Featured

Will the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire hold?

admin
October 20, 2025
0Points
0
1
Will the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire hold?
By Tony Perkins, CP Op-Ed Contributor
People walk underneath a billboard praising U.S President Donald Trump with the words
People walk underneath a billboard praising U.S President Donald Trump with the words “Cyrus The Great Is Alive!” on Oct. 12, 2025, in Tel Aviv, Israel. This week’s ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas has brought an end to the two years of war that followed the attacks of Oct. 7, 2023. A condition of the deal is the return of 48 hostages held in Gaza, 20 of whom are believed to be alive. | Chris McGrath/Getty Images

Most of the civilized world celebrated the release of 20 hostages whom Hamas had held since its barbaric attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. That assault killed more than 1,200 people — mostly civilians — and triggered a two-year war that claimed tens of thousands of lives and left the 25-mile-long Gaza Strip in ruins.

President Donald Trump flew to Israel as the hostages were being released and addressed the Knesset. He opened by declaring, “After so many years of unceasing war and endless danger, today the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a holy land that is finally at peace — a land and a region that will live, God willing, in peace for all eternity.”

He went on to proclaim, “This is not only the end of a war; this is the end of an age of terror and death, and the beginning of an age of faith and hope and of God … This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.”

Much of the last two years has indeed been historic. The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has shifted dramatically as Israel waged one of its most protracted and costly conflicts since its founding in 1948. Yet the causes of this war are anything but new.

Since its rebirth as a nation, Israel has been drawn into nearly 20 wars or military operations with neighboring Arab states or Palestinian factions. In recent decades, the conflicts have centered primarily on Gaza and in Judea and Samaria — known internationally as the West Bank.

  • The First Intifada (1987-1993).
  • The Second Intifada (2000-2005).
  • Gaza War 2008-09.
  • Gaza War 2012.
  • Gaza War 2014.
  • The 11-day War with Hamas (May 2021).
  • The Present Gaza War.

Each of these conflicts ended with a ceasefire or peace agreement — brief seasons of calm that ultimately gave way to renewed hostility. History and Scripture alike remind us why these peace accords are fragile and provisional.

The Old Testament chronicles Israel’s earliest struggles for peace and sovereignty and foretells future conflicts involving the same region and people. A case in point: at this week’s 2025 Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was disinvited after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan objected to his attendance — underscoring that even the most determined diplomacy cannot erase the deep and ancient roots of hatred toward Israel.

Still, the pursuit of peace remains both right and necessary. Scripture calls us to it. Psalm 122:6 instructs, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” Our prayers and our policies should follow that call. Yet as we labor for peace, we must recognize that any peace forged by human hands will be temporary — imperfect and ever in need of vigilance and renewal.

True and lasting peace will come only when the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, reigns over all. Until then, Israel — and the world — must seek a managed peace, grounded not in illusion, but in faith, strength, and the assurance of God’s enduring plans and promises.

Originally published at The Washington Stand. 

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 98
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .