Harbingers of Things Past; Not All Blood is Shed with Honor

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Nov 30, 2020 at 22:02

Harbingers of Things Past; Not All Blood is Shed with Honor:
Targeted Elimination of Malicious Actors Encourages More Bloodshed:

In this region of the Middle East in which bloodshed has been the currency by which empires manifest dominance and ambitions of supremacy in the face of inferior claims of territorial possession, the never-ending cycle of taking more lives and incessant bloodletting has never solved any issues of rights; and in fact, never achieved any reason for peace. History shows that when one empire fails, its blood stains the ground of contention and pollutes its destiny. Persian hatred of Jews is evident today, like in the days of Haman and in succession by many of the adherents of Islam.
In the recent incidents of violence against certain high profile antagonists that threatened Israel, while severe arguments can be made these were casualties of the proclaimed war against the Jewish state, being targeted as they were lends to the counter arguments of revenge, as nothing of supremacy was achieved and the ancient antipathies have not been set aside; if anything, they are worse.
While invectives were hurled in the United Nations against Jewish survivors of the Second World War seeking a home in 1947-8 in the ancient Jewish Homeland by Muslim antagonists, how does one not see the bloodlust by such Muslims who also sought the help of the Third Reich to exterminate Jews, even as the Third Reich collapsed. Those times are mimicked now in harbinger fashion as we see remnant hatred undergirding unsupported claims of sovereignty.
But the question remains: in successor remembrance of the death-threat invectives being threatened against Israel, how much more does Israel need to endure and how much Jewish blood is to be presented before the determination that inequities against the Jewish people requires appropriate defense against the conspiracies threatening to end Jewish existence. Whose blood is required to protect the Jewish Nation and their right to exist?
The UAE agreements were a great start; what would the region be like were this followed.
There is no justification for blood lust against any people; mortal bloodletting never served any righteous purposes, human blood having no moral justification for sacrifice to empires. Only the blood shed on the cross for humanity is sacred; He whose blood was shed for the Jewish community in the first place, then was conferred upon a believing Church later, could be declared appropriate to be the basis for believers bringing the blood bought peace to the Middle East.
By the way, the United Nations were never authorized to be the negotiators for peace in the Middle East; not in November 1947, even less so based upon the current inability to stop any bloodshed, not now, not here, not anywhere.

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".