Robert Fisk is well worth a read today: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask
Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead – almost all civilians, most of them children and women – in Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians?
{ 90 comments… read them below or add one }
DH 01.07.09 at 8:10 pm
Why does Robert assume that the “Hamas in the UN school” was a lie? Why does he assume one side is in the wrong and not Hamas? Why does he assume that the invasion of 2006 in Lebanon were all “innocent” when it is a fact that Hezbollah started the invasion in the first place by making hostage Israeli’s? Has Israel made mistakes? yes but that doesn’t mean we need to overgeneralize that Israel is ALL to blame when the latest round is clearly Hamas’s fault. It seems Robert makes statements without any substantiation. If he does obtain substantiation he needs to make sure it is from a reliable and unbiased source.
Why do they hate the West so much? because the West supports Israel as a nation while they desire to have no Israel as a nation in any way.
Beth 01.11.09 at 12:53 am
Please. “Israel” is not “the West”. Israelis, oddly enough, are people from Israel, and by no stretch of the imagination is Israel a Western country. The assumption that one can conflate the two is anti-Semitism, pure and simple - the assumption that, since most Jews live in the US, and since all Jews of course are baby-murdering Islamophobes, Israel is merely an outpost of a conspiracy of violence with its headquarters in every bagel bar in New York City.
The relentless Israel-bashing here is starting to offend me. Sorry.
Richard 01.11.09 at 8:35 am
If it is Israel-bashing to say that I believe that Israel’s aggression in Gaza is entirely wrong, then yes, I’ll be Israel-bashing.
Beth 01.11.09 at 9:16 pm
Richard, I accept that that’s your view, but isn’t Hamas’s aggression against Israel equally bad? That’s what gets me - Israel has more force to use to defend itself, but it’s no more morally wrong than Hamas, so why is the focus of disapproval always on what Israel is doing?
PamBG 01.12.09 at 9:51 am
The issue as I see it is not the binary one of either Israel-good, Hamas-bad or Hamas-bad, Israel-good.
Hamas is clearly a terrorist organisation. Israel is acting like than a terrorist organisation but Western governments are supporting their atrocities unequivocally. In our support for Israel , the West acts as if Palestinians should not be accorded full human rights. Palestinians have been displaced from ancestral homes, villages and livelihoods and told to get over it. Palestinians were offered the infertile land in the partition and told to get over it. Palestinians were herded into walled ghettos and told to get over it. Then the West acts incredulously when the Palestinians think that we are their enemies. Gee, I wonder why?
Our message, as I understand it, is ‘We don’t care how many Palestinians die, we will never admit that Israel does injustice. We will back all immoral and unethical actions that Israel undertakes and define them as self-defense.’
I think that ‘the story’ we tell ourselves as a culture needs to be redressed.
Kim Fabricius 01.12.09 at 11:12 am
Thanks, Pam, for your twenty-twenty vision.
I don’t see any apologists on this blog for Hamas, but there are several apologists for Israel, whose disproportionate and less-than-discriminate attacks on Gaza Desmond Tutu has suggested “bear all the hallmarks of war crimes”. Here Tutu echoes the critique of the Hebrew prophet Amos himself, who rhetorically deployed the reprehensible actions committed by other Middle Eastern powers of his day (including a nation called Gaza), not to exonerate and justify similar actions committed by Judah and Israel, but precisely to condemn them as implicit betrayals of the covenant (see Amos 1 - 2).
We need - certainly Christians and Jews need - to remind ourselves of what Gillian Rose called “love’s work”, which is categorical, not contingent; proactive, not reactive; and, with universal intent, transcends the tribally religious: “For politics does not happen when you act on behalf of your own damaged goods, but when you act without guarantees for the good of all - that is to take the risk of the universal interest.”
As a Christian - i.e. an honorary Jew - I must say that Jewish apologists for the state of Israel in this conflict are doing for Judaism what the Religious Right in the US has been doing for Christianity - distorting and shaming their own faith.
Richard 01.12.09 at 11:45 am
“Thanks, Pam, for your twenty-twenty vision”
Where did that come from, Kim? It looks to me as though your comment entirely agrees with ( and complements) Pam’s. (Unless I’m missing something of course)
Tony Buglass 01.12.09 at 12:48 pm
I agree with Pam, that this is not a simple ‘either…or’ problem. The current problems were caused by Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation sworn to fight until Israel is gone. But Hamas was elected to power by Palestinian people out of their despair at Israel’s heavy-handed anti-terrorist measures. The construction of the Wall has involved the theft of Palestinian land and the division and destruction of Palestinian communities. But Israel was driven to extreme measures because of the continued slaughter of Israeli civilians by suicide bombers. Etc, etc.
I don’t “Israel-bash.” If I’m on anyone’s side, it’s Israel. When the State was formed, it was in the hope that it would not just be a Jewish homeland, but a place where all could live (which was part of the 1917 Balfour Declaration). It was the surrounding Arab nations which told the Palestinians to get out of the way in 1948 so they could drive the Jews into the sea, then they could have all the land. They failed to do it, and again in 1967, 1973, etc. So the Palestinians were still in the refugee camps to which they retreated - and it was Arab policy to keep them there, because that maintained a festering sore of hatred and suffering which was a useful tool in the fight to get rid of Israel.
We could trace the tit-for-tat for ever, and as long as that is the driving force, there will be war and suffering. Only when both sides accept the need of the other to a just and equitable life in the land will there be peace. Israel did at least withdraw from Gaza, even dragging their own settlers out against their will. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and company still want to exterminate Israel. How will there ever be peace under those circumstances?
DH 01.12.09 at 3:22 pm
People, there is no excuse for people to vote into power terrorit organizations (period). If Palastinians in the majority want peace then they need to get rid of the ties to the terrorist Hamas (period). Thank God that at least 43% of Palastinians do not support Hamas. However, the situation is not going to change until Hamas stops firing rockets miles into Israel and the Palastinian people say enough is enough with terrorism. Israel is NOT acting like a terrorist. I take extreme offense at anybody saying that Israel is being a terrorist or acting like a terrorist. Israel must defend itself against terrorism by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Al Quada, Iran and the like. People forget that we are dealing with organizations who are not satisfied until Israel is not a nation. How can we as Christians sit back let organizations who desire this to fulfill their goals? How can we as Christians not support Israel against people who have this as their ultimate goal?
DH 01.12.09 at 3:25 pm
Tony, thanks for the wonderful post here other than the Palastinian voting in Hamas thing and the “both sides need to take repsonsibility thing”.
Kim 01.12.09 at 4:05 pm
Richard and Pam - I meant the “twenty-twenty vison” thing as a COMPLIMENT. Perfect eyesight, yes?
Richard 01.12.09 at 4:54 pm
My apologies, Kim. I had my sark-ometer set way too sensitive. It just shows you should always read what others say with great care, coz even friends can misunderstand one another.
Mea culpa.
Kim 01.12.09 at 5:24 pm
We’re cool, Richard - particularly as, on the sarcasm file, I’ve got form!
Beth 01.12.09 at 5:40 pm
During the second world war, Jews were forcibly prevented by the British (responding to Arab pressure) from migrating to the area, despite the fact that early Zionist settlers had been accepted there because they had education and money and that therefore there was already a resident Jewish population. As a result, tens of thousands more Jews died in the holocaust than would have done otherwise. A large number of current Palestinian refugees are those who were forced out of their homes by the Arab armies, who wanted a clear field to drive the Israelis out of the land. Many Israeli land gains, including the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank occurred because they overcame united Arab forces in the Six-Day War, a war initiated by Jordan, Egypt and Syria.
