As both a deeply religious and politically concerned person, one thing that I have found both fascinating and terrifying is the consistent pattern in human history for political elites to use religion to control, influence, subjugate or motivate the common man.
There are numerous examples of modern political agendas that are legitimized through religion. Of these, one of the most significant is the creation, enforcement and justification of a permanent Jewish state in the Middle East.
God’s Promises to Abraham
Most commonly cited by Christians supporting the modern state of Israel, are the promises made to Abraham of blessings - many of which included land provided to his descendants. Genesis 12:2-3 reads:
I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
There are also multiple promises of providing land to Abraham’s descendants (many of which are not of his grandson Israel). Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that other peoples, including Ishmael’s lineage, can make a legitimate biblical claim on the land. This is conveniently ignored.
Secondly, the promises of blessings and curses are used to scare (again mostly Americans) into supporting Israel because God will obliterate another secular nation (including Christians) for not granting Israel unquestioning financial and military support, even to perform unrighteous, unbiblical acts. In other words, God seems to value political support for modern secular Israel over his promises to Christians - he is even willing to “curse” them in complete contradiction to his assurances to the church.
Prophecy Actually Condemns Modern Israel
Did God curse both Jewish and non-Jewish messengers who warned the people of Israel numerous times in the Old Testament of their wicked and perverse ways? These men were speaking truth, as God’s promises to Israel regarding land were clearly conditional. Biblical Israel (not the modern state) was removed from the land for the very same things that the modern state is doing (Ezekiel 33:23-29):
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Son of man, they who inhabit those ruins in the land of Israel are saying, ‘Abraham was only one, and he inherited the land. But we are many; the land has been given to us as a possession.’ “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “You eat meat with blood, you lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood. Should you then possess the land? You rely on your sword, you commit abominations, and you defile one another’s wives. Should you then possess the land?”’
“Say thus to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “As I live, surely those who are in the ruins shall fall by the sword, and the one who is in the open field I will give to the beasts to be devoured, and those who are in the strongholds and caves shall die of the pestilence. For I will make the land most desolate, her arrogant strength shall cease, and the mountains of Israel shall be so desolate that no one will pass through. Then they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have made the land most desolate because of all their abominations which they have committed.”’
At best, Christians may be called to support Jewish people - but there is no biblical justification for supporting a secular Jewish state - especially one that has committed many atrocities and human rights violations of it’s own - whose very existence is based on theft and murder.
Other prophecies commonly cited to support the modern state include:
- Ezekiel 36:24 - the context of which speaks of complete restoration in a righteous, converted condition. Modern Israel does not fit this description.
- Amos 9:14-15 - a clear reference to the post-Babylonian regathering.
- Ezekiel 34:13 - again, context matters. This time Israel is actually being regathered under the Messiah, who gathers them to judge them.
However, the larger point might be lost in these details. The fact is that, even if these prophecies and others were speaking of a physical modern Jewish regathering - it is not speaking of a secular state, ruled by Greco-Roman secular law, whose citizens are not required to be Jews in the slightest or follow the Jewish messiah (remember that Jesus guy? - he seemed to get lost in all this talk about which ancient tribe of people own a few square miles of land in the middle east).
Moreover, as Christians we are to show no partiality in viewing the law - no one gets special exemptions (even if they are Jewish) or special condemnation (even if they are Arabic or Muslim). We should be most concerned about righteousness here, not about spiritualizing bible prophesy to support an illegitimate secular state. Again, this is not a political argument - politically, there may be very good reasons to support the modern state of Israel - but there is no biblical reason to support this current state which happens to call itself “Israel.”
Many Christians have been completely deceived by political leaders and false prophets and teachers whose agenda is entirely secular (and I would argue, rather devious, but that is another discussion). The church is not a wing of the American government - and we are in danger of becoming one. As Christians, we must keep our priorities straight and our bibles well-read, so as not to get caught up by charlatans promoting secular, immoral means and ends.
“At best, Christians may be called to support Jewish people - but there is no biblical justification for supporting a secular Jewish state - especially one that has committed many atrocities and human rights violations of it’s own - whose very existence is based on theft and murder.”
Now you’re sounding like Jimmy Carter. Biblically, I agree that the Bible clearly states that we should support Jewish PEOPLE (as we should support all people to some extent), but it is more ambiguous regarding the support of a Jewish STATE. Spiritually speaking, however, it is more than obvious that the state of Israel has been blessed by God in its modern existence, since any other state would long ago have been wiped out by the Arabs.
Politically, a Palestinian state is no more legitimate than an Israeli one, as neither existed prior to 1947. Palestine was merely a REGION loosely defined and home to both Arabs and Jews. So there is no THEFT involved. Saying that Israel is based on murder is also hyperbole, unless you could explain further with evidence.
Darius T said: “Spiritually speaking, however, it is more than obvious that the state of Israel has been blessed by God in its modern existence, since any other state would long ago have been wiped out by the Arabs.”
