You asked: ”What determines Israel’s right to exist?” You are right that is a loaded question, but that is alright. As a Christian and I am sure you would agree that the land of Israel was the land God gave to Abraham and his descendents through the line of Isaac and Jacob. The secular perspective is murkier. Occupants change over time and often through wars, in that sense, to the victor goes the spoils. Israel was recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign state since 1948, if this is not acceptable to her Arab neighbors and war is the preferable resolution to this conflict, then there is no fault on Israel to bring the most destruction against her enemies. If you ask for war, then don’t act like a crybaby when you get hit hard. Furthermore, we are not just talking about the existence of Israel as a “State”. Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad are talking about genocide. They want to round up the Jew in one place to kill them all, this goes way beyond political boundaries. I can guarantee you one thing, if Israel do not accept her neighbor’s right to exist and espouses the same rhetoric as Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, she would lose all her support. Your skepticism of Israel’s intention is unfounded.

I don’t understand your reference to Israel’s guilt. It makes perfect sense that if two enemies power is balance then it would normally lead to a stalemate. However, this does bring out another dimension to the radicalism of the Arabs in that region. In the face of Israeli’s superior firepower they continue to sacrifice their people in their attack on Israel. Like an evil brat, after hitting his brother on the head and his brother hits him back, he begins to scream like a crybaby. Now let me ask you if Hezbollah and Iran have a nuclear bomb do you think they would hesitate to use it against Israel?

Hezbollah is more than just a guerrilla they are the arms of Syria and Iran. And many want to have it both ways, refusing to call Hezbollah as a terrorist group because it is a legitimate member of the Lebanese government, at the same time claim that they don’t represent Lebanon when they declare war on Israel. Which is it? Is Hezbollah a legitimate representative of the Lebanese government or are they a radical terrorist group? In recent news we now know that this guerrilla group is widely accepted as a legitimate representative of the Lebanese people. Hezbollah enjoys over 80% support of their attack on Israel. This means that the claim of innocent civilian killed in Lebanon is a farce.

Wow don’t you think referring to Walid as a hack is a bit over the top? I am not sure where he said the Palestinians left their home willingly. I think you’ve completely missed his point. He is not an advocate for any state. The fact that you see his effort of getting the truth out as an advocate for Israel, I think is bias on your part. What I think Walid is doing is to show people the truth of the excuses the Arabs use for their hatred of Israel is a lie. Don’t confuse his revealing the facts as a blanket advocacy for Israel. The reason it is important to get the truth out is because until we know the cause of the conflict it is not possible to formulate the proper course of action.

It is true you and I both believe that we answer first and foremost to God and not any State, including my beloved country the United States of America. As Christians we also have certain affection for the Jews because of our respect for God’s anointed. As a citizen of the World we have an obligation to discern the truth and steer the right course of our government to achieve peace and justice. We can’t have justice nor peace if we allow the kind of evil promoted by Islamofacists who are committed to violence and hate. The only way to defeat this evil is to destroy it and stop the promulgation of this hatred to successive generations.

P.S.Let me ask you one more question. If peace are the ultimate objective and the desire of everyone. If all of Israel’s neighbors declared that Israel has the right to exist and we will never attack Israel again. We will negotiate all future disagreements. Do you think Israel will still attack her neighbors without provocation? Do you think we will have a lasting peace if that happens?

I think if Israel’s neighbors were willing to accept peace with Israel and demonstrate their sincerity by not building up arms, we would have peace. If Israel breaks that peace, it will be the end of her existence because there will be no one who would support her at that point.

Surely this is a loaded question and I will not be so rude as to leave it at that, making it look like I am waiting to pounce. I think Israel’s current existence as a sovereign state, albeit from questionable origins, allows it the inherent right to continue existing. That’s important because I don’t know if Israel holds the same respect for it’s neighbors. They waged a full scale war against another sovereign state because of the actions of a guerilla group. I know that is an oversimplification, but that act of war scoffs at Lebanon’s sovereignty to police their own country and their own right to exist. Israel would not accept outside interference itself and therefore should be interfering beyond their own borders.

I think when it comes to military capability, Israel is just as guilty as its neighbors. Think about how Dave Chappelle said it regarding the US, “Because we’re America… We don’t invade countries that have weapons of mass destruction… We negotiate with countries that have weapons of mass destruction.” Though meant in jest, I think he is right and the same could be said about Israel. If Israel’s neighbors were equals militarily, they wouldn’t be so quick to attack. To answer a kidnapping with full scale war is disproportionate. I can almost guarantee that if Iran had kidnapped Israeli soldiers, Israel would have gone to the negotiating table, not the trigger. And it is also becoming clearer that Israel had made plans to attack Hezbollah and was waiting for an excuse. The kidnapping gave them the excuse they wanted.

I checked out Walid Shoebat’s site you linked to. While I respect his experience and insights, I find his message a bit flawed and he comes off more as a hack than a broker of peace and truth. Why would anyone become an advocate for any state, Israel or otherwise? He claims to be an advocate of truth, but truth is not on any state’s side all of the time. I realize that a lot of lies are perpetuated among Arabs and others about Jews. But the truth is also that there are lies perpetuated about Arabs, in particular Palestinians, among Jews and the rest of the world. He makes no mention of these. And to say that Palestinians willingly left their homes in 1948 and 1967 is a farce. I appreciate his efforts to love his enemy, but he should not be exonerating Israel anymore than one would exonerate the PLO or other Palestinian leaders. Truth can’t be biased and still remain truth. But I much prefer he be a peaceful advocate with a flawed message then a violent advocate of anything.

