News: CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY MIDEAST 'ROADMAP' COULD LEAD TO DISASTER

InHim2002, this is a reasonable statement. Just like when we discipline our children...sometimes a conflict has gone beyond the point of "who's at fault." The only way to resolution is through humility. Is this possible? Only with God's help, because nothing man-made will work in this crisis.

 

InHim, if the homicide bombings would stop, perhaps there would be a chance. Wouldn't that be an Ideal situation? Of course.

But the raw truth of the matter is they won't. There is a mindset, an ideology, which wants to drive Israel into the sea, which is ingrained into Islamic Fundamentalist children (who are taught to sacrifice their precious lives to Allah for promise of paradise),

Which is what I believe I eluded to in my first post and subsequent posts on this thread re: Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Arafat, and the new Palestinian Prime Minister (with a checkered past of terrorism). A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist & you can't make deals that work with terrorists.

So, how could Palestinians show good faith? Perhaps by letting 6 months or 1 year go by without any homicide bombings? Then the IDF tanks would withdraw.

Should Arafat be forced to go back to Egypt from whence he came? Would that do it? Are there enough Palestinians in the general population who REALLY want peace? (Polls have shown otherwise, as stated before.)

Seemingly, every time the IDF tanks withdraw, new homicide bombings take place in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or at some other Jewish gathering place.

Can you name ONE TIME the Palestinians have ever made any CONCESSIONS towards peace? Can you name ONE time when homicide bombings have stopped for more than 60 days since Arafat's intifada?

So it would seem we have gone full circle in this discussion.

 

Something more substantial than that I think - perhaps a 'roadmap' of some sort which lays out the path to peace and is legally binding ie:

- terrorism stops, right now
- settlements stop, right now
- UN involvement in the policing of the occupied terroritories
- gradual moving back of Israeli forces to the pre 1967 borders
- co-operation and help from the IDF to find and prosecute terrorists

Part of the problem is that there is no infrastructure for the Palestinians to police themselves effectively, which makes preventing terrorism very difficult - so there would need to be something worked out there too.

I agree that there are people with that mindset - but the first step to stopping terrorism is removing the justification for it - the daily experiences of those in the occupied terroritories (as detailed in my earlier postings) helps to foster terrorism.

Remember though that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You can't make deals with the people strapping semtex to their bodies but you can with those that control and finance them. That is what needs to be done.

I a bit wary of those sort of polls - but I would estimate, based on my own experience of human nature, that almost everyone in that region want peace - it is almost universial desire to be able to walk the streets without being shot by the army or blown up by a terrorist - the issue though is what sort of peace are we talking about - that is why both sides will have to compromise.

what concessions are they in position to make?

 

Stop the homicide bombings.

 

I agree - but there must be concessions on both sides in order for that to happen - the alternative is that cycle of violence continues - and that is the one alternative that no-one benefits from.

As I said before - Both sides in this conflict have blood on their hands, both sides are in the wrong and both sides have to find a way in which they can peacefully co-exist. The alternative is more deaths, more bloodshed, more heartache and more and more violence.

I outlined the sort of route that I thought the path to peace could take what did you think of that?

 

Failing to agree with the eschatology called dispensational premillennialism, that didn't even exist for all practical purposes until about 1830, is not anti-Semitic. The Jews as a race ceased to be God's chosen people when Jesus Christ died and took away the sin of the world on the cross.

****Murph Now this is funny on the one hand you claim that some theological beliefs are invalid because they are not old enough but on the other hand you fail to recognize God's word from the O.T "If my people" Yes the jews must recieve Christ but the promises to the jews are still valid, God doesn't lie.

The fact that dispensationals resort to mudslinging the very moment that anyone dares to question their Johnny-come-lately eschatology and want to shut down all debate, as if dispensationalism somehow deserves hegemony in the field of eschatology, I find to be very, very revealing of the weakness of their position. </font>[/QUOTE]Your last sentence is very rude and I would suggest that you refrain from such.
Murph

 

I don't think recognizing Israel as just another country merits the name anti-semite, yet this seems to prevail by some.

It is clear that God, for His own reasons, chose to deliver His word through Israel, and to bring about the means of salvation. It is also clear, in my mind, that the church is not an afterthought of God and was intended from the very beginning, to be the Israel of God. He made salvation available to all who believe.

It is also clear, by God's word, that there will be wars and rumours of wars in this world. We will know peace when the Prince of peace makes His glorious return, and not before then.

The Middle East is a land of turmoil and it will continue unto that day. This does not negate the idea that we ought to do what we can to bring about peace on all sides. The Jews os Israel are not above reproof and hold no special status. They are equally responsible for the damage they do, as are the Palestinians, Arabs and all in that region. There is bitterness on both sides and it is inbred and generational.

So, let us dispense with the name calling on all sides. Rather, let us support the preaching of the gospel in these countries and not be so wrapped up in a political system called democracy. Democracy is not for everyone and the sooner we get off that hobbyhorse the better off this old world will be.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

 

I would be insulted, too...if I knew what all of this meant. I guess I will need to go to school in order to decipher all of the "seminary-speak."

 

quoting she eagle

One again or should I say as usual you speak in hyperbole. I have not, will not, do not, cannot defend the suicide bombers. They are wrong in what they are doing. But the Palestinians have no control over the fringe groups that are now continuing these activities. As others have pointed out they have no infrastructure and no ability to police their people.

To disagree with Israel is not to be anti-Semitic. I support a pre 1967 Israeli state and a West Bank, Gaza Strip country for Palestinians. I believe that both groups are equally guility of horrible atrocities that have been going on for years. I do not believe that there is some special divine plan for secular Israel that supercedes God overall plan for humanity. And it is time that you stopped with your name calling ...

Was it you who said that there is something wrong with my theology because I said Jesus is 'ok'? Should I assume that you do not think that Jesus is okay? Or do you think Jesus is put-off by my statement and needs your help? Some one asks me about one of kids and I answer she/he is okay ... does that demean my child? Do you think to hold Jesus is same regard as I hold my children is demeaning to him? Or does that make me a member of the DSA?