By Robert Farrow

“Israeli troops could have marched into Cairo if they wanted to.”

Abdel Nasser

Following the 6 Day War and again, after the stunning reversal of the War of Atonement, Israeli troops utterly and completely defeated the Egyptian Army (and with them the army of Syria, Jordan, and troops from Iraq.) Israel had doubled the size of its country, put its cities out of artillery range, and opened up Jerusalem, which had been forbidden to them. But rather then revel in their victory, Israel later gave up most of this territory for the promise of Peace with Egypt in the Treaty with Sadat.

So, in the three decades after Sadat’s Peace Treaty with Israel, what has Israel gained after giving up all that land? What does peace with Egypt look like? Sadly it is regarded best as a cold peace because relations between the two peoples have not significantly improved. Trade and tourism are primarily in one direction-from Israel to Egypt. The government press and the schools have remained hostile toward Israel and anti-Israeli cartoons are published routinely. Though present Egyptian President Mubarak has been an active participant in the peace process, more often than not, he has contributed to the hardening of Arab positions. He has also refused to visit Israel. Even worse, Egypt also allows terrorists to smuggle weapons across their borders and attack jewish targets, in effect, making Egypt a base for terrorists. This is what Peace is for Israel. This is what they gave up half of their land for.

Again the Arabs, this time the Palestinians, were offered land for peace. But the Arabs wanted the right of return, which means Israel would no longer be a Jewish State. NO country in the world would have accepted such conditions, and Israel naturally rejected it. Even after Israel offered to give up all of its territory for peace it still lives with neighboring countries that attack. Or threaten to attack it regularly. Israel still suffers from men, women, and kids that strap themselves with bombs and blow up Jewish civilians. And now Israel suffers a nuclear armed neighbor that threatens to finish what Hitler started. Increasingly, Israel has become pessimistic towards peace. Why would they, when Peace does not really mean Peace. For in Israel, Peace looks little from War.

What is peace? When Liberals talk of peace they never stop and wonder what peace would really look like? Liberal philosophy seems to assume everyone will do good in the right situation, and if they are not doing good, then it is the situation or circumstance and not the person that is at fault. Liberals, like Chamberlain before him, naively assume if Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and we left Iraq and Afghanistan, there would be peace. Well, it did not work in Munich, and it would not work now. Liberals simply do not understand the capability for evil in mankind, and always assumes people will work to do what is right when in the right situation. (Paradoxically liberalism likes big government (like some republicans) so thus assumes people can’t make decisions on their own without the government behind them so might not trust people as much as thought.)When the base of the philosophy is wrong why would the rest of its doctrine make any sense?

Liberals think peace is the absence of war. Wrong! Peace is not just an absence of war. Peace is allowing other countries to exist with dialogue, trade, travel and normal diplomatic relationships between the countries without hostile intent and threats. If this definition is accepted then Israel has never had peace, and is not at peace with Egypt now. The same is the case for this country as is if we leave Iraq and even Afghanistan tomorrow and drop our support for Israel we will not have peace. Even countries we consider allies are filled with people that consider our country evil. Several countries even fight us by proxy and the stupid liberals buy it and visit their countries and leaders in their capital as they are killing our soldiers.

The various versions of the analogy of a spider stinging the beaver who is taking himself across the river and thus drowning himself is a very fitting analogy indeed and a lesson a liberal will never learn. Hitler attacked so many countries that he himself fell is by no accident, as he simply could not help himself. That is the nature of evil. Moral relativists have a hard time with evil, as it implies a universal value code. But evil nevertheless exists. Their denial of evil is why liberals expect to live at peace with a group that raises their kids on a Nazi-like Mickey Mouse, consider genocide a holy order, who stoned to death young girls who fell in love with the wrong person or was raped by their uncles. Liberals believe they can live at peace with a group who beats women who do not have a veil on their face, who thinks it is holy to sever the heads of the innocents and to convert by the threat of death all those who do not believe as they do, and who denies women all basic rights and denies all the rights of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. To expect to live at peace with a group of people who think like this is the top of a very long list of stupid ideas by liberals and the Party of Treason, the Democrats. In fact, I can think of nothing worse then “peace”, as it will allow these ideas to spread. Why would we want peace with such an ideology? Liberalism has yet to figure out that peace at any price ultimately means the ultimate price will be paid. What it also says is liberalism cares more about keeping the peace that actually fighting for Democracy, women’s rights, and so on….a situation and a world that is completely and utterly unsustainable, and is further example of liberalism’s hypocrisy and utter lack of any real values. And if we are no longer willing to fight against those repressing Women’s Right, Freedom of Religion, and Democracy, are we deserving to enjoy them ourselves?

This is not peace, only a simple liberal would view it as such…