Couldn’t you make a similar statement about many nations? Germany has obviously been blessed by God, since any other state would have been utterly destroyed by the Soviets and the British after the second world war. Instead, look how God preserved Germany through the Cold War and then brought it back together into a unified nation! That’s even more impressive than the survival of the modern nation of Israel, because if any modern nation ever deserved to be blotted out for its sins, it was Germany.
The only reason I can think of for considering modern Israel more blessed than modern Germany is because modern Israel shares a name with the ancient nation of Israel.
Umm… ok then. Germany was wiped out by the Soviets and British, while Israel was NOT no matter how many times they should have been, considering the amount of countries attacking them at various times in the last 60 years.
If Germany was wiped out, how do you explain the presence and existence of Germany today? Or maybe by “wiped out” you mean “not wiped out, but rather rebuilt and restored as a nation.”
Or, are you suggesting the Arab nations would wipe out Israel by toppling its government, and then rebuilding the nation of Israel and eventually letting it continue as a sovereign nation?
I’m saying that Germany still exists today, whereas Israel would not if the Arabs had ever succeeded in their attacks.
Specifically, the Six Day War is a great example of God’s hand of support for Israel.
Darius T:
“Spiritually speaking, however, it is more than obvious that the state of Israel has been blessed by God in its modern existence, since any other state would long ago have been wiped out by the Arabs.” Modern Israel has only existed for sixty years. One can easily find examples of “evil” states that lasted longer. The USSR, for instance. Second, Israel still exists today, not because of God favors them, but because they have a military supremacy over their neighbors–largely made possible by the US. No other nation in the region, for instance, has nuclear weapons. Just because one government thrives for several years does not mean that they are blessed by God. Saddam Hussein’s government thrived for so long, not because God was on his side, but because he was ruthless and cunning.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that Israel is “good” and the Arabs are “bad” (though I generally believe this to be more true than not). After all, God supported secular ruler throughtout history for His own purposes, and that didn’t make them any more good.
What it does tell me is that God appears to want the state of Israel to exist. For what purpose, who knows? But it is likely that some kind of eschatological purpose is behind it.
“Politically, a Palestinian state is no more legitimate than an Israeli one, as neither existed prior to 1947. Palestine was merely a REGION loosely defined and home to both Arabs and Jews.” Okay, but let’s keep a few facts in mind. According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were approximately 404,000 Arabs living in Palestine and 15,000 Jews. By the outbreak of WWI, there were about 683,000 Arabs and 60,000 Jews. Under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, Israel received 56% of Palestine.
Fine, Israel is evil and Hamas is good. There, does that make you all feel better? Does it please your god, Jimmy Carter?
Oops, I meant prophet, not god.
No, of course not. Personally I’m inclined to support Israel, inasmuch as my intellectual “support” means anything. That’s not out of any false allegiance to the biblical nation of Israel, or to the idea that modern Israel holds a special significance. Both of those ideas are false. Looking at Israel as just another modern nation, I think it has a better track record of respecting human rights than its enemies do.
Colin:
This is a well-written and much-need article. I find it horrifying the way so many Christians blindly defend Israel. I’m certainly not “anti-Israel.” Not by any means. In fact, I’m half-Jewish and actually have relatives living near the Gaza Strip. So I’m not “anti-Israel.” But it troubles me how Evangelicals will go to such great lengths to condemn the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists, while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the equally deplorable atrocities committed by the Israeli government.
Exactly, Jew.
Don, could you elaborate on how Israel has done anything (at least recently) that is equally deplorable to what Hamas does EVERY day?
Don, this is my position as well. I think Israel, in broad terms, is not a “bad” country. However, like all governments, they have done some bad things. We see this especially manifested in their treatment of their neighbors (not those actions which are defense related, but preemptive, aggressive attacks).
My sense of frustration is with this idea that the secular nation of Israel has some special status imbued by God simply because they have ported the name “Israel” and placed on their government and land. The fact is: it’s not particularly Jewish, it’s not particularly righteous, it’s not particularly moral and it isn’t particularly important in any biblical way.
To defend my assertion that Israel was founded on theft and murder, let me first add that this isn’t special to Israel. Quite frankly, American land was obtained through similar immoral methods (as were many others).
The modern state of “Israel” is just one of many power-grabs that have gone back and forth on that parcel for millenia. This iteration, however, happens to be militarily and economically supported by the UN and America. Israels continued existence has nothing to do with some special “hand of God” movement, and everything to do with the fact that they have nukes, a great military and funding and weapons from the United States.
I can’t comment on this topic directly because I’m too uninformed. But I do know that since a child in church I was always hearing words to support the political state of Israel. But then when I got a bit older and Christian friends went to Israel for a semester abroad, their stories made me rethink what it means to be Jewish and how Christians relate to Jews and to Israel.
Colin said, “The church is not a wing of the American government - and we are in danger of becoming one.”
