Since Roe v. Wade was approved into law in 1973, over 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States; that is a staggering number. In fact, 50 million babies are aborted world-wide each year. The U.S. ranks third in the number of abortions annually with 1.3 million. China leads with 11 million, followed by Russia with 6 million. It is an absolute abomination in the eyes of God; He grieves over each and every one of these wasted lives. These innocent babies were sacrificed because of inconvenience and selfishness.
The number of Americans killed in all our major wars is as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
Revolutionary War……………………...25,000
War of 1812.……………………………20,000
Mexican War…………………………… 13,283
Civil War……………………………… .625,000
Spanish American War…………………..2,446
World War I…………………………… 116,516
World War II………………………….. .405,399
Korean War ……………………………..36,516
Vietnam War……………………………. 58,209
Persian Gulf War…………………………….299
War Against Terror………………………..4,850
Total………………………………......1,307,518
This 1.3 million death count in all our major wars since the founding of our nation is basically equal to the number of babies aborted in just one year in the United States. Please read these figures again and consider carefully the significance of what America has done to its young.
The following statistics come from the Movement for a Better America:
http://www.movementforabetteramerica.org/abortionindex.html
1) The ratio of abortions in the U.S. compared to American soldiers killed in Iraq is 1,750 to 1.
2) There is a 488% greater risk of suicide among women who have had abortions compared to those delivering a live baby.
3) There is a 100% increased risk of breast cancer among women who aborted one baby; it increases to 300% with two or more abortions.”
Approximately one-third of America’s younger generation is missing. They will never enter the work force, (think what 50 million extra workers would do to help solve our Social Security crisis), never marry, or have families of their own. Think of the potential that has been wasted. Perhaps one of these 50 million would have been the one to find a cure for cancer or AIDS or would have contributed greatly to society in some other way.
Why aren’t Americans more outraged? The same individuals fighting for abortion rights have protested against the death penalty for convicted murderers; have expressed outrage at Michael Vick for his harsh treatment of animals--an appalling act, but surely a human life should have more value than that of a dog; and fought against drilling for oil in ANWR because it may disturb the caribou and other Alaskan wildlife. We need to re-examine our priorities in this country because, based on our actions, human life apparently has very little value.
For those who have had an abortion, my intention is not to bring condemnation, but instead to inform as to the tragedy of abortion. It is an irreversible act that one must live with, and it is an act that many, many women sadly regret. However, the good news is that we have a merciful God that can forgive the sin of abortion and is waiting with open arms to do so.
On this 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade let us pause from our daily activities and pay homage to the millions of lives destroyed so senselessly. The Declaration of Independence states that we have certain unalienable rights, life being one of them. What about the rights of an unborn child to take his first breath of fresh air?
Ultrasound is evidence that a pregnant woman is not carrying just a mass of tissue, but instead, a human life. Shouldn’t those unalienable rights apply to an unborn child, as well? Take a stand, pro-lifers; it is time more of us defend those who are unable to defend themselves.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Truth About Abortion
Thirty-six years ago our Supreme Court made its worst ruling in history when abortion was legalized. Since that horrendous Roe v. Wade decision, over 49 million unborn babies have been killed, often in unimaginably brutal methods.
Pro-choice supporters claim that life begins at birth, rather than at conception. However, ultrasound has proven them to be wrong, and support for abortion has dropped dramatically, with 83 percent of Americans desiring tighter restrictions. Interestingly, many prominent Democrats were once pro-life until it became politically expedient to become pro-choice, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Ted Kennedy.
The Declaration of Independence states that we have certain unalienable rights, life being one of them. What about the rights of an unborn child to take his first breath of fresh air? Our Supreme Court justices went against the very documents they swore to uphold when they voted in favor of abortion.
Abortion is the most important item on the Democrats’ agenda--the crown jewel; it’s the one and probably only issue they are willing to go to war over. I urge Americans to think carefully before voting for pro-choice candidates--a vote for death. May God have mercy on our country.
