Zobel said:

---

Genocide means

Quote:

---

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
[ol]

Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[/ol]

---

Ethnic cleansing means

Quote:

---

rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area

or

purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas

coercive practices can include...murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

---

Confining people to ghetto areas based on ethnicity checks box #3 softly in my mind, and is definitely consistent with ethnic cleansing.

Forcing any group of people to flee their homes under threat of military action based on their ethnicity is also definitely ethnic cleansing. If resistance to that brings about acts committed with the intent to destroy that ethnic group in whole or in part, that is consistent with the definition of genocide.

---

I see you went with the UN definition that includes anything under the sun.

Please feel free to offer another definition. Do you disagree that those things are consistent with what is happening in Israel?

Zobel said:

---

Please feel free to offer another definition. Do you disagree that those things are consistent with what is happening in Israel?

---

Killing members of a group by themselves is not genocide. That is nonsense. A reasonable definition would be killing as many of a group as you possibly can in order to eventually destroy that group.

The above definition could apply to an armed robbery where people are shot. It's not very good definition.

Using a reasonable definition the Palestinians are guilty of genocide against the Jews. Hamas went into Israel with the intention of killing as many as possible. They had orders to rape the women and defile them and attack their humanity. Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians.

SirDippinDots said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Please feel free to offer another definition. Do you disagree that those things are consistent with what is happening in Israel?

---

Killing members of a group by themselves is not genocide. That is nonsense. A reasonable definition would be killing as many of a group as you possibly can in order to eventually destroy that group.

The above definition could apply to an armed robbery where people are shot. It's not very good definition.

Using a reasonable definition the Palestinians are guilty of genocide against the Jews. Hamas went into Israel with the intention of killing as many as possible. They had orders to rape the women and defile them and attack their humanity. Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians.

---

I think one thing you are missing here is the power imbalance involved in this instance.

Macarthur said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Please feel free to offer another definition. Do you disagree that those things are consistent with what is happening in Israel?

---

Killing members of a group by themselves is not genocide. That is nonsense. A reasonable definition would be killing as many of a group as you possibly can in order to eventually destroy that group.

The above definition could apply to an armed robbery where people are shot. It's not very good definition.

Using a reasonable definition the Palestinians are guilty of genocide against the Jews. Hamas went into Israel with the intention of killing as many as possible. They had orders to rape the women and defile them and attack their humanity. Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians.

---

I think one thing you are missing here is the power imbalance involved in this instance.

---

No that has nothing to do with it. That is just excusing evil.

I only killed them because they are more powerful.

I only robbed them because they have more than I do.

Your thought on this manner is disgusting.

Macarthur said:

---

You completely missed the point I was making...

---

I might have. We're you being sarcastic? If so I missed it.

SirDippinDots said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

You completely missed the point I was making...

---

I might have. We're you being sarcastic? If so I missed it.

---

to say Hamas has any real sort of political power is not reality, IMO. And to say Hamas is the elected government of Palestine also seems to not be based in any reality on the ground.

As it relates to Israel, they have complete control of the population of Palestine. When you start to talk about ethnic cleaning, the balance of power has to be a part of the equation.

I am saying scripture commands forced relocation. I also happen to agree with it because the Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution they want a one state with the Jews exterminated.

Quote:

---

Please feel free to quote Jesus specifically on any time he earnestly endorsed violence in this world, even in self defense.

---

He never really criticized violence either, which is especially significant given his meetings with men who were engaged in violence for a living such as the centurion.

Your point is an argument from silence, which has no probative or persuasive value.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I think one thing you are missing here is the power imbalance involved in this instance.

---

That's just cultural Marxist thinking. Being "powerless" does automatically make a group of people morally right. This is the same thinking that gives us race riots in the US.

---

Lol…cultural Marxism.

There is no implication by me that Hamas or Palestine is morally right here. I'm simply addressing the point made that Israel is not participating in ethnic cleansing when they clearly are.

dermdoc said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

Numbers 33: 50 to 55

50 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,
51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.
54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.
55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be *****s in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.

---

We are under a new Covenant.

And God has been revealed through the life of Jesus Christ. Christ said love your enemies. I do not think Jesus wants any unnecessary bloodshed.

---

"Enemy" does NOT refer to someone trying to kill you. That is a misunderstanding of ancient greek.

The correct translation is a BROTHER who you are not on good terms with.

In the Liddell and Scott (the authoritative lexical aid for Greek) there is a reference to a 1st century A.D. grammaticus, Ammonius - Grammaticus, which defined the word Exthros as someone who had been a Philos (a brother) but is alienated (out of enmity you had become estranged from them for a while). It was different than a Polamios, who you are at war with (who was a blood enemy who was out to kill you) and a Dusmenos is one who has long been alienated and refuses to reconcile.