Hmm, you’re going to have to convince me on this one. I hardly see the church universal as being much of anything of the American government. Did you mean “the American church” and not the church universal? But even so, I still don’t see any such danger.
Colin, Israel didn’t have (or at least, didn’t use) nuclear weapons during the 6-day War, yet they overcame overwhelming odds to win the day in what can only be termed a military miracle.
I agree with Thainamu, our government is in no danger of becoming a wing of the American government. Such paranoia is silly and unwarranted. Of course, if by “the church” you meant the MINORITY wing of the American church defined loosely as those who are Southern Baptist, believe in a Tim Lahaye-type rapture, and gather together for pro-Israel conferences, then ok. But again, that’s a fringe group. The rest of us Christians support Israel because they are morally and politically miles ahead of their neighbors.
Ooops, I meant “our church,” not our government.
Are “military miracles” always a sign of God’s providence or approval? If that is the case, than we can see hundreds of examples of such nations, including evil ones. If it isn’t the case, then that isn’t legitimate evidence.
Thainamu, it is clear that I mean “the American church.”
Colin, I’m not picking on you. I really don’t see how you would equate the American church with the US government. Perhaps our church experiences are vastly different? Is your local church in danger of being a wing of the US government? I don’t think mine is.
Paranoia isn’t usually supported by evidence or experience.
Guys,
What you neglect to mention is that israel is merely 20% of what was “palestine.” Not 60% or 50%. Just 20%. What you and many neglect to mention is that prior to 1922, Palestine included what is now Jordan. After the Balfour Declaration defined a homeland for Jews, Churchill took 70% of then Palestine and gave it to the Hashemites. That was supponse to be the Arab portion of Palestine. Arabs and Arabist alike try to begin history with 1947 but that analysis is as appropriate as starting Russian history with the Soviet era.
Don, regarding your statement:
This is a well-written and much-need article. I find it horrifying the way so many Christians blindly defend Israel. I’m certainly not “anti-Israel.” Not by any means. In fact, I’m half-Jewish and actually have relatives living near the Gaza Strip. So I’m not “anti-Israel.” But it troubles me how Evangelicals will go to such great lengths to condemn the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists, while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the equally deplorable atrocities committed by the Israeli government.
Just because your-half jewish doesn’t mean you can’t be anti-Israel…look at Noam Chomsky…and he’s a full Jew…secondly…how can you even consider the things that Israel does as morally equivalent to what Palestinians do?…are you ingenuous or just trying to ignore truths like suicide bombing, using children as human shields, anti-christian attacks, despicable anti-semitism, i.e. the jews eat christian blood for passover, etc.????
I did not equate the American church with the US government. Please re-read my statement. I also have faith you can interpret the context as well.
My local Church deliberately stays out of politics. No voters guides, no pro-life lobby even. Nothing. Even then, the eschatological bent of my church and its preaching on OT stories like Issac/Ishmael/Israel/Abraham makes an easy transition to political solutions rather than Christian ones. This isn’t a deliberate process, controlled by a puppet-master in the government, but the UN establishment of Israel (for example) is seen as a biblically mandated action which Christians should support. That is a problem.
Many other churches, especially those who have a close connection to this president, the republican party and other officials, argue much more directly and this is a sizable portion of what I consider actual born-again Christians. This is actually dangerous, especially spiritually, but also politically.
jaytee1818, what do you mean by anti-Israel? I don’t think anyone here is anti-Israel as in Jewish people. But we are highly skeptical of the modern secular state of “Israel” as being some elevated secular authority.
Colin, what I think jaytee (and I) is getting at is the moral equivalency between Israel and many of its neighbors that you (and Don) have hinted at. Such moral equivalency is disgusting, if you truly mean it.
Well, I just wanted Don to know that being a part of the Jewish people doesn’t guarantee forthrightness with regards to Israel. Regarding the use of “anti-Israel”, I was only using the term used in the reply.
I agree that Israel should not be elevated as a secular authority…but that certainly begs the question regarding all the criticism Israel gets regarding her political position. If African countries got half the criticism and judgments that Israel gets, perhaps there would be less situations like Darfur, of course I am making no logical connection between the terrible things that happen in Africa and the Arab world with the way Israel interacts with the Pals.
Darius, I challenge you to please show me any moral equivalency statements I made about Israel and its neighbors. This article is about whether the modern nation of Israel should be given special religious significance by Christians - not a comparison of the fighting tactics of Israel and Arabs.
“At best, Christians may be called to support Jewish people - but there is no biblical justification for supporting a secular Jewish state - especially one that has committed many atrocities and human rights violations of it’s own - whose very existence is based on theft and murder.”
This is the “hint” I was talking about. Don went beyond this by explicitly equating Israel with its neighbors (“But it troubles me how Evangelicals will go to such great lengths to condemn the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists, while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the equally deplorable atrocities committed by the Israeli government.”)
Such moral equivalency shows one to be morally confused. I’m not saying you actually believe Israel to be morally the equivalent of Hamas, but you danced on that line. Don appears willing to step over it.
