Not to mention that the vast majority of Christians do not care for holy sites. Christianity is in your soul, your spirit so to speak, not in some delapidated old building that MAY or MAY NOT have been associated with Jesus Christ. Symbolism is meant to be uplifting, not overpowering. DaDakota
A good article that explains why the Saudi proposal is serious and an improvement over Camp David The brilliant offer Israel never made To get peace talks started again means confronting a few myths David Clark Wednesday April 10, 2002 The Guardian Yesterday's carnage in the West Bank provided a bloody illustration of the limits of Ariel Sharon's military strategy. Armed force cannot provide his people with the security they crave because the terrorist infrastructure he has set out to destroy consists of little more than the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to kill themselves while taking as many Israelis with them as possible. This week, the hatred on which it is built burns deeper than ever. In the absence of a meaningful peace process, further atrocities are inevitable, and when they happen, the consequences may be far worse than anything we have so far seen. Israeli leaders are trapped in a mindset in which further military escalation appears to be their only option. Yet it is difficult to see how much further they can go without triggering a wider regional conflagration that might threaten the state of Israel itself. The "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from large tracts of the occupied territories? The murder of Arafat? The consequences are unthinkable. Left to his own devices, Ariel Sharon may yet turn out to be the ultimate suicide bomber. Into the maelstrom steps Colin Powell on a mission that could represent the best hope of avoiding such a catastrophe. His task is clear: to secure a ceasefire and persuade both parties to return to the negotiating table. To succeed, however, he will need to do more than indulge in hand-wringing. He will need to come armed with some harsh truths and some even harsher consequences. With Israel, it will be necessary to challenge some deeply held illusions about the peace process and why it broke down. Chief among these is the assertion that the Palestinians rejected a "generous" Israeli offer at Camp David two years ago. It is a view that spans the Israeli political spectrum, uniting the hard right with born-again rejectionists like Ehud Barak, confirming all in their belief that political dialogue has been exhausted and that Arafat is an inveterate terrorist. It is time for some constructive revisionism. Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders. The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967. Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted. For this, Bill Clinton must accept responsibility. With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel's terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader. Maladroit diplomacy played its part, but the failure at Camp David was the product of a deeper problem for which the Palestinians must also accept their share of blame. With the benefit of hindsight, the 1993 Oslo agreement that embodied the land-for-peace compromise was a mirage. Although both sides signed up to a two-state solution, neither was completely sincere in accepting its implications. The Palestinians clung to maximalist demands on refugee returns in the hope that demographics would allow them to rewrite the past. The Israelis insisted on territorial demands that made a mockery of the idea of a viable Palestinian state. It is here that the Saudi peace initiative has come to play such a critical role in getting the peace process back on track. In calling for Israel's withdrawal from all of the occupied territories and holding out the prospect of a compromise on the refugees that would meet Israeli concerns, it forces both sides finally to come to terms with each other's existence. Tony Blair's call for the Saudi plan to be enshrined in a new UN resolution is a tacit acceptance that Camp David was a botched job. Progress will now depend on Colin Powell's willingness to spell that out to Sharon and Arafat this week. ยท David Clark was a special adviser at the Foreign Office until May 2001.
God says, "whereever two or more are gathered in my name, I am there also." Church is a place we go to collectively worship. Some churches are in strip centers...others are in majestic old buildings. Often we associate certain feelings with places...but, at least according to Protestant tradition, there is nothing so holy about the PHYSICAL site of a church as compared to other religions.
<b>It is a shame as the American people have the ability to release Israel and Palestine from the death grip they are in. To do so involves little expenditure and almost no military action by the US other than supplying UN peacekeepers. </b> Don't blame America, these people are the ones killing each other. And I think it's going to take more then a supply of UN peacekeepers to stop those slaughters going on over there. There are nuts that are doing the same thing over here (militia groups over here, the terrorist attacks), and peacekeepers cant' talk sense into these people, I doubt they'll have a lot of success doing so with countries.
Rocksmillenium. I agree that the peacekeepers are perhaps not an instant solution. The clear solution is to start applying the economic pressure to Israel by not having the US funding their military so heavily that they feel invincible. A good start is to stop giving thim military aid. A brief suspension might be a good lesson for them. We can then proceed toward an economic boycott, but this probably would not be necessary for very long. It is very doubtful that educated middle class Israelis want to live in ever increasing poverty just for the pleasure of grabbing a few more acres of Palestinian land. We might also try liberalizing our immigration policies to encourage more Israelis to emigrate as their standard of living goes down. Despite Sharon's bluster it seems that more and more Israelis wish that they could emigrate. Once the message gets out in Israel they will start becoming more prone to real peace negotiations. At this point a majority of Israelis still support Sharon and his goals to grab more land by the building of racist settlements where only Jew may live and to keep intimidating the Palestininas into accepting less and less land. According to some polls as much as 45% of Israelis are for ethnic cleansing and trying to expell all the Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, given the incredible amount of weapons that we have given them, it may take several years before their weapon systems degrade to the point where they start feel more like they need to go back to the 1967 borders and make peace with the Palestinians. It is hard to stop suicide bombers as Israel has shown. It is however, good that we have such a nonviolent way to bring one of the parties to the real negotiating table. Only a "viable"Palestinian state to quote Bush will provide the type of envornment that will begin to erode the support for suicide bombers.
amen!! the US is the only nation in the world that gets blamed when other nations start killing each other!!