Until the first world war, Palestine had been under Ottoman (Turkish), not Arab, rule for half a millennium. So, exactly how ancestral are these lands really? And were they stolen from innocent Palestinians, or gained in warfare initiated by the Arab states?
41% of the current population of Israel is made up of those who were refugees from Arab lands after the Arab backlash against the declaration of the State of Israel. Displaced people do not have to fall into hatred and vengeance. They can instead choose to adapt to new lives in a new country.
The Gaza strip is smaller than the city and county of Swansea. Israel itself is not a whole lot larger than the New York metropolitan area. Egypt is fifty times the size of Israel and 2,000 times the size of the Gaza strip. Egypt could easily absorb the Palestinian refugees and allow them to make new homes and lives. Hamas could govern, and improve conditions instead of spending its resources on terrorism. But these “leaders” and fellow Arab states prefer to leave the Palestinian people to rot in order that the stink will somehow seem to emanate from the evil Jews.
So, yes, Israel has done some pretty atrocious things. But don’t kid yourselves that if Israel left things alone the Palestinians would be getting on with their lives in quiet comfort. The anti-Semitism that wants to see every Jew exterminated will never be happy until Israel is wiped off the map, and would rather use its resources, including its people, to gain that end, than concentrate on improving the lives of Palestinian people.
PamBG 01.12.09 at 6:08 pm
Richard and Pam - I meant the “twenty-twenty vison†thing as a COMPLIMENT. Perfect eyesight, yes?
Yes, I got that and understood it that way.
So, yes, Israel has done some pretty atrocious things. But don’t kid yourselves that if Israel left things alone the Palestinians would be getting on with their lives in quiet comfort.
I don’t think that for a minute. It’s just that it’s hard to put up with DH’s persistent de-humanising of Palestinians. And I *don’t* think our (British and American) policy has been balanced in the region.
Actually, the title asks the question ‘Why do they hate us?’ and most of the people I meet on a day to day basis are truly mystified as to why the Arab world would hate us. And they tell me all the time that Islam is a threat to our values. So I don’t think the issue is getting a balanced airing.
DH 01.12.09 at 6:11 pm
Wow Beth, I really appreciated your latest response. Many people who support this “land-for-peace” or “Israel can do no right” line pick and choose the history they want to look at. When one looks at history in its entirety like you and I have, Pam, then one can truly see how Israel is “backed into a corner”. The Palastinians are as well but one cannot blame Israel solely or even in the majority for these problems. Thanks for the info Beth. A big hearty “amen” to your reply.
Beth 01.12.09 at 6:23 pm
I’m not mystified as to why the Arab world would hate the West, but I don’t sympathise.
As for dehumanising the Palestinians, Egypt began that process by forcing them out of their homes and failing to take them in as refugees; Hamas has continued the process by using people as human shields and doing as much as it can to maximise its own civilian casualties in a manipulative war of propaganda. Israel’s behaviour is not good. But if millions of Christians had been systematically butchered fifty years ago while the world sat back and watched, and you now lived in the only Christian country in the entire world, with surrounding countries calling for your annihilation, perhaps you might fight back rather aggressively too?
DH 01.12.09 at 6:26 pm
Beth, WOW Amen again.
PamBG 01.12.09 at 6:42 pm
I’m not mystified as to why the Arab world would hate the West, but I don’t sympathise.
Right, well then that pretty much closes down the discussion, doesn’t it? I can’t understand the concept of not sympathising with someone simply because of their ethnicity. As a Christian, I find that approach totally unethical and, dare I say it, evil? (And before you say it: yes, I do sympathise with innocent Israelis.)
DH 01.12.09 at 7:07 pm
Pam, it is not solely based on ethnicity that Beth and I support or sympathize with Israel. Beth’s 5:40pm reply says it all and it goes beyond “ethnicity” as one reads the reply in its entirety. I consider it evil not to take into account this as well.
Kim 01.12.09 at 7:17 pm
Christians do not have a country, they are “resident aliens”, though you could say they have a colony in this strange land, which is called the church. The church has no interest whatsoever in the preservation of any state, qua state, and indeed is called to witness against any state that denies or subverts the good that states are called by God to serve. Hence the Hebrew prophets’ denunciation of Israel itself for adopting the power politics of Gentile nations - for which they were pilloried, imprisoned, killed. And hence, of course, the prophet Jesus of Nazareth, who renounced all violence and called his friends to follow his own example and die rather than kill (and who, like Jeremiah before him, correctly foresaw the inevitable result of the Israel of his own day playing politics by pagan rules - the reduction of Jerusalem to rubble).
DH 01.12.09 at 7:24 pm
I’m sorry Kim, the church has an interest in the preservation of Israel. Also, Jesus did not renounce all violence. The fact that He overthrew the moneychangers with a whip was a violent act. Also Jesus said many a violent statement by calling the Pharisee’s “Racca”, etc.
To me I call “human shileds” and other forms of terrorism as “pagan rules”. You still are totally unethically biased in your analysis of Israel.
PamBG 01.12.09 at 11:31 pm
Pam, it is not solely based on ethnicity that Beth and I support or sympathize with Israel. Beth’s 5:40pm reply says it all and it goes beyond “ethnicity†as one reads the reply in its entirety. I consider it evil not to take into account this as well.
DH, as I understand the practice of Christianity, it absolutely demands from us that we do not take sides and that we always say that wrong actions are wrong and that good actions are good, no matter who does them.
Therefore, I believe that Christianity demands of us that we always try to understand the perspective of all parties in a dispute. If I want to be a good disciple, I am not free to say that I refuse to sympathise with any party nor am I free to say that I refuse to try to understand their point of view.
Precisely the problem that is going on is that Western governments are saying that all murders committed by Israel are justified and right and good. That’s not only an abomination from the point of view of Christian discipleship, it’s also the reason we have no credibility as peace negotiators.
If we had been consistently clear-headed about Israel’s evil acts over the last 60+ years, we might have some credibility when we tried to name the evils committed by Palestinian terror groups.
As it is, our stand of ‘We refuse to understand the Palestinian perspective or to have sympathy for the atrocities done to the Palestinian people’ is precisely why we are hated and why we have no creditability.
Beth 01.12.09 at 11:37 pm
Jesus wept.
I understand why the Welsh hate the English, but I don’t sympathise. I understand why the Hutus hate the Tutsi, but I don’t sympathise.
Pam, you were the one who claimed that “the Arab world hates us”. If that’s the case, I don’t sympathise with them because I think that they are wrong. If what you meant was “there is a tendency for many, although not all, people in the Arab world to hate the West” you should have said it rather than using a sweeping generalisation. If you had not lumped all Arabs into the same category, I would not have quoted that back at you.
It is not the race with which I fail to sympathise, but the hatred.
Beth 01.12.09 at 11:41 pm
Kim, do not compare the metaphorical “statelessness” of Christianity with that of the Jews before the establishment of Israel. Christians and Muslims have safe havens throughout many countries. Once six million of your people have been wiped out because there was nowhere in the entire world that would take them in, because they were hated and despised by an overwhelming majority of people, because they were actively prevented from accessing safe places, then you can revel in your statelessness. But we both know that will never happen.
