...Lest we forget.

 

I guess an important preface to our War On Terror would be to point out the necessity to forcefully act when diplomatic efforts fail, or when delays in such efforts are conspicuous manipulations of the process to the point where potential threats may continue to exist and expand.  Many people simply don't recognize the long-term goals of terrorists and terrorist states (some of which are revealed here), so they don't understand the background and perspective which differs dramatically from western perspective.  Cries of "we must show tolerance" or "they want peace just like we do" will not solve the narrow and hostile mindset of ancient and ingrained theocratic intolerance.

Many of those opposed to war use the mantra of "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but they misunderstand the context.  It's probably ironic that many of those same opponents would also protest religious expression in the public forum if it didn't suit their own purposes.  Read some of the other Ten Commandments: thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witnss, thou shalt not steal, etc. It becomes clear that a nation as a whole does not commit these things, individuals do.  The Ten Commandments are personal laws that we must adhere to.  If we did, there would be no wars or strife.  But when we don't adhere to them, civil law takes over.  Civil law says that if one man sheds the blood of another, his blood shall also be shed.  It says that if a man breaks the law, he shall be punished.  It also makes clear that if a nation breaks from law and order, sheds blood, or comes against another nation, it shall be punished.  This is the only way civility and order can be maintained in a community, in a country, or in the world. While personal law says, "Thou shalt not kill", civil law says, "If you do, you will face the consequences".

History has repeatedly made it clear that when nations and leaders have chosen a course of brutality or domination, decisive force has been the only solution and path to peace.  Just know that we have not only a civil right, but a Godly right to protect our individual and national security.

THE MIDDLE EAST:  Truth and Perspective

While we attempt to foster gestures of peace from the Palestinians and their Arab allies, let us not lose sight of the following facts that support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, and which expose misrepresentations that seek to justify terrorism and the Palestinian cause.

1. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam. There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine", only a region renamed by the Romans as they dispersed the Jews from their land. Neither has there ever been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964. Though Arabs actually started "occupying" the land in 636 A.D. uprooting many more of its Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there but simply settled in a geo-political area called Palestine.

2. Jews began migrating back to the area in the 1880s to begin rebuilding the desolate and neglected land in hopeful preparation of re-establishing the only sovereign nation and civilization previously in "Palestine" - the nation of Israel. It was this migration and motivation that restored the land to its economic and political viability, and encouraged the greatest influx of Arabs who sought to take advantage of the new prosperity and opportunity which they themselves never achieved since they had no historical or motivating heritage there.

3. The British eventually divided the territory in 1923 into two districts: the eastern 25% as the Jewish Palestine, and the western 75% as the Arab Palestine which later became "Trans-Jordan" in 1946. Though the Arab Palestinians now had the larger homeland with surrounding Arab countries 640 times the size of the Jewish district, the Arab obsession with occupying all the land led to continuous murderous assaults against Jewish Palestinians. U.N. Resolution 181 in 1947 divided even more of the Jewish Palestine into a second Arab Palestinian homeland based on populations which the Jews accepted. The Arab Palestinians rejected it, still demanding all of Jewish Palestine. This uncompromising pattern continues to this day.

4. After Israel’s survival of aggression by its Arab neighbors after declaring statehood in 1948, the second potential Arab Palestinian homeland of the West Bank was occupied by Trans-Jordan and eventually became part of the renamed "Jordan" in 1950. Considering the Arab Palestinian’s purported "ancient" identity and need for "self-determination" in the West Bank after Israel regained this territory in the unprovoked 1967 aggression by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan (the Six-Day War), it is curious why no such request was ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan while he occupied the West Bank for 19 years. After 1967, though the Palestinians now considered themselves refugees, many were persuaded to remain by Israel's General Moshe Dayan in hopes it would create a bridge to peaceful coexistence. In a continuing gesture of peace, Israel returned the occupied Sinai (seized in 1967) to Egypt in 1982.

5. Jerusalem (founded by King David) has been the sole historic and holy Jewish capitol for thousands of years. Though the Jews have been massacred or driven out over the ages, there has been a nearly unbroken Jewish presence in Jerusalem for the past 1,600 years and, since the early 1800's, a predominantly Jewish population. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem from 1948-67, they never sought to change it to their capital nor make it the capital of any "Arab Palestinian" people. Such a low priority was placed on Jerusalem that the PLO's founding charter, the Palestinian National Covenant of 1964, made no reference whatsoever to it.

