So my question is, why do Christians in the United States think that Christians in Gaza are acceptable “collateral damage”?
Really, I’d like to hear your best arguments on this because I’ve been watching the news and if I hear one more libocrat justify the “unfortunate casualties among women and children” I will wretch.
But why are Christians doing it? That’s something that I don’t understand. Are Christians no longer the most ardent protectors women and children? Haven’t Christians usually been at the forefront of movements for human rights and the protection thereof? Do we think that when Israel kills them it is better than when Hamas kills them? If the military of the United States were to handle themselves this way we would never allow it. Why does Israel get a blank check for attacks upon civilian populations?
I’m not saying it’s wrong for them to defend themselves. I’m all for the vigorous and legitimate self protection of an independent state. But hey, they had three or four deaths from rocket attacks and they seem to have killed more than 500 people most of whom were women and children in densely populated civilian neighborhoods. Is it just me, or does this seem out of balance as a reasonable response?
I mean, I understand that non-Jews do not have the same rights in Israel as Jews even if they are citizens, but this is in Gaza. If a Christian tells someone the Christian gospel in Israel they can go to prison or be deported. That’s the law in Israel so we need to take the mentality there into consideration. But I think the Christian bias is to be on the right side, not this or that country’s side and I can’t see how this is “right”.
And sometimes even when someone, or some state, is initially right in their motivation or action, they can go so far in retaliation that they no longer have the moral high ground in these things. But hey, I just want to know? What is the good argument here besides that the Christians in Palestine are Palestinian, and Palestinian Christians have no rights?
A Christian looking out for Christians,
Neiswonger
Neiswonger
Doug
Josh Hicks
Clay
Because American Christians tend to be Americans first, then Christians second … maybe. We think God is Amerikan, that we are His Chosen Nation, and that Arabs (especially Palestinians!) can’t possibly be Christians. We are more devoted to the Imperialism of America than Christ’s Crown and Covenant. To our shame.
Comment by Josh — January 8, 2009 @ 11:16 am |
Chris,
You are correct, Christian are unaccepatble collateral damage and I would also say that jewish civilians are unaccepatble targets. The problem is that many Christians live right in the hornets nest of an unending conflict between two sworn enemies. I fear many more Christians will pay the price in this ongoing conflict, whether it be now or when the conflict heats up again, and history has shown, it will heat up again.
Comment by Clay — January 8, 2009 @ 11:40 am |
I can see that Clay, but don’t all of the sides consider us their enemies? Not that we consider them our enemies because we are to be at peace with all as much as it has to do with us.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 11:53 am |
I’ve seen that kind of thing Josh, but this attitude about the current military action in Gaza seems so prevalent that I have a hard time seeing as just the manifestation of the theologically and politically uninformed. Doesn’t it need to be a deeper and wider problem than that? And really, I hope that it is, because I don’t want to believe that American Christians are that narrow and boorish, and really it’s not my experience with them.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 11:57 am |
Lindsay Brooks at 10:52am January 8 via Facebook Mobile Texts
Or anyone outside of Hamas…
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 12:06 pm |
Dante Dakota Tremayne at 10:53am January 8
They may be Christians, but they’re not me. It only matters when its in my back yard.
Comment by Dante — January 8, 2009 @ 12:07 pm |
But I believe we must support Israel. Christians in the Gaza should be active in getting rid of Hamas. I do feel for the Gaza residents. As most of them want to live in peace.
But Israel has the right to defend itself from rocket attacks. Hopefully they will take on Iran in some measure as well. Christopher
Comment by Jose B Rivera — January 8, 2009 @ 12:08 pm |
I understand your concern Jose. I’m all for the strong and legitimate defense of an independent state. But I have a higher duty to Palestinian Christians, don’t I? At least I think I do, but I’m willing to be corrected.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 12:18 pm |
I think somehow dispensationalism is to blame. But seriously, just because violent action is justified by a motive of self-defense (which I think it can be) does not give the excuse for the party defending to go beyond the necessity of defense and commit atrocity.
Comment by Mike Pace — January 8, 2009 @ 12:19 pm |
Mike,
Yeah, I can see that, but I thought that Jewish-people-are-really-christians-they-just-dont-know-it kind of thing had really died out. And God never seemed to be too happy in the Old Testament when the Jewish people in Israel were in error as a political group, so I don’t understand why Christians feel compelled to justify what seems to me to be obvious over-reaching of military action.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 12:22 pm |
But Chris, isn’t Hamas using Palestinian Christians as human shields?
Or better yet, using any civilians as human
shields because they are so “gutless” to fight “man-to-man” with Israel?
Comment by Michael Aquino — January 8, 2009 @ 12:21 pm |
Michael,
I have an answer to Hamas using Palestinian Christians as human sheilds: Don’t kill them.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 12:22 pm |
Update on the Gaza Situation from the U.S. Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/jan/113686.htm
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 2:13 pm |
Thanks guys for giving me a different perspective. It just that people like in this news article hits a raw nerve with me:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477450,00.html
Comment by Michael Aquino — January 8, 2009 @ 3:15 pm |
I read the article Michael. This is part of it.
“More than 670 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, have been killed in the 12 days of Israel’s campaign in Gaza. At least 30 were killed Tuesday by Israeli shelling of a U.N. school that had been housing refugees. (Israel said its forces fired at militants who launched mortars from that location.)”
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 3:24 pm |
“So my question is, why do Christians in the United States think that Christians in Gaza are acceptable “collateral damage”?”
I think that the definition of what constitutes a Christian in the United States” may be to loose and broad for this discussion.
Comment by Mike Anderson — January 8, 2009 @ 3:54 pm |
Seems to stray from the point Mike A.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 8, 2009 @ 6:37 pm |
I think my point was that I hardly think that those who are truly in Christ would think of this situation in those terms. I also think that eschatological views play a big part in how people look at Israel. Most evangelicals are premil pretrib and see these events as a means to an end. It is a fact that Israel has a right to defend her sliver of land against all those who would have them wiped off the map.Hamas gets their rockets from who? Syria. Syria is knee deep in this mess who gets missiles from Iran who gets their from Russia and everybody knows it. All the hospitals and schools they have come from Israel. The Palastinians receive copious amounts of aid from Israel. Hamas sets its base of operations in residential area as human shields as well as to play up the idea Israel are the animals. Israel does not have a beef with the Palastinain people but they must deal with Hamas in a decisive way.If we did not know better it lookis almost looking as though the whole world will turn against Israel.
