The Point No One is Getting - Gingrich will Not Solve the Middle East Land Issue

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jan 27, 2012 at 14:34

We are engaged in a part of history where excesses of all who want power are manipulating anything they can to get that edge and hold a higher power than they are otherwise entitled to. For some, it's might that makes right (whether by money or guns-negligible difference). Others, a more philosophical egalitarianism is either embraced or debated, the former losing its edge when the latter gains the edge. None lead to true peace.

You said, "[you] could not be bothered; yet your convictions make your admissions of concern for you.

You said, "Again, the Old Testament does not support you." Then to support your contention you try using highly questionable rationale from an outsiders' source of information so that your source is not any more arguable than the one you are contesting.

The beginning of this latest of exchanges concerning who is more entitled to the Middle East region (one time or another known by many names, but we'll use Trans-Jordan for this moment) came into the American presidential Republican nomination process for an insight as to what each of the candidates might do in order to bring about a peace to the region. All try to point out a rationale for that reason, some Biblically based; others not so much.

Your preferences have, from this perspective (decidedly my own) varied, but obviously tending towards a 'Palestinian' solution versus an Israeli one. This is understandable; since from before Allenby's entry into Jerusalem, the whole place was nominally Muslim for centuries. All that has changed; and understandably, Muslims, even before trying to insinuate the religious reasons, feel left out and betrayed for the change of circumstances they do not understand.

Because the perception of many is that the West is trying to impose western morals to justify the shift from a purely Muslim appreciation of what the Middle East is thought to be, there is the understandable reaction to the perceived loss of power. But, while the West is culpable for the modern proximal causes of action the world tries using to implement to effect a peace, the typical western mentality is not really at full fault; for many in the West simply do not understand either what is at issue.

Candidate Speaker Gingrich by speaking extemporaneously on the issue does not do anything more than give an opinion as to how the 'Palestinian' issue needs to be resolved, just as he did again in the Thursday Florida debate response to a 'Palestinian' republican. Even as the current office holder of the American Administration Chief Executive cannot seem to get any closer to solving the 'Palestinian' situation any more than the predecessor (and one would think he has the power to do something ), the circumstance is that it is worse now than ever; and no one seems able to stop what is coming! So we should not pin any hopes that a candidate's opinion is going to get it done either. I do not have that hope. In matters of fact, America will not be the source of Israel's hope either.

Now, I'll not try to explain again why I am holding on to a different perspective; I've done that already and too few are getting it. That's why I have little left in the way of thinking that warning people of the things to come outside of the general attitude of the Holy Bible is the only way to get an understanding. But that requires belief; and as you have said (and others have demonstrated no interest in believing the Holy Bible), even fewer are properly acquainted enough with the Hebrew Holy Scriptures to find out why things are going the way they are.

So the telling time is about almost over: the next phase of show and tell is just about upon us. That's all I'm trying to say.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".