United States still Israel's strongest supporter!
Let's not mention wars in Sri Lanka, India - the world!
Whereas history proves that Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia has long striven to push Israel into the sea, right now they understand their own survival may be tied to that of Israel - at least until the USA goes under!
Memorably, on January 9th, the U.S. House of Representatives followed the Senate's example by passing a resolution backing Israel's battle against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The lawmakers voted 390-5 to 'recognize Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza.' The United States has been Israel's strongest supporter since President Harry Truman became the first head of state to recognize the newly formed nation in May 1948. He did that against the strongest recommendation of the State Department and the Department of Defense, both of which were counselling him not to anger the Arabs and endanger the flow of oil (David McCullough, 'Truman,' pp. 601-620). In his history of the United Nations, Stanley Meisler says, 'The American veto in the Security Council served as Israel's only shield at the U.N.' ('United Nations: The First Fifty Years,' p. 183). In 1975, when the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution stating that 'Zionism is racism,' Daniel Monynihan, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, delivered the following words of defiance: 'The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act' (Meisler, p. 215).
After World War II, England abandoned Israel in her hour of need, but America did not. England lost her empire, and America gained hers. If you think that is a coincidence read God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3: 'And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.' America has not supported Israel in all situations and has even tied Israel's hands at times and pressured her into making foolish agreements with her enemies, but the fact remains that no nation has stood behind the modern state of Israel more effectually than America - diplomatically, militarily, and financially.
You won't hear much about a poll conducted in Israel that showed that a large majority of Israelis support continuing the operation in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed. You even get the sense from the reports that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are stepping up diplomatic efforts to end the conflict that there is no sense of urgency to bring the Israeli military operation to a close. Israel is not only defending its citizens against attacks from Hamas but it is crippling a terrorist organization that threatens other Arabs.
Coverage of anti-Christian & anti-Semitic struggles?
It is an irony that, in one of the longest-running conflicts in the world, a massive offensive appears to have suddenly changed the terms of the conflict. Battle-hardened troops have made significant advances against their opponents even though the terrorists have been using civilians as human shields. The conflict has provoked calls for outside intervention but, at the moment, the conflict rages on without foreign intervention trying to separate the contending forces on the ground.
Does this describe the current actions in Gaza? This is actually an account of the action of government forces who launched an operation mirroring that of the IDF in Gaza, but against the separatist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. And in a similar way to the Gaza action, the Sri Lankan authorities appear to be on the brink of a significant victory. No one in the anti-war (of any kind) mind-set will admit that this might demonstrate, as in Iraq, that it is possible for conventional armies to defeat modern terrorist or militia groups. But, most significantly, the Sri Lankan conflict is demonstrative because of the incredible scarcity of media reporting on this conflict which doesn't involve Jews! Comparing the coverage warranted by the conflict in Gaza, and the reporting on this particular aspect of the struggle in Sri Lanka, the disparity is utterly stunning.
Coverage of the conflict in Gaza has also entirely eclipsed reporting from Congo, where hundreds more died last month, from Somalia, where civilians are caught in the most horrendous conflict, and from nations such as Zimbabwe or Burma, where their non-Jewish governments have also long-practiced a deliberate state policy of inflicting constant unbearable suffering on their own citizens.
In a similar struggle the headlines blare 'systematically planned genocide' but the government stands on the sidelines, watching the unfolding horror while doing little or nothing, while more than 70,000 are forced into horrific refugee camps and then ejected from them with no place to go. Returning home for this particular people may mean instant death or living the rest of their lives in constant fear and vigilance with the threat of forced religious conversion hanging over their heads.
But, again, this isn't a story in the mainstream media - the people featured in these articles are Christians from the state of Orissa in India. Christian news organizations, such as Voice of the Martyrs, Mission Network News, and Compass Direct have been following the events as far back as July 2007 with 10 to 12 or more different articles each on this violence. The New York Times, on the other hand, had only two articles in September and October of 2008. The Los Angeles Times mentioned the violence in Orissa in one paragraph of an article about the Mumbai attacks on Thanksgiving. The blatant discrepancy in reporting raises obvious questions concerning the abuse and mistreatment of Christians around the world and the bias of the mainstream media. Why are Christians being attacked and abused around the world so regularly and why is coverage of their suffering so neglected?
"Over 200 million Christians worldwide suffer interrogation, arrest, and even death for their faith in Jesus Christ, with another 200 to 400 million facing discrimination and alienation," according to Open Doors, a faith-based mission supporting persecuted Christian believers. The Voice of the Martyrs, another such group, says "more Christians have died for their faith in Christ in the past 100 years than in all of history prior to that." The Voice of the Martyrs is a Christian organization working to raise awareness and grant assistance to Christians who are persecuted and mistreated across the globe. Another is the Mission Network News, a "mission news service dedicated to keeping Christians informed about evangelical mission activity around the world." As Christians mistreated because of their faith are hard-pressed to be found in the United States, many times this kind of news coverage is the only way information gets out. VOM uses the phrase "It Didn't End At The Coliseum" in its posters, implying that a common misconception is that Christian persecution does not exist anymore in the 21st century.
Critiquing the traditional value of fairness and balance in a journalistic story, Todd Nettleton, director of media development and senior reporter at VOM, says that while the established media doesn't want to give more weight to one system of beliefs over another, they "did back flips" to maintain political correctness. His criticism recalls the New York Times article that first mentioned the religious violence perpetrated by Hindu extremists against Christians in India in the story, "Violence in India Is Fuelled by Religious and Economic Divide." The article immediately identifies Christians as the victims of the premeditated attacks. However, it never says that the perpetrators of the violence are Hindus, but refers to them as "attackers" and "the mob." The lone phrase "All Hindus are brothers" shouted by the mob identifies their religious affiliation. Though the violence is "among the worst in decades against Christians in this Hindu-dominated nation," the story goes on to say that it appears to have been fuelled by "discontent at a time when the gap between India's haves and have-nots is growing," citing economic turmoil as the reason for the violence.
The Times neatly sidesteps the issue of exploring the fundamental difference and tension between Christianity and Hinduism as the cause of the attacks, going so far as to say "it has nothing to do with any particular religion." Are they being disingenuous on purpose? Considering the abundance of evidence revealing worldwide hatred of Christians and Jews we think not!
On the inconsistency of the media with regards to selective coverage, Gary Lane, a senior reporter at the Christian Broadcasting Network and formerly with VOM, recalled the recent attacks in Mumbai and noted that an attack involving five-star hotels and many expatriates and tourists received blow-by-blow coverage while in the same country, churches were being burned down, huge mobs were hunting down Christians, evicting them and slaughtering them in broad daylight, while they were forced to flee to forests to survive. If the media had devoted even a third of the attention they gave the Mumbai attacks to coverage of the persecution in Orissa, Lane believes the situation would have been different for these Christians.
How can we logically explain why there is so much negative coverage of the Jewish conflict in Israel - and so little of the anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and non-Jewish struggles!? And why is such little effort made to understand the historical facts and context - and to reasonably analyse and understand the facts? Why does the media focus on Israeli tactics with very little examination of the strategic context or the nature of the real threat Israel faces. All of the people who have marched and protested worldwide make judgements about Israel's actions, either in moral or military terms, without proper consideration of facts and context.
How many know, or care, that Hamas is not a national liberation movement, or a force dedicated to establishing a free and democratic Palestine, but a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Islamist terrorist organisation which wants to unite the Islamic world in submission to its own, severe and despotic, view of Islam. Even the Arab nations around Israel who are partially holding back in condemning Israel know it - why don't so many in the 'free West' (which won't be free for much longer unless it wakes up)? You would have thought they would have worked out that, if this was really a struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, then why would the streets of Ramallah remain so quiet? Indeed why are the streets of Cairo, Amman, Riyadh and Tunis so muted?
Check out the dozens of Islamoblogs ranting about events in Gaza without attention being paid to the ideology and history of Hamas, or of the Muslim Brotherhood's founder Hassan al-Banna and the preaching of Hamas leaders, such as the late Sheikh Yassin, or the Hamas proclamation that the Jews were behind the French revolution and that:
'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out, 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him'.'
The reason there has been so relatively little endorsement and agitation on Hamas's behalf among Arab leaders is their recognition that Hamas does not want to see Palestine take its place among other stable Arab nations. Hamas wants war in Palestine to be the launch-pad for a jihad against those it considers apostate secular rulers in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere. They also know that Hamas, like its sister party of terror in Lebanon, Hezbollah, is a puppet of the Iranian regime and Iran's ambitions to become the dominant regional force in the Middle East threaten their own interests and security.
We should not ignore the Israeli strategic position, for they recognise that the greatest threat they face comes from Tehran. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made it clear he would prefer a world without Israel and appears to be very busy acquiring the nuclear weapon technology to make that fantasy a reality. Faced with that threat, Israel seeks to do everything it can to show it will confront and challenge Iranian power, including Iranian proxy soldiers in the Hamas movement. You may disagree with Israel's current tactics, but consider the reasons it feels it has to show Iran it means business when the world doesn't seem willing to confront their aggression, prevent their apparent nuclear programme, or stop her shipping missiles and munitions to Hamas and Hezbollah.
The world has shown itself all too ready to fit events in Gaza into a ready-made template where Israel is always the wicked colonial aggressor - when the historical facts show that international law and UN resolutions from 60+ years ago totally back up her self-defence!
What we see, again and again, is the focus on condemning the Jewish state and any attempt to defend her viewpoint. An example was witnessed when 10,000 people demonstrated against Israel in Duisburg, Germany, to express their solidarity with Hamas. When a Jewish couple dared hang Israeli flags out of the windows of their flat on the 3rd floor the police broke in and removed the flags! Of course, the police said it was 'to de-escalate the situation' because many youth demonstrators were on the brink of breaking into the apartment building, having already thrown snowballs, knifes and stones against the building. The police acquiesced to the demands of the mob just as they would, doubtlessly, have done anywhere else in Europe. This is what we come to expect in this flabby world 'run' by authorities basing decision making on God-hating atheist-humanism. No wonder Islam believes the West is ripe for the taking. Are there any still on the walls who are ready to fight for truth and justice?
Bible-believing Christians continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6) - and recognise Israel's right to defend itself and take action to guarantee the safety of its citizens.