Comment by Mike Anderson — January 8, 2009 @ 9:04 pm |
Mike A,
I can agree with just about everything you’ve said with the exception of the Israel not “having a beef” with the Palestinian people. There is a strong idea in traditional zionism that every Christian, and every Palestinian, must be removed from from Gaza.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 10:19 am |
War is never good because of the innocent deaths that inevitably occur durring it. But imagine for a moment that you are being held captive and day after day you watch your kidnapper kill innocent people. You know law inforcement knows where the killer is but they will not do anything about the killers because you might get hurt. As valuable as my life is, it isn’t as valuable as a potentually limitless number of other people’s lives. If my death would save the lives of two or more innocent people I would sadly but willingly give my life in the defense of others.
Comment by Wanda — January 9, 2009 @ 10:21 am |
You have a very good point here Wanda and I don’t minimize the gravity of what you are saying. But I think the closer analogy here is are we willing to lose many valuable and innocent lives in order to secure the safety of very few in relatively little danger. Currently over 750 Palestinians have been killed, almost half women and children, while 13 Israeli’s have been killed, all but one a soldier. Ethically, there are necessary sacrifices, there are morally justifyable but questionable sacrifices, and there are sacrifices of other peoples well being that seem to have no rational justification. As Christians I think we need to have the perspective that when Israel is right they are right, and when they are wrong, they are wrong. I have not heard any reasonable arguments that they are right, even if they might have been right in other cases and under other conditions.
All the best,
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 10:24 am |
I wonder if the Israelis are finally getting around to doing what they failed to do in the OT which put them in this spot in the first place. That is, part of the reason for this conflict is that when God told them in the OT to completely wipe out the enemy, they disobeyed, making pacts and treaties instead, and this failure has haunted them for thousands of years. Now they figure it’s time to clean up. After all, the Jews are using the OT, not the New Testament, and the civil law there is “wipe them out”, right? So could it be that they are doing the right thing religiously, but the wrong thing from a Christian perspective, and (of course) the wrong thing from the “tolerate everybody” crowd (whom we should not necessarily follow)?
Comment by Dante — January 9, 2009 @ 1:01 pm |
Dante, if this “tolerate everybody” crowd includes the likes of Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, anti-Prop 8 supporters, etc then I say “No Way” It is this same group of individuals who support dictators such as President Chavez, Fidel Castro, and others who suppress the will of the people thus they only tolerate those who follow their agenda.
Comment by Michael Aquino — January 9, 2009 @ 1:01 pm |
On this issue, I think that the hard left will be against Israel no matter what they do, even though they are a socialist-secularist police state, so I do not concern myself much with their strange opinions. But Christians can actually measure the good or bad of state actions according to the moral law of God and not simply by the standard of political expediency. I guess I just expect more nuance and judgment from Christians than I do from the world. That Israel is right no matter what seems to be irreconcilable with Christians ethics. Just as we would never think that Christians were right no matter what they do. The idea is an abhorrent vacuum of moral reasoning, and Christians are a moral people with a rich tradition of ethical thought.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 1:03 pm |
Christopher, it is not a matter of Israel being right all the time, but of going against the will of God as it pertains to Israel. Revelation reveals that with God’s help (a lot of it) Israel will be victorious against its enemies. If God want’s Israel to win, who am I to go against Israel? I don’t ever want to side against God.
The population of Gaza, no matter what their religion have got to get rid of groups like Hamas which only put them in danger. Since they have not, they suffer when Israel defends itself. Do I like it? No, but I will not count the dead on both sides as if that were the measure of right and wrong. I know that wanting an “even” death count is not what you are after. It’s funny, I never hear those who defend the Palestinians ever cry out when Hamas is shooting rockets into Israel.
Israel’s only choice in this matter is to annihilate Hamas. Why they are at it, they need to take out Iran’s Nuclear capabilities and throw a few volleys at Syria to warn them.
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 3:23 pm |
Good points Jose,
I agree with many of them. Still, as far as who’s side God is on, He is on the side of whoever is right. If Hamas and Israel are both wrong, then they both have something to answer for. The good guys do not always win. Sometimes evil men win; sometimes God has mercy. We can never judge the rightness or wrongness of a political action on the basis of who succeeds.
In Scripture, Israel was God’s chosen people. He was on their side. They lost most of the battles. Even when they won battles they were often sanctioned by God for the incredible evils that they committed in the process. When the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks trampled Israel underfoot, it was as a consequence of their injustices committed upon each other and other peoples.
God is not a racist. God does not play favorites. God is on the side of the innocent, the orphan, and the widow, the oppressed, and He knows when men use necessity as the justification for violent harm against others.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 3:25 pm |
Democracy, Human Rights, Refugees: Special Briefing On the Humanitarian Situation in Gaza Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:56:03 -0600
http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/2009/113765.htm
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 3:48 pm |
“God is on the side of the innocent, the orphan, and the widow,”… Yes, but how do we tell which is more important in this one instance? Liberals (insert Liberation Theologist) are fond of saying “God has a pre-disposition toward the poor”. Which is not supported bibilcally and even if so, instances may occur where God’s purpose may just be that Israels’ survival is more important in the overall scheme of things. I am ill equipped to figure out which of many possible outcomes the Lord may want at the moment. So I do my best and support His chosen people. Jose B Rivera
May God forgive me if I am wrong.
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 4:17 pm |
So wait, because you are bringing in a point of orthodoxy here.
1st, you think that God does not have a predisposition toward the poor?
2nd, you think that the Christians that are being killed in Gaza are not God’s chosen people but the Israeli’s, that do not believe in Christ, and are not included in His family by faith, are? The people with faith in Christ are not His people and the people that kill them are? Is that what I’m seeing here? Because it seems like Jesus had a very different way of anaylising who were and were not God’s people.
That seems like a pretty bizarre theological scenario Jose.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 4:18 pm |
Video of the Secretary of State on the Gaza situation
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1857622883/bctid6778879001
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 4:18 pm |
Pre-disposition to the poor is a Socialist concept. God loves everyone as you are implying with your defense of those in Gaza. God loves the rich and the middle class too. And I will never side against Israel. I agree with most well know preachers of our day, Israel is to be defended.
It must not have occurred to many that Israel is actually showing restraint. They could carpet bomb Gaza until not a living soul survives. Or they can nuke parts of the Gaza with the same effect. They want a cease-fire, but not one where the animales Hamas can fire at and kill Israel’s citizens. The U.S. would not tolerate missles from Canada or Mexico, no country should. Israel is just defending itself.