For you and I the stakes are different. We are first responsible to God, then to any state or message. I would much prefer to be on God’s side over any state. I think allegiance to a state over the Word of God is disastrous for ones soul. Peace be with you.

I appreciate your response, because you are a reasonable man. I agree that the invocation of Hitler is inflammatory, however in this case I believe it is justified. Nasrallah is not just all talk. It is a matter of capacity. Hitler had one of the most powerful army of the day and he used it as a killing machine. Nasrallah along with Ahmadinejad have the same design as Hitler. The difference is that they just don’t have the means to do it yet. Nevertheless, Hezbollah and Iran are involved in attacking Israel and her allies around the world.

• a series of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
• the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;
• the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane’s pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;
• two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).

If the military capabilities were reversed between Israel and Hezbollah do you have any doubt Nasrallah would not eliminate Israel? Do you think at that point he would still just talk and not act?

You are obviously a very intelligent person, so I am sure you know that history is not as binary as you’ve portrayed. Yes, it is true that Israel fired the first shot in the 1967 war. As someone who is familiar with the Middle East history, you know that was a defensive strike. Egypt and all of Israel’s Arab neighbors were amassing troops around Israel’s border. They have telegraphed their intention to wipe Israel out because they do not recognize her right to exist. Why should Israel be so stupid and sit there until they get attacked by an overwhelming force? I am surprise that you would not present a more balanced view of that history.

As far as I know every instance where Israel attacked her neighbors was in retaliation of an unprovoked attack. I am not saying that Israel is perfect, but in the balance they were forced into conflicts more than they initiated, assuming that they even initiated any. People have a tendency to criticize Israel for their heavy-handed retaliation. That may be true, but if you don’t want to get a bloody nose, don’t take a poke at another man’s nose.

P.S. I agree with you that the gospel is the only way to true reconciliation. I encourage you to check out the testimony of a fellow Palestinian Walid Shoebat. He has lived the life of a terrorist and is very revealing to learn of the jaundice view the world has of Israel from the inside perspective so to speak.

As for Israel always being attacked, I would check the history on that. Israel fired the first shots (or bombs) in the 1967 war. They dessimated the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in that war. And because they struck first, they summarily kicked the crap out of the other states. I am not trying to get into a discussion of who was right or wrong in 1967, but there is no debate that Israel attached first and thus cannot be described as the one always under attack.

For a thought provoking read, I encourage you to read The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan. You can read my review of the book here:

http://peacebe.blogspot.com/2006/08/book-review-lemon-tree.html

No matter which side you agree with more, it is definately worth a read.

Thank you for your comment. To answer your question, no, I do not think equating Nasrallah with Hitler is extreme. If you compare the venomous hatred and characterization the Jews as the epitome of evil, then Nasrallah expresses his solution to the Jewish problem is gather them together to kill them. Hitler used the same rhetoric of blaming the Jews for all the trouble in the world and gathers them up in gas chambers to kill them all. How could any sane person not see the similarity between these 2 men?

My use of the term “occupation” is similar to adapted propaganda usage of the term by Arabs. The Muslims in the region call Israel’s existence in the Middle East as an occupation. Many such as Nasrallah still do not accept the right of Israel to exist. The intention of Israel’s neighbors is to occupy the land of Israel and to eradicate the Jews from existence. It was under this context that I use occupation. From the beginning Israel’s bloodthirsty neighbors attacked Israel without provocation. Israel repelled the attempted occupation and established a defensible border. For Israel’s defensive success, they are maligned as occupiers.

However, we all know that “occupation” is nothing more than an excuse to exterminate Jews. It is blatantly evident that “Land for Peace” is a myth and a lie by the Muslims to regain a strategic advantage to attack Israel. So it is not about supporting Israel. It is not even about the term “occupation”. It is about the reality of those who want to live in peace and those like Nasrallah who seek to commit genocide.

I welcome your rebuttal.

And by the way, if you really think that “Israel did not occupy any territories in the Middle East” you are missing the historical perspective than even strong supporters of Israel agree upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

And you are right, with Jimmy Carter for a friend, who needs enemies.

“We always spoke about an immediate cease-fire. We never spoke about ending military operations because this is in a way like legitimatizing the occupation, as if the war is being legitimatized,” said Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

Please cut this garbage. What sort of moron would believe this is an “occupation”? These Arabs are so blinded by their hatred they can’t tell the fact from fiction. The Hezbollah crossed international border to start a war with Israel.

It boggles my mind that many of the left, are siding with the terrorists. Should we actually be surprised by this? It is reminiscent of the left sympathizing with the Soviets and the rest of the commies. These people always blame America and/or Israel first.

Are you surprised that they chastise Mel Gibson for anti-Semitism, but not Hezbollah or Hamas? Just ask Jimmy Carter all about that.

Isn’t there a double standard amongst these people?

I find it odd that there seems to be more support for Israel amongst conservative Christians, than amongst liberal Jews, in America. Why is that?

It is because liberals always put their liberalism before their religion. To many liberals, [liberalism] is the true religion which they actually practice, and actively participate in.

I am a Christian, and a friendly and proud supporter of Israel, and our Jewish friends.