Major attack on Israel by Hamas

[Valerie]

If Christians justify killing innocent civilians with Scripture, how are we different from radical Muslims who do the same? When Muslims do that, we say they are promoting hatred in the name of religion. What should we say when Christians and Jews do it too?

And even in the Old Testament, you really need to look at what God said before and after that time. It's a much different picture than some people see.

This is a bizarre turn in the conversation. None of us like or desire war - Valerie included. I think she's making a simple and realist argument that "war and rumors of wars" will always exist. She's not using scripture to justify wars against others. To suggest that she is slander and twisting of her words.

Mennonites have never believed that the abolition of war was possible through the use of certain tactics or strategies. Simply and only that as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, our weapons are not carnal but spiritual.

It's possible that I misunderstood.

Can someone please summarize the video that Valerie pointed to? Valerie, what exactly did you want us to take away from that video?

Why do t you watch the video yourself? For that matter he has been interviewed quite often & has had a lot to say since this started.

I think it is futile to try to "get through". I happen to know that he knows what he's talking about having grown up and participated in Hamas prior to becoming a Christian. He can rightly assess this. Most in this thread cannot.

[HondurasKeiser]

Placing entire populations under siege is perfectly conventional when the enemy of of the besiegers has chosen to embed themselves within the civilian population.

Did the U.S. worry about opening up supply lines to Japan or Germany when prosecuting the initial phases of the WWII? Was the U.S. thus engaged in terrorism?

After World War II, the Fourth Geneva Convention was created precisely to protect civilians during armed conflict, in response to that kind of thing. It is now against international law. The United States has certainly committed war crimes since then too, but that doesn't make it OK.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 August 1949)

Under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, parties to a conflict are obligated to ensure that civilians have access to adequate food, medical supplies, and other essentials. Additionally, Article 59 of the Convention prohibits the destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

When you say "perfectly conventional", you do realize it is considered a war crime? Are you saying it should not be? Or that it's entirely moral? Or that you think it is an effective military strategy that will make Palestinians want to love Israelis and make Gaza easier to govern in the long run? What are you claiming here?

How do you think this plays out as a strategy? What is the military objective of starving and killing lots of civilians? How does that lead to the eventual peace that they want to build? What's the next step after that?

The articles quotes refer to “occupying powers”. Israel has not, as of yet, occupied Gaza. Hamas is responsible for the feeding and safekeeping of its own people. They have the necessary supplies to do so but have chosen to use them for war. If there is a group of people terrorizing the Gazans and violating the Geneva Convention it is in fact Hamas.

[HondurasKeiser]

For 36,000th time - Israel has attempted to mitigate civilian losses by encouraging them to move to the south of Gaza.

Hamas did the same thing. They encouraged all Israelis to leave as well. Had Israelis done as Hamas had asked there would have been on casualties on 10/7.

In point of fact, there is no accepted international law of war that allows a warring party to demand that civilian populations get out of their way.

I see. So you actually do believe there is moral equivalence between the actions of Hamas and those of Israel in this present conflict.

[HondurasKeiser]

Apparently, a bomb hit a refugee camp. I don't see how this is sensible and it is severely damaging Israel's reputation in the international setting (which is important) and is also going to enrage and further radicalise Palestinians. It seems to me it is possible to conduct a ground assault and even air strikes, etc. but avoid bombing a literal refugee camp.

The IDF spokesman confirmed that yes the refugee camp got killed but they were targeting some Hamas leader who they believed to be present on site there, according to CNN (which I realise is not the most reliable source of news, but the news clip has the spokesman saying it himself.)

This is sad and tragic. I don’t feel the need to justify Israel’s every action nor do I think they’re wholly innocent. I simply believe there’s no moral comparison between Hamas’ tactics and those of Israel.

[Josh]

Apparently, a bomb hit a refugee camp. I don't see how this is sensible and it is severely damaging Israel's reputation in the international setting (which is important) and is also going to enrage and further radicalise Palestinians. It seems to me it is possible to conduct a ground assault and even air strikes, etc. but avoid bombing a literal refugee camp.

The IDF spokesman confirmed that yes the refugee camp got killed but they were targeting some Hamas leader who they believed to be present on site there, according to CNN (which I realise is not the most reliable source of news, but the news clip has the spokesman saying it himself.)

This is sad and tragic. I don’t feel the need to justify Israel’s every action nor do I think they’re wholly innocent. I simply believe there’s no moral comparison between Hamas’ tactics and those of Israel.

