And you seem not to be impressed by the facts as viewed by the local Bishop, and the group of Bishops from North America, Europe, and Africa.
Sometimes perspectives of one group reflect their realities more than the perspectives of others who are not confronted with those realities. About 64% of Israelis support the settlement policy in the West Bank. Of the remainder, some favor only a temporary freeze, and a distinct minority favor a permanent freeze. Almost none favor abandoning the settlements that are there.
Well, Israelis benefit from the settlements. Their opinions are predictable. They see the settlements as just.
Or do you think ISIS would be good to have within nine miles or less of your home? I doubt you would. And neither do Israelis think it would be good to have Hamas within minutes of their homes. They, more than anyone, know what those Arab terrorist groups are like. It’s all very well to sit in the security of the west and condemn Israeli Jews for wanting to stay alive.
Israelis have legitimate concerns, but the settlements decrease security, they do not increase security. Settlements are unjust, and naturally trigger anger.
And why does Egypt blockade Gaza? After all, they’re brother ARabs and Muslims, right? They blockade Gaza because it’s a terrorist haven and they don’t want them able to get arms because they kill Egyptians with them.
The Egyptian military is bought and paid for by the U.S. It will be very interesting to see if President Trump will discontinue aid to Egypt, the second-ranking recipient of U.S. “aid”.
Look Ridgerunner, you have the right to your own opinion, and you are on the side of those who see settlement activity as just. I agree that it would be dangerous to have terrorists access to Israel; it would be an injustice that needs addressing, and does need addressing. Why do you not consider the injustices carried out against Palestinians, only those against Israel?
I say that we need to address the justice issues on both sides, and President Trump started out saying the same. Obviously, he was taken aside by the likes of people like John Bolton, (a big fundraiser for him) who has an extreme bias toward Israel, and now it looks like our policies are going to put us lock-step with the Netanyahu government. Problem is, is this putting “America first”? Does supporting an unjust regime aid our own security? It does not. Answer me this: if the U.S. was not supporting Israel with 4B+ in military aid every year, would 9/11 have been more likely to happen, or less so? It behooves us to realize that our support of injustice does make us more of a target.
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
The U.S. is obviously entangled with Israel. Let us look genuinely at the situation: Barack Obama promised 38B to Israel, then supported refraining from a UN vote against the settlements, which is a vote in favor of U.S. security. Netanyahu and his allies in the U.S. government (congress) opposed the U.N. abstention, and such opposition is essentially a vote against the security of our nation.
It would be unwise and unjust to continue to support the settlements, and Bishop Lang agrees.