Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Prophecy -- HYPE or HOPE? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (1123)	11/22/2001 1:21:46 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 5569

Cal Thomas November 22, 2001 Secretary Powell's 'vision' is a mirage Secretary of State Colin Powell told a University of Louisville audience last Monday that he has a "vision" for peace in the Middle East. It's more like a mirage. Powell indulged in the familiar wishful thinking about the region and asserted things that are factually not true. Powell cited "negotiations" at Madrid in 1991 and Oslo in 1993, which he said were examples of opportunities for peace that might again be available. In fact, Israel ceded land in those deals, which it had seized to protect itself from aggressive Arab states and terrorist Palestinian acts. Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat promised to make peace, not war. Instead, he made, and continues to make, war. "We have a vision of a region where two states - Israel and Palestine - live side by side within secure and recognized borders," said Powell. That's not Arafat's vision. In 1974, Arafat and his henchmen concocted a "Plan of Phases." Phase One is doing whatever is necessary to force Israel to relinquish land, while giving nothing in return. Phase Two is the "liberation" of the rest of the land, including the Jewish state itself. Palestinian schoolbooks carry maps of "Palestine" that do not include Israel. Powell's "vision" is "of a region where all people worship God in a spirit of tolerance and understanding." He cannot point to a single Islamic state where tolerance and understanding are extended to non-Muslims. What makes him think a Palestinian state would exhibit anything but hostility toward anyone who does not toe its political and theological line? Powell commendably called on the Palestinian side to cease violence before negotiations with Israel can begin, but Arafat alternately says he can, or can't control the violence. Besides, violence is not an aberration, it is part of the Plan of Phases. Arafat's vision differs from Powell's. Arafat wants it all. If he didn't, he would have accepted the deal offered him in 2000 by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for 95 percent of the "occupied territories," with Israel compensating Arafat with its own territory for at least part of the remaining five percent. If settlements were an impediment to peace (which amount to just 1.5 percent of the occupied territories), the Barak offer should have been sufficient to produce an agreement. Powell didn't mention Palestinian communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, which, according to Israeli government estimates, are being built at 10 times the rate of Jewish "settlements." The Oslo agreement does not prohibit Israel from building on West Bank land, but one might think so to listen to Powell, who called for an end to "settlement" construction. Some of Israel's detractors are critical of the U.S. aid it receives. But the United States sends $100 million annually to Palestinian Arabs. In his address, Powell spoke of the need to create a vibrant Palestinian economy. Why hasn't that money been used to improve the lot of Palestinians and why is Arafat not held accountable for misspending it? Powell called for the arrest, prosecution and punishment of "the perpetrators of terrorist acts." That won't happen. On the rare occasions when Arafat orders someone's arrest, the culprit is released within a short period of time. "Palestinians must accept that they can only achieve their goals through negotiation," Powell said Monday. Every concession wrung from Israel has come from violence and U.S. pressure. Why should Arafat negotiate when terror has been so effective? Powell spoke of the "innocent Palestinians, including children" who have been killed or wounded in the past 14 months of violence. But most, if not all of these, have been put in the front lines and urged to throw rocks in hopes that they will be wounded or killed to make Israel look bad and force her into new concessions. Powell neglected to mention the innocent Israelis who are regularly (ital) targeted (end ital) for death by Palestinians. Powell made numerous false assumptions in his speech, chief among them that the Palestinians would be satisfied with their own state adjacent to Israel. Their behavior since 1947, when they were offered just such a deal, proves otherwise. If Arafat is serious about peace, he'll stop the violence for a 7-day "cooling-off period," as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has demanded. Otherwise, what is there to negotiate? ©2001 Tribune Media Services townhall.com

To: SOROS who wrote (1123)	11/22/2001 1:23:40 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 5569

Our Pilgrim Fiends? November 19, 2001 Historical Vandalism BreakPoint with Chuck Colson - They traveled to this land from a great distance, and in retrospect, their goal was clear: To murder those who did not share their faith. No, I don’t mean members of the al Qaeda terrorist network: I’m talking about an even more fanatical group: the Pilgrim Fathers—or maybe I should say, the Pilgrim fiends. Political activists have captured the most all-American of our holidays and want to turn it into a national day of mourning. In the pages of Citizen magazine, Douglas Phillips describes how he took his family to Plymouth, Massachusetts two Thanksgivings ago and was shocked at what he found. Atop Cole’s Hill—the burial ground for Pilgrims who died that first hard winter—Phillips was startled to see a city truck pull up. Men piled out, carrying shovels. "We’re placing a new monument for the city," the men told him. "What does it say?" Thomas asked. "We aren’t sure," they answered. "We were just told to dig the hole. Someone else will put the marker in tonight." "Most revolutions are staged at night," Thomas wrote, so he wasn’t surprised the next day to find stone markers all over Plymouth designating Thanksgiving a day of mourning—a day to recall how the Pilgrims murdered and stole from their Indian neighbors. That afternoon, demonstrators—mostly white college kids—celebrated their victory by defacing the traditional monuments. Plymouth had transformed a tale of religious freedom into a story of genocide. The historical reality is totally different. While it’s true that later settlers abused the Native Americans, the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians lived together in peace for fifty years. They signed covenants, bought and sold property, and fought against mutual enemies. In fact, Paul Jehle of the Plymouth Rock Foundation says the Pilgrims—as Christians—modeled the right way to interact with a native population—unlike later settlers, who did not share their commitment to Christian principles. Why don’t activist groups distinguish between the Pilgrims and later Europeans? It’s because the postmodern obsession with group identity has led to the cult of victim politics—which in turn has led to deliberate distortions of history. This is a field where Christians have a unique contribution to make. Christians view history as a cornucopia of complexity because we understand the doctrine of original sin. We know that because the human race is fallen, people are capable of great evil. But because we are made in God’s image, we are also capable of great good. That’s why a single person or group may be remembered for both good and bad behavior. And when we hear a version of history that portrays an entire group as all bad or all good, that tells us that we don’t have the whole story. So this Thanksgiving, go ahead and enjoy the turkey and pumpkin pie—and celebrate. The story of the Pilgrims is one chapter in our history that we can and should celebrate. But before you begin, make sure nobody is stuffing you or your family with a pack of lies. Make sure your family knows that the Pilgrims were not a gang of Elizabethan terrorists, but courageous followers of Christ. Douglas W. Phillips, "Plymouth Crock," Citizen Magazine, November 2001. breakpoint.org.