavement or death of Israel you condemn — Israel’s God.
“if someone is going to post negative excerpts from the Koran then be prepared to see similar excerpts from the Bible posted.”
A logical fallacy in first place, and a false moral equivalence in the second.
“There’s no excuse for God to order the killing of children and infants or to uphold the institution of slavery. It’s still evil.”
The command to Israel to wipe out certain Canaanites was a Divine judgment limited to only that time, place, and target. Yes, it was brutal and terrible, but it is in no way comparable to the universal, open-ended commands to wage offensive warfare against all non-Muslims who refuse to submit to Allah.
How many Hebrews are going around slaughtering Canaanites?
As for slavery, surely a good pagan like you also hates Classical Greece and Rome, for did they not also practice it?
What ancient civilization did not?
I encourage *you* to take your own advice and actually read the Old Testament. The commands regarding slavery were not exhortations to enslave, they were limits on what could be done within that ubiquitous, global institution.
It wasn’t until over three millennia after Moses that a significant movement to abolish slavery finally took hold.
Who was behind that? Christians.
You refuse to address the numerous New Testament passages speaking of Liberty and encouraging slaves to gain their freedom peacefully, if possible because doing so would make your libelous, vomitous mass a little harder to issue.
“‘Yes, if you consider intellectual dishonesty, moral inversion, and logical fallacies fashionable.’ Sounds like something you did.”
Impressive retort. Isn’t that the Comment Board equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”?
Telling the truth will do more to enhance your credibility than perseverating error.
“‘Ignore efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Not to create a Palestinian state? Seems to me most people here rather see continuing violence.’
“Thank you for your insightful post 13 Martyrs.”
We see the violence continuing, but not because we want it. It’s because Islam’s god and prophet command it.

Amillennialist on November 29, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Norman…one more thing….
Why is it in your mind that of the 14 million Jews in the world, less than half of which are in Israel, and a billion Muslims, nearly half of which are in the Middle East, do the Israelis/Jews have to be the ones to take first steps??
You seem convinced that all Israelis/Jews want to dispossess all Arab Muslims, not the other way around. You need to visit Israel during election times to get a better grip on the reality.
Another thing you need to do is get to know some ordinary Lebanese Shi’ite Muslims and if you get one who will be hoenst with you (admittedly pretty hard to do), ask who they really dislike the most, who has caused them the most trouble overall in the past 30 years? Then ask who discriminated against them the most in the same period. The answer will not include Israelis/Jews. Check it out.

Zoyadog on November 29, 2007 at 4:41 pm

kudos: Zoyadog, Gary, Amillennialist, hairymon.
Sorry Norman…But to a blue collar type such as my wonderful self not much of what you say has much connection to the reality of what actually ends up happening between people nor any connection to the reality that the PLO has a bonefied and documented history.
Things in more general terms. I tried to read the koran about ten years ago. No, not to convert. I could only get a third the way through it. Although I am not a scholar of the Bible either. I will tell you why I became disgusted. It was a legitamate english translated version in as much as one can assume. The thing reaks of “written by Man” to be “Used against Man.” And what I mean by this is that…all the wording and the context of arrangement. In man’s ability to decieve and manipulate and enslave others for the sole purpose of gain through corruption. In other words it reaks of man’s attempt to structure man’s evil qualities that one can have if one chooses not to attempt the path of good.
Since it was not my attempt to memorize scripture in the koran that was my impression of its intent.
Second…Any idea’s as to what got into the minds of the muslims who went on the first religious crusade in the first place? We are of the same mind and body of those in the begining. What was it about Christians that gave Muslims the idea that they could achieve that spread of domination in the first place?