Pro-choice supporters claim that life begins at birth, rather than at conception. However, ultrasound has proven them to be wrong, and support for abortion has dropped dramatically, with 83 percent of Americans desiring tighter restrictions. Interestingly, many prominent Democrats were once pro-life until it became politically expedient to become pro-choice, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Ted Kennedy.
The Declaration of Independence states that we have certain unalienable rights, life being one of them. What about the rights of an unborn child to take his first breath of fresh air? Our Supreme Court justices went against the very documents they swore to uphold when they voted in favor of abortion.
Abortion is the most important item on the Democrats’ agenda--the crown jewel; it’s the one and probably only issue they are willing to go to war over. I urge Americans to think carefully before voting for pro-choice candidates--a vote for death. May God have mercy on our country.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Bush Presidency
More analysis on George W. Bush. From One News Now:
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=390360
The Bush legacy
“Whatever history's verdict on the Bush administration might be, it is likely to be very different from what we hear from the talking heads on television or read from the know-it-alls on editorial pages.
President Bush's number-one achievement was also the number-one function of government -- to protect its citizens. Nobody on September 11, 2001, believed that there would never be another such attack for more than seven years.
Unfortunately, people who are protected from dangers often conclude that there are no dangers. This is most painfully visible among those Americans who are hysterical over the government's intercepting international phone calls, in order to disrupt international terrorist networks.
Many, especially among the intelligentsia, are also obsessed with whether we are being nice enough to the cut-throats locked up at Guantanamo, some of whom have already been turned loose to resume a life of terrorism. The rights of the Geneva Convention do not apply to people who neither obey the Geneva Convention nor are covered by the Geneva Convention.
That a president of the United States protected us from deadly enemies may not seem like much of an accomplishment to some. But it may be more fully appreciated when we get a president who eases up on that protection, in order to curry favor at home and abroad.
We can only hope that it will not take the sight of an American city lying in radioactive ruins to wake people up to the dangers that George W. Bush protected us against, despite an unending chorus of carping.
No one in his right mind would say that the Bush administration was flawless. But many of their worst political mistakes were the kinds of mistakes that decent people often make when dealing with indecent people, both domestically and internationally.
The idea with which President Bush arrived in Washington, that he could gain bipartisan support by going along with the Democrats, and not vetoing any bills that Congress passed, ignored the fact that it takes two to tango.
Having proclaimed his goal as bipartisanship, it was he who was blamed when the bipartisanship failed to materialize. Wooing Ted Kennedy and going along with massive government spending did not stop Kennedy from getting up in the Senate and loudly proclaiming that Bush ‘lied, and lied and lied!’ about Iraq.
Whatever the merits or demerits of going to war against Saddam Hussein, the question whether he had weapons of mass destruction immediately at hand makes a better talking point than a serious argument.
President Bush was not the only national leader who thought Saddam Hussein had such weapons, nor were such weapons the only reason why the Iraqi dictator posed a continuing danger that all diplomatic efforts, over more than a decade, had failed to extinguish.
This issue can be debated, and no doubt will be debated for years, if not generations, to come. But the irresponsible charge that ‘Bush lied’ for some nefarious purpose -- to trade ‘blood for oil’ or to generate business for Halliburton, for example -- is more than a slander against him. It undermines our whole nation and gives comfort to our enemies around the world.
Domestically, the Bush legacy leaves a lot to be desired. Going along with the McCain-Feingold bill restricting free speech was perhaps the Bush administration's biggest dereliction of duty. Maybe they figured that they could pass the problem along to the Supreme Court to stop it, since this bill so clearly violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.
But the Supreme Court was also guilty of a dereliction of its duty and let the McCain-Feingold bill stand.
Advocating amnesty for illegal aliens was another political disaster, especially when accompanied by denials of the obvious.