If Israel really was the moral equivalent of Hamas, I would immediately condemn them, even if I did believe that the state of Israel was Biblically-founded. But since this is NOT the case, then I will continue to support Israel as the moral superior of all of its neighbors.
Darius, how does a self-contained statement that Israel has committed atrocities and human rights violations have anything to do with its neighbors, let alone promote moral equivalency with them?
Colin,
Can you please give me an example of what you consider an atrocity that Israel has committed?
Colin, You state:
Yes, indeed there are promises made to other children of Abraham, beyond Isaac, but it is only to Isaac and Jacob that the promise of Israel, the land is made.
Regarding Ishmael, the Jewish bible states:
This too is a prediction and is occurring currently in the world and in Israel and indeed is an explanation for why the Arabs will not let Israel live in peace.
We could start with the atrocities and war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War.
While there are all manner of specific crimes to Israel, my larger point, and one I feel is more important to the context (Israel’s support by Christians as some kind of “blessed” or “biblical” government) is that Israel’s very existence involved the UN kicking people off their own land, stealing it from them, killing those who had a legitimate right to regain their land and Israel continuing to defend it’s illegal and unethical occupation of Arab land.
Colin,
Fortunately, your beginning statement is transparent:
You think your distinction between Israel and Jews is a clever one? Don’t take too much credit. Martin Luther King had a name for you and this type of reasoning. He would have called you an antisemite.
Did God renege on his promise to Abraham? We do see biblical promises of land to Abraham, Issac and Israel individually, but hermeneutics indicates that Abraham’s covenant is the context where these are interpreted. But even still, this really is irrelevant because modern Israel is not equivalent to the tribes of Israel to whom these promises were made.
I find this explanation lacking, both biblically and intellectually. To argue that certain ethnicities are inherent warlike because some distant ancestor was a wild man is not logical. The bible also denounces such “generation sin” doctrines. Arabs had no special problems with Jews (in fact, Jews were considered the terrorists in Palestine before WWII) until Zionists (some Jews, some gentiles) invaded, stole, murdered and perpetuated their political and religious ideals on the legitimate owners of that land.
That’s right jaytee1818, I am an anti-semite because I think that the modern secular state of Israel commits atrocities and was founded on immoral principles. You asked me to show you an example, when I do, you reply with an ad hominem. Brilliant tactics.
You then cite MLK as though he was somehow a bastion of superiour morality and qualified to label anyone who is “anti-Zionist” as an anti-semite.
Next you’ll be telling me that Paul was an anti-semite because he differentiated between Jews and Judeizers.
God never reneged on his promise to Abraham and your “hermeneutics” point is lacking logic. The promise is reiterated to Isaac and Israel. “Modern Israel is not equivalent to the tribes of Israel”? You are mixing concepts: tribes are a sociological grouping, Israel is a territory. Both consist of Jews. Not sure what you are trying to say.
Where are you coming from? Arabs were certainly seen as terrorist…I can count of at least 2 massacres perpetrated by Arabs against Jews, in 1929 and in 1936…
Ad hominem? If that is how you classify facts, then so be it…I’m sure you’d be proud correligionist of Hitler when he stated that he was only continuing the work of the church…
Biblical Israel is a group of people through whom the Messiah came. These are Jews. They have formed monarchies (the ancient states of Israel and then the divided North and South), an anarchistic/judges government and since the Babylon captivity have never been able to form a sustainable pure Jewish state. These people exist now as citizens of many different states.
The modern secular government of Israel was created in 1948 by UN resolution and military conquest. This state has been populated to a decent extent by people in the first group, but still maintains secular citizenship. Other than that, it has not much else to do with actual Israel.
Looks like you answered your own question.
Wow, Colin, you are so historically inaccurate it’s laughable. The atrocities from the 2006 war with Lebanon? You have got to be joking. Seriously dude, what the heck are you talking about? You’ve been reading a little too much Jimmy Carter.
You say that the Jews were the terrorists before WWII… read a history book man before you make silly claims like that. They did perpetrate some terroristic attacks in the years FOLLOWING WWII, but prior to it the Arabs were the terrorists.
Let’s cut the nonsense… rather than repeating the stupidity from Jimmy Carter and DailyKos, how about telling me how exactly Israel committed war crimes in 2006. This is an issue I am fairly aware of, as I was following it pretty closely on littlegreenfootballs.com. Their coverage of the war was second to none; they cut through the crap coming from Reuters and AP and the mainstream media to show repeatedly how the media was spinning (and even doctoring) the news against Israel. If you had read all of that coverage, you would be laughing at your statements above and acknowledging them as bald-faced lies. So I have to assume you’re merely ignorant on this subject.
You know, you had a legitimate article that I could somewhat agree with. But now you’re diving into the tin-hat department where you’re losing me. I don’t mind saying that there isn’t significant Biblical evidence that God wants Christians to support a state of Israel. But let’s not start accusing Israel of evil that they are not guilty of just to support that point.
