1. James Fletcher Baxter said:

The HUMAN PARADIGM

Consider:
The missing element in every human 'solution' is an
accurate definition of the creature. The way we
define 'human' determines our view of self, others,
relationships, institutions, life, and future. Important?
Only the Creator who made us in His own image is
qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...
there are results.

Many problems in human experience are the result of
false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:

1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe. selah

"Got C|riteria?" See Psalm 119:1-176

2. Ted Belman said:

USA-Israel.com writes

Ted?
How can your last sentence be justified in the light of all previous?
Lipa

3. Ted Belman said:

Lipa

I have written many articles both for and against disengagement. It is a difficult issue and I see both sides. Most of the reasons given for disengagement do not stand up. But I do believe that complete withdrawal will shift the problem of Gaza from Israel to the international community and Israel will be better off for it. Even if there is more terror.

Since there is no solution in sight, I just feel that sitting in Gaza is a losing proposition.

4. Ted Belman said:

Lipa writes

If the history were driven by "rational" people, your argument could be valid. But you need to consider the psychological context. Pulling out of Gaza will be a victory for the terror, and will encourage more of it. There is a logical progression here. Example: Barak's pulling out of Lebanon has led psychologically to the Oslo war.

You claim "Gaza will no longer be the legal responsibility for Israel. The Quartet will take on the responsibility of improving the economy and improving conditions. They are welcome to it. Gaza will also become an exporter of terror to the world."

- Gazans will still terrorize Israel, but now with the Quartet getting involved, Israel's hands will be bound. By allowing Gazans to come to work in Israel, for "humanitarian" reasons, Israelis will compromise the security, and "feed the snake" at the same time.

I don't have a "solution", except of being patient....

Lipa

5. Ya'aqov Ben-Yehudah said:

B"H

Ted, I appreciate your articles, even though I do not agree with *everything* you say. In this case, I believe I agree with some of your goals, yet disagree with the ways in which you think they will be achieve most effectively. I have a few suggestions:

1) Although my guess is that you used the term "territories" because that's what was used in the BBC movie to which you were referring, I would like to suggest that this would be an opportunity to say "Yehudah & Shomron" (or Judea and Samaria) instead, or put (what the Int'l Comm./Arabs call "the territories"). These are not new names by any means. They predate Islam and Christianity, and are applicable regardless of ones opinion on what should happen to them. This is an opportunity to educate people to this fact.

2) Please consider that history IMHO has shown that it doesn't really matter if Jews take into consideration the opinions and concerns of the so-called "international community." Haza"l taught it best: "Esau sone eth Ya'aqov" Esau (UN/EU/part of US) hates Ya'aqov (People of Israel). History continues to shown that it doesn't matter how much we try to appease, act like, speak like, dress like, believe like, eat like, or even love like the goyim. Let us seek to validate ourselves, and not be so concerned with acquiring validation from the goyim. We might as well ack, speak, dress, believe, eat, and love like Jews. Let us "appease ourselves."

3) In the above, I did not even mention Torah reasons. It would be remiss if I did not. Simply put, it is more important what the Almighty than what the goyim think. It is more important what is in [both Written and Oral] Torah than what is written in the UN charter, international law of any kind,...and even Israeli law.

For the beginning of a solution see http://www.mishal.org.

Ya'aqov Ben-Yehudah
On the frontlines in Shomron, Israel

6. Ed D said:

Ted, I agree with a lot of things you say about Gaza; however, your are really wet here. When you give Muslims a little, they make a huge noise about it, knowingly that they are lying. I believe Sharon has other nefarious reasons for the withdrawal, none of which are good for Israel. Further more, I believe Sharon must be overthrown even it it causes some violence. Revolutions are very seldom blood free. I, also believe that there are many high officers who would be sympathetic with the overthrow. If he was sincere about the welfare of the state, he would make an announcement to the other inhabitants in Gaza, that if they make one more attempt to harm Israelis by rockets, mortors, or suicides, the IDF would come in force and drive them out of Gaza. It's over 1 million persons, but it has been done to Jews before by Arabs and Nazis.

7. Ted Belman said:

Yaacov

Judea and Samaria it is.

My analysis doesn't liken disengagement unto appeasement. I consider Gaza aburden rather then an asset. Even if there will be more terror we will be better off out of Gaza.

As for hashem, he has faiuled us in the past and will no doubt fail us in the future.

8. Ted Belman said:

Ed D

We are not giving the Arabs anything but a lot of "tsuris" (trouble). We would be unloading a burden. This issue is bigger than Sharon. Israel must decide if disengagement is good or bad for Israel. I couldn't care less if the Arabs celebrate it as a victory.

9. Ted Belman said:

Dr Dekel writes

Looking at the upcoming Disengagement – I see the image of a traffic accident victim lying on the ground. His chest is squashed by a damaged vehicle, but he is still breathing. A rescue team arrives and lifts the vehicle. Then the victim’s chest is bursting and he dies. This victim is Israel’s present status quo, that is since the Oslo process has started. The lifting of the vehicle by the rescuers is Disengagement , and the death is the end of this present status quo.

Disengagement is a catalyst leading to the emergence of a new and acute reality. The level of violence emanating from Gaza will be unsustainable, as the impact will reach heights unseen since the War of Independence. Israel will have to deal with a problem of Jewish refugees. No government will be able to withstand the public outcry, wave of emigration, international disinvestment, high unemployment and the social havoc consequent to massive attacks from the Gaza. If the government of Israel will halt massive and prolonged waves of retaliation – it will collapse. In the absence of efforts to put down the attacks, or until a stable government is formed - law and order will break down. One can see the emergence of Israeli guerrilla forces supported by breakaway army units.

International pressures at that stage will be considered by many Israelis no more then background noise. There are two options from hereon: The government of Israel will pursue, at all cost, a course of relentless and heavy retaliation which will result in the total destruction of the Palestinian society, or – the government of Israel will succumb to international pressures and accepts a “balanced” quid-pro-quo style of retaliation. In the latter case the government will collapse or lose control over its citizens. The social chaos will lead to the creation of a more decisive government or to a military coup. Any new regime will have to consider a war-to-the-end option.

It is hard to predict the international status of Israel when all this ends with a mass flight of Palestinians. One can guess that by then civil norms will change everywhere following global terrorists attacks and a war against Iranian nuclear development. Israel may need to go through a phase of international isolation until the world takes a more pro-active effort against Jihad. The new Palestinian refugee problem by then, will be blended in a new world order - that is if the West is able to defeat the Jihadists. If Jihad goes on for another generation – well, in that case Israel will be in a good company of the global miserable.

10. Ted Belman said:

Geeze, I hope not.