Although the Bush administration went along with the chorus of calls for promoting home ownership among people who could not afford home ownership, President Bush at least sounded a warning while others were still pushing lenders to lend to people who proved unable to repay their loans.
A mixed bag? Aren't we all? But an honorable man.”
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=390360
The Bush legacy
“Whatever history's verdict on the Bush administration might be, it is likely to be very different from what we hear from the talking heads on television or read from the know-it-alls on editorial pages.
President Bush's number-one achievement was also the number-one function of government -- to protect its citizens. Nobody on September 11, 2001, believed that there would never be another such attack for more than seven years.
Unfortunately, people who are protected from dangers often conclude that there are no dangers. This is most painfully visible among those Americans who are hysterical over the government's intercepting international phone calls, in order to disrupt international terrorist networks.
Many, especially among the intelligentsia, are also obsessed with whether we are being nice enough to the cut-throats locked up at Guantanamo, some of whom have already been turned loose to resume a life of terrorism. The rights of the Geneva Convention do not apply to people who neither obey the Geneva Convention nor are covered by the Geneva Convention.
That a president of the United States protected us from deadly enemies may not seem like much of an accomplishment to some. But it may be more fully appreciated when we get a president who eases up on that protection, in order to curry favor at home and abroad.
We can only hope that it will not take the sight of an American city lying in radioactive ruins to wake people up to the dangers that George W. Bush protected us against, despite an unending chorus of carping.
No one in his right mind would say that the Bush administration was flawless. But many of their worst political mistakes were the kinds of mistakes that decent people often make when dealing with indecent people, both domestically and internationally.
The idea with which President Bush arrived in Washington, that he could gain bipartisan support by going along with the Democrats, and not vetoing any bills that Congress passed, ignored the fact that it takes two to tango.
Having proclaimed his goal as bipartisanship, it was he who was blamed when the bipartisanship failed to materialize. Wooing Ted Kennedy and going along with massive government spending did not stop Kennedy from getting up in the Senate and loudly proclaiming that Bush ‘lied, and lied and lied!’ about Iraq.
Whatever the merits or demerits of going to war against Saddam Hussein, the question whether he had weapons of mass destruction immediately at hand makes a better talking point than a serious argument.
President Bush was not the only national leader who thought Saddam Hussein had such weapons, nor were such weapons the only reason why the Iraqi dictator posed a continuing danger that all diplomatic efforts, over more than a decade, had failed to extinguish.
This issue can be debated, and no doubt will be debated for years, if not generations, to come. But the irresponsible charge that ‘Bush lied’ for some nefarious purpose -- to trade ‘blood for oil’ or to generate business for Halliburton, for example -- is more than a slander against him. It undermines our whole nation and gives comfort to our enemies around the world.
Domestically, the Bush legacy leaves a lot to be desired. Going along with the McCain-Feingold bill restricting free speech was perhaps the Bush administration's biggest dereliction of duty. Maybe they figured that they could pass the problem along to the Supreme Court to stop it, since this bill so clearly violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.
But the Supreme Court was also guilty of a dereliction of its duty and let the McCain-Feingold bill stand.
Advocating amnesty for illegal aliens was another political disaster, especially when accompanied by denials of the obvious.
Although the Bush administration went along with the chorus of calls for promoting home ownership among people who could not afford home ownership, President Bush at least sounded a warning while others were still pushing lenders to lend to people who proved unable to repay their loans.
A mixed bag? Aren't we all? But an honorable man.”
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bush and the War in Iraq
George W. Bush does not get the credit he deserves for keeping our nation safe from terrorism since 9/11. No American would have thought it was possible to go over seven years without an attack on our homeland. He has kept us so safe that the majority of Americans fail to recognize the dangers we face from pure Islam.
