I don't get it - and I don't want to (re: Muslims)

[caps]

Originally Posted by johnny139

I'd move. And if my defense tactic was kidnapping my neighbor's children to use as human shields, well, I'd probably go to jail.

I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of argument here for two reasons - firstly, because there's a lack of unbiased sources. I'll ignore yours, because they're militaristic right-wing Islamophobic trash. You'll ignore mine because they're anti-semitic terrorist-apologist trash. The only objective source is the numbers, which are horrific on both sides - we don't need to play Tragedy Olympics here.

Moreover, because there's a fundamental difference of opinion - I don't consider my life more valuable than anyone else's. That includes bad people, and that DEFINITELY includes innocent people. I consider excessive force in self-defense to be immoral. To kill a man, even a man that has threatened or hurt you, is wrong. There is no end that justifies those means. So, yeah, @Aldin - allowing more Israeli suffering, if it means less Palestinian suffering to an equal or greater degree, would be the morally right thing to do. That's what every decent moral leader in the world has taught - Buddha to Jesus to Gandhi straight on through. We should hold ourselves to that standard.

That's naive, that's childish, but I'm not willing to live my life without some basic moral parameters. Do no harm is number one. Nail me to the cross, shoot me in the head, burn my house, curse my name - you are a human being, and you deserve just the same as me.

I can respect this standard; I can't respect singling Israel out by this standard. They show more restraint and regard for the lives of bystanders than every other country in the world--including our own United States.

[johnny139]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

I can respect this standard; I can't respect singling Israel out by this standard. They show more restraint and regard for the lives of bystanders than every other country in the world--including our own United States.

For what it's worth, my anti-US sentiments are a LOT stronger than any anti-Israel sentiments I might have, and I have major issues with most governments with subjects like military action and minority oppression. Except like, I dunno, Tibet's government-in-exile. They're pretty good dudes.

I came into this conversation at "Israel does nothing wrong" which I'd is untrue. It may not be any worse than other countries, but that's not too high a standard.

[Dad_Scaper]

Nobody in this thread ever said Israel does nothing wrong, and to the best of my knowledge nobody in this thread *would* say such a thing. Dok and I have both specifically disavowed that position.

[johnny139]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Nobody in this thread ever said Israel does nothing wrong, and to the best of my knowledge nobody in this thread *would* say such a thing. Dok and I have both specifically disavowed that position.

So what's our disagreement, then? My position is "Israel's actions toward the Palestinian people is morally objectionable." If Israel has done things that are wrong, you agree - that there are legitimate moral objections to their handling of the situation.

[caps]

Originally Posted by johnny139

So what's our disagreement, then? My position is "Israel's actions toward the Palestinian people is morally objectionable." If Israel has done things that are wrong, you agree - that there are legitimate moral objections to their handling of the situation.

I won't speak for Dad_scaper.

I see a dogpile on Israel happening in this thread. Such a dogpile makes no sense. Criticize Israel for what they did wrong, sure, but it shouldn't take you more than a breath--if you want me to take you seriously you need to spend a proportionate amount of time* criticizing all the other nations that have committed greater human rights violations with less provocation.

*and by proportionate, I mean much, much greater than the time you spend on Israel

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by johnny139

So what's our disagreement, then? My position is "Israel's actions toward the Palestinian people is morally objectionable." If Israel has done things that are wrong, you agree - that there are legitimate moral objections to their handling of the situation.

Our readers can decide for themselves what our disagreements are, I think the posts speak for themselves.

Broadly speaking, I don't think Israel can do no wrong, but I also think it has a right - like any other nation state - to be where it is, and to defend itself from threats. Including threats like terrorist attacks within its borders, and including threats like missiles launched indiscriminately from across the border by a neighboring power, no matter how poor that power is.

I don't think it's unreasonable to respond to such shelling, for instance, with military force, nor do I think military force is necessarily an unreasonable response if it's the only way to get to the concrete tunnels leading into your own territory. I think the UN Human Rights Council is a puppet for Arab powers and a vehicle for authoritarian regimes to get a little poke in the eye toward Israel and the West; I think Amnesty International was wrong for condemning the use of "door knockers," which I think are pretty darned impressive, from a humanitarian standpoint.

I think Hamas should be held accountable both for terrorism and for the poverty of the people of Gaza, because its own evil is the reason why the border with Israel is not more porous. I think we should not lightly judge how another nation defends itself from a steady stream of terror and military assaults, considering that there isn't really a model for how to handle that well, and survive.