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 5:17 pm |
My only other 2 cents in this conversation is the stand that constitutionally, the USA has no right or jurisdiction going in there to stop somebody else’s fight. We’ve been doing that for years, and the only good it does is, well, it’s never done any good. We should pray for the innocent, but (militarily speaking) stay out.
Comment by Dante — January 9, 2009 @ 5:17 pm |
Gaza Christians should be siding with Israel and getting rid of Hamas. We are we asking such questions as your orignial one on this thread? Israel is being fired upon by animals and has the right to defend itself. Why is the question of collateral damage being brought up? Reminds me of the liberal tactic of making the extreme exception the center of attention.
Yes, we can become Internationalist. But that just lets a present danger become a much bigger future danger. Is pretend thinking. Or as social scientist call it, magical thinking. And would you rather not side with Israel?
By the way when I call people animals/animales it is my way of showing that those people who let their animal part of the brian dictate their behavior (hamas, criminals etc) or acting in accord with their animal instinct. And not their spiritual selves. They seem to lack grace.
Whatever consideration you give to those in the Gaza, you must all give to those in Israel. I will pray for peace and that God’s will even if I am wrong or if His will is not to my liking. He know more than I. For all I know you all could be right. For I am fallen too.
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 5:18 pm |
What I’m saying Jose is that Christians have a greater duty to the poor, the weak, and the oppressed, because they are poor, weak, and oppressed. Biblically, the Christian has a greater duty to the weak than to the strong, because the weak require greater protection. The strong and the rich can take care of themselves because they have different means available to them. Now of course, you are getting into subject matter that is not an implication of my text. God’s love for both rich and poor is not the point, because none of the people that we are discussing are the rich or the strong. They are the weakest and most abused minority in the middle east. They have almost no political voice, civil influence, nor tangible means. They are Christians. That you would take sides, even if theoretically or for practical purposes against them in favor of anyone else, even with a supposed theological justification seems untenable.
And you need to remember, since it seems to be a point of contention with you, that Israel is a secular socialist state. And arguing that they have a biblical justification to be socialists, racists, genocidal, or oppresive is an unconscionable interpretation of the Scriptures.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 5:21 pm |
But what is the biblical perogative or proof to side against (1) the chosen people and (2) the nation of Israel which has been brought back to life as per revelation. We might be in the end times, or we might be 100 years away. Since I don’t know I stand with Israel.
I am afraid to go against clear biblical preferences to Jews and the nation of Israel. I believe the Anti-Christ will use the same arguments you have just used to turn all away from Israel. And again, all Christians should be siding with Israel. If they are not, then they are in fact fight God.
My question to all is this: What is Israel to Do? What do you want from God’s country that is surrounded on all sides by those who wish to destroy her? What would you recommend Israel do in light of your concerns?
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 5:22 pm |
If the antiChrist were to use my arguments he would be guilty of good reason and sound theology.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 5:23 pm |
lol, I like that answer! You have a healthy sense of humur and I am not negating what you are saying, just appreciating it.
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 5:24 pm |
By the way Christopher, where would someone like me get more info on the Christians in Gaza you are talking about?
Comment by Jose — January 9, 2009 @ 5:25 pm |
That they would do all that is necessary, and nothing that is not. That they would affirm the rights of all races and backgrounds, including Christians, to have free and equal status as citizens before the law. That they would protect the weak and the innocent and pursue justice for all instead of merely the good of their own race and kind. That they would cease the forced evictions and oppresions of the aliens among them and that both they and the alien would have a common law retaining justice for all.
Then perhaps God would bless them and even their enemies would be at peace with them.
Isn’t that what the Scriptures say?
Comment by Neiswonger — January 9, 2009 @ 5:26 pm |
What is Christian? Who are they? Where are they? Are they simple people who go to church on Sunday to wash their souls only to sin again on Monday? One need not be a christian to know what is right or what is wrong. Do these christians live their lives according to an old novel? I doubt it. Do muslims live their lives according to an old novel? Also doubtful.
I leave others to belive in whatever they wish to believe in, it does not bother me one bit until some try to persuade me of their beliefs and seek my membership to their cults, especially evangelists. No matter who we are or where we come from in the final days it matters little. We all die. Heaven is for everyone, not just those who think their god will welcome them. Death is inevitable, rebirth is what follows. It is nothing to fear.
The Jews will always have to fight for their so called ‘chosen land’. Palestine will always suffer as long as Israel exists. Since 1948 it has been this way. Both are guilty of misconceptions and neither will accomodate the others wishes. May Israel’s god help them if the Arabs unite and wage war against them for then the fabled Armageddon will be unleashed on us all. Its amazing that they both believe in this god, and of course they all have his blessing.
This earth is overcrowded and needs cleansing. The human race has destroyed its ‘garden of eden’. There is a modern thinking that we live in a hologographic universe. An intersting thought, could it possibly be the truth; after all many global events are surely unreal and more the cause of man rather than nature.
Man’s destiny is self destruction for he seems unable to live in harmony with his brothers or sisters.
Comment by Val Bridge — January 10, 2009 @ 5:01 am |
Thank you for your thoughts Val Bridge,
But really most of this is outside of the scope of the discussion. I don’t approach people that are directly confronted with the effects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and tell them, “Well, you see, the world needs cleansing.” And whether or not the final state is heaven or rebirth, (Christians believe it is both) it seems that no one wants to get there pre-maturely.
Taking the tenor of your post, I would consider you to be one of those on the side of, “I don’t care.” Meaning that this is the way it is, the way it’s been, and inevitably the way that it will be, and so let people do what they will do and try to stay out of the way. This is the kind of thinking that seems to arise from certain worldviews that carry within them an unpleasant disconnect from the realities of human suffering and tangible moral evils that can and should be opposed. There are sturdy reasons not to choose an Eastern religion. If they are true, not only do they justify acts incongruous with moral reason but they are ultimately irrelevant.
If man’s destiny is self destruction then your despair is reasonable but if you could help the rest of us out in the mean time it would be appreciated.
If self destruction is not a destiny but one among many options then we should act to avoid self fulfilling prophecies of ultimate doom.
All the best,
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 10, 2009 @ 9:15 am |
The thing is, depending on your view of things, and this I believe is where part of the tension lies, Israel is no longer “God’s Country.” When Israel failed and Christ came, God took Israel’s badge of being “God’s people” and gave it to Christ’s Church. God’s Country is no longer a patch of dirt on the Mediterranean, it’s wherever the believers in Christ are. We as Christians are the new Israel.