PamBG 01.12.09 at 11:53 pm
Beth, I do sympathise with the hatred on both sides, even as I think all hatred is wrong.
Beth 01.12.09 at 11:58 pm
And you have every right to that opinion, Pam. I’d kinda like an apology for being called a racist, though, considering that I was only echoing your words…
Kim 01.13.09 at 12:17 am
Why, DH, should the church have an interest in the preservation of geographical Israel? The early Christians had no theological interest whatsoever in territorial claims (and to speak of a nation-state would be an anachronism). And the reason is clear: just as Christ is the new temple, so being-in-Christ has replaced being-in-borders. As N. T. Wright puts it: Jesus did “not come to rehabilitate the symbol of the holy land, but to subsume it within a different fulfilment of the kingdom, which would embrace the whole creation.”
As for the claim that the cleasing of the temple was an act promoting violence, give it a rest: it demonstrates both exegetical ignorance and theological special pleading. Exegetical ignorance of prophetic symbolism: you might just as well claim that Isaiah going naked through the streets of Jerusalem was an act promoting naturalism. And theological special pleading: you blatantly disregard the fundamental thrust of the entire ministry of Jesus - its didactic centrepiece in the Sermon on the Mount, its dramatic climax in the cross. Life and teaching combine in the unconditional rejection of bloodshed and revenge. To spin them any other way is positively Orwellian.
Frankly, however, I don’t know why I bother. I really don’t. I’m beginning to think, DH, that the good Lord brought you to this blog to try my - and others’ - patience - and to educate us in loving people whose theology, ethics, and politics are not only deeply repugnant but also unrecognisably Christian. And yet were we to meet over a beer, I suspect I’d find you to be a nice guy. Correction - twenty beers: I’d have to be blind drunk!
Kim 01.13.09 at 1:03 am
The “statelessness” of Christians is no metaphor, Beth. And there are plenty of Jews who would regard being in disapora as God’s home for his people, the tradition of the tent rather than the temple.
Finally, babes, I wish you would be more careful with your holocaust piety, using it less defensively and more creatively, i.e. in a way that does not deploy the shoah as a trump-card for endlessly exonerating the state of Israel from its own dehumanising politics and practices, but rather inspires the Jewish people, the people of God, to be an agent of justice and embrace. If “Never again” translates into “Do it to them before they do it to you,” then the six million died in vain. I would say this even if Jews themselves didn’t - but many do. Of course those who don’t regard those who do as renegades. It is a charge commonly made against prophets.
PamBG 01.13.09 at 8:52 am
I’d kinda like an apology for being called a racist, though, considering that I was only echoing your words…
Beth, you’ve now told me twice what I meant - which sounds nothing like what I thought I wrote. I have no idea where I called you a racist. If you can point out to me what words I wrote that offended you, I’ll apologise.
Right now, I’m pretty pissed-off at twice being told what I ‘really’ meant to say, though.
Beth 01.13.09 at 12:32 pm
Okay, Kimmy - I see your point. I guess I was saying two different things: firstly, that Israeli aggression is understandable (if not justified) in the context; secondly that Christians can in no way be compared to diaspora Jews in terms of “statelessness” because the vast majority of them are not stateless in any meaningful sense. I get that your theology leads you to see yourself and other Christians in that way, but I think it isn’t a sense shared by the average Christian, most of whom will (God willing) never experience being utterly defenceless and threatened wherever they go in the world. In contrast, feeling threatened is par for the course for diaspora Jews.
To go back to the first issue, perhaps I do over-emphasise the Shoah as a catalyst for Israel’s actions. But I also wonder whether it is something that can be over-emphasised? Suggest some reading for me on this?
Beth 01.13.09 at 12:36 pm
Pam, I’m sorry to have pissed you off.
The thing you said that upset me was this: “I can’t understand the concept of not sympathising with someone simply because of their ethnicity. As a Christian, I find that approach totally unethical and, dare I say it, evil?”
I took this to mean that you thought I failed to sympathise simply because the people under discussion were Arabs. If that isn’t what you meant, then I apologise in turn for misunderstanding you - but maybe you can see how your words were easily interpreted that way?
Kim 01.13.09 at 1:48 pm
Beth, a few further musings.
God uses the particular with universal intent. In Second Isaiah God calls Israel to be a voice, a light, a servant - indeed a suffering servant - to the nations, i.e. to the Gentiles. Christians, of course, believe that this vocation is embodied and secured in the particular person Jesus of Nazareth. But if Jesus fulfils the vocation of Israel, he does not abrogate it, because as Paul insisted, the call of God is irrevocable (Romans 11:29), while as Karl Barth stressed, “The Gentile Christian community of every age and land is a guest in the house of Israel.”
(By the way, because DH, as a supersessionist, denies that - Barth again - the church and the synagogue “are two forms … of the one inseparable community,” Jews who think they have an ally in him and his ilk over the security of the state of Israel should think again: the citizens of Israel are useful but ultimately expendable in his eschatology, players in his preposterous, but dangerous, premillennial scenario in which non-Christians will either ultimately convert - or burn in hell).
As I was saying about the particular and the universal, now with regard to the Shoah: the Shoah too, I think, should be taken as a particular - unique - catastrophe with universal implications, a cataclysm that Jews cannot and should not keep only to themselves, and certainly not as a memory that merely funds a political project, especially if that project morphs into self-protection at any price. The Shoah for Jews, like the cross for Christians, is a human text to be interpreted and applied for the world on behalf of all people who are subjected to indignity, injustice, and violence. The Shoah for Jews, like the cross for Christians, should be a source for solidarity with all people who suffer at the hands of others.
Marc Ellis writes: “Is there to be a Jewish memory of Auschwitz or will it one day become a memory for all people?” The latter, I trust, both as hope and promise.
Helpful?
DH 01.13.09 at 4:08 pm
Kim, Beth fully explained what I meant on this subject. NT Wright fails to include the covenent with God for the Holy Land. All of the other things he says are correct but he presents it as either/or when it doesn’t have to be that way nor is it that way.
Kim, irregardless of the eschatology the fact remains Scripture is clear we must be Saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus to go to heaven and have “eternal life”. “He that has the Son has life. He that has not the Son has not life.” “Except a man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” It seems pretty clear and it has nothing to do with “supersessionist/nonsupersessionist, premillinial/postmillenial/amillenial/panmillinial(it will all “pan” out in the end), etc. It is what Scripture says with regard to Salvation/nonSalvation, eternal life/eternal death.
Here is the definition of violence:1 a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b: vehement feeling or expression : fervor ; also : an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4: undue alteration
Sounds like Jesus did 2 and/or3a, so one can not say Jesus never condoned violence or did violence. We don’t know on 1a or 1b because the text doesn’t state if any moneychangers were injured but He definitely was “outraged” and definitely was “intense, turbulant” with the moneychangers by using a whip and harsh with His statements to the moneychangers. Albeit correctly, understandably, justifiably, rightly and perfectly.
The fact is Salvation is by Faith “the just shall live by Faith”. Injustice, idignity, etc. is eternally saved by Faith in Christ alone. One can get some physical rescuing but does that give on “eternal life”? no
PamBG 01.13.09 at 4:20 pm
I took this to mean that you thought I failed to sympathise simply because the people under discussion were Arabs. If that isn’t what you meant, then I apologise in turn for misunderstanding you - but maybe you can see how your words were easily interpreted that way?