I doubt you'd agree with all that, though you might agree with some. I know, however, that we can agree that Israel is not always right.

[dok]

Originally Posted by johnny139

So what's our disagreement, then? My position is "Israel's actions toward the Palestinian people is morally objectionable." If Israel has done things that are wrong, you agree - that there are legitimate moral objections to their handling of the situation.

Of course they have done things wrong. If you really don't understand that that wasn't our argument, it sure seems like you're not reading all the things D_S has written.

The points D_S and I have made made, in brief:

1. Israelis have a right to live and, by extension, Israel has a right to exist.
   
   
2. Israel is the one party that has shown a sincere effort to secure a long-term, peaceful resolution.
   • Israel has, at times, most notably at Taba, offered terms that allowed for a peaceful resolution with a two-state solution that most observers would (and have) considered reasonable.
   • Not only have these overtures been rebuked, but the Palestinian Authority was already planning violent conflict during the most meaningful negotiations.
   • Hamas explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and killing or expelling every Jew from the region.
   • If you look at the history of violent conflicts in the region in the last 20 years, the flare-ups always, without fail, start with attacks on Jews.
   • Note: the current Israeli government has no serious interest in the peace process. This will change, as Israel is a democratic state and there is a natural ebb and flow to politics.
   
   
3. The Palestinian Arab leadership lives off the conflict.
   • Both the PA and Hamas have received an enormous amount of foreign aid.
   • The PA leadership is notoriously corrupt.
   • Hamas funnels as much of its aid as possible towards its war effort (building tunnels and bunkers instead of homes).
   • Hamas leadership builds its war infrastructure among civilian targets by design. To them, Israel killing Arab civilians is a good thing, because it fuels anti-Israeli sentiment.
   
   
4. Israel has shown an unprecedented degree of restraint in its responses. (Note I said "unprecedented", and not "A-OK".)
   • No other democratic state has ever faced the sort of persistent terrorist threat that Israel does.
   • The increasing isolation of the West Bank and (especially) Gaza from Israel has consisted of direct policy responses to direct threats. Blockades and checkpoints have been a direct response to terror attacks. These are efforts at nonviolent ways to reduce violence.
   • When Israel has resorted to direct military action in Gaza, again, the restraint they show and the effort to avoid civilian casualties while attacking urban areas has been unprecedented in the annals of military conflict. D_S cited the knocking on doors and the warning shells before the explosive stuff hits.

I'm sure I missed some points but that's what occurred to me right off the bat. If you care to dispute any of those points, I'd be glad to hear it, but as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has really questioned any of it.

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by wriggz

I'm agnostic, but it is time to follow the teachings of Jesus or any profit that teaches acceptance, forgiveness, understanding, generosity, and to overcome fear. Control, greed, fear mongering and judgment are the tools of evil (secular and religious). I think there are a lot of people who invoke God (Jesus), but they don't care about the teachings that go along with the figure.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

Denying suffering people assistance for any reason is fear. Judging women and telling what they can do is fear. Holding on to your gun when they can be accessible to those who would do evil is fear. Fear is the tool of evil, and begets suffering and hate. Do not fall into fear.

Jesus did not teach fear. Embrace your brothers and sisters for we are all the sons and daughters of creation (God or Stars - does it matter)?

Yes it DOES matter in the long run, and I agree with you for the most part, except the "judging women" thing. I'm not judging them, that's God's job, but I know right and wrong when I see it, and a woman choosing to abort an unborn human life, for any reason other than self preservation (i.e. her life is endangered) is wrong.

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by Son of Arathorn

If @Owlman , the conservative Christian, had read his bloody Bible, he'd know that it gives specific instructions for how to conduct a holy war (Deuteronomy 20:10-20).
As in jihad. As in:

which entails killing the men, enslaving the women and children, rape and murder, so on and so forth. So while we're barring the every Muslim from entering the country, should we also deport every Jew? What about Christians who accept the Old Testament as the word of God? Hmm? Can we trust them not to follow every part of their holy text? I wish somebody had an opinion on this that could guide us... like this maybe:

I'm not even going to go into how ridiculous the notion that you can't pick and choose which parts of your religion you want to believe in is. I'll just leave this here.

I had a conversation with Dysole a while back, just thought I'd mention that the Bible should be read In context.

I.E.

On the surface, God in the Old Testament appears to be radically different than in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, He appears powerful, holy, punishing, angry, and jealous. In the New, in the form of Jesus, He appears kind, loving, meek, and forgiving. How do we reconcile the powerful Deity that ordered the destruction of countless cities with the kneeling Jesus who defended the adulterous woman?