Comment by Dante — January 10, 2009 @ 9:28 am |
I have to agree with you on your last point. Still God will collect his last remnant (Israel) during the end times. Hence I will not bash Israel as if it does not count. There are still prophecies to be actualized regarding Israel and her people.
And thanks for reminding me that we are also part of the new Israel.
Comment by Jose — January 10, 2009 @ 9:28 am |
Again, I would agree except for doctrinal standings. I’m postmillenial, so I believe that the remnant issue and other rapture related things took place in AD 70 (it’s partial preterism, NOT full preterism) and so there is no remnant to deal with. God took care of that when Nero trashed Jerusalem in 70. All that to say not that I am bashing your doctrines (though I disagree), but that based on those standings, we have differing views on how Israel should be viewed. (In other news, eschatology serves politics.)
Comment by Dante — January 10, 2009 @ 9:29 am |
Because Christians in the United States for the most part don’t know what Christianity is anymore. Dispensational, Evangelical, Post Modern, Emergent Puke has turned the Church in America into a country club of fat, unbiblical, apathetic, pastor worshiping whimps who would rather hear a funny story about the pastors trip to the hardware store than the Word of God preached.
Just a thought.
Comment by Kemper — January 10, 2009 @ 9:30 am |
I am glad you wrote and I read this post and subsequent comments. I may have been in full aggreement with the view of thinking Israel is in the Right. I just sat through a conversation with friends at my church this morning where the same arguments/statements were made for Israel’s actions that are in the comments above (with exception of those not being held by Christians). I did not give much input because I am sadly malinformed (I’m not sure if that is a word) about the situations going on in the Middle East.
Thank you for writing this post and responding the the comments made; you do, as at many other times in reading and listening over the radio, make me think.
Jordan
Comment by Jordan Esmay — January 10, 2009 @ 9:38 am |
Can you define, American Christians? Once we have the answer to that question than I think you need to rework the original question as, “Why does a portion of American Christians think…”
Without beating round the bush, I’ll provide the answer, it’s that group of so-called “Reformer” descendants which includes communtities originating during the mid-1800 American Adventist period who developed current revised endtime theology with dispensational belief etc…
because the majority of Christians existing in the Holy Land do not belong to any of the communities founded out of separatism during the last 400 years, Holy Land Christians have been falsely classified as the “unsaved” or ones requiring evangelization by these younger sects/cults of Christianity.
Comment by Andy — January 10, 2009 @ 4:49 pm |
“some 850 Palestinians and 13 Israelis have died, and international condemnation has been heaped on the Jewish state” Reuters.
More than half of the Palestinians killed were women and children.
Israel has lost its prior moral credibility in the Palestinian conflict.
This military action by Israel has not been supported by the United States, nor any of Israel’s other allies. This is the first time that has ever happened.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm |
Human lives are precious. But what is Israel to do stop going after Hamas and allow them to bomb their citizens? Seriously, it is easy to an inequity of death on one side, but what has that to do with the conflict at large?
I could care less about what the rest of the world thinks. I have no regard for the wimps (I am being generous here with the term wimps, as we are in good company). The rest of the world is not standing up to Islomofacism. And the rest of the world has it backwards. Let’s see, stupid terrorist shoot missles ito Israel, and the dumb UN says nothing, Isreal works hard to stop them and the world cries out like a school girl. This is nonsense. Regardless of religion it is nonsense, throw in that they are God’s choosen people and the imperative is to side with Israel.
By the way,I would love the UN to move to the bottom of the ocean where its capabilities will match its fairness.
Comment by Jose — January 11, 2009 @ 2:58 pm |
Hey jose,
It’s good to see that you won’t let anyone confuse you with the facts.
Yeah, killing 500 women and children will remove any doubt that anyone might have about Israel being wimps. Nothing wimpy about that.
This is not an issue of islamo-fascism. This is an issue of the major power in the region exterminating the opposition. Obviously, whether or not the opposition are islamo-fascists or Hamas is not a relevant issue to those carrying out the war.
Since so many of the casualties are Christians, fighting islamo-fascism as an excuse is off the table.
More specifically, fascism is nationalist ideology usually rooted in common-ness of race or labour and militarized for the propagation of its kind and the increase of control over land and the means of production.
Which party to the war are the practical fascists?
Still, your efforts to justify genocide by using the book of Revelation is ridiculous. God is a judge and judges with equity. He is not a racist, thus race is not relevant.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 11, 2009 @ 3:00 pm |
I’m curious, Chris,
which libocrat media outlets have you been watching? I mean all the major networks I have been watching, including “Foxnews,” are rather pro-Palestinian.
This whole issue is certainly complex, the fact that Christians or Jews or Muslims are killed is, of course, morally unacceptable. But, and not to be to general, we live in a ‘fallen’ world, and we all suffer the consequences of the subsequent “fall-out.” The fall-out for Palestinian Christians (as well as for all Palestinians) is, at the moment, severe; and the fall-out for Jews living in the south of Israel is also severe.
I think the reason why Christians, in America, often give Israel a ‘blank check’, is certainly a result of premil dispensational teaching. The view is that Israel is THE primary covenant people of God, and all of human history revolves and pivots around them and their existence — and the Church of Christ is reduced to a secondary position, relative to ‘human history’ (i.e. the church is a heavenly people). Thinking from this vantage point, since the LORD’s point for human history is the Nation of Israel, I think Western Christian support for Israel (almost blind) flows naturally from such a perspective; and if Christian Palestinians are killed, “well they are Christians (God’s heavenly people) and they went to heaven” (maybe this could be an implicit rationalization for the Christian — but I don’t really think most American Christians think this reflectively about such things).
So this illustrates one problem presented by premil dispensationalism; viz. a focus on a NATION, instead of THE PERSON, Jesus Christ. If Jesus and His life was seen as the point of history, this kind of thinking (i.e. classic dispensational) would be non-existent (and the incarnation has much to say at this point).
To summarize my response to your question: “. . . why do Christians in the United States think that Christians in Gaza are acceptable “collateral damage”?
I think it is primarily a function of Christian Zionism, framed by classic dispensational thought.