Yes, I see how my words can be ‘easily interpreted’ that way. But I think that there is a difference between saying an action is wrong and a person is ‘racist’. I don’t like those epithets because - believe it or not - I do believe that most people tend to hold their views for good reasons.
Now maybe you can clarify for me what you meant by ‘I don’t sympathise with them because I think that they are wrong.’ I’m trying to see multiple interpretations, but I’m afraid I only see one.
DH 01.13.09 at 4:27 pm
Pam, I don’t understand how you can only see one unless you overgeneralize people like Beth and I who happen to support Israel. “wrong” is defined as “supporters of terrorism, human shields, unprovoced rocket attacks”. I’m surprised that you don’t see that. It has nothing to do with race, not thinking that Palastinians shouldn’t have a land, etc. but the fact that Hamas is terrorist, was voted on by a majority of Palastinians, supported by Iran and Syria, etc.
“I don’t sympathize with them because they voted in a terrorist organization as their leaders. The same goes for the Germans in WW2 I don’t sympathize with them because they voted in Hitler to be their leader.”
DH 01.13.09 at 4:29 pm
I need to rephrase: I empathize with those who did not vote in Hamas or Hitler as their leaders. That would include children who are the innocent bystanders.
May we pray for the children and those non-children who voted for Fatah who are hurting right now in Gaza.
PamBG 01.13.09 at 6:12 pm
don’t understand how you can only see one
I think I’ve said several times that I’m trying to see both points of view.
I who happen to support Israel. “wrong†is defined as “supporters of terrorism, human shields, unprovoced rocket attacksâ€.
I agree with your definition. I agree with you that Hamas - and a number of other Palestinian terrorist organisations - are terrorist organisations. Where I disagree with you -DH - is that I believe that Israel is also acting immorally. And I’m surprised that you don’t see that.
I don’t sympathize with them because they voted in a terrorist organization as their leaders. The same goes for the Germans in WW2
And the same goes for Israel in 1948. Although I’m sure you’ll say that Ben Gurion was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist.
DH 01.13.09 at 6:46 pm
Pam, the answer to your last sentence is “yes”. The fact remains is that Israel has a right to have a country. I also believe that Palastinians have a right to a country but only when they stop their terrorist campaign. I don’t believe it is immoral for Israel to defend itself against the terrorist Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Al Quada, etc.
Beth 01.13.09 at 6:52 pm
There probably is only one interpretation - I believe that the overwhelming reason for hatred of Israel in the Middle East is an anti-Semitism which far predates the foundation of Israel. There is no separation between what may be legitimate political grievances and the entrenched and expressed wish to destroy every last Jew on earth. Hatred of the West - if, as Richard’s original post suggests, it is based on the West’s support for Israel - is an extension of this anti-Semitic attitude, one which sees a world Jewish conspiracy behind every action of America or most other Western nations.
So, there’s why I don’t sympathise - I see this hatred as an extension of the old hatred that has followed the Jewish people since time immemorial, and it disgusts me.
DH 01.13.09 at 7:00 pm
Amen Beth. Thank you for your response. I agree 100%.
PamBG 01.13.09 at 7:06 pm
So, there’s why I don’t sympathise - I see this hatred as an extension of the old hatred that has followed the Jewish people since time immemorial, and it disgusts me
I understand. Anti-Semitism disgusts me too. And I’m disgusted that a people who were herded into Ghettos can themselves herd innocent people into Ghettos knowing that they will certainly be ‘collateral damage’.
I don’t think right and wrong actions can ever be a matter of a category of people.
Most of my Jewish friends can see clearly that Israel is engaging in immoral actions. Some see those actions as evil but necessary. Some see them as just evil. Not one of them has claimed that it’s OK - at least not to my face.
DH 01.13.09 at 9:25 pm
Pam, I personally believe it would be evil if Israel would not respond and Hamas continue its terrorist campaign. Wouldn’t MORE lives be lost in that scenario? Wouldn’t Hamas be MORE strong and allowed more time to do further damage than otherwise?
If Hamas is a category of people then one CAN determine right from wrong by the actions Hamas has done. Are all Palastinians Hamas? absolutely not Do all Palastinians support Hamas? absolutely not. That is one area where you seem to misunderstand us Pam.
PamBG 01.13.09 at 10:30 pm
Wouldn’t MORE lives be lost in that scenario?
I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m not a moral utilitarian; I believe that all killing is wrong.
Wouldn’t Hamas be MORE strong and allowed more time to do further damage than otherwise?
There is also the argument that violence begets hatred. Do you think that the families of all the non-combatant families are saying ‘Oh well, they had to kill our mothers and children. We understand that, no problem’? Certainly some of these individuals will have been turned to hatred of Israel and whether you like it or not, I can understand and sympathise even if I think that’s wrong.
If Hamas is a category of people then one CAN determine right from wrong by the actions Hamas has done.
Yes, and equally, one CAN determine that Israel is not innocent either.
Are all Palastinians Hamas? absolutely not Do all Palastinians support Hamas? absolutely not. That is one area where you seem to misunderstand us Pam.
I don’t think I misunderstand that. Where I think you (DH) are wrong is in your continual insistence that Israel is doing nothing wrong. Once again, I agree Hamas is doing evil things. I DON’T agree that Israel is not doing evil things. You seem to think that two parties can’t be wrong, that if one party is wrong then the other must be in the right.
And where we disagree is that I can understand and feel for someone who has been radicalised because they have lost identity, property, culture, livilhood and family members. Whether they are Israeli or Palestinian or even Hamas. Yes, I think Hamas is wrong. But that is not going to stop me saying that Israel is in the wrong as well.
I feel like a broken record.
DH 01.14.09 at 3:06 pm
Pam, I don’t believe Israel hasn’t made mistakes. Where I disagree is that you seem to believe that both are EQUALLY wrong when it is clear that Hamas is doing all of the atrocities. Also, not all killing is wrong. Was it wrong for the Israelities to KILL the ites when God told them to do so? Was it wrong to elliminate the Nazi’s from WW2? I believe it is NOT wrong to take on strongly Hamas a known terrorist organization.
Question: Has Israel done “human shields” of weaponry? NO Has Israel desired the entire elimination of Palastine as a country? NO Hamsas has these are areas where Hamas is wrong and Israel is right. The fact is Israel was desiring a two state solution to this and it is the Hamas who don’t desire this to the point of doing attacking.
I also find it interesting that you are against what Israel is doing when what Israel is doing is being supported by Egypt, Fatah party of Palastine, Suadi Arabia and many other Arab factions who agree that Hamas must be dealt with. You don’t seem support the very people who support Israel in their action. Very interesting.
Your answer to the first question is kind of ignorant when in fact we are dealing with a known terorrist organization who uses women and children as human shields and which launches rockets with no regard for inncoent casulties. At least Israel is not doing these or has the attitude like Hamas is on this.
PamBG 01.14.09 at 3:53 pm
I also find it interesting that you are against what Israel is doing when what Israel is doing is being supported by Egypt, Fatah party of Palastine, Suadi Arabia and many other Arab factions who agree that Hamas must be dealt with.
This would confuse you, I think. Because you seem to think that the moral problem here is to ‘Identify the side that is in the right at take their side’
And I think that all killing is wrong.
