Printed letters, May 31, 2011
Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the assembled U.S. House and Senate recently was a brilliant example of statesmanship, the likes of which is conspicuously absent from present American political dialogue, no matter the party.
Tempered by requisite diplomatic considerations, the Israeli prime minister nevertheless delivered a clear, cogent and honest description of Israel’s position as one of the most threatened countries on the planet.
In so doing, he presented a logical policy outlook, based in identifiable reality, which quietly refuted the cavalier, if not arrogant, suggestions President Barack Obama so glibly mouthed about returning Israel to the pre-1967 borders in order to appease the Palestinians.
Even understanding that the president is in an all-consuming campaign mode, I could not believe he is so personally benighted or poorly advised as to attempt cheap-shot points at the expense of our one true ally in the most dangerous and troubled region of the world.
Given that this obvious lesson appears to be lost on our president, is there anyone out there in the great American political wasteland who will note and adopt the Netanyahu example of honesty and reality in political discourse? God I hope so.
Obama is right about restoring 1967 borders
In the 1967 Six Day War, Moshe Dayan led the army of Israel. They occupied the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, West Bank, east Jerusalem, including part of Egypt.
Ten years later, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat announced he was coming to Jerusalem to reclaim his land. The people of Israel were terrified that he would be assassinated and they would be at war.
I had dinner with a large group of Jewish ladies before Sadat arrived. They were praying that he would not be assassinated because that would mean war and their husbands and sons would be going away again.
At that time every soldier carried his gun with him everywhere he went. I saw them on the streets, in the restaurants, always carrying their gun.
Jerusalem was completely shut down from the time Sadat arrived until he left. Sunday morning, I had planned to attend a service at the Garden Tomb. The cab driver said, “Lady you aren’t going anywhere, the whole city is shut down.”
About that time, Moshe Dayan stepped out of my hotel, apparently on the way to take part in the discussions with the government of Israel. I spent the day reading papers and talking to people to see what was happening.
Sadat had arrived on Saturday and I was detained on a tour of the Sinai Desert and we had been held up, not getting back to our hotels until after midnight on Saturday.
Sadat successfully completed his mission and the lines were restored that had been lost in the Six Day War.
The late King Hussein of Jordan had given some of his land to the Palestinians. After he was gone, Israelis began building their homes on that area and then were very upset when some of them had to leave.
I do not believe it is right to step in by force and claim another country’s land.
President Obama is right. The lines of the 1967 War should be returned to the owners.
I was there.
Why do atheists think they know about rapture?
I was wondering why, in an article about the California-based rapture guy (who knew so little of the event and ignored all biblical teaching), the local atheist group would be consulted? But then it does make sense, doesn’t it?
Members of this atheist group refer to themselves as free thinkers. Atheists have little to begin with, outside time-plus-chance-plus-matter. They then must live with the consequences of what can only come from these three things.
These things by themselves do not produce either thinking or freedom. What would pass for thinking would be totally determined by the movement of atoms (or, as biologist Richard Dawkins puts it, dancing to one’s DNA).
From this, how would one know what atoms were, what dancing even looked like or if you were even asking the right questions? (What’s a question?)
A brain that results from time-matter-chance could not be trusted. Rational, logical thinking does not arise in this fashion and certainly requires a reference point.
There are also the questions and problems concerning personality (personhood), knowledge and moral imperative (just a few other minor things that time and chance can’t account for).
For atheists to even try to rationally explain their knowledge to others that “there is no God,” they have to adopt the preconditions of the very worldview they deny.