As far as justifying ‘just-war’, I won’t try that now. But I don’t buy the “disproportionate” use of force argument; if intent has any value on this point (i.e. Hamas has attempted to kill millions of Jews through usage of over 11000 bombs and missiles vs. the Israeli usage of a few hundred “precision” munitions resulting in the actual death of a few hundred people). Now you’re the lawyer, Chris, what role does “intent” play here? If the IDF does not “intend” to kill these ‘innocents’, and Hamas does intend to kill ‘innocent people’ — wouldn’t Israel have moral justification to try and stop the potential killing of hundreds of thousands of their citizens? Is Israel’s response “reasonable” and proportionate? If they could potentially lose millions of lives (of “innocent” people) by not acting, then I would say their action and response is indeed reasonable.
One more point, your questions here seem to present a false-dilemma. You seem to assume that because Israel has killed hundreds and Hamas has killed teens [even if you are only intending to be rhetorical and provocative
] (of course the teens number is only taking this particular time into account, it is ignoring the number of Israelis killed over the past 8yrs), then there is outright disproportion . . . but that is only the case if the intentions are the same — and as I highlighted above, they are not (Hamas intends to kill all Jews, Israel intends to kill particular Palestinians). This makes answering your question on the “reasonable response,” by Israel, hard to answer, because ultimately the premise actually makes this a non-starter (i.e. the false-dilemma).
Okay, I’ll stop, I’m starting to ramble
.
Comment by Bobby Grow — January 12, 2009 @ 1:21 am |
If God has a great plan for Israel, what reason do we have to hold that over his moral plan/law? I’m fine with the pre-millenial, pre-tribulation, rapture concept of the end-times; but who says that because we do not support Israel in killing innocent people that God will not fulfill this plan…just to insert, I have not figured out what I believe about the end times other than Jesus is coming to judge and that it will be glorious… What justification/reason do people who hold that we should support Israel because they are the Chosen People even if that support is in contradiction with supporting God’s moral law? Maybe God wants us to be against Israel to fulfill the end-times. Sorry if this isn’t the greatest read comment, I comment on posts often and don’t know many of the unsaid rules of writing on the internet.
Thank you,
Jordan
Comment by Jordan Esmay — January 12, 2009 @ 7:44 am |
[...] leave a comment » Why do Christians in the United States think that Christians in Gaza are acceptable “Collatera… [...]
Pingback by Why do Christians in the United States think that Christians in Gaza are acceptable “Collateral Damage”? « Apologetics.com Neiswonger — January 12, 2009 @ 12:10 pm |
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6625809
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5053R720090112
Comment by Neiswonger — January 12, 2009 @ 3:46 pm |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/12/gaza-conflict-day17
“Israel is facing growing demands from senior UN officials and human rights groups for an international war crimes investigation in Gaza over allegations such as the “reckless and indiscriminate” shelling of residential areas and use of Palestinian families as human shields by soldiers.
With the death toll from the 17-day Israeli assault on Gaza climbing above 900, pressure is increasing for an independent inquiry into specific incidents, such as the shelling of a UN school turned refugee centre where about 40 people died, as well as the question of whether the military tactics used by Israel systematically breached humanitarian law.”
Comment by Neiswonger — January 12, 2009 @ 5:44 pm |
Hi Christopher,
I am not sure why you are confusing a few things. Israel is trying to defend itself. Hamas is in the mist of the civilian population when firing their missiles at Israel. I agree that the killing of those innocence is terrible.
Now what would you recommend Israel do instead? That is all I want to know. Let’s say you were in charge in Israel, how would you handle this?
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 6:55 am |
This has to be the longest comment thread for an FB page ever. Woohoo!! (Nothing like a smarty-pants to muck up the seriousness of things, eh?)
Comment by Dante — January 13, 2009 @ 6:56 am |
Huh? I don’t get your drift Dante. But remember it is always easier to raise questions than to ever provide answers. My question remains, what would you have Israel do instead of their current actions to ensure that your concerns about the Gaza Christians are met?
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 6:57 am |
I belong to a Calvary Chapel church and we always pray for Israel, never for its enemies. Israel no matter what!
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 6:58 am |
Dude. I didn’t read your Q. I just wanted to mention that this is one heck of a thread.
But to answer, pray. Governments can’t help, you or I can’t go in there with guns and take over, what else is there to do? Nothing but pray. God is good. He is in charge. And you know what? I bet Christians in Gaza are asking, “How can we help those pansy Christians in America?”
Comment by Dante — January 13, 2009 @ 6:58 am |
lol, you made me laugh. I agree with you on that. We should pray as you are also right in that I can not do anything from here. So I concur, and we shall pray. God Bles you.
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 6:59 am |
I will pray for the Christian in Gaza and for Israel. Still, do you believe that Israel should be doing something different. I am curious as to what others would do in Israels shoes…
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 7:00 am |
As for my answer, I dunno. I’m not a political smart guy. All I know is, don’t murder, and pray. Not having the answers is probably part of the reason I’m not in charge.
Comment by Dante — January 13, 2009 @ 7:00 am |
Me either, God knows better than to put me in charge. I am former military and believe that is a good enough option (using the military). So God is indeed wise. Thanks for making me more aware that a whole group of people are suffering in the Gaza. It is easy to cheer from my chair every time Israel strikes, but think nothing of who else is being stricken. I feel convicted. May God forgive me.
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 7:01 am |
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6625809
Comment by Neiswonger — January 13, 2009 @ 7:03 am |
Thanks for the info/link Christopher.
Comment by Jose — January 13, 2009 @ 7:03 am |
Andy,
The Adventists certainly had a very limited effect upon the American theological landscape, but as none of the Reformers, nor their theological lineage in the Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Reformed, or Reformed Baptist denominations show any tendency toward Premillenial Dipsensationalism as an eschatological position the relation between the Reformation and the subject at hand would seem to be strained at best.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 13, 2009 @ 7:15 am |
Bobby,
I guess the reason that I would not think of this as a false dichotomy is because there really do seem to be Christians out there, as evidenced by this thread, that think that the deaths of Christians in Gaza are acceptable collateral damage. That there is some, even if unstated or inexplicable, justification for Israel to kill Christians that mean them no harm in the pursuit of their larger ends.
As to the legal question, there are two ways that the deaths of the innocent can be blameworthy: either by intent or through negligence.
I do not think that the Israeli military is killing Christians by intent, but the entire international community, including even some of their most stalwart allies (the U.S. no less) are not backing them on this one, because their negligent and thoughtless acts have caused deaths that were needless and easily avoidable.
