If evangelical Christians have cynical motives for supporting Israel, does that diminish the right of Israelis to defend their own existence? And is wanting to convert people just as bad as wanting to kill them?
"A tragedy for both sides" -- except that one side wants to have a small part of the region as its homeland; the other side has …
If evangelical Christians have cynical motives for supporting Israel, does that diminish the right of Israelis to defend their own existence? And is wanting to convert people just as bad as wanting to kill them?
"A tragedy for both sides" -- except that one side wants to have a small part of the region as its homeland; the other side has been largely dominated by people who want the region to be Judenrein and who believe it's their sacred obligation to impose Islam by force.
The Crusades were a response to several centuries of widespread Islamic conquest, starting with Muhammad, who is said to have personally participated in the slaughter of Jews who would not submit to him. Subsequent Islamic rulers boasted about how many people they had killed. One battle near Poitiers in 732 was crucial in halting the Islamic conquest of France. The Spanish Reconquista took a lot longer than the Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.
The Crusaders to the Holy Land aimed first to stop the attacks on Christian pilgrims going there. Of course, they brutally turned against Jews along their path (and even the wrong kind of Christians). And in some times and places, Islamic rulers were indeed more tolerant of Jews than Christians were. (Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, not the 8th century). The history of Christian anti-Semitism and other kinds of intolerance is shameful – though Christianity was not born in violence. Islam was. The idea of Christian “holy war” may have been largely patterned after the Islamic jihad.
A religious hatred of Jews is more widespread and virulent in the Muslim world today than in Christian-majority countries. The reason that Iran wants to destroy Israel is not because Israel hurts Iran or because the mullahs care about the Palestinians. It’s because Israel is predominantly Jewish.
But Israel has Arab-Muslim citizens, some of whom serve in the Knesset. Israelis have a say in what their government does. They can certainly criticize their government. They can vote out the government and vote in a new one. Hamas does not permit that right. The PA is not much better.
I think you’re missing the fact that most Palestinians have living relatives who used to live on land that was taken by the British and turned into Israel in 1948. The wars right now are really inspired by what happened in the last 50-75 years.
Even the pro Israeli Jewish side of this issue is much more concerned with the holocaust than the crusades or the Islamic empire. You may be a student of history, but most of the people on both sides of this war come from refugee families who are much more animated by recent history.
I'm not missing that fact. But Israelis too are animated by recent history – including multiple attempts to eradicate their nation, countless terror attacks within Israel, and barrages of rocket attacks from Gaza after Israel pulled out. Arab Muslims can live and prosper in Israel. But there are no Jews in Gaza.
There had never been a Palestinian nation before 1948, or a "Palestinian people" for that matter. There were “Arabs” in a region that had been controlled by various empires for millennia -- since the Hebrew kingdoms were first conquered. There had also been a continuous Jewish presence for thousands of years. When diaspora Jews saw a need for a nation of their own, it was natural to think of the ancestral Jewish homeland -- which was sparsely populated when the Zionist movement began.
Zionists bought land and famously “made the desert bloom,” and that attracted more Arabs back into the area – certainly including ancestors of today’s “Palestinians.” The Zionists obviously expected they could live in peace surrounded by much large numbers of Arabs. Why did that not happen? Was the friction wholly the fault of the Jews?
When the UN eventually established an Arab state and a Jewish state in the “British Mandate,” the Jews accepted it, but all the surrounding Arab states were violently opposed. They told Arab residents of Israel to leave ahead of their attack – expecting to finish off Israel in short order, and then the Arabs would go back to an Arab state.
It wasn’t Israel that forced those Arabs out. They chose the side of those who wanted to destroy Israel. But the Arab states that told them to leave didn’t seem to have much interest in their well-being afterward. Subsequent territorial enlargements by Israel were a consequence of further attacks with an intent to annihilate Israel.
I’m not endorsing every action taken by the Israeli government, or by radical West Bank settlers. But why is that bad things done by Palestinian Arabs must always be rationalized as an understandable response to something done by Israel – while anything wrong done by Israel can never by explained as a response to attacks on it from without and within?
And the long view of history actually is important to understanding today's events. The long view undercuts the "oppressor/victim" narrative in which Jews can only be considered oppressors and Arabs can only be considered their victims.
The long view is also important given that the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah believe they are following the example and instruction of the 7th-century warlord they call "the perfect man.'
Seriously, religion is the root of all evil. I'm currently reading a book that describes the schism between Catholism and the Elizabeth I Church of England. King James I had two outspoken Catholics arrested, beaten, tied up, and while they were still alive their torsos were cut open and their intestines were set on fire. And then they were hanged. So crimes in the name of Religion has been going on FOREVER.