I’m simply shocked at the level of reasoning used by some during this discussion. Because I merely claimed that the Israeli government has committed certain atrocities, some have concluded that I therefore believe Israel to be the moral equivalent of Hamas. How that logically follows is beyond me.
I find it interesting how some people love to throw around the term “anti-Israel.” In their minds, anyone who dares criticize Israel is automatically anti-Israel. But criticizing the Israeli government doesn’t make one anti-Israel any more than criticizing one’s children makes him anti-his children. If you read the Old Testament, you’ll find plenty of examples of Yahweh criticizing Israel, but I certainly wouldn’t accuse Him of being anti-Israel.
If anyone is genuinely interested in learning about the atrocities committed by the Israeli government, I would refer him to the website of such human rights organizations as Human Rights Watch. HRW lists atrocities committed by both Israelis and Palestinians. Recent atrocities committed by the former include some of the following:
1) “Israel’s indiscriminate airstrikes, not Hezbollah’s shielding as claimed by Israeli officials, caused most of the approximately 900 civilian deaths in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch investigated more than 500 of the deaths…”
2) “Israel’s threat to impose additional sanctions on the Gaza Strip would constitute unlawful collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, Human Rights Watch said today. The Israeli government has proposed further reducing supplies of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip and increasing its restrictions on the movement of goods and people in and out of the territory…”
3)“Israel is arbitrarily blocking, delaying and harassing people with emergency medical problems who need to leave the Gaza Strip for urgent care, Human Rights Watch said today. At least three patients denied exit permits have died since June, and others have lost limbs or sight due to injuries and disease that have gone without proper treatment…”
Similar information can be found on Amnesty International’s website. Regarding the 2006 war with Lebanon, Amnesty has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed a number of war crimes.
Another good source for information are the websites of Haaretz, which is an Israeli newspaper, as well as the website of B’selem, an Israeli human rights group.
Don, read your own comments. You said “But it troubles me how Evangelicals will go to such great lengths to condemn the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists, while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the EQUALLY [emphasis mine] deplorable atrocities committed by the Israeli government.”
See, to me, when one claims that one group of people has committed evil acts that are equal to the evil acts of another group, that person is saying that the first group is the moral equivalent of the latter group.
Darius T: You accused me of saying that Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent, but I never even mentioned Hamas!
“See, to me, when one claims that one group of people has committed evil acts that are equal to the evil acts of another group, that person is saying that the first group is the moral equivalent of the latter group.”
I don’t see how this follows. King David committed murder. So did Jeffrey Dahmer. I don’t see how the two men are morally equivalent!
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International??? Pleeez… Those organizations have been thoroughly documented as biased against Israel and Western countries. They have no credibility left. Then again, that’s true of pretty much every “human rights” organization these days… political correctness and moral blindness have made them mostly inept and pointless. That said, Human Rights Watch actually condemned HEZBOLLAH for using human shields, so your comment is incorrect. Are you willfully blind and misleading, or was that an honest mistake?
Sorry, I meant Hezbollah when I said Hamas.
Don Emmerich said: “In their minds, anyone who dares criticize Israel is automatically anti-Israel.”
Unfortunately I must agree with you. It is nearly impossible to criticize Israel without being labeled anti-Israel or antisemitic. I don’t agree with everything Colin has said, but jaytee1818 owes him an apology for his harsh words.
Don Emmerich said: “Because I merely claimed that the Israeli government has committed certain atrocities, some have concluded that I therefore believe Israel to be the moral equivalent of Hamas. How that logically follows is beyond me.”
I agree with you that your comments should not have been interpreted to imply a moral equivalency. But when Israel is involved, being misunderstood seems to be the norm–for both sides of the debate. But now you’ve clarified your comments, so there is no ambiguity. So that should take care of any miscommunication about moral equivalencies, I hope.
Darius:
First of all, you committed the genetic fallacy. Even if a source is “biased,” it doesn’t follow that that source’s argument is false. No matter how one feels about the arguer, he is still obligated to provide a rational argument against his or her argument. This is basic logic.
Second, you provide no argument as to why Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are biased and have “no credibility left.” Merely engaging in an ad hominem attack is not an argument; it’s committing a logical fallacy.
Third, you write, “Human Rights Watch actually condemned HEZBOLLAH for using human shields, so your comment is incorrect.” I’m curious why you claim this. In the blurb I quoted, HRW clearly stated that “Israeli officials” claimed that Hezbollah was “shielding.” HRW did not claim that Hezbollah was shielding; they merely noted that Israeli officials claimed this. Now I’m not sure whether or not Hezbollah engaged in this practice. But even if they did, they would by no means refute HRW’s claim that “most” of the civilian deaths were caused by “indiscriminate airstrikes.”
Fourth, if Human Rights Watch is biased against Israel, then why do they spend so much time condemning the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists?
“Even if a source is ‘biased,’ it doesn’t follow that that source’s argument is false.”