I honestly don’t know how to communicate that any better than I have done.
Evil deeds are evil deeds and if a person is blinded to evil because of the ’side’ they take, then they cannot be either wise in Christian terms or ultimately morally credible.
No one wanted Hamas to be in power. I remember having a discussion before the elections in 2006 where I believe you and John from Locusts and Honey were absolutely scathing towards those of us who supported Fatah as the lesser of two evils. I’m sure I remember similar charges of anti-Semitism being flung at us for supporting Fatah. So please stop painting me as a supporter of Hamas.
Beth 01.14.09 at 4:23 pm
Pam - tell me what Israel should do instead? I’m not saying that Israel is perfect - in many cases, the state’s actions have indeed been terribly wrong. But I wonder what the alternative is. Would the significant number of people in the Gaza strip fighting for the destruction of Israel cease doing so if they were allowed free access to the country? I sincerely doubt it - they would just be able to attack Israelis far more efficiently. We may not like the way Israel was founded, but the point is that the foundation did happen, and that there are now an awful lot of Israeli people who face constant threat from their geographical neighbours as well as other anti-Israel groups.
So, I’m genuinely asking you what you think the solution to all this is. How does Israel protect itself from the Palestinians without the risk of ghettoising them?
PamBG 01.14.09 at 5:18 pm
Beth, I honestly don’t know what ‘the solution’ is. I expect that, as Richard has pointed out in another thread, it will eventually have to have something to do with people who are sick of generations of violence sitting down and talking to each other. If I recall correctly, this took a couple of centuries in Northern Ireland.
The thing is, I’m not a politician. I’m a Christian and I’m a minister. It’s my honest belief that it would be morally wrong for me to say ‘On balance, the Israelis are more right than Hamas and therefore any killing that Israel does is morally acceptable.’
I note in all of this that there is no moderate voice that I know of which is asking the question anymore - ‘How much longer are generations of Palestinians to be refugees?’ I accept that terrorism is not the answer, but we - the British and Americans who stole their property and history and identify from Palestinians - don’t even seem to think that this is any kind of a priority.
I certainly think that part of the ‘talking’ is going to have to be the recognition that millions of Palestinians have been refugees for generations, that not all of these people are terrorists, and that they too have a human right to have a home.
PamBG 01.14.09 at 5:33 pm
Beth, this may seem outrageously trivial to you and, if so, I apologise.
‘Round these parts, there is a lot of ’sorting out’ that goes on informally. By that, I mean, that families protect their property and the members of their family by violence. In that way, you know that you don’t mess with The Smiths.
One of the reasons the church frequently gets targeted for vandalism around here is that people know we’re not going to send anyone around to sort them out, even if we know who did it. Having a police record is a matter of honour and everyone knows that they aren’t going to beat you within an inch of your life.
Suppose I was able to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that 100 years ago, Edgar Smith knocked two teeth out of the mouth of Bert Jones and the Joneses retaliated by sending in the boys to break the legs of 6 of the Smiths. And suppose that there has been retaliation after retaliation, sometimes the Smiths wrecking more havoc and sometimes the Jones wrecking more havoc.
As a Christian, do I say that I’m on the side of the Joneses because Edgar Smith started it? Do I say that I’m on the side of the Smiths because the Joneses responded with excessive force?
If I take sides, I’m saying that the last 100 years of violence has been justified in some way. I’m saying that violence is useful and that it can be good in some circumstances. Whereas, in this sort of situation, it’s pretty clear to see that people are going to have to put their grievances aside and stop hurting each other.
It might be a simplistic illustration, I’ll grant you. But are the basics really very different?
DH 01.14.09 at 6:33 pm
Well Pam I consider the Israelites to be “morally credible” for obeying God to eliminate the ites. Your statements are indirectly making value judgements on God which I don’t think any Christians should take. I also believe that it IS morally just to defend oneself and I believe it is morally just to not be ignorant and to determine who started it and to keep them from doing it again. I believe the basics of your illustration ARE very different. By the nature of you admitting that that it is “simplistic” proves that it is basically different.
Palastinians deserve their own state within a two state solution if and only if they renounce “human shields” which you have never acknowledged, renounce terrorism and stop the launching of missles in other lands. Israel supports a two state solution Hamas does not.
With regard to Fatah statement. I may have indirectly renounced Fatah at the time because many of the leaders were supporters of the terrorist Arafat. Remember this was during a transistion when Arafat died. There were lots of questions will Fatah support the terrorism of Arafat, will Hamas be in power, who within Fatah will be in power and/or will Fatah change. The fact remains that over the last several years Fatah has proved themselves to be willing to work and that while they appreciated (wrongly) Arafat for his history do not support the terrorism that he supported. When Fatah renounced the policies of Arafat that is when I began my support of them over Hamas. However at the time when these renouncements were not made I had no choice but to reject either party due to their support of terrorism.
Also this is not an Israeli or Palastinian issue but a terrorism ot non-terrorism issue. The fact that Egypt, Saudi Arabia Jordan and even Fatah Palastinians, etc. support Israel and condemn Hamas is more than enough reason to know that this is not a Muslim vs/ Jew issue.
Beth 01.14.09 at 6:57 pm
Pam, the illustration is excellent and actually rather helpful. I also respect the fact that you don’t condone any violence, regardless of the reasons why it is perpetrated.
Until maybe a year ago, I would have called myself an absolute pacifist, but I’m not sure I can do that any longer. The utilitarian view of violence is hugely distasteful, yet I find myself beating my head against the same brick wall, asking what other reaction is possible when talks keep breaking down and the country is under immediate attack. That said, I do agree that Israel has done some terribly immoral things - the building of the wall and the illegal settlements amongst them. Israeli politicians have been absolutely unhelpful to the situation on so many occasions. I guess that my sympathies are with Israel, however, because of the reasons I outlined above - this is a history which is significantly driven by ancient and recent anti-Semitism, and I cannot help but feel that the provision of a Jewish homeland was and is an imperative which demands special attention. Does that extend to condoning violence or subjugation? No. But I find it easier to sympathise with the Israeli side of the fence.
Mine is, of course, a reaction in which history and politics are liberally spiced with emotion and subjectivity. I apologise for being quite so strident here.
Kim 01.14.09 at 7:33 pm
Who are the ites, DH? They sound like really bad dudes. God says to eliminate them? Let’s not take any chances. Let’s take out the women and children too. And their sheep and cattle. And their hamsters. Only their goldfish should be spared.
DH 01.14.09 at 7:51 pm
I’m just making the point that God supports justfully a nations right to defend itself against terrorism. That was the point I was making and how one can’t be “absolute” when Scripture says what God told His people to do.
I totally sympathize with Beth on this subject. I wish there were “non-violent” ways to solve these problems. While I’m for the wall, I totally agree with you Beth with regard to the settlements. I’m glad Israel has eliminated over 90% of them. It appears from what I read they were on track to eliminating all of them until the latest Hamas “salvo”.
