How Rice Won a Mideast Deal

TIME ^ | 11/15/05 | ELAINE SHANNON

[carton253]

Isn't that pictured a little doctored? Or is it just late, and I'm missing the point.

[rmlew]

Wikipedia is hardly reputable. They are simply posting statistics from advocacy articles. And that is assumiong that the author lacks a bias.

[Anthem]

Radical Islam has nothing to do with Israel. It existed long before there was an Israel

I take it you're referring to Wahibbism. My thoughts are that if there had not been the polarizing focus on the Zionists, and they had to watch as Turkey, Iran, and the rest of the world passed them by, then they would likely have withered.

Furthermore, Islam and Judaism/Christianity do not share the same root.

According to the histories I've read, Islam also believes Abraham was the father of their people. On the boards I've visited they talk of the ten commandments and other references to the Old Testament (Torah).

[rmlew]

May I suggest that you read the Koran and Hadiths before commenting on Muslim intentions?

[Anthem]

I'm working on it. However, even after reading them, I would hardly be able to comment on "Muslim intentions" since there are quite a few of them. It may surprise you to find out that not all Jews will agree with you about "Jewish intentions".

[carton253]

No, I'm not referring to Wahibbism. I'm referring to Islam itself... which is radical and extreme from its founding. To say that Zionists provoked radical Islam is to deny Islam's long history.

Furthermore, not all forces poised against Israel are relgious. They are politcal as well. The PLO isn't a religious organization. It was a political one. Nasser fought in the name of Pan-Arabism... not in the name of Islam... as did Sadat... as did Saddam...

Radicalism is a name that the West has given to the terrorists. But they aren't radical. They are behaving as Islam behaved until the rise of the European nation states stopped the invasion of Islam into Europe. Now, they have the means to begin to exert Islam's reach once more. Again...not radical... normal.

Second... The issue between Islam/Judaism/Christianity is not Abraham and the Old Testament. It is Jesus Christ. He is the elephant in the room that people won't talk about. If a religion denies that, and Islam is very pointed in rejecting the deity of Christ...then those religions aren't related.

This in an unbridgeable gulf... and Islam realizes it and so does Christianity.

[PhilDragoo]

Israel has shown strength of miraculous depth. Bush is tough in Israel's defense, demonstrating he lives that line from the filmed JFK speech, that on earth God's work must truly be our own. Lieberman claimed publicly he would move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem if it had to be brick by brick, but in this life its acta non verba and in that Bush--and she whom he fondly calls 44--embody that motto.

The twice-weekly HonestReporting.com bulletins remind us how anti-Israel is the world's media, just as it is anti-American.

The democracy gambit is the boldest geopolitical move imaginable. And more feared by Assad and Khamenei and Baboon Ahmadinejad than shock and awe.

And it just makes Ted Kennedy drink more, too.

[Anthem]

Yes, Islam was expansionist as the Roman empire receded. Before that Christianity was expansionist under Justinian, and forced many conversions. Some say that Justinian set the example for Mohammed to follow some 300 years later. The Jews had their expansion period much earlier and that's where we get the passages "granting" the land. So while your fact about Islam's expansion is correct, I don't think if follows that modern conflicts are driven by the same purpose.

Cultural conflicts loom large today. The US, and western institutions like the UN and other major international governance organizations and NGO's are forms of cultural dominance that is risible to some extent for many countries. Zionism has its own place as an irritant in the ME, and an exasperation for some western powers. It simply cannot be dismissed or explained away. Islam is rising as a bond between very disparate political entities because of the two phenomena -- cultural dominance and Zionism. Wealth is pursued both for cultural continuity and to pay for a place at the table, or on the battlefield. It could very easily get even uglier than it is now.

Christ is not recognized except as a wayward or apostate Rabbi by Judaism. Christ is recognized as a Prophet by Islam. Those are very general "blanket" statements. Both religions have adherents that recognize the value of Christ's teachings. I have personally met more Muslims than Jews who were interested in the teachings of Christ. They just don't believe in the tripartite God. I believe that it is better to allow for differences, and acknowledge similarities in religions; makes it easier to live together.

[carton253]

When Constantine converted, Christianity become political... up until then, it was not a political movement neither was it violent. The Christianity that "expanded" had nothing to do with the Gospel as preached by Jesus and Paul and the apostles. Christianity was to be expanded by preaching...

Islam, at its root and by its definition is political religion designed to be expanded by warfare. It wasn't about "salvation". It was about conquest. Mohammed made that clear his deeds and actions.

You are trying to use one to justify the other as if Justinian somehow makes it okay for Mohammed. You don't use that technique with your children, do you?