Yes, Bush has made many mistakes; but, his stand against the enemy has not been one of them. And that includes the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a clear enemy of the U.S. I don’t for a moment believe that he did not have WMD. The Butcher of Baghdad was not a fool; he had ample time to rid himself of all the evidence of WMD and several rogue nations eager to assist him in doing so. The true location of the WMD is probably in Syria, waiting for the opportune time to use them. Why do so when anti-war propaganda from the American left is the best tool terrorists have to defeat us in the war against terror?
Read from One News Now a review of Bush’s presidency regarding Iraq:
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=385970
Does Iraq make Bush a 'failed president'?“
In his final press conference, President George W. Bush called failing to find WMD in Iraq a ‘disappointment.’
For many historians -- not allowing a little history to pass before rendering judgment -- this makes him a ‘failed president.’ In a 2006 survey of 744 history professors, 82 percent rated President Bush either below average or a failure. Last April, in an informal poll of 109 historians by George Mason University, 98 percent considered him a failed president, and 61 percent judged him one of the worst in American history.
His ‘crime‘? For most of these historians, Bush led the country into an ‘unnecessary war.’ Return to the bad old days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, when terror attacks killed 3,000 on American soil. Eighty to 90 percent of Americans expected another attack -- on American soil -- within six months to a year. Critics called Bush asleep at the wheel, that he failed to ‘connect the dots.’ Never mind that the 9/11 Commission said that former President Bill Clinton blew several opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
Let us recall Saddam Hussein, the ‘Butcher of Baghdad.’
Under President Clinton, Congress voted for -- and he signed -- the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for ‘regime change.’ Saddam Hussein stood in defiance of several United Nations resolutions calling for him to fully account for his weapons of mass destruction. He certainly possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), having used them against his enemies and his own people. He continually fired at the American and British planes patrolling the southern and northern ‘no-fly zones’ set up to prevent genocide against fellow Iraqis. In addition to stealing billions from the ‘oil-for-food’ program (to what end?), he sent $25,000 apiece to families of homicide bombers who attacked Israelis. Following Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the U.S.-led coalition's subsequent expulsion of him, we found Saddam much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than our intelligence community assumed. He later attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. Estimates vary, but Saddam killed, during his 25-year reign, between 300,000 and 1 million Iraqis.
In the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, all 16 U.S. intelligence departments concluded -- with the highest possible level of certainty -- that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological WMD. British intel reached the same conclusion. According to former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks, officials in Egypt and Jordan told him that they believed the dictator still possessed WMD.
Bush retained the same CIA director, George Tenet, who served under Clinton. Tenet described the case for assuming the dictator possessed WMD a ‘slam-dunk.’ After the invasion of Iraq, Clinton publicly said he thought Saddam still had the weapons. A few months after the Iraq invasion, the former president visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, who later said, ‘When Clinton was here recently, he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.’
True, ‘weapons hunter’ David Kay, sent to Iraq to find the stockpiles, found no WMD. But Kay said that Saddam retained the capacity and the intent to restart his program.
Now let's play suppose.
Bush ignores the nearly unanimous intelligence community. He takes no action against Saddam. The dictator remains in power. The sanctions end. He restarts his WMD program. We experience another 9/11 or worse on American soil. Our intel traces the attack back to Saddam. Congress demands investigations for Bush's ‘failure to heed the clear consensus of the intelligence community and to take appropriate action.’ Democrats and many Republicans push for impeachment, based on negligence and malfeasance.
Angry members of Congress quote the February 1998 words of the secretary of state under Clinton, Madeleine Albright: ‘Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.’
What if we had known before we got there that he possessed no stockpiles of WMD? Would we have invaded? A better question is as follows: Given what the president reasonably thought and the consequences of doing nothing, did he do the right thing?
Osama bin Laden called Iraq the ‘central front in the war’ against the infidels. Gen. Franks said: ‘The global war on terrorism will be a long fight. But make no mistake about it. We are going to fight the terrorists. The question is: Do we fight them over there, or do we fight them here?’