Who are the ites? some of them are around because the Jews didn’t do fully what God said. However, it is wonderful how God made “all things work together for good” in that His call for Salvation is made available even to them. What is wonderful to see are Christian Palastinians who in the midst of the disobedience by the Jews God is able to redeem by Faith in Christ’s death and ressurection. What is also wonderful is that even though the Jews disobeyed God they too can be redeemed by Faith in Christ’s death and resurrection as well. All of these things though are “red-herrings” to the point of my reply which is that God has commanded at times the use of violence and if one looks at the multiple definitions of the word violence even Jesus was in reference to the throwing out of the moneychangers. The commandment to not kill is actually in reference to murder if one looks at the Hebrew for the term. That is not to say that the passage is wrong it is that the Hebrew language has its limitations within it just as English or for that matter any language. Scripture in light of Scripture and the context therin for Scripture is consistent and perfect in light of these facts.
Kim 01.14.09 at 8:21 pm
I say take out the red herrings as well. Let’s not take any chances. If we don’t teach the red herrings a lesson, the next things you know we’ll have to deal with the yellow prawns. And they’re particularly dangerous if they’ve been prawn again.
DH 01.14.09 at 8:35 pm
Kim, I’m not a “pawn” to your schemes. However, I don’t consider you a “shrimp” in the Kingdom of God (if I have correctly identified your fruit “by their fruit you shall know them”).
For those who are readin this better to be a “shrimp” let alone a “prawn” in the Kingdom of God then to not be a shrimp at all. I’m satisfied being a “pawn” for God for I know at the last days the Lord will “Queen Me” in the God’s chess Kingdom. Oh no, I have opened pandora’s box since I’m actually a man let alone the fact God is Father. (we have had this discussion before) Wow, I love the band “Queen” for in the last days “We are the Champions my friend.”
DH 01.14.09 at 8:38 pm
and we know that the Israelities from Revelations even though they are “Champions” (by Faith in Christ alone that “They’ll keep on fighting to the end.”
Beth 01.14.09 at 9:03 pm
DH, you’re overwhelming!
DH 01.14.09 at 9:15 pm
Is that in a good way or a bad way?
PamBG 01.14.09 at 9:33 pm
Beth, I’m glad that my illustration helped. I understand the frustration of being a pacifist but I think I can ’sit in the mess’ with people of both sides.
DH, like Kim I have no idea who the ‘ites’ are. Amelekites? I really don’t appreciate being told that I’m making judgements about God. It’s unbelievably frustrating that not only do you not listen to what I actually say, not only do you seem unable to even envisage or contemplate my point of view, but that you constantly dismiss my point of view out of hand. I think we’ve reached the end of the line in this conversation.
Tony Buglass 01.14.09 at 9:51 pm
DH: “I’m just making the point that God supports justfully a nations right to defend itself against terrorism. That was the point I was making and how one can’t be “absolute” when Scripture says what God told His people to do.”
Begs a few questions, such as whether the commands to exterminate the enemies of Israel in ancient days become eternal principles of scriptural truth, or whether that understanding of God and his will are overtaken by the cross.
This isn’t just about responding to terrorism, since Hamas would say their actions are against the neighbour who so oppresses their people. Agree or not, that is what they say. And (as in Pam’s illustration) we are in a cycle of retaliation. This will continue for ever! It’s the world of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” - which only leaves the world blind and toothless.
dh 01.15.09 at 1:13 am
Well Tony, just becasue a terrorist organization says that they are responding to terrorism doesn’t mean I need to give credence to something that is a total fabrication and a lie. The fact remains is if Israel operated like you and Pam desire the people that would be toothless are the Israeli’s in light of human sheilds, etc. which none of you are even beginning to address which is really very sad. No Israeli’s are doing human shields yet you two don’t even discuss it. You just discuss your both are bad thing when any person would say and even Arabs as a whole would say should be totally rejected and prevented from being done in the future.
Pam was it right for God to tell the Israelites to wage war with the Amelikites in light of the atrocities they did before God told them to do that? If you are such the “pascifist” like you say I would suspect your answer would be that God telling them to do that would be wrong and within that statement is where I say you are making judgements on God “who is the same yesterday today and forever.” like Scripture states in God’s Word.
Tony Buglass 01.15.09 at 9:20 am
No, I haven’t mentioned human shields. For the record, I agree with you - Hamas cynically place rocket launchers and mortars in populated places, knowing the Israeli counter-battery fire will kill civilians, which they then trumpet about.
However, when you flail about dragging any issue into the discussion like that, it simply shows that you haven’t really understood what I was saying. Read it slowly, and address the point I was making, rather than have a knee-jerk stab at whatever is nearest. I didn’t say that what Hamas were saying was anything other than propaganda - but from their point of view, and the point of view of the people currently under Israeli bombardment, it is very credible propaganda. Israel is by far the stronger of the two protagonists, but unless it addresses the propaganda war as well as the shooting war, it will lose the argument.
As to your argument about God and the Amalekites - Heb.13:8 actually says “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and for ever.” To argue from that to biblical “truth” of genocide is breathtaking, to say the least. That at least should give you a clue that you’ve got it wrong. The NT radically transforms the message of the OT, doesn’t it?
Kim 01.15.09 at 9:58 am
Thanks, Tony, but with DH, you can’t squeeze a cigarette paper between the ethics of Jesus and the ethics of the worst kind of crusading realp0litik. For DH the conquest of Canaan was a peace mission and the “ites” got what was coming to them, while Jesus is just a New Testament version of the Holy Warrior (with all his Lion of Judah crap). The Sermon on the Mount means absolutely nothing to DH. For him Jesus is just a cipher for personal fire insurance. The irony is that, for all the pious cant of his piles of texts, his relentless defence of pow-pow-power demonstrates that his god is, in fact, the devil. In DH’s version of the temptations of Jesus, our Lord’s response was, “Yes, please!”
PamBG 01.15.09 at 10:57 am
Pam was it right for God to tell the Israelites to wage war with the Amelikites in light of the atrocities they did before God told them to do that? If you are such the “pascifist” like you say I would suspect your answer would be that God telling them to do that would be wrong and within that statement is where I say you are making judgements on God “who is the same yesterday today and forever.” like Scripture states in God’s Word.
DH, let me ask you the following question. There are numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggest that God told the Israelites to kill their enemies.
And then in the New Testament Jesus tells his disciples to forgive seventy times seven (which is an expression for ‘always’), to turn the other cheek and to give our enemy a cloak when asked for a shirt. Jesus himself then goes to the cross rather than destroys his enemies (which he points out to them that he could do easily).
So I think that we’re faced with two contradictory biblical ideas here: 1) Annihilate your enemies or 2) forgive them as Jesus did.
So, do you think that you could just find a tiny bit of understanding that maybe I’m genuinely trying to discern the will of God in the face of what seems like contradictory instructions? That maybe I’m not trying to judge God? That maybe I’m not trying to go against scripture?
My process of interpretations is that where there is a contradiction between Jesus’ teaching and some verses of the Old Testament, that I base my principles on Jesus’ teaching. I’d also point out that many Jewish people today find the instruction about the Amalekites troubling in the face of what they see as the central tenet of Judaism which is - surprise, surprise - to love God and love one’s neighbour as oneself.
Kim 01.15.09 at 2:22 pm
Well, Pam, it is impossible for the Bible to contradict itself. The Sermon on the Mount is personal, not political ethics. Jesus himself kicked the Pharisees’ butts, at least metaphorically (to be honest, I’m not sure what a metaphor is, but it sounds good), and he destroyed property in the Temple (and according to the Constitution, er, I mean the Bible, property is the right of every Israelite), so he didn’t reject violence, and if he’d had the fire power he would have nuked the Romanites (though he would have sorely regretted the collateral damage of their human shields), and when he returns (the book of Revelation is quite clear here) he is going to get not only mad but even and turn turn 99% of the human population to toast. So while I love and respect you, Pam, I’d get out the butter and jam if I were you.
