Israel

Of the many political/economic/social/religious situations in the world today there is only one that has the potential of drawing all the nations of the world into a conflict of the most hideous proportions. This conflict is being driven by irreconcilable religious and racial attitudes on both sides. These religious attitudes have been the primary motivational characteristic of all interactions between the Mediterranean Arab Moslem communities and the primarily Jewish nation of Israel.

If one was to take an old map of this Mediterranean area, it would be immediately evident that the nations surrounding Israel today are the same enemies and races that it was in conflict with during Old Testament times. It is rather amazing that this should be the case.

It has been made abundantly clear in the past by leaders of these surrounding nations that the presence of the Israeli State is both an abomination and insult to their religious sensitivities. The civilized world frowns heavily upon such statements, as it should. So over time, and under the influence of the world community this innate hatred for Israel has taken on a more disguised socially correct issue oriented posture to the point that these nations now forward the argument that if the displaced Palestinians are provided a national status and Israel withdraws from occupied territory acquired through several of it's wars with these surrounding nations then the nation Israel will have peace and freedom from terror. To put it this way, almost as a promise, is an admittance of the support and collaboration these nations have with the terrorist organizations. They speak from an "insider" position of power and knowledge on the subject without disclosing the privacy of their arrangements and relationships with terrorism. Such are not to be trusted.

Such a diplomatic position has been recently developed by this surrounding community of mostly Arab Moslem states with Saudi Arabia coming out as more or less spokesman for the entire surrounding communities.

It is rather strange to see such a "consensus" between these neighboring states who do not welcome into their own lands these displaced Palestinians but also seem to be the "voice" of this displaced community. In addition, while this consensus is put forth to the world the so-called leader of this Palestinian community is practicing terrorism and recruiting terrorists from that community.

These Arab leaders have confused the world community by creating two faces - one for the world and another for the people of their own nations. They feed their people hate and they feed the world diplomatic double talk Leaders in the UN and EU and elsewhere seem to favor "talk". But if the talk is not followed by the "walk" then it is only deception. There is no political or military "will" to keep such promises made by these Arab nations. This has been amply demonstrated by the United Nations in numerous other situations. In one recent example, UN Dutch armed peace keepers turned over a great many refugees to their enemy who within minutes slaughtered and buried these refugees in mass graves. Will the UN act the same way with the Israeli people if a settlement is formed and then broken? The UN and EU are a leadership of talk and not action. They may mean well but do not have the "will" to enforce a settlement. And typically sanctions and embargos only hurt the innocent, the general public.

By definition, terrorism is subversive, misleading, sinister, ruthless, dishonest, callous, and single minded as opposed to open minded. Terrorists considers talk only when it suits the single minded purpose of why terrorism exists and in this case that purpose is the destruction of the Jewish state.

Yasir Arafat for many years now was not only instrumental in organizing and arming terrorist groups but is of the same political mentality as these terrorist groups. The entire world knows this to be true, it is common knowledge, and he made no effort to even hide the fact. He is proud of his terrorism and there is nothing in his behavior to indicate that he has "grown up" into the kind of human being that perhaps has learned from past mistakes.

It is a bad practice for free democratic countries to seek alliances with stable governments , form relationships with them, and support them, regardless of the evil associated with their existence? But in the case of the Palestinian populace there is no real government and how by any measure can a government led by terrorists constitute in any ones mind a stable government?

This situation of a displaced people having a volunteered "voice" and sympathy of not otherwise so helpful neighbors while also having a so called national leader in the form of the committed terrorist Yasir Arafat has to be the most unique and idiosyncratic dilemma a nation like Israel could ever have to face. What gives these neighboring states the right to speak on behalf of a people with whom they will not share their own domains? Domain is a proper word here for in a true sense none of them are democracies although their leaders often claim such a status. But even the old Soviet Union claimed to be democratic and so did the long gone German Democratic Republic. Words are just words unless there are corresponding actions.

These neighbors not only have the means, these neighboring leaders have the authority to open up their countries and absorb this displaced populace and by so doing immediately ending this conflict. But they won't do that. It is out of the question. If they love the Palestinians so much and feel their pain then why don't they absorb them into their communities, give them jobs, and a place to live and be happy. Perhaps they are not that eager to see the conflict end but simply more interested in achieving a temporary gain.