Support for homicide bombing has fallen dramatically from 2002 to 2007 in seven of eight Muslim countries surveyed -- as much as 74 to 34 percent in Lebanon, and 33 to 9 percent in Pakistan. And support for the extreme ‘Islamist’ parties in Muslim countries, with some exceptions, has also declined. Iraq -- alone among Muslim Middle Eastern countries -- now has a fledgling democracy.
One more thing. We haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11.”
Yes, Bush has made many mistakes; but, his stand against the enemy has not been one of them. And that includes the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a clear enemy of the U.S. I don’t for a moment believe that he did not have WMD. The Butcher of Baghdad was not a fool; he had ample time to rid himself of all the evidence of WMD and several rogue nations eager to assist him in doing so. The true location of the WMD is probably in Syria, waiting for the opportune time to use them. Why do so when anti-war propaganda from the American left is the best tool terrorists have to defeat us in the war against terror?
Read from One News Now a review of Bush’s presidency regarding Iraq:
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=385970
Does Iraq make Bush a 'failed president'?“
In his final press conference, President George W. Bush called failing to find WMD in Iraq a ‘disappointment.’
For many historians -- not allowing a little history to pass before rendering judgment -- this makes him a ‘failed president.’ In a 2006 survey of 744 history professors, 82 percent rated President Bush either below average or a failure. Last April, in an informal poll of 109 historians by George Mason University, 98 percent considered him a failed president, and 61 percent judged him one of the worst in American history.
His ‘crime‘? For most of these historians, Bush led the country into an ‘unnecessary war.’ Return to the bad old days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, when terror attacks killed 3,000 on American soil. Eighty to 90 percent of Americans expected another attack -- on American soil -- within six months to a year. Critics called Bush asleep at the wheel, that he failed to ‘connect the dots.’ Never mind that the 9/11 Commission said that former President Bill Clinton blew several opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
Let us recall Saddam Hussein, the ‘Butcher of Baghdad.’
Under President Clinton, Congress voted for -- and he signed -- the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for ‘regime change.’ Saddam Hussein stood in defiance of several United Nations resolutions calling for him to fully account for his weapons of mass destruction. He certainly possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), having used them against his enemies and his own people. He continually fired at the American and British planes patrolling the southern and northern ‘no-fly zones’ set up to prevent genocide against fellow Iraqis. In addition to stealing billions from the ‘oil-for-food’ program (to what end?), he sent $25,000 apiece to families of homicide bombers who attacked Israelis. Following Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the U.S.-led coalition's subsequent expulsion of him, we found Saddam much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than our intelligence community assumed. He later attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. Estimates vary, but Saddam killed, during his 25-year reign, between 300,000 and 1 million Iraqis.
In the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, all 16 U.S. intelligence departments concluded -- with the highest possible level of certainty -- that Saddam still possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological WMD. British intel reached the same conclusion. According to former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks, officials in Egypt and Jordan told him that they believed the dictator still possessed WMD.
Bush retained the same CIA director, George Tenet, who served under Clinton. Tenet described the case for assuming the dictator possessed WMD a ‘slam-dunk.’ After the invasion of Iraq, Clinton publicly said he thought Saddam still had the weapons. A few months after the Iraq invasion, the former president visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, who later said, ‘When Clinton was here recently, he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.’
True, ‘weapons hunter’ David Kay, sent to Iraq to find the stockpiles, found no WMD. But Kay said that Saddam retained the capacity and the intent to restart his program.
Now let's play suppose.
Bush ignores the nearly unanimous intelligence community. He takes no action against Saddam. The dictator remains in power. The sanctions end. He restarts his WMD program. We experience another 9/11 or worse on American soil. Our intel traces the attack back to Saddam. Congress demands investigations for Bush's ‘failure to heed the clear consensus of the intelligence community and to take appropriate action.’ Democrats and many Republicans push for impeachment, based on negligence and malfeasance.
Angry members of Congress quote the February 1998 words of the secretary of state under Clinton, Madeleine Albright: ‘Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.’