6. In contrast and from a spiritual standpoint, Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and the Christian Bible 154 times. Islam's Koran mentions Mecca and Medina hundreds of times but never mentions Jerusalem once, and there is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammad ever visited Jerusalem. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the original location of two earlier temples from 953 B.C. to 70 A.D. (destroyed by the Babylonians and Romans), is Judaism’s exclusive holy temple sight. Except for two minor mosques conspicuously built on the Temple Mount, the Dome of the Rock built in 687 A.D. and Al-Aqsa completed in 705 A.D., Jerusalem itself has no major Islamic significance. When a Moslem prays, even while in Jerusalem, he faces Mecca. When a Jew prays from anywhere in the world, he faces the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Amazingly, Jewish visits to the site are not tolerated by Muslims as recent events have demonstrated. But based on history and the ongoing hostility, there appears a clear indication of who ultimately lays claim to this holy site and the opposition's motive for attempting to replace its Judeo-Christian significance with false claims.

Maybe there is a Middle East solution that will not compromise Israel's borders and will provide an appropriate region for a Palestinian state. Considering that Palestinians had occupied part of Jordan from which they were eventually ousted in a bloody confrontation, apparently due to their hostility in that country as well, what if Israel and Jordan came together in a mutual attempt between Arab and Jew to provide terrirtory on both sides of the Jordan River? Such a collective effort would send a positive message of peace in the region, set aside old hosilities of both nations towards the Palestinians, and provide lands previously settled by the them.

Though Jerusalem may be called a sticking point, it should be a primary consideration that the Palestinians recognize Mecca as their holy center while the Jewish nation originally established Jerusalem and recognize it as their holy center. Another aspect (and Islamic inconsistency) is suggested within the Qur’an: "And call to mind, through this divine writ, Moses, Behold he was a chosen one, and was an apostle [of God], a prophet." (Surah 19:51) If Islam recognizes Moses as a prophet of the same God Allah and the Muslims know Moses led his people to the holy land Allah promised to them, why now would the fundamentalist factions seek to claim the same holy land and drive the Jewish people from it?

To:  Newspapers  (9.30.01)

I was again amazed at the ignorance of peace marchers this past Saturday. They, as many Americans, simply don't understand that this is not about New York and negotiations - this is an ancient conflict between Islam and Israel.

The Taliban leader made it clear in comments this past week that if we shift our support of Israel, all will be well with us. From the terrorist's perspective, the little Jewish state could have been squashed long ago if not for the US. How can we assume this? From the following OFFICIAL statements -

Bin Laden's purported fax this week encouraged the destruction of "the new JEWISH crusade on the soil of Pakistan and Afghanistan." Isn't this about New York? About US forces? Not from their perspective.

Saddam Hussein has made clear his dream of marching as a victorious conqueror into Jerusalem (as reiterated by Dan Rather on Letterman the other night). "Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map."  Isn't this about peaceful coexistence? Not from their perspective.

Libya: "The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist." Isn't this about negotiations? Not from their perspective.

PLO: "The struggle is not about Israel's borders, it is about Israel's existence." Isn't this about compromise? Not from their perspective.

Iran: "The everlasting struggle between Ishmael and Isaac [the scriptural split where it all started 3000 years ago] cannot cease until one or the other is utterly destroyed." Isn't this about religious tolerance? Not from their perspective.

As a November 2004 footnote following Yassar Arafat's death, the above statements represent Arafat's life work. We can only be relieved that his ambitions were never realized in his lifetime. He will not be missed, nor will the insult of an ill-gotten Nobel Peace Prize that hopefully will be buried with him.)

Printed 8/29/04: Family Bulletin Alert

One thing that strikes me is how the liberals condemn Bush's "war" policy as if he, the administration, the Defense Department, and the top leadership of the entire military have no idea what they are doing. And yet look at any map of the Middle East and you will notice that both Iran and Syria are now geographically isolated as extremist and terrorist-supporting nations, surrounded by buffer zones of Iraq, Afghanistan, and moderate states such as Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf States. Is it a dumb coincidence that this has occurred, or it it possible that the administration's  policies have not only disabled a terrorist state and a brutal dictator but have also militarily isolated the next major concerns in international terrorism? It looks like the liberals, in their blind ignorance, have underestimated once again.

Comment:  Good point Ira, but overlooked on purpose by the media.  Ed.

EMPIRE BUILDING

Many have long been familiar with the growing problems of aggressive Muslim factions and regimes for decades, and have wrestled with solutions. The US with or without a coalition of others is currently the only nation with enough clout, power, and conviction to pursue change whether it be in response to military aggression, human rights issues, or threats to the US, its civilians overseas, or our allies (such as Israel). The alternative is to do nothing and pass along escalating problems to the next generation. The idea is if we can't stop it completely, we can at least make a valiant effort to slow it down. The current administration is only being honest about the alternatives where others will try to sugar-coat it. It still has nothing to do with empire-building as it's defined, but rather "persuasive" influence towards a political, economic, and social climate that will encourage tolerant and democratic policies conducive to human rights and regional and global stability for them and us.