DH 01.15.09 at 2:56 pm
Kim, other than the “he is going to get not only mad but even and turn turn 99% of the human population to toast.” statement it seems you got it surprisingly right. Also the “constitution thing” is a little off in that my views on personal property are actually based in Scriptrure not the Constitution. I will say that while Jesus spoke harshly with the Pharisee’s it was from an attitude of love and the deisre for people to change their hearts that Jesus said those things. Remember there were times Jesus/God had “tought love” and other times He had “soft love”. “Whom He loves He chastens.” as well as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
Pam, Jesus was speaking to individuals. Kim, I also disagree with what you say about me on the Sermon on the Mount. My views don’t condtadict it. It is an understanding that countries are not people but are intities with people in them. There is a difference. Also the purpose of Jesus going to the cross was that was the way to make the Grace of God available to all people. It is out of love for the Palastinians that I desrie that terrorists stop murdering people.
Richard 01.15.09 at 3:14 pm
>> “Kim…it seems you got it surprisingly right”
Which just shows that some things are beyond parody. Words fail me.
PamBG 01.15.09 at 3:16 pm
Pam, Jesus was speaking to individuals.
Yes, that’s right, I forgot.
Jesus does not want me to kill anyone.
Jesus wants Israel to kill its enemies.
Jesus wants the United States to kill its enemies.
That’s because Israel and the United States are God’s chosen people on earth. The Good Guys who are allowed to kill all The Bad Guys, thanks be to God.
(That’s ironic, since I normally need to flag it when I’m being ironic.)
PamBG 01.15.09 at 3:31 pm
Well, Pam, it is impossible for the Bible to contradict itself.
Kim, I’m assuming that your post was ironic.
DH 01.15.09 at 4:15 pm
Pam, have I ever said that the United States are God’s chosen people? absolutely not. I will say that Israel and the US are correct in wanting to eliminate terrorism in that they desire to murder as many people as they can. There is a difference between murder and kill.
The factor is we are dealing with people who desire to murder people and have murdered thousands of people.
DH 01.15.09 at 4:16 pm
Pam whether he believes he is being ironic the fact is he is right. How prophetic in his irony. However pathetic his irony tried to be. (just being puny).
PamBG 01.15.09 at 4:50 pm
There is a difference between murder and kill.
Intentional killing is murder.
The only time that killing is not murder is when it’s a genuine accident.
As my illustration about the Smiths and the Jones pointed out, what is going on here is decades of intentional killing by both sides.
DH 01.15.09 at 5:05 pm
No it is intentional killing of innocent life that is murder. So what we have here is murder on one side, Hamas.
Kim 01.15.09 at 5:05 pm
Well, Pam, I’m not sure what “ironic” means, but I just checked out all the references to the word in the New Testament, and the closest I could get are three references in Revelation (2:27, 12:5, 19:15) to Jesus, Lion of Judah, ruling the nations with ” a rod of iron”, so in that sense, yes, I was being iron-ic
. Of course these texts also confirm that Jesus was no lily-livered pacifist but a Killing Machine (to be distinguished, of course, from a Murder Machine) getting ready for the Great Blood Bath when all Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, the French, Mahatma Candy (or however you spell his name), and people who don’t like Yogi Berra will be slaughtered. God will be very sad. He will even cry. But his hands are tied: “If we DENY him, he will also DENY us” (II Timothy 2:12).
PamBG 01.15.09 at 5:30 pm
No it is intentional killing of innocent life that is murder. So what we have here is murder on one side, Hamas.
No. Intentional killing is murder.
Your blindness to Israeli atrocities is absolutely amazing.
DH 01.15.09 at 5:36 pm
Your blindness to the human shields done by Hamas is amazing. I never said that Israel hasn’t made mistakes but I’m not going to sit back and say what Israel has done is worse than a terrorist organization. You seem to lumo them together as opposed to recognizing to what level each are at.
Yes, intentional killing of innocent life is murder.
DH 01.15.09 at 5:49 pm
Kim, I met my wife while reading a Yogi Berra book of Yogism’s. I wouldn’t call Jesus a “killing machine”. I would call Him a “just God” and a “fair God”. I would say that He is consistent across all of Scripture.
Also, who are in heaven is not based on race, etc. but on accepting by Grace through Faith in Christ alone. I know Muslims who have converted and repented , I know Jews who have converted and repented, I know homosexuals who have converted and repented, I even know a French family who are missionaries who obviously converted and repented, I don’t know about Mahatma “Candy” Ghandi but if he did the same then he too will be there his statements say otherwise but that isn’t to say he didn’t do those things. Yogi Berra, I’m not sure about. However, when Jesus said “The first shall be last and the last first.” it seems interesting that I could see Yogi Berra saying that. So for me I would say his “fruit” shows he may have.
I know one time he got “Slaughtered” by the bat of Slaughter when behind the plate at Catcher so I would say he has “done his time”. 
All humor aside tho, I don’t think you referencing a previous statement like this “God will be very sad. He will even cry. But his hands are tied: “If we DENY him, he will also DENY us†(II Timothy 2:12).” was funny. I’m being serious I had a water eye when Ib said this so if you could refrain “making fun” of a serious statement it would be appreciated. I’m serious. When people send themselves to hell by rejecting Christ that is not something we should be “cavelier” about but somber about. For Jesus will be somber about it as well. People choosing to go to hell is not a funny matter.
All I can say is what Scripture says and yes the passage you quoted refers to the subject we are talking about as well as what Jesus said which is “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.”
PamBG 01.15.09 at 5:50 pm
You seem to lumo them together as opposed to recognizing to what level each are at.
Sorry, excuse me? I’m actually trying to have a clear vision that an evil deed is an evil deed.
You’re the one saying that moral judgements are made by taking sides rather than by looking at the deed.
DH 01.15.09 at 5:59 pm
Pam, I AM looking at the deeds. The fact is Israel is NOT using human shields and Hamas is. Pam, is Israel using human sheilds? Israel is NOT launching rockets intentionally at innocent people while Hamas is. Israel has agreed to 99% of the demands of the Palastinians to a two state solution while Hamas hasn’t. Israel does NOT do suicide bombing while Hamas has. Israel supports fully a two state solution, Hamas desires the elimination of Israel as a a nation entirely.
You are correct Israel at one time has supported wrongly settlements. That seemed to be an atrocity which I will give you even though no people died in the act of establishing settlements. However, Israel lately supporting fully a two state solution shows a sign of repentence on their part.
Look at the incidents it seems overwhelming how many evil deeds Hamas has done in conjunction with what Israel has done which are in fact mistakes and have been admitted to.
to me I don’t lump what Israel has done to using human shields, suicide b0mbing and desiring an entire nation to not exist.
PamBG 01.15.09 at 6:38 pm
Hamas launches weapons and kills innocent people that is wrong. Hamas uses innocent people as shields. That is wrong. Israel uses sophisticated technology to target hospitals, schools, mosques and UN compounds. That is wrong.
Look at the incidents it seems overwhelming how many evil deeds Hamas has done in conjunction with what Israel has done which are in fact mistakes and have been admitted to.
I don’t believe in the concept of ‘numbers equal morality’. All killing is wrong.