1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to possess and has plucked away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you,

2 And when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you smite them, then you must utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them, or show mercy to them.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Jabin said:

---

For those of you having vapors over Israel's response, what would you do if you were Israel's Prime Minister?

It's very easy to be an armchair critic.

---

And here is the crux of deploying truly Christian ethics on a governmental level. The perfect Christian answer for Israel is to lay down their arms, declare peace, know that they will get slaughtered, overrun, and lose their country. To pray for their enemies in hopes that they would also turn to Christ and leave vengeance and justice up to God. And that is the Christian answer for Palestinians as well.

And that is so unpalatable on a governmental level and a complete abdication of duty to protect their own citizens from violence, that you'll never see that.

In the age of democracies and information age, as a leader you're hand is almost forced to use the military at this point.

And this is how sin wins, over and over again.

---

I'm pretty sure Christ doesn't call for us to lay down our arms and not protect our families and the innocent. So defending our families is a responsibility. Granted that's not a great military strategy and I do agree that we have always gotten into the gray areas of going from defense to offense and sin.

---

Please feel free to quote Jesus specifically on any time he earnestly endorsed violence in this world, even in self defense.

The whole point of Christianity is radical selfless love for everyone that we struggle to comprehend. It is a bottom up reordering of the world. Thats why I said the 'perfect' christian answer. We've come to see in modern times a 'Christian lens' to examine and change how things like war and economic policy are done. You'll read about the concept of just war from some western theologians.

But thats not the same as doing literally what Jesus did for us. Seeing through the human actors, seeing the demons that animate us and nations, refusing to pick up the sword in this life and ultimately dying because of it as the lamb slain.

---

I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying defending ourselves and families does not make us going against Christ's teaching. Christ taught us to love our neighbors but also ourselves in that we are his children. When he said 'turn the other cheek' he did not mean we have to be doormats. Luke 22:36-38

SirDippinDots said:

---

I am saying scripture commands forced relocation. I also happen to agree with it because the Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution they want a one state with the Jews exterminated.

---

The forced expulsion from the land was completed, according to the scriptures. That is explicit in Joshua 21. God did not make a new commandment. This is not the same thing, and it is a false equivalence.

So your answer to rejecting a 2 state solution resulting i the extermination of one people group is to support exterminating a different people group?? The Jews don't want a two state solution either.

Stop advocating for ethnic cleansing.

Zobel said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

I am saying scripture commands forced relocation. I also happen to agree with it because the Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution they want a one state with the Jews exterminated.

---

The forced expulsion from the land was completed, according to the scriptures. That is explicit in Joshua 21. God did not make a new commandment. This is not the same thing, and it is a false equivalence.

So your answer to rejecting a 2 state solution resulting i the extermination of one people group is to support exterminating a different people group?? The Jews don't want a two state solution either.

Stop advocating for ethnic cleansing.

---

How is saying the forced relocation is the same as extermination? You keep making that argument. Forced relocation is just that. Forcibly moving them. Yes there will be fighting and people will die.

Extermination would be Israel blockading Gaza and fire bombing until everyone is dead. Saying there are the same thing is nuts.

Stay safe in your Gaza tunnel.

Quote:

---

That is explicit in Joshua 21.

---

Except it wasn't. They hadn't expelled the Canaanites from the land, and they had not taken the land from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Explanation?

"Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass."

Which part do you not agree with? It's pretty clear

Ethnic cleansing is literally what you're advocating for. Forcibly removing the Palestinians will result in their dissolution as a people group. It's the same thing.

Zobel said:

---

"Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass."

Which part do you not agree with? It's pretty clear

---

The words seem to be clear but they don't match up with the reality in the rest of the book and the book of Judges.

ETA: I'm continuing to look at this because it's the first time I've confronted this issue. I wonder if the phrase "to the House of Israel" distinguishes the promises referred to here from the promises that God made to Abraham.

I think you are correct, because some of the land was promised to other of Abraham's offspring. Edom for example was not part of Israel but was the inheritance of Esau's line. The Lord says the Israelites are not to take one inch of their land because they are their brothers.

Zobel said:

---

I think you are correct, because some of the land was promised to other of Abraham's offspring. Edom for example was not part of Israel but was the inheritance of Esau's line. The Lord says the Israelites are not to take one inch of their land because they are their brothers.

---

That's not what I intended to mean. What I did mean was that by the end of the book of Judges, the Israelites had not finished conquering the Canaanites (they never did) and God had not given them all of the land he had promised to them (which they also never obtained). So I suspect that the true meaning of the passage in Joshua must mean something other than how you are interpreting it, which I agree seems to be its correct interpretation at a first reading.