The key is to realize the context. In the Old Testament, the context was God's relationship with the nation He had chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him. In the New Testament, and now in the church age, the context is God's relationship with the individuals and the church He has chosen to represent His holiness and teach the world about Him. There are several areas in which His actions in the Old Testament are comparable to His work in the New, and in our lives today.

Personal standards: Despite the fact that, in the Old Testament, God generally dealt with the Israelites as a nation, He still had expectations for individual behavior. The most famous are those given in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). In the New Testament, Matthew 5 gives several expectations for individuals for the church age, including the admonishment to do whatever is necessary to keep oneself from sin (vs. 29-30).

Corporate standards: Leviticus and Deuteronomy are filled with God's expectations for the Israelites as a whole: worship Him only (Exodus 34:14), observe the Sabbath (Exodus 16:29) and the feasts (Exodus 11 and 12; Deuteronomy 16:16; Leviticus 23:27-2, and follow His instructions without hesitation (Numbers 14). The New Testament also contains instructions for the new corporate body—the church. The church is not to harbor unrepentant hearts (1 Corinthians 5:1-2), but follow a detailed set of instructions to purge itself of sin (Matthew 18:15-20).

Personal consequences: God meted out consequences to those who disobeyed Him in both the Old and New Testaments. He had Achan killed in Joshua 7. He took David's son in response to David's adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:15-23). And He kept Moses and Aaron from entering the Holy Land after their disobedience (Numbers 20:24; Deuteronomy 34:4). Similarly, in the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira were struck down after lying about their offering (Acts 5:1-11), and Jesus rebuked Peter when Peter denied Jesus' purpose (Mark 8:31-33). In 1 John 5:16, we learn that there are cases where an individual's sin is so grievous that, for the protection of the church and the honor of God's name, God allows that person to die.

Corporate consequences: This is perhaps the main area in which God seems to differ from the Old Testament to the New. How can the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanites be reconciled with anything that occurs in the New Testament? The answer, again, is context. Israel and Israel's land were to be holy, set apart, and free from the influence of false gods. In order for Israel to be a holy nation, the incredibly evil nations in residence had to be destroyed. These were not countries with a few sinners here and there. They were nations overrun with evil. Genesis 18:22-33 says there were not even ten righteous people in Sodom. In fact, the most righteous man in Sodom was Lot—the man who offered his daughters to be gang-raped. God dealt with people primarily on a national level. In the New Testament, God deals with individuals and with local bodies of believers—churches. Revelation 2 and 3 give lists of the faults and fortes of several churches, and the book of 1 Corinthians is filled with Paul's guidance of—and sometimes frustration with—the church in Corinth.

Governing authority: This is another area where the presumed difference between God in the Old Testament and the New seems blatant. In the Old Testament, God charged the corporate authority, Israel, to execute witches (Leviticus 20:27), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), and disrespectful children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The New Testament says that unrepentant sinners should be excommunicated (Matthew 18:15-20). Why the difference? Because civil law is given to civil authorities. In the Israel of the Old Testament, the priests and judges were the civil law. In the church age, civil authority is given to national and regional governments, not the church. The church does not have the right to implement punishment on society at large.

The role of the Holy Spirit: This is another example of the changes in context between the Old and New Testaments, and it's directly related to the previous five points. With the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the spread of the gospel beyond the nation of Israel, the role of the Holy Spirit changed to accommodate the new situation. Instead of limiting His direct involvement to a few prophets, priests, and kings, He now indwells and counsels every believer. Instead of occupying the centralized worship center of a chosen nation (Exodus 40:34), He now occupies every believer's heart (1 Corinthians 6:19). This more personal relationship means that God no longer primarily confronts us through the authority of the spiritual and civic rulers, but directly (Philippians 2:13), which also means we are even more responsible for our own behavior (2 Timothy 2:15).

Loving-kindness: Genesis 4:15 is one of the first examples of God's loving-kindness to an individual who didn't deserve it. Cain killed his brother, and the punishment for murder was death. God not only delayed that punishment, He put a mark on Cain to protect him from those seeking reprisal. In Genesis 17:20, God showed loving-kindness when He promised to make Ishmael the father of a great nation. And in 1 Kings 19:1-21, He provided rest, food, and a successor for His exhausted prophet Elijah. The compassion of Jesus in the New Testament is very prominent. He was kind to the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11), giving to the Gentile woman (Matthew 15:21-2, and patient with His clueless disciples (Matthew 8:26). But the God who comforted Hagar and the God who healed the Syrophoenician woman's daughter are the same.

