Christian Zionism

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I probably agree with what you are saying much more than you will ever know.

However, writing things like this are not helpful....

Hence, for anyone to compare Israel's self-defense as being akin to the Hatfields and McCoys is an anti-Semitic comparison because it assumes that Israel's self-defense is morally equivalent to terrorism.

My whole point is that violence begets violence. I certainly do not believe that self-defense is morally equivalent to terrorism. Nothing I said was meant to be nor was anti-semitic.

In the context of what your comment was responding to, I am completely accurate. Elclude was referring to the violence producing more violence as a description of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You highlighted those words in Elclude's comments on the conflict and applied them to the Hatfields and McCoys. It was clear case of comparing the two conflicts which have absolutely NO points of comparison or equivication. Your words in the context of Elcludes post was VERY anti-Semitic in every sense of the word. It is a common anti-Semitic tactic to try to smear Israel by making the conflict appear as a violence-begats-violence type of situation.

Well, your interpretation was not my intent. I guess we have a case of miscommunication.

Ha! Yeah, here we go with the old plausible deniability tactic you always use. You throw out barbs and jabs about Israel any time you can and then when you get called on it, you deny that you meant anything by it, even when more than one person can see what you originally meant.

Elclude was saying the following:

"Obviously it's a situation I have not experienced and I can imagine the rage that must flow through a country when hearing of fresh attacks on its citizens but my opinion is that counterracting violence with violence rarely works. Actions such as moving out of the Golan Heights, not bombing Beirut and not raiding aid convoys to the Gaza strip, though perhaps heightening the sense of tension on the Conservative right at the outset, would do a lot to alleiviate things in the long run."

You replied with:

"I agree. We have been watching "The Hatfields and McCoys" on The History Channel. It is a great example of violence leading to violence leading to violence etc. etc."

In that context, you were making a comparison that was in agreement with Elclude's assessment of the conflict. It was an anti-Semitic comparison because it is the common attempt to inaccurately paint the contlict as a cycle of violence.

[Guest]

My whole point is that violence begets violence. I certainly do not believe that self-defense is morally equivalent to terrorism. Nothing I said was meant to be nor was anti-semitic....

Evil Is

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Zechariah 14:2

As Evil Does

And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. Zechariah 13:8

But

And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. Zechariah 13:9

Jesus

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. Zechariah 14:3

Saves

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. Zechariah 14:4

[Guest yod]

my opinion is that counterracting violence with violence rarely works.

The history of the world is that the military power most willing to aggressively use brutal force wins at war. Surely a Spaniard knows this?

Brute force and violence are all that the warlords of the middle east understand. If Israel doesn't show their enemies that they will humiliate a military attack, that will be their solution as witnessed in several unprovoked wars now.

Actions such as moving out of the Golan Heights, not bombing Beirut and not raiding aid convoys to the Gaza strip, though perhaps heightening the sense of tension on the Conservative right at the outset, would do a lot to alleiviate things in the long run.

1. When they were not in the Golan Heights, Syria rained down missiles on the civilian population of Tiberias non-stop. Do you think that they Syrians, who have killed about 30,000 of their own people in just the last few months, can be trusted to be peaceful neighbors?

2. The only time Israel has bombed Beirut, it was in response to being attacked on the Lebanese border. Should they send flowers instead?

3. Israel does not raid aid convoys to Gaza!?

Israel, like all other nations, has sovereign borders that are being tested by their enemies if you're referring to the various flotillas. There are legal channels for delivering "aid" to Gaza that anyone can follow, but allowing unhindered access without customs controls (which every other nation also has) would be inviting arms shipments from Iran, or other neighboring countries.

So basically your proposal is that Israel should not be able to defend itself? Do you really think that will bring peace?

[brightmorningstar]

Well the Bible records the land given by God to His people the Israelites/Jews, thats not Christian Zionism so much as Christian views. Remember the biggest challenge and objection to them having the land they occupy comes from people who follow Islam, and because Islam claims the land for Allah. Its not much different from OT times really, substitute Muslims for Midianites

Romans 9-11 is very helpful.