If evangelical Christians have cynical motives for supporting Israel, does that diminish the right of Israelis to defend their own existence? And is wanting to convert people just as bad as wanting to kill them?
"A tragedy for both sides" -- except that one side wants to have a small part of the region as its homeland; the other side has been largely dominated by people who want the region to be Judenrein and who believe it's their sacred obligation to impose Islam by force.
The Crusades were a response to several centuries of widespread Islamic conquest, starting with Muhammad, who is said to have personally participated in the slaughter of Jews who would not submit to him. Subsequent Islamic rulers boasted about how many people they had killed. One battle near Poitiers in 732 was crucial in halting the Islamic conquest of France. The Spanish Reconquista took a lot longer than the Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.
The Crusaders to the Holy Land aimed first to stop the attacks on Christian pilgrims going there. Of course, they brutally turned against Jews along their path (and even the wrong kind of Christians). And in some times and places, Islamic rulers were indeed more tolerant of Jews than Christians were. (Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, not the 8th century). The history of Christian anti-Semitism and other kinds of intolerance is shameful – though Christianity was not born in violence. Islam was. The idea of Christian “holy war” may have been largely patterned after the Islamic jihad.
A religious hatred of Jews is more widespread and virulent in the Muslim world today than in Christian-majority countries. The reason that Iran wants to destroy Israel is not because Israel hurts Iran or because the mullahs care about the Palestinians. It’s because Israel is predominantly Jewish.
But Israel has Arab-Muslim citizens, some of whom serve in the Knesset. Israelis have a say in what their government does. They can certainly criticize their government. They can vote out the government and vote in a new one. Hamas does not permit that right. The PA is not much better.
I think you’re missing the fact that most Palestinians have living relatives who used to live on land that was taken by the British and turned into Israel in 1948. The wars right now are really inspired by what happened in the last 50-75 years.
Even the pro Israeli Jewish side of this issue is much more concerned with the holocaust than the crusades or the Islamic empire. You may be a student of history, but most of the people on both sides of this war come from refugee families who are much more animated by recent history.
I'm not missing that fact. But Israelis too are animated by recent history – including multiple attempts to eradicate their nation, countless terror attacks within Israel, and barrages of rocket attacks from Gaza after Israel pulled out. Arab Muslims can live and prosper in Israel. But there are no Jews in Gaza.
There had never been a Palestinian nation before 1948, or a "Palestinian people" for that matter. There were “Arabs” in a region that had been controlled by various empires for millennia -- since the Hebrew kingdoms were first conquered. There had also been a continuous Jewish presence for thousands of years. When diaspora Jews saw a need for a nation of their own, it was natural to think of the ancestral Jewish homeland -- which was sparsely populated when the Zionist movement began.
Zionists bought land and famously “made the desert bloom,” and that attracted more Arabs back into the area – certainly including ancestors of today’s “Palestinians.” The Zionists obviously expected they could live in peace surrounded by much large numbers of Arabs. Why did that not happen? Was the friction wholly the fault of the Jews?
When the UN eventually established an Arab state and a Jewish state in the “British Mandate,” the Jews accepted it, but all the surrounding Arab states were violently opposed. They told Arab residents of Israel to leave ahead of their attack – expecting to finish off Israel in short order, and then the Arabs would go back to an Arab state.
It wasn’t Israel that forced those Arabs out. They chose the side of those who wanted to destroy Israel. But the Arab states that told them to leave didn’t seem to have much interest in their well-being afterward. Subsequent territorial enlargements by Israel were a consequence of further attacks with an intent to annihilate Israel.
I’m not endorsing every action taken by the Israeli government, or by radical West Bank settlers. But why is that bad things done by Palestinian Arabs must always be rationalized as an understandable response to something done by Israel – while anything wrong done by Israel can never by explained as a response to attacks on it from without and within?
And the long view of history actually is important to understanding today's events. The long view undercuts the "oppressor/victim" narrative in which Jews can only be considered oppressors and Arabs can only be considered their victims.
The long view is also important given that the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah believe they are following the example and instruction of the 7th-century warlord they call "the perfect man.'
Funny, before the British decided to exile European Jews to a "homeland", the area was called Palestine.
Imagine where we'd be if people hadn't spent the last few thousand years trying to impose their religions on other people.
Seriously, religion is the root of all evil. I'm currently reading a book that describes the schism between Catholism and the Elizabeth I Church of England. King James I had two outspoken Catholics arrested, beaten, tied up, and while they were still alive their torsos were cut open and their intestines were set on fire. And then they were hanged. So crimes in the name of Religion has been going on FOREVER.