Do you really think bombing a refugee camp is ever morally justified?

[ken_sylvania]

So then if that was the "only" case, how do you explain the fact that God Himself TOLS the Isrealites to kill every man woman and child in certain places? This is what Jews know.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Not sure if you realize this or not. Jews do not read the New Testament. Do you honestly think they read that passage? They are not Christians or under New Covenant teachings by Jesus and Apostles. I'm merely trying to make you see from "their point of view from their history with God the Father"

Apparently they do read it, it they believe that it applies only to petsonal enemies and not to war.

Are you suggesting that the Jews have no need to obey Jesus' command to "resist not evil" or to "turn the other cheek"?

As you know, most New Covenant Christians do not apply that passage the same as Anabaptists. MOST denominations believe Jesus was referring to "petsonal" enemies and do not see that as a mandate for a country to not engage in war if necessary. For example the video of the Son of Hamas leader who was involved in Hamas himself, became a Christian. A Jesus follower. Yet he believes and is presently stating Israel was left with no choice but war. So you see he interprets that passage differently than Anabaptists.

[Szdfan]

Not gonna happen Scripture teaches it. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding Scripture/prophecy/radical Islam goals. Until people do they will not get the bigger picture.

Scripture can always be misused to justify atrocities. I think that using Deuteronomy to justify the killing of innocent people in Gaza is terrible theology.

It's not just Scripture to a Jew. They have always dealt with war. It's always been a part of their heritage being under the Old Covenant to this day. It's strange to have tobpiint these things out.

I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

For almost 2000 years, there was no Jewish kingdom or state until the creation of Israel in 1948. During this time, Jews were an ethnic minority scattered through North America, Europe and the Middle East, attempting to survive (and thrive) in often hostile cultures. They were the resident alien and foreigner. They weren’t fighting wars. They didn’t have an army.

Part of the Jewish heritage is that experience of “otherness.” Chaim Potok’s book on Jewish history is called “Wanderings,” which I think is an appropriate title.

[Josh]

I just listened to a speech from Netanyahu where he read out scripture about driving out the Amalekites from the land; see https://www.christianpost.com/news/neta ... lites.html

After quoting Ecclesiastes in his opposition to calls for a ceasefire, saying, "The Bible says that there is a time for peace and a time for war … this is a time for war," Netanyahu invoked the biblical name of Amalek in his address to the nation.

Amalek is one of Israel's archenemies in the Old Testament.

"You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible," Netanyahu said, echoing the words of Deuteronomy 25:17, which states: "Remember what the Amalekites did to you along your way from Egypt."

This highlights the importance of following the New Testament, not just the Old, and embracing Jesus’ message of peace.

[Szdfan]

Hamas is responsible for the feeding and safekeeping of its own people. They have the necessary supplies to do so but have chosen to use them for war. If there is a group of people terrorizing the Gazans and violating the Geneva Convention it is in fact Hamas.

I think it’s more complicated than that. On the one hand, yes, Hamas has used its resources to support its “military” ambitions over serving the civilian population. On the other hand, it’s a stretch of the imagination to say that Gaza has ever had the necessary supplies. Gaza is sometimes described as “open air prison,” such as in this report by Human Rights Watch from 2022 —

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaz ... -prison-15

Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.

Israel’s closure policy blocks most Gaza residents from going to the West Bank, preventing professionals, artists, athletes, students, and others from pursuing opportunities within Palestine and from traveling abroad via Israel, restricting their rights to work and an education.

Gaza’s dependency on Israel was demonstrated when they shut off water, power and cell service to Gaza and only restored it after international pressure.

Two things can be true. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization and a genuine threat to the existence of Israel and Israel is also an ethnocentric apartheid state with oppressive policies towards the Palestinian people.

[Ken]

For 36,000th time - Israel has attempted to mitigate civilian losses by encouraging them to move to the south of Gaza.

Hamas did the same thing. They encouraged all Israelis to leave as well. Had Israelis done as Hamas had asked there would have been on casualties on 10/7.

In point of fact, there is no accepted international law of war that allows a warring party to demand that civilian populations get out of their way.

I see. So you actually do believe there is moral equivalence between the actions of Hamas and those of Israel in this present conflict.

Have I ever once said they were morally equivalent?

However both Israel and Hamas (or the Palestinians) are now reaping the consequence of choosing the path of violence over the alternative, and choosing absolutism over compromise.

And this current action by Israel will accomplish little except kick the can down the road a few more years at best. Israel will keep winning these periodic wars like they have in the past, until some day they won’t.