[Elcule]

my opinion is that counterracting violence with violence rarely works.

The history of the world is that the military power most willing to aggressively use brutal force wins at war. Surely a Spaniard knows this?

Brute force and violence are all that the warlords of the middle east understand. If Israel doesn't show their enemies that they will humiliate a military attack, that will be their solution as witnessed in several unprovoked wars now.

Actions such as moving out of the Golan Heights, not bombing Beirut and not raiding aid convoys to the Gaza strip, though perhaps heightening the sense of tension on the Conservative right at the outset, would do a lot to alleiviate things in the long run.

1. When they were not in the Golan Heights, Syria rained down missiles on the civilian population of Tiberias non-stop. Do you think that they Syrians, who have killed about 30,000 of their own people in just the last few months, can be trusted to be peaceful neighbors?

2. The only time Israel has bombed Beirut, it was in response to being attacked on the Lebanese border. Should they send flowers instead?

3. Israel does not raid aid convoys to Gaza!?

Israel, like all other nations, has sovereign borders that are being tested by their enemies if you're referring to the various flotillas. There are legal channels for delivering "aid" to Gaza that anyone can follow, but allowing unhindered access without customs controls (which every other nation also has) would be inviting arms shipments from Iran, or other neighboring countries.

So basically your proposal is that Israel should not be able to defend itself? Do you really think that will bring peace?

My proposal is that aggression breeds resentment and that continued aggression and lack of concessions breeds a lot of resentment (on both sides). Syria is hardly a threat to anyone at the moment and I think they have enough respect for Israel's military capabilities to not attempt to invade even if they were a stable country. There may be various AID packages allowed into Gaza but this is clearly not enough to stem a humanitarian crisis there. And "oh look a border skirmish, lets bomb your capital city and kill loads of civilians" isn't exactly a proportionate response and doesn't stop tensions being raised.

No-one is going to win this war, and everyone is going to lose if it is constantly escalated.

I'm English btw, but yeah, point still stands haha - however we were "fortunate" enough to be conquering the world when access to bombs and Ak47's wasn't readily available.

[other one]

Shiloh, I probably agree with what you are saying much more than you will ever know.

However, writing things like this are not helpful....

Hence, for anyone to compare Israel's self-defense as being akin to the Hatfields and McCoys is an anti-Semitic comparison because it assumes that Israel's self-defense is morally equivalent to terrorism.

My whole point is that violence begets violence. I certainly do not believe that self-defense is morally equivalent to terrorism. Nothing I said was meant to be nor was anti-semitic.

KathyAnne, there is a really big difference between the two... the Hatfields and McCoys were simply getting even with each other in their violence..... I don't see either side wanting the other side to be obliterated from the face of the earth.

While I personally am not a fan of Zionism, it does not stem from anti sematitism. It's more of a personal thing to me in other ways. Jews are a very blessed/cursed people. They are highly intelligent and wherever they are and treated well, things prosper.

I know it's self serving, but I would much rather see them an intrigal part of the USA and treated well.

i think we must remember that they were killing Christians (or having them killed) when they were dispursed from Israel, and if a theoracy is set up there, I have to ask.... what has changed since 70 BCE.

[Guest shiloh357]

My proposal is that aggression breeds resentment and that continued aggression and lack of concessions breeds a lot of resentment (on both sides).

This only demonstrates that you don't understand what is going on. Most Europeans don't understand the middle east conflict. You are trying to paint both sides as agressors. Israel is not the aggressor. Every war Israel fought was in self defense. Israel has NEVER been the source of the conflct. You ignore all of the concessions Israel has made. Those concessions resulted in more terrorism against Israel. Every attempt by Israel to concede land has resulted in more dead Jews. Your narrative completely ignores genuine history and the events on the ground. You need to talk less and study more, because you are woefully ignorant on this topic.