What if we had known before we got there that he possessed no stockpiles of WMD? Would we have invaded? A better question is as follows: Given what the president reasonably thought and the consequences of doing nothing, did he do the right thing?
Osama bin Laden called Iraq the ‘central front in the war’ against the infidels. Gen. Franks said: ‘The global war on terrorism will be a long fight. But make no mistake about it. We are going to fight the terrorists. The question is: Do we fight them over there, or do we fight them here?’
Support for homicide bombing has fallen dramatically from 2002 to 2007 in seven of eight Muslim countries surveyed -- as much as 74 to 34 percent in Lebanon, and 33 to 9 percent in Pakistan. And support for the extreme ‘Islamist’ parties in Muslim countries, with some exceptions, has also declined. Iraq -- alone among Muslim Middle Eastern countries -- now has a fledgling democracy.
One more thing. We haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11.”
Saturday, January 10, 2009
A History of Israel
Read this history lesson about Israel from radio talk show host Larry Elder, via One News Now. You will discover that the Jews never "stole" any land from the Arabs.
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=377840
Israelis and Palestinians: Who's David, who's Goliath?
“Much of the world buys the line -- peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries -- that paints Israel as the bad ‘Goliath’ that ‘stole’ the land from the ‘Palestinians.’
Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel -- 7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology -- reportedly assisted by Iran -- Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.
But why the ‘disproportionate’ response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the ‘obliteration’ of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian ‘militants’ fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.
We turn our attention to the ‘stolen’ allegation.
Israel lies in the ancient Fertile Crescent's southwest corner, with some of the oldest archeological evidence of primitive towns and agriculture. Historians and archeologists believe the Hebrews probably arrived in the area in the second millennium B.C. The nation itself was formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus, believed to be in the late 13th century B.C.
The 12 tribes of Israel united in about 1050 B.C., forming the Kingdom of Israel. David, the second king of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for a millennium.
After conquests by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, an independent Jewish kingdom was briefly revived in 168 B.C., but Rome took control in the next century, renaming the land of Judea ‘Palestine’ after the Philistines, historical enemies of the Israelites'.
Invading Arabs conquered the land from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) in A.D. 638 and attracted Arab settlers. Within a few centuries, the Arab language and Islam prevailed, but a Jewish minority remained. After a brief period of prosperity, waves of invasions and changes of control followed, including rule by the non-Arab empires of the Seljuks, Mamelukes and European crusaders, before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 until 1918.
The crusaders massacred thousands of Jews, along with Muslims, in the 11th century. But soon thereafter, European Jews established centers of Jewish learning and commerce. By the time the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine in the 16th century, according to British reports, as many as 15,000 Jews lived in Safed, which was a center of rabbinical learning. Many more Jews lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Acre and other locations. By the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a significant presence -- often a majority -- in many towns.
Still, in the 19th century, the Holy Land looked mostly like a vast wasteland. When Jews began to return to their ‘promised land’ early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity.
After four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.
When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the 1-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself ‘Jordan‘) held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the ‘Palestinians’ a state.
The word ‘Palestinian,’ as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as ‘Palestinians.’ A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a ‘Palestinian Jew.’ An Arab living in the area was a ‘Palestinian Arab.’ Likewise, a Christian was known as a ‘Palestinian Christian.’
Israel won more land after a series of wars, land since returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. The Jews ‘stole’ nothing.”
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=377840
Israelis and Palestinians: Who's David, who's Goliath?
“Much of the world buys the line -- peddled by the Palestinians and the Arab Muslim world and, indeed, many Western countries -- that paints Israel as the bad ‘Goliath’ that ‘stole’ the land from the ‘Palestinians.’