Purpose: The purpose of God in the Old and New Testaments is the same: choose people who don't deserve His attention, allow them to display His glory and righteousness, and commission them teach the world about Him. Abraham and the Israelites did nothing to earn God's attention (Deuteronomy 7:7-9), and neither do we (Ephesians 2:8-9). God chose Israel to obey Him and be holy (Exodus 19:5-6), as He does with us (Romans 12:1). And He charged both Israel (Genesis 22:1and the church-age believers (Matthew 28:19-20) to present God's gift of salvation to the world.

To sum up, God hasn't changed; the context has changed. He no longer primarily relates to the world through a sovereign nation, but through individuals and the church. This affects how we see the scale of His work. Where, in the Old Testament, an entire nation may have been destroyed, we see today one serial killer caught and prosecuted. Where, before, the nation of Israel may have gone into exile for their disobedience, now a sinful pastor is removed from ministry. And, by the same measure, where, before, God showed longsuffering toward His chosen people as they rebelled against Him, He now shows that same mercy to us when we choose the things of the world over His Word. God's holiness, passion, restraint, and fury are all exactly the same; we just see it on a personal level instead of a national one. And that means we can experience His love and forgiveness on a personal level, as well.

(Also, we'll just have to agree to disagree that one can simply cherry pick his/her religion, because I believe you can't.)

[Dysole]

Well, you never answered my question of why the Muslim apologist isn't allowed to make their case as to why Islam no longer supports violence but the Christian can.

~Dysole, noting that we're all at least somewhat hypocritical when it comes to our religion or at least how it should be applied to us as compared to other people

[Dad_Scaper]

A friend of mine shared this post on her Facebook wall. It had been originally shared by a friend of hers.

I thought it might help those who are seeking to understand the form that this struggle is taking inside Israel:

Michael
22 hrs ·
Terror came to our hometown again, this Shabbat, as it has visited so many. A Palestinian terrorist succeeded in injuring innocents, including a father and mother stabbed in front of their kids, resulting in a manhunt with helicopters flying overhead. Scary times for ordinary people and families trying to enjoy their weekend.
In the last 100 days, Palestinian terror attacks have left 23 dead and over 260 injured, some for life. What is not shown in those numbers is the number of people left terrorized by these attacks; what you don't see in that number is the suspicion, division and fear caused by such attacks. On the other side, what those numbers also don't tell you is the resilience and strength of the Israeli people to stand up to and overcome such atrocities.
We pray for the quick recovery of those injured and we are thankful for the police and volunteers that protect us.
Today's attack will likely be under-reported by international media, but there's no difference between the motivations of today's terrorist or those that struck in Paris, San Bernadino, the London Tube or anywhere else where radical Jihadists have attacked innocents. They are motivated by hate. Our resolve will be tested, but we will stand strong.
Terror reminds Israelis that there are people who hate us and our kids. Perhaps Palestinian terrorists think their attacks will make us Israelis go somewhere.
But after 3,000+ years, we're kind of attached to our home. And we remind the terrorists that we aren't going anywhere. Ever.
Wishing us all a shavua tov, a peaceful week ahead.
Like
Comment
Share
Miriam and 59 others like this.

Julija
I got the news by the end of the Star Wars movie at Rananim. Left clutching my pepper spray.
Like · 2 · Reply · More · Yesterday at 12:45pm

Jen
So well put, thank you.
Like · 1 · Reply · More · Yesterday at 12:46pm

Herb
Shavua Tov to all
Like · 1 · Reply · More · Yesterday at 1:00pm

Daniella
Horrifying when so close to loved ones. My daughter, mom and in laws + cousins are in Raanana. Very upsetting.
Like · Reply · More · Yesterday at 7:15pm

Ora
Where was this attack?
Like · Reply · More · Yesterday at 10:58pm
4 replies

Write a comment...

"Shavua tov" is a standard greeting on Saturday night or Sunday morning.

[wriggz]

I wish we could separate the "terrorists" from the ideology.

For example instead of Calling them "Palestinian Terrorist" just all them Hate-Idiots. We could do the same for other groups. Instead of Fundamental Christians attacking Abortion clinics we call them Violent-Idiots. Instead of Americans supporting closing boarders to the needy we call them Racist-Idiots.

Really it is time good Muslims, Christians, Activists, Americans, and People in general take back the words that Idiots have tried to take. Words and labels matter, and separate us. That separation is what keeps people apart and leads to the tradgity of violence and hate.