Gaza Handover and our government:

Status
Not open for further replies.

indra_fanatic

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2005
1,265
59
Visit site
✟16,733.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
With the focus of the entire world trained on Prime Minister Sharon's forcible handover of the entire Gaza sector and the northern part of the West Bank, I figured that I would ask--what should the Christian response to this be?

Sharon says the idea was all his and that the reason for disengagement is that it has become too costly, and not worthwhile, to hang onto this coastal strip, but I have a fairly strong suspicion that in actuality the move was imposed on him by Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, etc. as part of the "roadmap" for peace--possibly with the pullout being made a condition of continued aid to Israel (which I don't support, but that's for another thread).

The situation is much akin to what happened in Sri Lanka in the late '80s. Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa ordered a withdrawal from the disputed northeastern coastal lands of Sri Lanka (now fully occupied by the LTTE), under pressure from his giant neighbor India. Like Sharon, he also waged an all-out war on his own ultra-religious dissidents (the JVP Buddhist nationalist party).

Thus, I am asking two questions:

(A) Was this forcible pullout the right thing to do? In addition to the actual questions of the land, I urge you to think about the consequences of the pullout and the impact on the people involved. (For instance, many of the militant dissident colonists who had to be dragged out are now in Israeli military prisons, where there is speculation that they are being tortured for their crimes.)

(B) Does a moral, upright Christian have an obligation to confront his or her government about possible furtive pressuring it has done to another nation?
 

fresh

Active Member
Jul 18, 2005
130
3
45
✟285.00
Faith
Christian
As Chrisitians no - we have no obligation. As human beings, I would say we do. This is certainly a tough situation to evalute unless you are there. The thing is America wants to be in everybodys business for one reason or the other, I can understand wanting to know what your enemy is planning, but it is another thing to want to police their streets. Humans are going to be free whether one nation comes to enforce that or not.. I would pull out completly keeping in place my intelligence and hold on their communication as is now.. strengthen my own soil, consult with my allies and take action when there is a more definitive plan of action.
 
Upvote 0

fresh

Active Member
Jul 18, 2005
130
3
45
✟285.00
Faith
Christian
depends who you talk to. The NAT says because the jews own our media and hollywood and that it is all about political advancements, money, and the furtherment of jewish intrests in America. Ignore these facists, they have 0% fact. These are the types of people that report alien sightings and stalk the Area 51 base, they are conspiratists with complications of the frontal lobe.

The true reason is simply strategic for the pursuit of fighting terrorism. We provide approx. 2 - 3 billion in aid and in return we have a strong alli with intellgience and arms. We have a relatively secure base for communication and equipment in a volatile area of the World. It's like paying for help for our soldiers. Considering there is nothing to storm sense the terrorists wont come out and fight all under one army in a desolate area like men. Sense this is not a war but a pursuit for psychotic adrenaline addicts bent on creating a one muslim nation, (even if it means killing other muslims in the process).. we must set up shop somewhere near, with a strong and reliable alli as is Israel, and hunt them like deer (with more than antlers).

I hope I have answered your question, at least well enough.

EDIT: But I still say we should pull out completly, keep our intelligence in place, consult our allies, and act when there is a more definitive plan.
 
Upvote 0

indra_fanatic

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2005
1,265
59
Visit site
✟16,733.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well, actually, I do think we should stop providing aid to Israel--and all other nations, not only because it is a burden to taxpayers, but because there are strings attached. For that $3B, there are a lot of things Sharon must do to tow the line to keep getting it. It becomes a form of leverage that the U.S. can use to get it to go along with the peace process (since Russia and Europe are not bribing, I meant aiding the Israeli government, they have nothing to lose by not going along with them).

Also remember that Israel really has a strong, modern economy and aid that substantial will only help turn it into a dependent welfare state.
 
Upvote 0

fresh

Active Member
Jul 18, 2005
130
3
45
✟285.00
Faith
Christian
no one gets something for nothing. This is not a non-common thing in time of war and peace anyway. Take a look at other nations in the World, they all owe each other money or provide each other with money but, with a price. You can't just go wherever you want and say, I am pouring in 100,000 troops into your country and we will be using your land to store our men and equipment and oh, btw - your helping us fight. Come on man, think about the startegy behind war. People just want to argue because we didn't win this fight in two days and are now hurting economically because of it. War is hell brother - you win how you can, just imagine if this battle was happening on our own soil, you wouldn't be against Israel helping us at that point.
 
Upvote 0

indra_fanatic

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2005
1,265
59
Visit site
✟16,733.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Interesting logic, but a large part of the "peace process" involves Israel making commitments, under U.S. leverage/financial pressure, to restrain itself so as not to embarrass us or create a stir with the oil nations that we have grown so close to. In other words, a broad Israeli military offensive in the region would quite likely cause the Saudis/Kuwaitis to cut us off entirely in protest (since accurately or not, they consider us Israel's ally and supporter).

Is this really a national security issue, or is it national selfishness?

PS: Ironically, Israel could help us all right now by destroying, with one air raid, Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor, but Sharon has ruled this option out entirely, saying that he will defer to the U.N. on the issue (the same U.N. that has proven oh so effective in stopping the raging civil wars in the Congo and Sudan and that so ethically handled the oil-for-food deal in Iraq. :p)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.