Israel gave Gaza self-rule in 1994, unilaterally withdrawing the last of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. Hamas, voted into power via free elections in 2006, fought and defeated their political and military rival, Fatah, to seize de facto control of Gaza in 2007. In the past eight years, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars into Israel -- 7,000 of them after Israel's 2005 withdrawal. With improved technology -- reportedly assisted by Iran -- Hamas' rockets can now fly 24 miles before impact and explosion, thereby threatening, injuring and killing more and more Israelis living in southern Israel.
But why the ‘disproportionate’ response by Israel? Reportedly, more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, some civilians. Set aside for the moment that Hamas' charter specifically calls for the ‘obliteration’ of the state of Israel. And set aside the fact that the Palestinian ‘militants’ fight in heavily populated areas, assuring, indeed encouraging (for PR purposes) civilian casualties.
We turn our attention to the ‘stolen’ allegation.
Israel lies in the ancient Fertile Crescent's southwest corner, with some of the oldest archeological evidence of primitive towns and agriculture. Historians and archeologists believe the Hebrews probably arrived in the area in the second millennium B.C. The nation itself was formed as the Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus, believed to be in the late 13th century B.C.
The 12 tribes of Israel united in about 1050 B.C., forming the Kingdom of Israel. David, the second king of Israel, established Jerusalem as Israel's national capital 3,000 years ago. Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for a millennium.
After conquests by Babylonians, Persians and Greeks, an independent Jewish kingdom was briefly revived in 168 B.C., but Rome took control in the next century, renaming the land of Judea ‘Palestine’ after the Philistines, historical enemies of the Israelites'.
Invading Arabs conquered the land from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) in A.D. 638 and attracted Arab settlers. Within a few centuries, the Arab language and Islam prevailed, but a Jewish minority remained. After a brief period of prosperity, waves of invasions and changes of control followed, including rule by the non-Arab empires of the Seljuks, Mamelukes and European crusaders, before becoming part of the Ottoman Empire from 1517 until 1918.
The crusaders massacred thousands of Jews, along with Muslims, in the 11th century. But soon thereafter, European Jews established centers of Jewish learning and commerce. By the time the Ottoman Turks occupied Palestine in the 16th century, according to British reports, as many as 15,000 Jews lived in Safed, which was a center of rabbinical learning. Many more Jews lived in Jerusalem, Hebron, Acre and other locations. By the middle of the 19th century, Jews constituted a significant presence -- often a majority -- in many towns.
Still, in the 19th century, the Holy Land looked mostly like a vast wasteland. When Jews began to return to their ‘promised land’ early in the 20th century, the desert literally began to bloom under their industry. Arabs followed, coming in large numbers for the jobs and prosperity.
After four centuries of Ottoman rule, Britain took the land in 1917 and pledged in the Balfour Declaration to support a Jewish national homeland there. In 1920, the British Palestine Mandate was recognized. A declaration passed by the League of Nations in 1922 effectively divided the mandated territory into two parts. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, would later become the Arab Kingdom of Jordan in 1946. The other portion, comprising the territory west of the Jordan River, was administered as Palestine under provisions that called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
The United Nations, in 1947, partitioned the area into separate Jewish and Arab states along meandering and indefensible boundaries. The Arab world, insisting that any Jewish claim to Palestine was invalid, staunchly refused to compromise or even discuss the subject.
When Israel's independence was declared in 1948, Arab forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq combined to crush the 1-day-old country. They lost. Still, Egypt occupied most of the Gaza Strip, and Transjordan (calling itself ‘Jordan‘) held most of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Neither Arab country gave the ‘Palestinians’ a state.
The word ‘Palestinian,’ as employed today, is a relatively recent term. Until the end of the British mandate over Palestine, in 1948, all inhabitants of the area west of the Jordan River were known as ‘Palestinians.’ A Jewish person living in what is now Israel was a ‘Palestinian Jew.’ An Arab living in the area was a ‘Palestinian Arab.’ Likewise, a Christian was known as a ‘Palestinian Christian.’
Israel won more land after a series of wars, land since returned or offered for return in exchange for peace. The Jews ‘stole’ nothing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