The ones worried about us taking over the world either don't acknowledge our history, understand our ideology, or they base their perception of us on their own preconceptions and what they themselves would do. If Germany had succeeded in their earlier aggressions, if the Japanese Empire had dominated over China and the Far East, if North Korea had defeated South Korea, if Saddam could have retained Kuwait, if he or Muslim extremists could have their way with Israel, do you think any of them would have encouraged independent sovereignty and a better environment of freedom and elective government for the conquered? Of course not, and that shapes their view. But ask Germany and all of western Europe, Japan, Kuwait, Kosovo and others what our conflict legacy was for them. It has been such inherent and relatively noble intentions on our part that is so alien to many cultures and political persuasions, so they quite naturally expect the worst.

Likewise, many Muslims naturally tend to believe it's empirialism when they themselves are taught that any land they conquer is theirs and, if they lose it, it is their divine right to take it back by any means necessary. This is typical of the teachings of Mohammad while he was still in Medina, a period of conflict while he sought the conquest of Mecca. It is also a prime reason for their problem with Israel. Even though the Jews first founded the only established nation there, established their one and only holy city and temple there, and established infrastructure and prosperity there, the extremists have stated their continuing goal of eventually driving Israel into the sea and reclaiming the land settled by Arabs only after the Romans drove the Jews out in 70 AD and renamed the region Palestine. They are not truly interested in Israel's right to a homeland, nor in compromising as Arafat clearly demonstrated at the Camp David Accord. Tolerance, no. Dominance, yes.

Of course, the fundamentalist Muslim theocracies don't want Western influence to succeed on any level. Once a people understand or experience greater personal freedom and its benefits, they will never return to a more repressive form of government or society except under brute force. Muslim leaders and clerics know this and will do everything in their power to maintain theocratic control of the people and the information they receive. It is also in their interest to encourage animosity towards any political, social, or cultural climate that conflicts with their own through misinformation and propaganda framed as theological edicts (fatwas). And while there are moderate Muslims that truly want peace and stability, the intolerant factions follow the more aggressive doctrine of Mohammad by self-serving choice. Worst yet, they're the ones who get all the attention and "press" making it impossible for cooler Middle Eastern heads or the common man to prevail unless we can jump in and counter the madness.

Unfortunately, even with Iraqi moderates and exiles desiring to form a more democratic government in Iraq, there are no guarantees with a culture that has only known the false security of dictatorships or repressive theocracies. They are literally (and illiterally) clueless to the concepts of greater freedom, tolerance, and representative government. The question is will they be willing as a whole to even try it?

WHO'S KILLING MUSLIMS?

Victor Hanson, the author and prominent historian, caught me with one of his commentaries:
"...we seek to wonder why we are hated, instead of firmly and candidly reminding Islam that America the last two decades has been the protector of Muslims - against Soviet Communism, Iraqi dictatorship, thugs in Somalia, or Christian death squads in Bosnia and Kosovo. Do we dare bark back to the Palestinians that the real killers of Muslims the last 30 years have been other Muslims and atheists? - whether in the horrific Iran-Iraqi War, the Russian assault on Afghanistan, the Jordanian liquidation of Palestinians, the extinction of whole villages in Lebanon by Syria, and the Iraqi murder of Shiites, Kurds, and Kuwaitis?"

This prompted me to research some estimated numbers behind related incidents, especially the ones that were the most historically "memorable". Here's what I came up with from the more objective online sources:

1948- Israeli massacre at DEIR YASSIN:  over 100 townspeople
1956- Israeli massacre at KAFR KASSEM: 49 residents
1967- Jordanian/Palestinian civil war : 30,000 Palestinians killed
1980 to 1988- Iran/Iraq War: 600,000 Iranian, 400,000 Iraqis
1979 to 1989: Russian war in Afghanistan: 1.3 million Muslims
1991- Gulf War (and preceding estimates): 100,000 Kurds and Assyrians killed by Iraq; 100,000 Shi'a Muslims killed by Iraq; 7,000-8,000 Kuwaitis killed by Iraq; 65,000 Iraqis killed by Coalition forces (includes collateral civilian)
1992 to 1993- Bosnian conflict: 20,000 to 30,000 Muslims (as per International Committee of the Red Cross)
1994 to 1996- Russian/Chechen conflict: 40,000 Chechens (as per Human Rights Watch)
2001- US war on Taliban: 1000-1300 collateral civilian deaths (as per press reviews from Afghanistan)

Muslims Killed -
by Jordanians: 30,000
by Iranians: 400,000
by Iraqis: over 800,000
= over 1.2 million in 10 years from these incidents alone (almost as many as by Marxist atheists in 10 years)
Hanson appears correct and, considering that the US and Israel are the major targets of Muslim animosity, it looks like math (and restraint) is not a particularly strong Islamic subject.

 
 
  Back to Homepage