There may be various AID packages allowed into Gaza but this is clearly not enough to stem a humanitarian crisis there.

Israel sends in plenty of aid to Gaza. Hamas confiscates it and sells musch of it in order to buy more supplies for weapons to kill Jews. The aid Israel sends in doesn't get to the people because Hamas wants to exacerbate the problem and judging from your abject ignorance, their plan to smear Israel is pretty effective among Eruopeans.

And "oh look a border skirmish, lets bomb your capital city and kill loads of civilians" isn't exactly a proportionate response and doesn't stop tensions being raised.

Do you even know what "proportionate response" means??? Evidently, you don't. Porportionate response doesn't mean that Israel has to respond with a level of violence equal to what is used by the Palestinians. It doesn't mean, "tit-for-tat." Proportionate response refers to the level of force needed to eliminate a threat.

Israel takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties, but it is hard to not kill civilians when the Arabs put their people inside military targets in order to increase the casualty rates. Hezbollah prevented civilians in Beirut from leaving the city and they closed all of the escape routes in order to make sure as many civilians are killed as possible. That is not Israel's fault and anyway, there is no way to fight a sanitary war. Civilians die in war and that is true of every war. To single out Israel for special condemnation on that matter is anti-Semitic.

It is the terrorists who launch rockets and mortar fire indiscriminately on Jewish towns hoping to hit as many civilians as possible. They go after soft targets like children and the elderly, the most vulnerable members of Israeli society. Israel limits its response to military targets only and is not responsible for civiilian casualties the occur because the Islamists put their children and other innocent people in harm's way.

No-one is going to win this war, and everyone is going to lose if it is constantly escalated

Israel isn't losing. Israel has won every conflict that the Arabs have inflicted upon them. Israel has successfully thwarted every attempt by the Arab world to destroy them. Israel has consistently served the Arabs their collective butt on a platter, and that was even when the Arabs had help from the British, when Israel was outnumbered 70 to 1.

.

I'm English btw, but yeah, point still stands haha - however we were "fortunate" enough to be conquering the world when access to bombs and Ak47's wasn't readily available.

Didn't stop England from fire bombing Dresden which had no military importance and they slaughtered thousands of German civilians. It is the height of hypocrisy for English to point their self-righteous, bony fingers at Israel, when Israel hasn't done any near as bad as England has done.

[Guest yod]

i think we must remember that they were killing Christians (or having them killed) when they were dispursed from Israel, and if a theoracy is set up there, I have to ask.... what has changed since 70 BCE.

Who are you talking about? Israel has never "killed christians" except the jewish ones in the original community.

Here is the history in a nutshell;

There was a major divide in Israel when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Almost half of the country followed Yeshua, while the rest were of the other Pharisee camp. BOTH were considered legitimate branches within the faith of Israel; much like orthodox, reformed, and conservative are today.

When the Romans surrounded the city, the followers of Yeshua saw this as the fulfillment of Matthew 24 (it was!) and fled for the mountains as instructed. This caused the remaining jewish population to see them as traitors and cowards, leaving them to lose a war that caused the diaspora (dispersion) that lasted from the year 70 until 1948.

In the year 90, the Pharisaical camp met in Yavneh (near Jerusalem) to discuss how they would get revenge for this "betrayal" from their jewish brethren who followed Yeshua, and it was decided there that the sect of the Nazarene would ever be accursed and cut-off. This is where Judaism, as a religion, was formed since there was no longer a Temple for sacrifice. In that regard, christianity (as a jewish expression) was formed about 50 or 60 years before what we now know as Judaism.

However, the current manifestation of "Christianity" which defines itself separate from Israel didn't occur for at least another century or more. The original community was much closer to judaism for the first 4 centuries than what we know as christianity today.

The only persecution you see of "christians" in the scriptures by Israel was Jew persecuting Jew. They never persecuted gentiles or "Christians" outside of that context.