Islam today is still trying to expand by violence. Israel has nothing to do with that... the Qu'ran does. I don't care how irritating Zionism is to the world... it is not the reason for radical Islam. Stop blaming the victim. Look at what Islam teaches... and see that it doesn't need Israel to rationalize or root its violence.

I understand that how Judaism recognizes Jesus. I am also aware of how Islam recognizes Him. The issues isn't whether Jesus is a Prophet. The issue is whether or not He is the Son of God. Islam says no. Judaism says no. Christianity says yes. Jesus is the great divider. He alone makes these religions diametrically opposed to one another...

[Anthem]

You are trying to use one to justify the other as if Justinian somehow makes it okay for Mohammed.

I said nothing of the sort. I layed out some history. Good night.

[carton253]

Oh I think you did...

The subject of the paragraph is expansion (the polite way of putting it...)

Your comment: Some say that Justinian set the example for Mohammed to follow some 300 years later...

Seems to me that you are justifying Mohammed by Justinian...

Good night to you too...

[ZULU]

Almost overnight, Rice has gone from potential Presidential timber to just another Islamophilic western politician with no brains, no guts, and no sense of history.

She won her little "settlement" by selling Israel down the river.

The current administration just LOVES Islamics and illegal Mexicans.

I guess their idea of the perfect citizen is a Mexican who turns Muslim and sneaks across our border.

[littleleaguemom]

I'd like to answer but I don't understand your question.

[Sabramerican]

As everyone can see, even with ample opportunity, you have not even attempted to defend your defamation of me. That would be impossible as everyone has eyes, is literate and recognizes that what you wrote were unashamed obvious lies.

But you have continued to defame Israel with similarly obvious lies.

You have proven to be nothing but an Arab Propagandist, a type familiar to many here. Someone that should be recognized by all on whatever thread you appear.

[Alouette]

I can come back and say the Balfour declaration and the increasing Zionist population, with their Haganah, provoked them.

What provoked the Arabs to attack the Jews in Hebron in 1846?

What provoked the Arabs to attack the Jews in Safed in 1834?

[Convert from ECUSA]

[Uri’el-2012]

I assume you are referring to :

XS> As she gives away more of G-d's land to the evil ones,
we will have more tornadoes killing more Americans.

c253>That's not true...
The land is not contigent(sic) on whether the American Secretary of State negotiates with the Israeli government.
According to the Bible... the land is contingent on Israel's obedience to the Law of God...
One does not have to do with the other...

Number one: the land is G-d's Land.

Number two: G-d has re-gathered the twelve tribes into His Land.

Number three: they will be gathered as dry bones at first.

Number four: When they will say:

Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,
'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Psalm 118:26]

Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord
Y'shua HaMashiach

then they will live in the land G-d gave them in peace but not before.

b'shem Y'shua

[Nachum]

Yeah, yeah. And I can come back and say the Balfour declaration and the increasing Zionist population, with their Haganah, provoked them

What provoked them to murder in 1846 and 1834?

You certainly do have an interesting view of things. It really does sound like saying a girl deserves rape because she looks too pretty.

[Cecily]

What would a debate about Israel (or Christianity) be without all the old moral equivalence canards? Got to have that moral equivalency, whether it makes any historical sense or not.

[Ancesthntr]

Yup, Israel agrees and its all Bush's fault. Couldn't be that some of these ideas actually make sense. Nope! Israel is just a sock puppet, incapable of looking out for its own interests.

First of all, I'm not one of the "It's Bush's Fault!" crowd. I voted for Bush - 4 times, and rather enthusiastically each time. I'd happily do so again if it were possible, because I think that the man is a good President with a good moral compass. However, as is the case with any other politician, I reserve the right to disagree on any individual policy position he has, and to complain about it in public forums like FR (obviously with the hope of swaying others, who will sway yet others, etc., until maybe the policy can be changed). I hope that you don't have a problem with that.

Specifically, when it comes to his policy regarding how Israel deals with avowed terrorists that want only the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, I disagree with Bush. Bush demands of Israel, and follows up with pressure, things that we ourselves wouldn't even give a 2nd thought to doing. I simply ask that Bush acknowledge - with deeds, not just words - that Israel has the same right to defend itself against these nutjobs that we have, and that he not complain about it or pressure Israel to change its ways or policies when we would do the same thing. Would we (have we) ever give up territory to someone that we took it from who had attacked us from that territory and who was still a threat to us? Hell no, and we're right to do that - so why is it that we pressure Israel to do so?

As to Israel being a "sock puppet," sometimes they have no choice. We are, effectively, Israel's only ally. If they don't dance the way we want them to at least a fair amount of the time, then they'll begin to lose the goodwill of that ally (or at least of the President in office at the time). So, yes, to an extent Israel is a sock puppet - which I'm sure its leaders don't like, but that's reality.