The promise

Joshua 1:4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphratesall the Hittite countryto the Mediterranean Sea in the west.

The fulfillment

1 Kings 21 And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon's subjects all his life.

22 Solomon's daily provisions were thirty cors of the finest flour and sixty cors of meal, 23 ten head of stall-fed cattle, twenty of pasture-fed cattle and a hundred sheep and goats, as well as deer, gazelles, roebucks and choice fowl. 24 For he ruled over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River, from Tiphsah to Gaza, and had peace on all sides. 25 During Solomon's lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, everyone under their own vine and under their own fig tree.

Gaza is on the Mediterranean Sea. Solomon also famously ruled Lebanon and used the cedar trees there to build the Temple. So the most complete fulfillment of God's promise to expand the borders of Israel was completely fulfilled in Solomon's time.

But Solomon lived hundreds of years after that statement at the end of Joshua.

And in Gen. 15:18 God made a specific promise to Abraham to give him land starting from the river of Egypt (presumably the Nile). Solomon never controlled land as far south as the Nile, afaik. The 1 Kings passage indicates that Solomon's territory stopped at the border of Egypt.

And even if it was fulfilled (fully or partially) at the time of Joshua and/or Solomon, there are dozens of OT passages after Solomon in which God promises to bring his people back to Israel and restore the promised land back to them.

So the quote in Joshua does not preclude subsequent fulfillments. And the context of those OT passages are not purely spiritual, i.e., that God is going to gather believers only back to Israel.

The promises made to restore Israel, like in Ezekiel, are fulfilled through the gentiles. That's kind of the issue, in the time of Christ those tribes were long gone, completely lost. St Paul sees those scriptures fulfilled in the scriptures. That's what he says in Romans 11, it was a mystery HOW it would come to pass that those tribes would be reconstituted and reanimated from death, from the dry bones. But he rejoices that he was able to see it come to fruition in his lifetime, see the mystery revealed.

I don't mean for this to come across as an ahole, but as a non-believer, I can't help but be hit across the face with the irony of this whole fight and the reality that even you guys that are "on the same side" as Christians, can't even agree on who has the rightful claim to the land.

Zobel said:

---

The promises made to restore Israel, like in Ezekiel, are fulfilled through the gentiles. That's kind of the issue, in the time of Christ those tribes were long gone, completely lost. St Paul sees those scriptures fulfilled in the scriptures. That's what he says in Romans 11, it was a mystery HOW it would come to pass that those tribes would be reconstituted and reanimated from death, from the dry bones. But he rejoices that he was able to see it come to fruition in his lifetime, see the mystery revealed.

---

How do you possibly get that out of Romans 11?

Macarthur said:

---

I don't mean for this to come across as an ahole, but as a non-believer, I can't help but be hit across the face with the irony of this whole fight and the reality that even you guys that are "on the same side" as Christians, can't even agree on who has the rightful claim to the land.

---

We're humans. What do you expect?

Engineers that I worked with could argue endlessly over something as black and white as engineering drawings and specs. Do you really expect Christians attitude to the Bible to be any different?

Plus, humans have a long history and tendency to project their own biases on to everything they read, the Bible included. I know that I do and I try as hard as I can to recognize when I'm doing it and to see through those biases. It's really difficult to do so, though, because we're usually not aware of our biases and sometimes, even when we are, we think our biases are right!

Sure, but obviously those discussions don't end up with unthinkable death and horror….

Macarthur said:

---

Sure, but obviously those discussions don't end up with unthinkable death and horror….

---

What do you mean? Humans have been ending discussions with unthinkable death and horror forever. Wars gave started over all kinds of incredibly minor disagreements. World War I was fought, in a great sense, over the petty jealousies of Queen Victoria's grandchildren.

Just because people are Christians does not make them sinless or perfect. We remain gross and sinful, desperately needing God's grace and mercy.

And, finally, I doubt that this discussion, or the opinions of any Christians anywhere, will have any immediate impact on what's going on in Gaza and Israel.

I'm not sure I know how to answer that question. It's literal. The northern tribes were broken off because they were unfaithful. That rejection was the means to reconcile the whole world. "All Israel" is different than the Judaeans. St Paul uses both terms. All Israel includes the lost tribes, who were scattered into the nations. The gentiles coming back is how those tribes were reconstituted. This is a major theme in the prophets. I don't understand which part you object to.

Romans 11 looks to me like a proof text on why you're wrong. Paul talks about the Hebrews being regrafted into the vine, that all Israel will be saved after "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (clearly distinguishing between Israel and Gentiles, even Gentile Christians), the future fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, etc.