Being careless of human life is only slightly less ignoble than malicious intent.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 13, 2009 @ 7:28 am |
Sure Jose,
But notice that you’ve still given no reasonable argument for the topic at hand. Saying, “it’s all in revelation” or some such thing seems about equal to saying nothing. Either you do not have a reason why you think the deaths of Christians in Palestine are acceptable collateral damage, or you are simply not willing to tell us what it is.
Trying to change the subject to what the most practical military tactic for the Israeli military might be has little to do with the foundation of your argument, which is that some how the book of Revelation justifies the wanton extermination of Christians in Gaza.
I’ve tried to give you a little time to cobble together something intelligible here, but if you can’t, I think I would be satisfied in saying that you do not have a reason, other than a mood or a feeling or some such, that compels you to choose the best for Israel, whatever abhorent means they might use to achieve their ends, over the lives of innocent non-combatants.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 13, 2009 @ 7:29 am |
Chris,
I don’t understand the tactic of continuing to lift up “Christians” as collateral damage; is this an a fortiori move on your part? Appealing to the sentimentality of the “Christian” readership here, in order to undercut any and all of the collateral damage incurred by the Israelis on the Palestinians. In other words, morally, what’s the difference between Christians and non-Christians being killed . . . it’s all deplorable and reprehensible — and I don’t think the Israelis would disagree.
Also it is presumptuous to assume that Israel is being negligent, intentionally; it seems to me that you are oversimplifying this issue — either we have to take them at their word, relative to their ‘intentions’ or assume some sort of conspiratorial perspective that assumes certain things about Israel (that they are being negligent or killing Christians in order to forward their Zionist agenda) that is contrary to their stated intention.
As far as the false dichotomy. My point wasn’t so much with what Christians think, but what Israel and Palestine (Hamas) have stated, relative to their intentions — and certainly this should impact the way Christians think in this re. — your frame seems to speak of Hamas and the IDF in equivocal terms, which relative to intention (as I highlight the distinction above) is not univocal but disparate.
Bottom line, this is a complex geopolitical issue that has terrible consequences no matter what route one takes. If Israel does nothing, Hamas (and other haters) will be emboldened to continue and escalate their fight; if Hamas does nothing, they feel that they will be forgotten and live under the thumb of a despised enemy who Allah has determined should be eliminated. And in the middle of all this, there are innocent people who just want to live their lives, and even some, and many in Palestine (and Israel) who want to live their lives unto the glory of God in Christ. This whole conflict points to the inadequacy of human frameworks and governments; and in turn, should be pointing beyond to Christ — as should the failure of all human machinations and expressions in government.
I think the loss of human life on either-side of this current conflict is reprehensible and not ideal. I don’t think there is an easy answer, if there was this thread would not be generating the way it is. The scope of this engagement is grand, maybe an alternative for Israel, would be to use special forces (and I know they have an excellent special forces) could infiltrate (covertly) Hamas, and assassinate Hamas leadership . . . in tandem with destroying (via an air campaign) these smuggling tunnels from whence Hamas is receiving their munitions.
Comment by bobby grow — January 13, 2009 @ 1:11 pm |
Sure Bobby,
But the point of this thread relative to the post, if there be such an animal as a Christian which thinks that palestinian Christians are acceptable collateral damage, why? Now you, are giving reasons related to many different subjects. Political theory, conflict theory, in your earlier note even theological positions that control the possible ways of interpreting the event. But what I hear you saying is that Palestinian Christians are not acceptable collateral damage. Am I wrong here? Or at least you certainly are not saying that they are so because you hold some theological hermeneutic that makes any political or military action by Israel “value free”. Above judgement by any political, ethical, or historical measurement.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 13, 2009 @ 1:53 pm |
To all: to be careful, I did not say that Israel was being intentionally negligent. One’s effect was either intended or not intended but still caused. I said very plainly that I did not think that it was by intent that the non-combatants were being killed at a much higher rate than the combatants from either side. But when that kind of unusual thing happens, I think thoughtful people should take note of it. There must be some logical explanation. ???
Under international law, negligence that causes harm is a very real category. I am not creating one that does not already exist. If a country acts in such a way, even if justified in the act itself, so as to cause harm or death to a third party through negligence they can certainly be held liable for the damage, and this is a sound and ancient principle of law that Christians have always held. One does not need to act with intent to cause the harm, only the intent to perform the action that causes the harm itself.
This means that every nation has a duty to look out for the innocent even if it costs them much. The costs of war cannot be passed off onto the civilian population without the gravest kind of necessity, and this, does not seem to carry the weight of the gravest kind of necessity.
Did the bombing of Berlin? Of Hiroshima? People can argue about those things, but I think any reasonable person can see the differences between the situations.
This is a matter of public international law, and the matter that is greasing the wheels on most of the comments on this thread is the battle between the Jus in bello and the Jus ad bellum. To put it simply, whether or not Israel has a moral justification to go “to” war is a very different issue that whether or not Israel has the moral justification to go to war this “way”. These are two very different matters and they need to be dealt with in nuanced distinction. They cannot be blended.
For those of you that are arguing that “Proportionality” in redress is not an issue, I would say that you are certainly of a mind to put Christian ethics and Christian conceptions of the moral justifications for war and the practice of war back a thousand years or two.
The punishment must fit the crime. The response must be the response called for by the act. Any excuse does not justify any and every response.
And just as obviously, a distinction must be made between innocents and combatants. To make no distinction is as inhumane and uncivilized as it is unChristian.
Someone could make the argument that no distinctions could be made but this does not seem adequate in this case. There has never been a battle in which no distinctions could be made; only battles where making the distinction was made unservicable by the circumstances. No one agrees that the conditions for Israel gave them no available opportunity to make due and proper distinctions here. Had they been in immediate fear of nuclear attack for example, I would not be arguing against their practice. It would have been made justifiable by immediate necessity. With the dangers that Israel is using for justification, they have not justified their course. As to the point, they cannot.
Distinction is not being made, but could have been made, and easily.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 13, 2009 @ 2:12 pm |
Chris,
You are right, relative to responsibility, and the ‘way’ Israel is carrying out there “offensive.” That is why, in my last paragraph, in my last comment, I mentioned an alternative that might mitigate any “collateral damage” (which terminology I really dislike, since it guards against the reality of the human loss that is really behind such language).
I don’t think any collateral damage is “acceptable,” but it is a reality, in an imperfect fallen world. “Justice” meted out by fallen people will always be disproportionate (which your very own profession illustrates everyday), and thus reasonable people should talk and act on what ought to be, to vitiate what is — which really is the inbreaking of Christ’s kingdom, and in an inaugural way, reversing the curse, making the crooked straight. So posts like this are helpful in identifying what “is” and fostering discussion of what “ought” to be. The next step is figuring out how to effect the “ought” in the face of the “is.”