I sound like an idiot here; what I meant to say was, “it doesn’t follow that that source’s argument is unsound.” Claims can be false, not arguments.
Don, “blurbs” are not proof. This too is basic logic. One needs EVIDENCE, and so far you have not offered it. A biased source can make a huge difference, especially when one has to rely almost completely on their credibility as “proof” that an atrocity was committed. A biased human rights group can make all the difference in a situation where there is limited access to the truth. For example, consider Dan Rather, CBS, and the fake memos regarding Bush’s National Guard service in 2004. If it weren’t for Charles Johnson at Littlegreenfootballs.com, Rather might have gotten away with it.
Again, you are appealing to authority for your argument, which, the last time I checked, was a logical fallacy.
I’m out of town for a couple days, so I won’t be able to respond for a bit regarding this topic. Have a great day all!
Here are some examples of human shields…
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21408_Palestinian_Human_Shield_Watch
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21358_Palestinian_Human_Shield_Watch
Those pictures were taken during the 2006 Lebanon War.
I just skimmed the reports by Human Rights Watch. HRW condemns both Hezbollah and Israel. It’s not an either-or proposition.
HRW condemns Hezbollah for failing to take basic precautions for protecting civilians and for endangering the lives of civilians. HRW stops short of using the phrase “human shields,” although it documents cases where human shielding is probable and more investigation is required. Human shielding is difficult to prove because it requires intent.
HRW also condemns Israel for “failure to take adequate precautions” and launching attacks indiscriminately, killing too many Lebanese civilians.
Eye-witness accounts are evidence. Whether you like the eye-witness or not is besides the point.
Actually, he’s appealing to the information that the “authority” provided, not appealing to the authority figure itself. Based on that definition, citing a report that happened to be CBS news is an “appeal to authority.”
This is the point. No one is arguing that Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian terrorists, even insurgents aren’t committing atrocities. For myself, I really don’t care. This discussion is about Israel and regardless as to whether they have kids throwing rocks at them or nukes in the air about to hit Jerusalem, they are immoral to respond in kind. I don’t care who started it or who did what. It’s like Billy getting punished for hitting, and throwing up his hands in innocence saying “But Johnny also was hitting!!!” We aren’t talking about Johnny’s crimes here - Billy is responsible for his actions.
Your example is purely self-defensive and therefore what you state is pure pacifism which is not what the Jewish bible states or what Jesus–usually quoting the Jewish bible–states…by your words then no one would ever take on evil and vanquish it That is an untenable perspective and one that would doom the existence of the world.
Justice is quite an adult concept isn’t it?
Non-aggression is a perfectly biblical principle. Preemtive war, especially based on vague suspicions and unquantified anecdotes is completely unchristian and also has no basis in Jewish scripture. Evil is an acceptable enemy, and I would never debate using full force to defend one’s self for evil. Quantifying evil is the tough part - and we see that even God will not punish the righteous with the wicked. Thus, there must be no ambiguity about evil.
Moreover, we must not embrace evil in order to “defeat” it - that is circular logic (and again, unbiblical).
Actually FROM evil…”for evil” wouldn’t be adult-like, would it?
The cases you stated, though, are in opposition to what you are currently stating, viz. that evil may not be embraced. If someone is out to kill you or “nukes in the air about to hit Jerusalem” it is imperative to take out your enemy, yet you respond “they are immoral to respond in kind.” Can’t eat your cake and have it too.
I would say that if your enemy fires nuclear missiles at your capital city, you have an obligation to respond militarily to protect yourself and to cripple your enemy’s ability to wage war. It might even be appropriate to topple your enemy’s government in order to ensure they can never rebuild their military. You still do not have the moral authority to respond in kind, i.e., nuke your enemy’s civilian population. One war crime does not excuse another.
But that’s all hypothetical. Nobody has fired nukes yet.
It is imperative to defend one’s self. That means the enemy must be 100% determined and disarmed. Then they must be tried under some objective law. That would not mean responding in kind - it would mean responding with justice.
This is both just and pragmatic. Anything else, is base, blind, animal vengeance - which is also evil.
Justice would demand that your enemy be incapacitated. Otherwise, if they do attack again, the blood of your allies/family is on your hands.
Very easy to say “disarnm” your enemies. Not particularly easy in a real-world scenario. Also, if you don’t respond appropriately, with enough force, and the enemy does kill others, then, in actuality, you have decided that your enemies lives are more important than those on your side. This is just as unrighteous, as unjust as deeming your life more important than someone elses…
I don’t disagree, jaytee. But “enemies” are humans too and deserve fair equitable treatment under law. Shooting missiles into civilians is not fair and equitable.
So you disagree with the bombings of Dresden, Berlin, etc. during WWII, Colin?
I’m not Colin, but I’d like to respond to the question about the Allied bombing of German cities. First, we must understand that the technology in WWII was rudimentary compared to what we have today. Bombs were dropped without guidance, so the accuracy was low. Bombing a factory or other military support structure often required dumping massive amounts of bombs, most of which missed the target and hit surrounding civilian structures.