I have a question for everyone: Why didn't we hear the Palestinian people demanding their own homeland when the West Bank was under Jordan's control from 1948-1967? Why did Palestinian demands for a country of their own begin only after Israel began to occupy the West Bank after Israel won the Six Day War in 1967? Just curious...I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this.
Madmax, the US is not just some noninvolved third party nation. It supplies the weapons that Israeli is using to subdue the Palestinians. These weapons are largely free or reduced cost to Israel as we give them so much military and other aid. We routinely support them in th United Nations agsinst virtually the rest of the whole world. Do you deny this? From the abstract tone of your reply,devoid of grounding in current affair realities, one might think you are criticizing people for blaming the slaughter of one indian triabe deep in the amazon of another on the US.
I agree, MadMax. Church can be in an alleyway, and it probably is depending on what part of the world you're in. I'll reiterate your point that it is the gathering that is most important to God.
Apparently, the Israelis are getting resentful at Bush for advocating that they pull back. Israelis increasingly resentful of U.S. demands Caught off guard Matt Spetalnick Reuters ELON MOREH, West Bank - Members of an Israeli tank brigade waging an offensive in the West Bank found a unique way to show how they felt about the U.S. President -- they adopted a stray dog and named it "George W. Bush." "He's a cowboy," one soldier said as the brown pit-bull terrier prowled an Israeli hilltop encampment overlooking the city of Nablus. "He barks a lot," said a second. "But he's useless," another chimed in. Mr. Bush's ever more forceful demands for an end to Israel's 12-day-old military campaign in Palestinian areas has struck a sour note among army commanders and troops -- a reflection of growing resentment among the Israeli public as a whole. Rest of story Jerusalem Post
In a good first step, Germany announced a suspensionof militry aid to Israel till they back from their invasion of Palestinian territory. Previously the European Community has talked of an economic boycott of Israel which does 40% of its business with Europe. A very promising development. Now is the US which supplies approximately 20 times more military aid ($3 billion vs $170 million) would follow suit.German aid
I don't understand why everyone is angry at Israel. Aren't we doing the same thing in Afghanistan? Arafat and his followers are terrorists.
Glynch, take a look at the article you linked to. Since when do "arms sales" equate to "aid"? By the way, the Israelis have every right to be resentful of Bush's hypocritical demands. The Israelis are fighting terrorists, and have actually been more restrained in the West Bank than the American army was in Afghanistan. Bush is completely hypocritical when he says we are in a "war on terrorism" yet demands that Israel stop taking care of the terrorists that continually kill innocent Israeli civilians. Also, are you planning to answer my question, or just dance around it? For your benefit, here it is again.... Why didn't we hear the Palestinian people demanding their own homeland when the West Bank was under Jordan's control from 1948-1967? Why did Palestinian demands for a country of their own begin only after Israel began to occupy the West Bank after Israel won the Six Day War in 1967? Glynch, I'd really like to hear your answers to these questions.
Rocketmantexas, to respond to your points: 1) Your right, I failed to note that Germany sells the arms, not gives them to Israel. The important thing is cutting off arms shipments from the US and other countries till Israel acts more responsibly, follows international law and starts getting better with respect to human rights. To me it is really not that important if the arms shipments are outright gifts from the US or if Israel buys them. 2)As far as your claim that the Palestinians did not want a homeland prior to Israel conquering more land in 1967, I'm not sure your right on that, but I'll check on that. I suspect that as long as they were accorded rights equal to that of their fellow Palestinians living in Jordan or perhaps Egypt, they felt at home. The important fact is that there are 3.5 million peole living in in the additional land Israel conquered in the 1967 War. What is to be done with them? Ethnic cleansing of forcibly deporting that 3.5 million people to other countries, which perhaps you support, along with roughly 40-45% of Israelis, is one option . I oppose that and believe so does most of the cicilized world These people have the human right to remain on the land they have occupied for centuries and the need to have full civil and human rights on the land they are living on. One option is to grant full citizenship in Israel. Given that Israel wants an ethnically and religously based Jewish state, the citizens of Israel streuously object to this. I doubt that is what you desire. If so , I would arguably be in favor of that. As an Maerican I am very comfortable with multi ethnic and religious states where possible. So what is the alternative for these 3.5 million people? Give them and their land back to Jordan or Egypt or wherever? or Let them have their own state? If you are advocating either of these positions I would arguably be in favor of them. So what do you prefer: 1) ethnically cleansing them from their land and deporting them to Jordan and Egypt etc. 2) allowing them and the land they live on to go back to Jordan, Egypt or become a new state or 3) making them Israeli citizens? I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you do not support keeping them permanently living in Israel with no civil rights and such rights as voting. Such an approach was done with African Americans in the US and this has been rejected by almost everyone..
Glynch...I support the Palestinians receiving their own homeland on West Bank territory. I do not think Jerusalem should be a part of either Israel or the Palestinian homeland...I believe Jerusalem should be internationalized, like Vatican City. I also believe that a precursor to any Palestinian homeland must be (1) the PLO amending their charter to recognize Israel's right to exist and (2) a complete renunciation of violence from the Palestinian leadership. I also believe that the formation of a Palestinian homeland will not stop Palestinian violence against Israel. I believe the Palestinian objective is the complete destruction of the state of Israel, not a homeland for the Palestinian people. I believe that if Palestinian/PLO/Hamas attacks on innocent Israeli citizens continue after the Palestinian homeland is created, then Israel has the right to respond militarily with the type of force that makes their current operation look like a schoolyard fistfight.