I still think, the reason why American’s, in general, support Israel, blindly, is a result of the cultural/theological phenomenon created by dispensational theology . . . and the requisite, Christian Zionism it has produced (George Marsden has some good books that help establish this point, culturally and theologically).
So in the end, Chris, I don’t think Christian or non-Christian “collateral damage” (argh) is acceptable, but even assuming a proportionate response (which I would still want to quibble over, probably), there will almost always be “collateral damage,” esp. in urban settings — so even if there is proportion, I don’t find collateral damage acceptable; at the same time, I don’t think this ‘unacceptable’ consequence necessarily, or logically, undercuts the justification for warfare (so I’m not a full-fledged pacifist
). But then again, I hate the game of moral calculus (thanks Bentham), and that seems to be part of the equation for ‘just war’. Anyway . . .
Comment by bobby grow — January 13, 2009 @ 2:40 pm |
[...] Chris Neiswonger points out, Israel could probably do a better job at avoiding civilian casualties, but Hamas, with [...]
Pingback by Around the World « The Pugnacious Irishman — January 14, 2009 @ 6:41 am |
‘More than 1,000 killed in Gaza’ \
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828884.stm
Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip have passed 1,000, medical sources in Gaza say, as diplomatic efforts continue to reach a ceasefire.
Nearly a third of the dead are reported to be children and nearly 5,000 people have been injured.
Comment by Neiswonger — January 14, 2009 @ 9:08 am |
Chris,
I gotta admit, the comments here are interesting. You are arguing well. I haven’t read all of them, so I apologize if my comment is a repeat of one made earlier.
I’ve just started to pay attention to the mid east situation recently, so my thinking is kinda raw on this issue.
My question: what will be the likely outcome of a “ceasefire” with Hamas? Will they do as they did in the last ceasefire (it was a CINO: cease-fire in name only)? Yes, seems like Israel can do a better job of avoiding so many civ. casualties…but what’s the alternative? Hamas won’t stop until Israel is wiped out, so I don’t know if there’s gonna ever be a peaceful coexistence. One of them’s gots ta go. The whole peace talks-diplomacy thing is starting to look a little absurd: there’s some sort of cease fire, Hamas breaks it while Israel just takes it…Israel retaliates, people get mad, there’s another cease fire, Hamas breaks it, all the while vowing death to the Jews, wipe out Israel, blah blah blah…repeat ad nauseum. I seem to remember that even a 2 state solution has been proposed in the past, and Hamas/Palestine/somebody has rejected it (though I don’t know the details so correct me if this is in error or doesn’t matter.).
Secondly, and relatedly, will pulling back and not eliminating Hamas cause greater damage in the long run? I hate to be so utilitarian-like, but I don’t see any way around it; when you have a choice between eliminating a persistently great threat (and incurring many civ. casualties along the way) and not eliminating the threat (and causing perhaps more civ. casualties over time by allowing the bully to stay in the neighborhood), which choice to make?
Thirdly, isn’t Hamas putting civilians in the way? If so, shouldn’t we be focusing our condemnation on Hamas?
Again, you are swaying my thinking…but these are questions I have, though they might be slightly awkward.
Comment by Rich Bordner — January 14, 2009 @ 11:15 pm |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838451.stm
Comment by Neiswonger — January 20, 2009 @ 10:06 am |
Hey Rich,
I understand what you are saying here but I think you can see why it strays too far from the point to be answered intelligibly.
What Israel’s best tactic for wiping out Hamas may or may not be is not the issue. Are the innocents that are being killed necessary and or acceptable killings, and is the method that Israel is using to achieve those ends legal and or ethically justifiable? That is the question. Questions of what they should do, aren’t really as square as what they obviously should not do.
You brought up Utilitarianism; utilitarianism is a bankrupt moral system. Completely useless. But, this does not mean, and can never mean that the measurement by “Numbers” is not important.
To disregard utilitarianism is good sense; to disregard utility is completely irrational.
Need proof? Should we do what is useful against Hamas? Or what is not Useful?
If you answer Useful you have engaged Utility as a valid measurement.
But what is “Useful” is not and cannot be the only measurement. The reason is because what is or is not useful is in Christian ethics, dependant upon what is or is not Good. In Christian ethics useful and best are nearly synonymous. And we measure what is best, differently than the world.
This kind of calculus, (I hate to use the term, but in the real world, this is the way we have to do things. We have no choice, and those that do not think so need to rethink it.) is carried out by weighing the Good against the consequences of different courses of action. I am not engaging a mere consequentialist theory here either, but the disregard of Consequence is no more Christian than mere Utility as a measurement.
So, since you demand measurement:
To kill or not to kill-you decide.
1000 Hamas terrorists behind one child.
1 Hamas terrorist behind 1000 children.
1 Hamas terrorist behind 1,000,000 children.
1,000,000 Hamas terrorists behind one child.
1 Hamas terrorist with a nuclear weapon behind one child.
Behind one thousand children.
Behind one Million children.
Behind all children?
1 Hamas terrorist behind your child?
What if they are behind my child? You’ve got to be kidding. That’s a no brainer for me. I don’t even need to think about it.
“But if you let them live they would go on and possibly kill others!”
So be it. He will not be killed at the cost of my child. That is the irreducible utility of the issue. At the same time, how many other children would I be willing to sacrifice for the sake of my own? Now that, is an ugly utility. But does it happen? All the time.
What is the cost that is necessary to provoke the thoughtful person to engage in an action that will knowingly result in the death and or deaths of the children?
Thoughtful people think about these things. Thoughtless people can only see the end they want to achieve and disregard doing the heavy moral calculations about the the good or evil of the means used to achieve the end. They are politically driven, not morally conscious.
So, back to the point, did Israel thoughtfully take into account in this engagement the cost of their victory upon the civilian population? If one says yes they will find themselves incredibly alone in the judgement.
Let me say this also, when Israel can get stuffy old right wing Evangelical Republicans like me to take sides against them they really must be doing something completely against all sound reason. We are not moved easily and stand strongly with principle above fashion. This is not an argument rooted in fashion, it is an observation of a wanton disregard for human life. And whomever is against the good, God is against them, and if God is against them, I will not make the mistake of being for them.
Neiswonger
Comment by Neiswonger — January 20, 2009 @ 10:41 am |
[...] http://christiantheology.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/why-do-christians-in-the-united-states-think-that-... [...]