Without satellites and other spy devices, the intelligence about which targets to bomb was low. To wage war effectively, the Allies had to bomb all likely targets. That resulted in more collateral damage.
Compare that to today’s modern militaries: we have precision guided weapons and advanced intelligence systems to identify valid military targets. That’s not to say that collateral damage doesn’t happen–of course it does. But with greater technology, today’s militaries have a greater ability and greater responsibility to avoid civilian casualties. The kind of bombing carried out by the Allies in WWII (which was controversial even then) would certainly not be acceptable today.
Fair enough. But how does a country (Israel in this case) differentiate between civilians and military targets when they are all basically the same (you saw the pictures I posted, I hope). When the civilians are enabling the terrorists, then is it truly beyond the pale to bomb them???? This makes no sense.
From what I read, in the recent war Israel operated on the assumption that all civilians had left southern Lebanon, and therefore decided they didn’t need to take any further precautions to avoid civilian casualties. Anything that moved was considered a military target.
Whether or not that’s true is another question. But if it is true, it was irresponsible, insufficient, reckless, and wholly unnecessary.
The Palestinian Christians live in that area I think, and they didn’t leave. But Israel didn’t bomb them, since they don’t help Hezbollah. Israel RIGHTLY bombed any area that was shooting missiles at them. They warned every innocent civilian that bombing would be coming soon and that they should leave. What else could they do?
OK Darius, let’s assume that’s true. Let me ask this question: what things has Israel done wrong? No nation is perfect, right? This isn’t to excuse Israel’s enemies, or to draw any moral equivalence. I’m just curious if you see any Israeli actions that are morally questionable.
Rather than go down another weed-infested path through WWII, I will try to illustrate my point differently, and you can draw whatever conclusions you like from it - however I want this to always come back to the issue we’re discussing now - whether Israel is a country that was founded on or perpetuates unbiblical violence.
Let’s take this back down to basics. If a person is trying to kill me, and we get into a gun fight or something. If I shoot and miss, and hit my neighbor’s wife and kill her - should I not be held accountable for that? Despite the fact that my intentions were purely noble, justifiable and good - I was reckless with my defense.
On further note: what if the man fled into my neighbor’s house and in order to ensure he was no longer a threat, I plowed my Dodge truck into his house, killing the attacker, but also my neighbor’s family?
What if either of these or both, were the constant methodology I used to defend myself? Should I not be held accountable?
Israel was made a country through this kind of violence (at best)- despite the fact that the post-WWII support was out of the best of intentions (perhaps). Israel has continued to “defend” itself in this manner, and you seem to be fine with this (as illustrated here):
This is an inhumane, reckless and (I would argue) immoral attitude. Merely because it is difficult to use discernment - you would throw it out the window. Because the situation isn’t as black and white as you like, any shade of gray is called “black.”
It really is abhorrent to me that a state would not discriminate between military targets (for defense or otherwise) and civilians (who may be helping them for any number of reasons, including force). The fact that Israel would bomb them without distinction, making them “morally equivalent” and checking their brain out to do so, is inhuman in the definition of the term.
I sound like a broken record, but the ends do not justify the means - ever. Evil is not defeated by embracing it.
Colin said:
In many places, this is called felony murder and your attacker is responsible for the death regardless of who pulled the trigger. This is different from your Dodge truck analogy. In the truck analogy, the man is no longer an imminent threat. The standard of reasonableness is different. When the man is attacking you, the threat is imminent and it is reasonable to defend yourself with a gun. It isn’t reasonable to chase him down afterwards and shoot him or crash your Dodge truck into his house.
Exactly, Jew. Colin, your examples are not equal. You’ve used similar examples before that are not accurate to any justice system that I know of, so I have to assume your sense of justice is a little bit skewed.
Again, since you didn’t read me very carefully and ignored the gist of my comment that you quoted… “Fair enough. But how does a country (Israel in this case) differentiate between civilians and military targets when they are all basically the SAME (you saw the pictures I posted, I hope). When the civilians are ENABLING the terrorists, then is it truly beyond the pale to bomb them???? This makes no sense.”
Go back and read it one more time… I said that in the case of the most recent war with Lebanon, the evidence (photographic even) showed that terrorists and civilians worked together and blended together in many situations. Why should Israel not attack military positions merely to avoid civilian casualties when the civilians are de facto combatants? Furthermore, Israel dropped millions of leaflets to warn those civilians who were INNOCENT to get out of Dodge since there was an impending war. Did Hezbollah do this before firing hundreds of missiles INDISCRIMINATELY(!!!), or did Germany do this when they bombed London? This shows a deep care for innocent life, and to say otherwise indicates that one is twisted in his understanding of real morality.