But since you brought it up, how does your argument stack up with 13 Israelis killed in the last 2 weeks (9 army personnel and 4 civilians) and 1000+ Palestinians killed, 300 of whom were children, in the last two weeks?
How do you look at the deaths of 300 Palestinian children and not only seemingly not care about them, but then actually state that the Palestinian evil is far greater?
DH 01.15.09 at 6:59 pm
Pam, I do care about them but the fact remains that Hamas is using them as human shields.
What about the UN complexes, schools hospitals, Mosques, etc. being used as human sheilds? What should Israel do when faced with that situation? How can Israel negotiate with people who use these facilities as human shields? How many of the 700 (adult) Palastinians are terrorists who are doing the human shields?
The Palastinian evil is far greater in that Hamas is using children as human shields and then launching weapons and protecting terrorists as part of that. Israel is not doing that.
DH 01.15.09 at 7:05 pm
Doesn’t the UN have a responsibility not to house terrorist in their compound who are launching rockets from the UN facilities?
PamBG 01.15.09 at 9:59 pm
Pam, I do care about them but the fact remains that Hamas is using them as human shields.
Right. So your argument is that you know for sure that all or most of these people were killed because they were being used as human shields? Nothing to do with the fact that Israel has superior military strength and has caged the Palestinians like rats into one of most densely populated areas on earth?
Doesn’t the UN have a responsibility not to house terrorist in their compound who are launching rockets from the UN facilities?
Israel has apologised to the UN for bombing its compound. Which suggests that the UN’s denial is credible.
DH 01.15.09 at 10:57 pm
Pam, did I say that the majority of those killed were because of human shields? What I’m saying is the fact that Hamas is even using human shields compared to none by Israel shows areas where Israel as not being bad where Hamas is. Also, having superior military strength is not a bad thing what is bad is that Israel is forced to use it in the first place due to Hamas using humans shields, launching rockets from those human shields, suidice bombing, etc. , etc.
Israel apologized that they had to bomb the UN facility but they are not denying that the UN had rockets launched from it. I believe one can obtain the intelligence pretty easily that rockets were fired from the places. Do you think that the UN is going to admit that rockets were being fired from the people being housed in those facilities? No
“”It is absolutely true that we were attacked from that place, but the consequences are very sad and we apologize for it,” he said. “I don’t think it should have happened and I’m very sorry.” Ehud Ohlmert Pres of Israel
Why do you assume that rockets weren’t fired from the UN facility. Is it because the UN denied it?
PamBG 01.15.09 at 11:26 pm
Pam, did I say that the majority of those killed were because of human shields? What I’m saying is the fact that Hamas is even using human shields compared to none by Israel shows areas where Israel as not being bad where Hamas is.
I agree with you that Hamas is using human shields. I agree with you that this is despicable. I’ve said that several times.
You stated earlier that the evil that Hamas has done has been far greater than the evil that Israel has done. I’m seeing 1000+ Palestinians dead and 13 Israelis dead. I’m wondering how it is you are measuring ‘greater evil’ here?
Do you think that the UN is going to admit that rockets were being fired from the people being housed in those facilities? No
But Israel’s word - as a combatant government - is totally credible.
Why do you assume that rockets weren’t fired from the UN facility. Is it because the UN denied it?
I can’t know what happened. Israel is at war and has killed 1000+ people. The UN is not a terrorist organisation. If one is devising an hypothesis, the hypothesis ‘Israel is systematically destroying sources of humanitarian aid inside Gaza’ seems to have a lot more evidence going for it than the hypothesis ‘The UN has decided to allow terrorists to use its property as a base from which to attack Israel.’
dh 01.16.09 at 2:28 am
I personally believe in intent is the main issue in these issues. I believe Israel is not intending to hurt innocent people while hamas clearly is. That is the point of bringing up the human shields. Also just bringing up 1000 people is not enough if a majority of them are known terrorists. Again just because the UN says something doesn’t make it true.
I will say that I don’t believe that the UN is intentionally allowing terrorists in their camps. I just believe the situation is such that it is impossible to deliver humanitarian aid when Hamas is stealing the aid, going into the camps secretly, disrupting the situation and continuing the terrorist campaign that clearly started this in the first place. Also, when I observe Muslim people and governments looking at the situation indirectly supporting Israel against Hamas then one can see that the situation is way more complex then the way you are presenting it.
Pam, I totally appreciate you recognizing the terror of Hamas. I think you and I have reached a point where we can logically agree on points and disagree on points. Lets move forward to other posts to respond. I know one thing that you and I can leave to agreeon and that is that we pray for all the innocent people being hurt by the situation.
Pam, will you pray for Titus who is a Christian Palestinian in Bethleham? My parents met him. He sells trinkets in the old town and they said he was a wonderful Christian who showed the love of the Jesus to every customer. May you and I pray for the other Christians as well who face some very hard times in the Holy Land.
Tony Buglass 01.16.09 at 10:31 am
DH: “I just believe the situation is such that it is impossible to deliver humanitarian aid when Hamas is stealing the aid, going into the camps secretly, disrupting the situation and continuing the terrorist campaign that clearly started this in the first place. ”
Do you have evidence for this, or is it just a hypothesis to let you explain how gunfire came from the UN compound? It is a secure compound. I think the UN would know if their security was being breached.
Kim 01.16.09 at 11:39 am
Ah, “intention”, DH - the old doctrine of double effect (interestingly so central to traditional Roman Catholic casuistry), the principle that one need not be responsible for the bad effects of one’s actions if they are foreseen but not intended. It is a doctrine that has its uses, but it has been scathingly criticised by ethicists for its many demonstrable abuses, not least in violation of certain stringent conditions that the doctrine stipulates, including the intrinsic good of the action itself and the proportionality of its effects. It has also been criticised for the arbitrariness of the distinction between intended and merely forseen consequences, as well as for its elision of character with actions and their results (sincerity, purity of motive, a good conscience do not make a wrong act right). Most recently - and interestingly - the euphemism “collateral damage” has brought the doctrine of double effect into disrepute. Besides, you-know-where is paved with good intentions. Finally, a point so far entirely missed in the thread, war is a demonic Pauline principality or power which is well able to manipulate human intentions and justifications for its own intrinsically destructive purposes.
PamBG 01.16.09 at 1:53 pm
DH, I will certainly pray for Titus although I don’t see how I can pray for him more than I pray for other people in the area.
I agree with Kim’s comments on ‘intention’. However I’m not convinced from the evidence that Israel isn’t intentionally targeting civilians although I accept that they claim that they are not. It seems odd to me that the UN accuses Israel of human rights abuse and gets its compound bombed. Christian Aid criticizes Israel of human rights abuse and gets its hospital bombed. But then again, I could just be paranoid.
DH 01.16.09 at 3:26 pm
Kim, how can you that the act is wrong? Maybe it IS right for Israel to defend itself against Hamas like they are doing?
Tony, do you have evidence that it is a secure compound? I believe the UN is doing what it can but that is not to say that Hamas’s ability could be beyond what the UN or technology can do to make it secure.
Here are some articles of Hamas stealing and disrupting aid:
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=42163
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651783,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424932109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Pam, after looking at these articles I don’t believe it is out of the question that Hamas is using hospitals, UN complexes and the like as human shields. It seems the evidence is clear that Israel is NOT intentionally targeting civilians.