When Israel returns to being a Theocracy, Yeshua will be the One sitting on the Throne.

[Guest shiloh357]

While I personally am not a fan of Zionism, it does not stem from anti sematitism.

It is highly doubtful that you have a any kind of competent grasp on what Zioinism is. Zionism is simply the view that the Jews have the right to live in their biblical homeland. You are not a fan of the Jews having their own homeland and being a nation like other nations?? Why should the Jews be denied what is not denied to anyone else?? To deny them the right be an equal member on the national scene is anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism.

It's more of a personal thing to me in other ways. Jews are a very blessed/cursed people. They are highly intelligent and wherever they are and treated well, things prosper.

I know it's self serving, but I would much rather see them an intrigal part of the USA and treated well.

Yeah, the Jews should just be satisfied to live among the world community and denied any right to a sovereign nation. Sorry, but that is both unbiblical and anti-Semitic whether you make room for it or not. Even the Arabs/Muslims believe the Jews should just assimilate into Arab culture instead of insisting on having their own nation.

i think we must remember that they were killing Christians (or having them killed) when they were dispursed from Israel, and if a theoracy is set up there, I have to ask.... what has changed since 70 BCE.

That is hog wash. There were members of Sanhedrin persecuting Jewish followers of Jesus at first because they were trying stamp out what they saw as a Messianic cult that would bring down the wrath of Rome. The Jews were not out murdering Christians in 70 AD. Where you do get that nonsense?? Are you saying that if Israel were a theocracy that they would murder Christians? Wehre you do get that crap?? Some anti-Jew, anti-Zionist conspiracy fool???

There are Christians living in Israel now and the Jews are not killing them, even though Israel is under Jewish control. Sorry, but you are just blowing a lot of meaningless wind. You don't know the history of the Land as is apparent from your misinformation.

But for 1,700 years, the church has been doing a great job whitewashing anti-Semitism, Replacement Theology and now its newest form of Jew hatred known as anti-Zionism.

Anti-Zionism = "I believe that Jews have no right to live as the rest of the world and enjoy the same freedoms and rights to peace, safety and sovereignty that other peoples have." That is Jew hatred pure and simple.

[nebula]

I presumed she was American, hence the non-filtered news comment.

Shiloh? Shiloh isn't a "she" (please note the profile next to the post ).

I am aware of the psychotic nature of both the PA and Hamas governments but I think people have been drawn to them in many cases by perceived injustices caused by Israel. An extremist government does not get elected in a state that's doing well. My point however did not concern Hamas or the PA as I don't think saying "oh but they're doing worse stuff than us" will get anyone anywhere, placing blame is pointless. Each side can surely look and think, 'how can we improve this situation' rather than spouting hate.

I do not believe you actually understand the situation. When the "Palestinians" gained control of Gaza they destroyed all the greenhouses Israel used to grow and even export food. Can you explain the logic behind that?

There's an expression: If the Palestinians would lay down their arms, there will be peace. If Israel lays down their arms, there will be no more Israel.

Without the suicide bombs and rockets and other threats to Israel's security, Israel would have no need for checkpoints, regulations, and all the other "injustices" everyone perceives.

Gaza would actually be more prosperous if they spent the money they spend on arms to attack Israel on the welfare of their people.

Obviously it's a situation I have not experienced and I can imagine the rage that must flow through a country when hearing of fresh attacks on its citizens but my opinion is that counterracting violence with violence rarely works. Actions such as moving out of the Golan Heights, not bombing Beirut and not raiding aid convoys to the Gaza strip, though perhaps heightening the sense of tension on the Conservative right at the outset, would do a lot to alleiviate things in the long run.

You don't understand that the powers ruling the Palestinians won't stop until Israel gives up everything. The Golan Heights never belonged to the "Palestinians"; the land was under the control of Syria before the war from which Israel claimed the land for protection.