If the present attitudes of the Palestinian people continue especially with a leader like Yasir Arafat then as a sovereign state they would be able to enter into an alliance with these other neighboring states, build a large military, and arm themselves in any way they can get away with from an international perspective. This new nation adjacent to Israel could then become a front line for future action against Israel. This possibility of an adjacent sovereign state ruled by a man with the attitudes of Yasir Arafat must give Israeli leaders nightmares. Yet Israel was willing to make this concession in order to be guaranteed peace.

I emphasize; it is a worthy and noble effort to "talk", that is negotiate and collaborate towards a solution where the words have corresponding actions. But there are many nations who have leaders that use "talk" as a device of persuasion and propaganda and have no intention of engaging in actions that correspond closely to the "talk". This necessitates situations when "talk" is inappropriate and only action will solve the problem. Action does not necessarily mean force. But the violent who use talk as a deception can only be dealt with by force. This reverting to force when talk appears inappropriate has resulted in violent wars. The responding to force as with the American entry into world war II was not preceded with "talk". Nor was 9/11 with the airliners crashing into the New York Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon resolved by "talk".

Also, if these neighboring Arab nations truly believed what they tell the world then there would be no need for their volunteered "voice" on behalf of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people apparently have their own dictator, Yasir Arafat. There were no peaceful demonstrations or riots among the people showing their dissatisfaction with him or an cry for alternative political solutions. Perhaps they know no better. But, they should not need 2 "voices". Yasir Arafat's voice has been very clear from a pragmatic standpoint. By his actions or his inactive position he has provided his stamp of approval on the terrorism he helped to create and has been supporting - according to evidence gathered by the Israelis. And, for whatever reasons, the average Palestinian supports Yasir Arafat. But they have little choice. There is no organization, means, or apparatus that allows any other kind of consensus amongst the Palestinians to have a place in their politics.

Therefore, the world has on its hands a very large community of very unhappy people having a terrorist for a role model. How long would the United States, Canada, or any other country have a stable government if the role models were all terrorists or clerics who condoned terrorism by either silence or visible support? How long can anything civilized last if young children are to grow up in a society that pampers them with the notion that to take up arms and kill your neighbor is both a noble purpose but in addition has a heavenly reward? This, in point of fact, is fact. There have been a number of credible documentaries with interviews showing that this mentality of this type of martyrdom is widespread. It is not religious bias or hatred to state a fact even if someone else might resent that fact. This situation is quite clear; it is not a matter of perception, a Westerner incapable of comprehending what is going on in the Arab mind. It is very clear what is going on in some of these Arab minds. It is out right hate and a regard to violence and murder as the first choice of expression when things are going bad for them.

Should we suppress the truth of such human indignities such as this mentality as promoted on a large scale with children who will grow up to be the future leaders of the world. This kind of conduct is most hideous of all possible conduct. It is more hideous than racial or religious genocide for it is the cause of such genocide. A society and a world order of societies cannot exist alongside the practice of hatred that drives the individual to murder as the first expression of solving a difficult problem.

These neighboring nations that speak for the Palestinians have no difficulty showing great sympathy and understanding to those exhibiting hatred directed at Israelis as well as the West as a whole. They are so totally empathized with this hatred position that they cannot condemn these displaced people who they say are "suffering so terribly" because they understand and feel "their pain". Or so they tell the world.

I personally need to understand exactly what they mean when they use this word PAIN. Certainly, there are large refugee camps. But based on the little news that has got out from the Palestinian communities during the last retaliatory military action by Israel to destroy the terrorist infrastructure, what are we hearing from these people? We hear things like POWER has been turned off. TELEPHONE communications have been shut down. AMBULANCES cannot reach the injured to take them to HOSPITALS. People cannot get to the stores and markets. We see some pictures of paved STREETS, with HOMES and APARTMENTS with people fearfully looking out. We see where Israeli tanks have driven over CARS and TRUCKS that were in the paved streets and in the way. We hear of TELEVISION and RADIO stations being shut down.

From these descriptions we can assume the average Palestinian must therefore have a TV and or RADIO. Many have cars. They have furniture for their apartments and homes. They have water and electricity. They have some degree of health care even ambulances and hospitals. And many are angry because the Israeli army has been reckless with their furniture and supposedly left their homes in a shambles.

Therefore homes and even furniture they have - at least the many that are making these complaints. Now what does this tell us about the unhappiness of the general Palestinian community under Yasir Arafat? Are they unhappy because they have a TV and a furnished place to live, jobs, and food on the table? Are they unhappy because they are living in a refugee camp and don't have what the others have? Are they unhappy and feeling PAIN because their standard of living is lower than that of the average Israeli or Westerner? Or is the greatest degree of their unhappiness lie in other issues not at all related to home, furniture, food, clothing, etc.? Is this an intellectual or emotional PAIN, or is it both? What exactly is the great PAIN that warrants such astronomical hatred that one is willing to murder? Is it by any chance the same kind of PAIN that is behind the killing and terrorism in Ireland? Is it simply dissatisfaction with the status quo?

