Thread: Why does America have to defend Israel if the Bible is true?

All it takes is a simple google search to determine the truth:

Israeli Women Face Oppression As Israelis Protest Ultra-Orthodox Jews

Thousands of Israelis gather in Beit Shemesh for a demonstration against the growing demand by some ultra orthadox Jews for men and women to be segregated.

And, of course, the Republican Party is certainly not much better in that regard:

2011 Ends With The Republican War On Women Still Going Strong

There is a twisted mentality throughout the world that engenders oppression of women that has, as its basis, extremist religious fundamentalism. Normally, persecution of women is thought to be Islamic countries’ provenance, and, indeed, women in countries such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan suffered horribly for not following a rigid interpretation of Islamic law. There have been, however, recent reports from Israel of extremist religious fundamentalists persecuting women for not adhering to strict dress codes and modesty rules. In Egypt, the military is accused of conducting virginity tests on female prisoners who were arrested for demonstrating the slow transition of power from military to civilian rule. It appears that around the world there is a rise in religious extremism that targets women for non-compliance of religious edicts and the notion that women must be subordinate to men. Unfortunately, it is not just extremists who oppress women and keep them in subordinate roles; the truth is that oppression of women is rampant in main-stream, seemingly moderate religions.

America’s women can relate to the religious persecution that Egyptian and Israeli women are facing after a full year of assaults by Republicans in Congress and state legislatures on behalf of Christian fundamentalists. It is true that American women suffer beatings and oppression in private from their fine Christian husbands who follow Stone Age biblical rules, but they are not being spat on in public, forced to sit in the back of a bus, or forced to submit to virginity tests; at least not yet. If 2011 was any indication, Republicans may yet match Afghanistan, Israel, and Egyptian fundamentalists’ oppression of women and they will continue using legislation to do it.

In Israel, Ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim) are facing a pledge from Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to curb harassment and discrimination after complaints over the actions of ultra-Orthodox Jews. Like American ultra-Christian fundamentalists, Haredim have a higher birthrate than Israeli Jews, with 10 children in a single family not uncommon, and their rising numbers portend a theocratic takeover of the government similar to America and when that occurs, they, like Republicans, will begin using the legislative process to impose their Stone Age edicts on Israeli women. However, for now, Israeli women are fortunate their government protects them from persecution at the hands of religious extremists and hopefully, they are able to avoid following in the footsteps of America where one political party legislates the bible’s harsh rules against women’s rights.

After all, they are all "guided" by the same misogynistic god as the Muslims are.

Meet the new religion, same as the old religion...

You are referring to the town of Bet-Shemesh whose ultra-religious, emotionally disturbed inhabitants are harrassing the women who don't belong to their sect because they are supposedly not dressing modest enough.
Oh yeah, they're definitley psychotic.

So this means the entire country approves of this behavior?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

A big part of the problem is that the Arabs residing in Israel sided with Germany and Germany lost the war.
They were requested to remain but were instructed, I believe by the King of Jordan, to leave because the surrounding Arab nations wanted to attack.
At least in those days, the Arabs seemed to care about killing each other.

The West Bank of Jordan, in fact, belonged to Jordan until the 1967 War.
If you start a war, prepare to give up some land when you lose.

I believe a state was promised to the Arabs for their support in WW1 (support of GB). This was the reason the reason GB blockaded further Jewish immigration ... however GB was not able to counter US support.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Ok, you tell us what "God" and your bible would want us to do about "Alla" aggression against the Jews.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Liberals use any excuse to loom the other way when Jews are slaughtered....

I am still waiting for you to show us where in Christianity it says we should defend the Jews from aggressors of Islamic faith.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I am still waiting for you to show us where in Christianity it says we should defend the Jews from aggressors of Islamic faith.

Where does it say we shouldn't?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

That's not the issue.
The issue is if the US, as defined by the Constitution (I would presume), is somehow Biblically MANDATED to be an ally of Israel.

Is the US, fundamentally, a Judeo-Christian nation with international responsibilities?

The only issue is whether Israel is an ally worthy of our support. The rest is fluff.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Where does it say we shouldn't?

I do not care either way. But, if you can prove the bible says is it ok to go to war to defend Isreal from aggressors of Islamic faith it then confirms that all Christianity offers is yet another religion in advocate of war, killing, division, etc. If you cannot prove the bible asks us for such defense of Isreal then we have another issue. Either way this entire debate goes a long way in showing the true nature of religion.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I do not care either way. But, if you can prove the bible says is it ok to go to war to defend Isreal from aggressors of Islamic faith it then confirms that all Christianity offers is yet another religion in advocate of war, killing, division, etc. If you cannot prove the bible asks us for such defense of Isreal then we have another issue. Either way this entire debate goes a long way in showing the true nature of religion.