ArloRay on November 29, 2007 at 5:31 pm

ArloRay,
Thank you.
“In other words it reaks of man’s attempt to structure man’s evil qualities that one can have if one chooses not to attempt the path of good.”
That is a perceptive analysis, ArloRay.
In the early years of Mohammed’s career as a prophet of Allah, his revelations were of a cooperative and respectful nature.
Later, as he grew in military and political might, the revelations concerning non-Muslims evolved into allowing war in self-defense, then demanding war in self-defense, and then finally requiring offensive warfare against all mankind to establish the tyranny of Allah.
Couple this with the fact that many of Mohammed’s other later revelations justified his most base, vile impulses. He received from Allah statements that justified his murder, thievery, polygamy, even his raping of little Aisha from the time she was nine until his death.
And Allah calls Mohammed a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for all who want to please him, making the violation of every commandment under the sun “divine” in Mohammed.
“What was it about Christians that gave Muslims the idea that they could achieve that spread of domination in the first place?”
One God says, “Love your enemies.” The other says, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and other non-Muslims failed to halt the expansion of Islam in ancient times; I suppose they didn’t have the means to communicate and coordinate, and they didn’t know what they were facing.
Today, we have no excuse.

Amillennialist on November 29, 2007 at 8:16 pm

That picture of ‘peace’…..wow.

Bosch Fawstin on November 30, 2007 at 12:53 am

To DS posters:
Just a follow up note regarding Norman Blitzer
Blitzer is one of the liberal trolls who regularly dispenses his liberal convoluted thoughts here on the DS site. His posts are a good window into how deluded the liberal mind is. This thread is a clear example. His premise–we should make “peace” with lying murderers who have sworn themselves to our destruction–this makes great sense to Blitzer. Sadly–it seems Bush, Condi and so many others ignorant westerners are drinking the same Kool Aid.
The bottom line: Ignore the ingnorant troll. (unless you just like to get a tit for ignorant tat going) You’ll have more success reasoning with a hollow log than Blitzer.
One thing for the record regarding Blitzer’s attempt to equate the G-d of the Bible with allah of the koran–
The G-d of the Bible is a G-d of judgement as well besides being a G-d of love and mercy. In Israelites’ conquest of Canaan under Joshua and others–we do read of times where the enemy peoples (all of whom were wicked and idol worshiping) were commanded to be 100% wiped out. We also see the utter destruction of Sodam and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, and the destruction of the Noaic flood–and the wiping out of the Egyptian first born and Pharaoh’s armies— Yet we do not see anywhere—anyone who takes those examples as what we are to do today.
So take note that the lamb of G-d is also the Lion of Judah, and he will judge the nations in righteousness. He is the only one who is qualified to do that. By contrast we have all kinds of examples of present day muslims who take the murdering example of mohammed and his followers in jihad as totally applicable for themselves today. They will lie and betray and murder in following the example of their “prophet” to the end of subjugating all infidels. Blitzer thinks he proves his point but he is comparing apples to oranges through superficial “proof texting.”

BB on November 30, 2007 at 11:45 am

Agreed, BB. I still can’t understand how he believes signing a peace treaty with people who will go straight back to attacking Israel, is going to do any good, even if another thousand peace treaties are signed. Must have something to do with feeling good about himself for having accomplished NOTHING. Eh, martyr13?

Gary on November 30, 2007 at 11:59 am

Amillennialist: “Love your enemies.”
BB: “enemy peoples (all of whom were wicked and idol worshiping) were commanded to be 100% wiped out. We also see the utter destruction of Sodam and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone, and the destruction of the Noaic flood–and the wiping out of the Egyptian first born and Pharaoh’s armies— Yet we do not see anywhere—anyone who takes those examples as what we are to do today.”
Sideline viewpoint: This is why it is a blessing to be alive this very time period. Wether you have a pot to piss in or a toilette that washes you afterwards. Mans greatest height at mass communication and ability to coordinate. The leaders of the Christian world not only implement political correctness but make “law” against the people from naming an enemy that seeks to kill you. And does so openly. (It is a comic book of irony & sataire of breathing history)
-love your enemy..hum, Yes, I can see this in the words of the Bible. Love him as a fellow man in God’s image and do not “seek” him out, out of “spite.” For then you become as your “enemy.” It is also in the Bible as stated by BB that Nations and leaders can wage war under blessings from above.
I can’t quote but somewhere it’s about the good Lord having a hand in the choice of the kings of nations.

ArloRay on November 30, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Over those who rejected Him, Christ lamented, “I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing.”
For those murdering Him, Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
In Christ’s body on the cross, His Father was reconciling the whole world to Himself, not counting our sins against us.

Amillennialist on December 2, 2007 at 6:56 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field