I don't like the Canadian Prime Minister but I don't hate him either. That is to say, I don't like him as a political leader or as a moral model but I don't hate him. I don't vote for him that is how I show my disapproval. Some of the things he has done cause me great distress but I don't hate him or want to murder him or see someone shoot him just because I am in disagreement with him. But there are people in this world, yes, lots of people in this world that revert to a mentality of hate to anything different or that causes them some kind of grief.

If we let hate rule as the solution to our perceived problems then we doom civilization. If we allow hate to grow as it is now growing within the Palestinian populace the entire world will be the victim of this hate. If we reward hate that leads to murder we only entrench it. Hate such as this that murders the perceived source of anxiety or pain cannot be justified, condoned, reinforced, or given any air to breath. Hate is the tool of the devil and cannot be allowed to prosper.

The political leaders of these countries, which neighbor Israel, tell a lie when they say that if the Palestinian problem is sorted out their way the hate and murder will cease. This is a lie because that hate has nothing to do with the state or non-state status of the Palestinian peoples. It has most to do with basic attitudes about life and how to deal with life. If these political leaders were really interested in helping the Palestinian peoples they would do everything in their power to tackle this hideous mentality of terrorism that leads to mass murder and the eventual collapse of the society out of which comes this hate.

Hate unfortunately, also breeds hate. What kind of a person murders and then hides amongst the innocent so the innocent will suffer when the violent are sought out? Violence breeds violence. And those that live by the sword will die by the sword. I take this to mean that those whose natural tendency or propensity is to seek violence will find their end by violence.

But we do not see the leaders of Arab countries counselling their people towards love and the shunning of hatred and violence. Rather, these leaders more or less condone such hatred and associated terrorism as the only kind of "weapon" at the disposal of these Palestinian people who bear such unbearable pain that it must be vented with whatever weapons they can "defend" themselves with. Again, these leader sneak in more assumptions. One assumption is that Israel is a nation that is intent on occupying the land rightfully belonging to these displaced peoples. This is the so-called pain, the humiliation of being "occupied" by a foreign power.

First, the so-called Palestinians are displaced peoples from many areas and do not constitute a singular national entity. It is this "voice", volunteered by the neighboring Arab states, that claims they are somehow one national identity and therefore should become a recognized sovereign state. Perhaps they should become a sovereign state, as it seems none of their neighboring fat cat states want them. But to then suggest that as a rightful sovereign state they are occupied is just too much of a stretch. They are dominated and in some ways occupied by Israel only until the UN, Israeli leadership, and Yasir Arafat officially change that status. They simply are not occupied and held in submission by guns and tanks unless terrorism hosted and harbored by those people reaches unimaginable and continuous proportions as it has of late.

And let there be no mistake in recognizing that within these Palestinian communities and refugee camps there is on going preparations and arming in order to carry on with terrorism while hiding amongst the civilian population. It is this preparation and arming to vent their hatred that the leaders of the neighboring nations both condone and support.

In short, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is rushing the entire world into a destructive cycle because the world's politically correct leaders refuse to deal with the real issue. The real issue is the growing hatred that Tony Blair indicated might have already reached proportions where neither party is capable of adopting a position of trust with the other necessary to bring the whole matter closure. But if the Arab side is not sincere, just "talk", then what value is there is reaching a settlement that cannot be secured.

The Love of God, true caring for the welfare of others, is the only basis upon which society can be built and survive. The practice of hatred leads to plunder and murder and is the primitive predatory and violent expression of problem solving which mankind by this time should have matured well beyond. Yet mankind cannot seem to dump this primitive way of solving problems. The Palestinian region is such a case. It epitomizes the problem of mankind. Here is a society that is feeding itself on the concept of hatred and those in power, the role models, the clerics, and political leaders are doing absolutely nothing in terms of addressing the real root causes of this on going conflict. Israel or it's indiscretions are not the root cause. To put it bluntly, until the issue of "hatred" is directly addressed, any other efforts will only be a temporary measure and the problem will suddenly burst out it's hideous puss over all the world.

If we must raise the sword of violence it must be against an evil greater than that of the sword else we are no better than that evil.