According to Human Rights Watch, Hezbollah rockets were fired at Israeli military positions, much the same way Israeli bombs were sent toward Hezbollah targets. Israelis were operating near villages and civilian population centers, so of course there were civilian casualties. Hezbollah probably had less responsibility to avoid civilian casualties because their weapons were less precise than Israel’s.
That is the complete OPPOSITE of everything I’ve read or heard… residential cities in Israel get routinely bombed with no military in site. Again, HRW is a poor group to cite since they have been pretty anti-Israel in their recent history, and tend to trust the word of terrorists much too quickly.
I wish I had a nickel for every time you said “exactly, Jew” and then proceed to launch into a statement having nothing to do with what was just said. My scenario is an ethics scenario - and not at all outrageous. I stand by it.
You are ignoring the reason were here, and instead arguing as though we’re making a comparison between Israel and it’s neighbors. It’s a red herring.
I don’t care that Israel is more humane than it’s neighbors (or not) - this isn’t a relative standard. Morality is not relative. The fact is, Israel is immoral and unethical in it’s tactics (if not it’s ideals) in defense.
During the war Human Rights Watch was criticized for being too biased in favor of Israel. I don’t know which reports you’re reading.
I too have to complement Colin on a very well-written article. I am not convinced one way or the other, but I have to say I find valid arguments on both sides. I think it is true that God’s mercy has played a significant role in the protection of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. But I also have observed the blind support of Israel’s policies by American Christians who really have no clue of the complexity of what is going on. However, although I am not an expert on eschatology, I think there are some prophetic scriptures that obviously deal with the nation of Israel - either directly or indirectly. They are perhaps specifically dealing with the protection of the Israel people, with their military being the instrument through which God is working.
Jew, you may want to look at who was criticizing HRW… it was primarily Hezbollah (or other extremist organizations). So, unless you put much credence in their complaints, that’s kind of a joke of a criticism. HRW is notorious for their liberal bent.
Darius T:
1. You have never dealt with the arguments given by Human Rights Watch. You claimed that they are a biased organization and have therefore dismissed their arguments. But again, you’re committing the genetic fallacy. You need to deal with HRW’s arguments, and you still have not done that. Sure, you referenced a few pictures that show Hezbollah militants among civilians. But this does not refute HRW’s argument. Their claim was not that Hezbollah NEVER used human shielding; their claim was that MOST of the Lebanese citizens killed by the Israeli military were not the result of human shielding.
2. You still have not given any argument proving that HRW and Amnesty International are biased.
3. You still have not answered the following question of mine: If Human Rights Watch is biased against Israel, then why do they spend so much time condemning the atrocities committed by Palestinian terrorists?
Darius T:
B’Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization. Its members live in Israel; they see first hand what’s going on and obviously have no desire to see their land destroyed by Islamic terrorists. Yet they are often very critical of the actions of the Israeli military. During the 2006 war with Lebanon, they dished out condemnation for the actions of both sides. As the war was raging on, they also condemned Israeli forces for using residents in Beit Hanun as human shields.
I just don’t understand why you seem so hell-bent on refusing to admit that the Israeli army has committed war crimes.
Being pro-Israel doesn’t mean you have to be pro-Likud.
Fine, count yourself now informed. I figured that the fact that HWR and Amnesty Intl are biased was self-evident, but I guess you only get your news from certain sources.
So here goes… first, a little background. Human Rights Watch was founded by George Soros and is primarily funded by the man. Now, in case you don’t know who he is, Soros is a very wealthy, extremely liberal nutcase who funds the most extreme liberal groups in this country. He grew up in WWII Hungary and helped confiscate property from other Jews while posing as a Christian, even though he is Jewish. So he obviously has no qualms with aiding the enemy.
For the rest of the case, I will refer you to Alan Dershowitz (a professor of law at Harvard), who wrote a great piece in 2006 regarding both of those corrupt organizations. I really don’t feel the need to prove 2 2=4 to you anymore, since the evidence is more than obvious to those who are willing to see and understand it. For a thorough documentation of HRW’s bias, do a search for them on littlegreenfootballs.com. That site followed them very closely during the 2006 war.
Don, why are you “hell-bent” on equating the two? Again, saying that the Israelis commits equal acts to Hezbollah means that you are equating the two groups. I know you don’t want to admit it, but those are the facts. Overall, I am quite dismayed at the level of de facto anti-Semitism on this site.
Don, this apparently will come as a surprise to you, but there are Jewish groups that are actually AGAINST an Israeli state. These groups even exist in Israel, ironically enough. I don’t know enough about B’Tselem, but in a quick search I have already found that they have been roundly condemned as a “radical leftist” organization.
Oops, here is Dershowitz’s piece. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525974885&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer
I’m not saying that Israel had NO war crimes in the 2006 war. I’m just saying that they were few and far between compared to Hezbollah, and trusting the leftist organizations for your news isn’t particularly wise.
Darius T:
Since you refuse to rationally address any of my arguments and instead resort to a number a fallacies of relevance (i.e., appeals to evidence that is irrelevant), I just don’t see the point of further discussion.