Pingback by The “numbers” issue in the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict. « Christian Theology — January 20, 2009 @ 2:42 pm |
Perhaps because they got the wrong Bibles, the ones that read “Blessed are the warmongers, for theirs shall be the hegemony over the oilfields of the Middle East.”
Comment by Steve — January 21, 2009 @ 1:45 am |
Very interesting discussion… I am concerned (unless I missed it) that no one went to the Bible to see what the Bible has to say about Israel and how it should be treating others. Israel is God’s chose people all throughout the Old Testament. There are numerous references to that (Deut 7:6, Deut 14:2, Is 65:9, etc). Assuming that Israel should have the land of Gaza as part of Israel (although there is debate on that) the Bible also gives clear instruction on how the Israelites were to treat the foreigners living within their borders. They are to treat them fairly, not mistreating or oppressing them, remembering that they once were foreigners in the land of Egypt (Ex 22:21, 23:9, Lev 19:33-34, etc). Foreigners are equal before the Lord (Num 15:15) and allowed to participate in the Jewish feasts/festivals as long as they follow the same regulations (Ex 12:48, Lev 18:26, Lev 24:22, Num 15:14-15, etc). When harvesting, they were to leave some for the poor and foreigners to take (Lev 19:10, Num 23:22, etc). The New Testament also shows where the ‘chosen people’ or ‘people of the promise’ are not necessarily the Jews, but those who have faith in God/Jesus (Galatians 3&4, Hebrews, etc).
I think as Christians we need to be more concerned about those who are suffering around us, especially in places like Gaza; concerned not just for the Christians, but for all people. The Jewish people play a very special role in the Christian history, but God also clearly lays out how we are to treat each other and all peoples need to abide by that. Basic human rights are something that all peoples deserve, Israelite, Palestinian, American, European, etc. whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. The side of the story that the American, and thus the American Christian, sees is often one sided. As Christians we need to not take everything we see on the news/internet/papers, etc as fact. We need to research the whole story by looking at what those on both side of the story are saying (read stuff from other countries) and most importantly going back to the Bible to see what it says about the situation.
Comment by HT — January 23, 2009 @ 7:31 pm |
Following one of the comments of January 8, 2009 on the definition of a Christian in the US (“to loose and broad for this discussion”). Unfortunately this kind of tactic is often used to sidetrack/relativise this kind of debate.
Fortunately, there are attempts to answer this (e.g. Christian zionism, Dispensationalism), and they are food for thought.
The question also brings to focus international interests. For example, most American political parties (across the spectrum, republic/democrat/everything in between & otherwise) have developed stances informed by particular eschatological views & concerns, bringing the whole ‘religion in politics’ question right to the fore, usually with the claim of backing from God (haven’t we heard this before – american civil war ?).
Let us not forget (relating to another point in this thread) that Islamic terrorists claim the same.
In my reading, Christ told us, unequivocally, to ‘pray for your enemies’.
(I notice he did not say ‘against’).
To put oneself in the (spiritual) place of the ‘enemy’ – how then can ‘collateral damage’ ever be acceptable ?
‘Might’ is not ‘right’. And this is the Gospel challenge.
The original question remains an important one, and I hope the thread continues, as this is exactly the kind of question that calls a person to an honest, authentic, fully present response to the many issues involved.
Mark S
Comment by Mark S — February 6, 2009 @ 3:33 pm |
I have read many of the comments on this subject but I would like to balance the comments with what I know from being there, Israel and USA.
Mostly most western Christians are by default selfcentred though they will claim to be different and USA CHRISTIANS more so than any others. We often show care for others when it is convenient but not by default life choice and I am ashamed to admit that I also am not imuned to this problem. So as we see what is happening in the world we choose winners and the others not chosen must put up with the results. Some will support the plight of the Israelies while others will support the plight of the others in and around in Israel.
I have seen Hammas amunition dumps in hospital basements and in school grounds. I have seen anti aircraft weapons on the roofs of hospitals, apartment blocks and on school buildings. As Hammas is not an ‘official state’s army’ they hide in the community as so many terrorits organisations do. The first celebrated time this happened was in the Boar War and the Australians members of the Bushveld Carbinarers retaliated and this story is told in the movie ‘Breaker Morant’.
War is a demonstration of failure to guard the peace and it thake one side to go to war but both sides to guard the peace. As wars are not the justified position many things that happen durring them are not wise and certainly not good. The defence of a nation is not necessarly a ‘God Thing’ and neither is capitulation, having said that I will choose to defend my country and hope while doing that I will hope to prove that I am a Christian by my actions. I recall the reported words of Abraham Lincoln where he said, “We must pray to God and hope that we are on God’s side rather than claiming that God is on our side”.
My experience again; many of the Arab terrorists organisations use young children and women as combatments. I personaly have confronted a child of less than 14 years old using a Russian made assault rifle. Should I have said you are not 18 years old and so you are not a soldier, if I did I would not be writing this as I would be dead. I have seen babies under 2 years of age wrapped in explosives to kill anyone who would seek to comfort the crying child. These things are not normal in the USA or Australia though both countries have history of gang warefare which is very deadly as well.
All this is backgroung to the question but the question is ill concieved in as much as not all christians fit in one camp or the other.
Anger from unblievable news footage does affect our views and some time the news has so little truth in it that we should not react so quickly.
One story was Israel targeted a UN School, Israel said that the target was near the school to take out a launching position. Last week the UN admitted that the target was actually be outside the school compound and few deaths and injuries were of people who were in the compound. The important question is should the UN workers giving protection to the people have made sure that no hostilities were generated from near the school. It is important to note that to get on with life within may of these areas of hostilities the UN workers compromise standards and permit weapons in areas they should not.
I do not justify Israel’s actions and yet I cannot accept the claims made by the Hammas or reporters that seek safe passage in Hammas controled areas as to say the wrong thing = death. The residents should do their best to leave so that the ones who desire war can not hid behind themselves. If we are concerned for a balance we will try to assist the exposure of the warmongers. Few Israelies desire war anymore and have often given up a lot for an attempt for peace.
How should chould Christians act: “to be as wise a serpents and as harmles as doves” was the advise of Jesus. To be wise means we will gather all the facts and carefully evaluate them and find a direction towards peace. So be careful in your judgements upon others lest you also fall.
Find God’s Grace
Milton
Comment by Milton of NEWCASTLE — February 6, 2009 @ 5:32 pm |