One of the neat things about being a neutral country during a war is that you get to have a neutral opinion. We -- the Great United States -- have an opportunity to play the role of mom and dad, as liberator.
Hamas claims Israel started the war, and the Israelites claim that Hamas started bombing Israel. Then Israel attacked Hamas and, unfortunately, a ton of civilians were killed in the process.
Hamas says that Israel is the aggressor and has no empathy on civilians. So Israeli leaders make the claim that, "Hamas is a terrorist organizations, and we say this because they purposely place possible military targets of Israel where lots of civilians live."
Israeli leaders say, "We have no choice but to remove military targets, particularly the leaders of Hamas, in an attempt to cut off the heads of the terrorist movement."
Israali forces, on the other hand, have been excellent in their military drive, as this article states, while being supurbly humane as possible in their efforts. But you'd never know that from a mainly anti-Jewish media around the world who continues to buy into the Hamas and PLO stratey of trying to make the Israeli's look bad.
So, who is right and who is wrong. As moderator, I think we can use a little history here to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Remember the Camp David Accords. That was during the 1990s when Israel offered the PLO everything it wanted. Arafat said he'd sign, yet when he had the ink in his hand he refused.
This is just one bit of evidence that the PLO does not have peace as a mission. It will not settle until Israel is destroyed. And many times in the past Israel has made cease fires with a Palestinian organization (currently Hamas), to have that organization renege by terrorizing Israel.
Then, when Israel retaliates, that Palestinian organization cries that Israel started the war and were the aggressors. The same holds true with this war.
Not only that, the rest of the world calls for a cease fire, as a U.S. President (George Bush this time) has done once again.
Listen guys, because I'm going to reveal something here that is obvious but people are missing it: Hamas does has a history of placing military targets right where there are high numbers of civilians. This is a terrorism tactic. Al Qaeda used it many times. Terrorists in Iraq used it. Remember when the U.S. military attacked a church, and the media cried foul. "Well, how can the U.S. blow up a church. How rude." What the media fails to believe is that a people could be so rude as to stash their weapons right where a bunch of civilians might be -- a church.
Hamas is no different. Still, when I discuss with my buddies at work, they say, "Well, nobody likes war. War is bad. People will die. I'd like to see another cease fire. I don't see why people would want to keep fighting. Killing is bad."
Well, on the surface I would agree with my friends. Yet, if you look at the big picture, you will see that it is not quite that easy.
I said, "Look, a cease fire is only as good as the honesty of the people making a peace treaty. If one party has a history of lying to obtain its goals, would you be willing to sign a peace treaty with it?"
"Well," my friend said, "No."
That's exactly what's going on right now in the Middle East. Hamas is hoping Israel will retaliate and blow up Hamas targets and blow up Palestinians so the rest of the world will empathize that "350 Palestinian civilians have been killed and only 2 Israeli Civilians," say the leaders of Hamas. "It's quite clear who the aggressors are."
What Hamas fails to point out is that Israel protects its civilians, and Hamas does not. Hamas has no respect for life. And, it is quite clear by the history of attempted peace in this region, that the only road to peace is to let the two parties go to war.
Of course, historically, this has not happened. It doesn't because members of the U.N. know who would win -- Israel. Israel, much like the U.S., has won nearly every war against radical Islam. Yet the U.N. has never allowed Israel to be treated as the victor.
Only this time, the victor must be treated as the victor by the rest of the world and be allowed to control all the land in the Middle East. This is the only way there will ever be peace in that region.
And, we must note, that victory would come in the form of democracy in that region, great power for the democratic ally of the U.S. in Israel, and a great defeat for radical Islam, something many members of the world do not want.
When will we get a U.S. president who realizes this? When will we get a leader who has the balls to say: "Fight until you have resolved this conflict. Fewer people will die this way. Sure, 4,000 people might die in the short term as what happened in Iraq, but in the long run, many lives will be saved."
The reason you never hear this is the President (and not just Bush), is because he wants to say what is popular. And to tell another country to go to war would hardly be popular.
I guess in this respect I'm disappointed with Mr. Bush, because I still think he did the honorable thing to go to extend the war on terror to Iraq. I wish he would take the bold move again and say the right thing about the Middle East Conflict.
I do not like war, I think it sucks, but sometimes there are no other options.