Christianity doesn’t offer much in terms of advocating war. According to Hitler [as a good an authority on quoting mining religious texts for violence as anyone] Christianity was a ‘meak and flabby religion’ as compared to Islam.

"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" [Adolph Hitler, from Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs; Simon and Schuster pg. 96]

The point here being that this current fad that places all religions in the same box bespeaks a certain lack of scholarship and intellectual laziness. It is sadly prevelant in higher academia.

At any rate, the NT doesn't explicitly call for Christians to come to the defense of the Jewish people. Neither does it explicitly forbid it. The NT's primary thrust with respect to Israel dealt with the salvation of the Jewish people and little [I am tempted to say absolutely nothing] to do with going to war on their behalf---or against them, for that matter. If you want to educate yourself on what Christianity actually says regarding Jews or Israel, Paul's letter to the Hebrews is a good place to start.

You might even get the idea why Hitler was miffed because he was saddled with it.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

In fact, as I think about it...
How much do the Arabs love us as they get much more aid than Israel?
How mush does India, land of 1,000 castes love us? They look at us as lower than cattle as they worship cattle.
To them, we are worse than dung.
How much does the Chinese goverment love us? Not enough to practice fair trade.

Do the Arabs have any reason to love us?
They don´t get military support without any consideration. Yes, they don´t get military support at all.
Yes, they even must pay for the bombs that have destroyed their countries:
Hannity's "idea": Iraqis "need to pay us back for their liberation, every single solitary penny" | Media Matters for America

And do we look away, when they make new war crimes? No.
And why should the Chinese and the Indians, who work as slaves in our factories down there, love us?

You see, your comparsion is misleading.

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

Do the Arabs have any reason to love us?
They don´t get military support without any consideration. Yes, they don´t get military support at all.
Yes, they even must pay for the bombs that have destroyed their countries:
Hannity's "idea": Iraqis "need to pay us back for their liberation, every single solitary penny" | Media Matters for America

And do we look away, when they make new war crimes? No.
And why should the Chinese and the Indians, who work as slaves in our factories down there, love us?

You see, your comparsion is misleading.

The Arabs living in the land to later be called Israel sided with Germany.
Germany lost the war and yet these Arabs were still offered the Eastern half of the land.
They were ordered by Jordan to flee to what is currently the "West Bank" orf Jordan so that Jordan could attack the Jews in the Western half of the land.

This occurred in the late 1940s and continues until today.

Since you are comparing the relationship of Israel vs hostile Arab nations, answer according to chronological context.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

The Arabs living in the land to later be called Israel sided with Germany.
Germany lost the war and yet these Arabs were still offered the Eastern half of the land.
They were ordered by Jordan to flee to what is currently the "West Bank" orf Jordan so that Jordan could attack the Jews in the Western half of the land.

This occurred in the late 1940s and continues until today.

Since you are comparing the relationship of Israel vs hostile Arab nations, answer according to chronological context.

I haven't researched the 2nd WW ... the Arabs were promised a state for their support (WW1) against the Ottomans in Palestine in 1917 through TE Lawerence. Of course conflicting promises were made to the Jews and Hashemites. At any rate Allenby succeeded in defeating the Ottomans because of the Arab revolt. In turn the Arabs were betrayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E...icot_Agreement

The greatest source of conflict was the Balfour Declaration, 1917. Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference which stated that the other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes-Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.[13]

Eighty-five years later, in a 2002 interview with The New Statesman, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed "A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. .. ..The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis - again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one."[

Release of classified records

Lord Grey had been the Foreign Secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on the 27th March, 1923, he made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British Government's (Churchill's) interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.[20]

Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were various assurances of Arab independence provided by Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, the Viceroy of India, and others in the War Cabinet. The minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon, held on 5 December 1918 to discuss the various Palestine undertakings makes it clear that Palestine had not been excluded from the agreement with Hussein. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained:

The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . Great Britain and France - Italy subsequently agreeing - committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done - and this, of course, was a most important proviso - to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[21]

Originally Posted by michael h

Arabs were betrayed.

When you are finished with your research you will discover they were betrayed by their leaders.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

When you are finished with your research you will discover they were betrayed by their leaders.

Based upon the release of classified records ... the betrayal is clearly GB ... the Balfour Declaration.