I realize this is largely a waste of time for many people. Talking about the history of the state of Israel with Zionist Dispensationalists is as useful as talking about the history of the Bible with King James Onlyists.
What a bigoted statement.
Likewise, the true British offers to the Zionists, the history of Zionism and the worldviews of its founders, the persecution of Arabs, ethnic cleansing, and Jewish terrorism. None of that matters for the Dispensational Zionist. The response to the facts is the same: “It can’t be! It can’t be!” or “Those facts don’t matter! You’re condemning the people of God [or not casting present day Israel in a good light, which is politically incorrect], so you should be condemned.” Eventually, you’re told something along the lines of “you’re anti-Semitic,” “a shill for Hamas,” or told straight out from another Christian, “Hubner’s…just a dupe for the jihadists” (Steve Hays), etc.
Except for the awkard little fact that I'm not a “Dispensational Zionist.”
In short, no meaningful discussion will take place over the primary issues because one side is simply incapable of putting emotions, tradition, and knee-jerk reactions aside.
Ah yes, confirmation bias could only possibly apply anyone who disagree's with Hubner. He himself is immune to confirmation bias.
We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home…I Hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other…I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilized peoples of the world. Believe me, Yours sincerely, Feisal
Now, as far as I know, I have yet to hear a single Zionist dispensationalist ever acknowledge that that was truly the opinion of any Arab in the Middle-East at any time. Could have Feisal expressed sympathy and kindness towards the Jewish cause any more?
Of course, no Arab leader would ever dissemble. No Arab leader would ever talk out of both sides of his mouth.
On the one hand:
1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:
September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.
In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization
On the other hand:
The late Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat had instructed Hamas to launch terror attacks against Israel when he realized that peace talks with Israel weren’t going anywhere, Mahmoud Zahar, one of the Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, revealed on Tuesday.
“President Arafat instructed Hamas to carry out a number of military operations in the heart of the Jewish state after he felt that his negotiations with the Israeli government then had failed,” Zahar told students and lecturers at the Islamic University in Gaza City.
Zahar did not specify when and how Arafat instructed Hamas to launch the “military operations” – most of which were suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians.
However, it is believed the reference is to Arafat’s response to the failure of the Camp David summit in 2000.
This was the first time that a senior Hamas official disclosed that some of the Hamas suicide bombings during the second intifada, which erupted 10 years ago, were ordered by Arafat. Until now it was widely believed that Arafat had only ordered his Fatah militiamen to carry out terror attacks on Israel.
According to various testimonies, Arafat ordered the armed wing of Fatah, Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, to launch terror attacks against Israel after he realized that the government of then-prime minister Ehud Barak was not going to meet all of his demands.
So, merely admitting that certain historical realities occurred - and that some continue to take place - is just being a "shill for Hamas."
ReplyDeleteDo you deny the history of Jewish terrorism? Do you deny the violence committed to Palestinians in the creation of the state of Israel? Do you think that the settlements in Palestinian territory is perfectly ok?
Your big hobby horse is emphasizing and re-emphasizing the undeniable fact that Islamic religious hatred is a threat to peace. NO ONE DENIES THAT.
However, you seem to deny the fact that there are legitimate secular grievances. If you took the religious factors out of the equation, there still would be tension and violence. The PLO started as a mostly secular organization.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that your religious or sentimental attachment to Israel prevents you from honestly assessing the historical facts. History is complicated and messy, but you don't want to deal with that. For you, it's just HURR DURR IT'S BECAUSE DEY R MUSLIM.
I'm Jewish and I have family in Israel, so I am very concerned about terrorism over there. However, your kind of analysis of the peace problem is not helpful. If you are pro-Israel, we don't want you on our side. Really.
Secular Liberal said:
ReplyDelete"So, merely admitting that certain historical realities occurred - and that some continue to take place - is just being a 'shill for Hamas.'"
No, that's not the entire context. You're jumping into the middle of a debate.
HURR DURR IMA NOT A SURE WHAT IMA TALKIN ABOUT. BUT DAT AINT A GONNA STOPPA ME FROM BRINGING UP MY BIG SECULAR LIBERAL HOBBY HORSES AND SACRED COWS.
"Do you deny the history of Jewish terrorism?"
Jewish "terrorism" isn't necessarily cut from the same cloth as Palestinian terrorism. For one thing, I don't see Israeli Jews teaching their kids to commit suicide to win paradise and strapping bombs onto themselves in order to murder others.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the Jewish "terrorism" is more along the lines of counter-terrorism.
BTW, terrorism is better addressed and condemned in the context of a democratic society like Israel than in a non-democratic society as seen in most Muslim societies.
Of course, I don't deny Israel has done wrong. That said, there are Palestinian Israeli citizens including Palestinian Christians. There are other non-Jewish Israeli citizens as well. Many of them take part in voting and supporting the state of Israel. It's not solely Jewish Israelis who (as you seem to insinuate) directly or indirectly sponsor "Jewish terrorism."
More importantly, does the fact that Israel has done wrong mean Muslim terrorism against Jews is perfectly fine then?
"Do you deny the violence committed to Palestinians in the creation of the state of Israel?"
Do you deny the violence committed against Jews in Muslim nations prior to and after the creation of the state of Israel?
"Do you think that the settlements in Palestinian territory is perfectly ok?"
Do you assume Palestinians own the West Bank?
Plus, the settlements question has been blown way out of proportion. Not that it's unimportant. But keep in mind we're talking about Jewish settlements which account for less than 2% of the disputed terrorities.
Besides, the settlements question is similarly better addressed in the context of a democratic society like Israel than in a non-democratic society as seen in most Muslim societies.
"However, you seem to deny the fact that there are legitimate secular grievances. If you took the religious factors out of the equation, there still would be tension and violence."
Hypotheticals like "If you took the religious factors out of the equation" don't merit consideration since they don't reflect reality.
"The PLO started as a mostly secular organization."
Likewise the state of Israel. So...?
"The only conclusion that can be drawn is that your religious or sentimental attachment to Israel prevents you from honestly assessing the historical facts. History is complicated and messy, but you don't want to deal with that. For you, it's just HURR DURR IT'S BECAUSE DEY R MUSLIM."
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, you criticize people for overestimating or overvaluing the role played by religion (Islam) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But on the other hand, you state: "Your big hobby horse is emphasizing and re-emphasizing the undeniable fact that Islamic religious hatred is a threat to peace. NO ONE DENIES THAT."
If no one denies that "Islamic religious hatred is a threat to peace," then why are you trying to underestimate or undervalue its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Perhaps it's because it's you're a self-proclaimed "secular liberal." Perhaps you can't see reality clearly enough since it's filtered through your secular liberal tinted glasses. Perhaps we can paraphrase Maslow: if all you have is a secular liberal worldview, then everything including the threat of a religion like Islam to democratic societies looks like it doesn't really involve religion or that religion is at best peripheral.
"I'm Jewish and I have family in Israel, so I am very concerned about terrorism over there."
Is this meant to be an appeal to emotion?
I could just as well say the following which is all true: I'm Christian, I've spent time in Israel, and I have "family" in Israel if we include fellow Christians whom I do deeply care about and have financially supported, so I am very concerned about terrorism over there.
"However, your kind of analysis of the peace problem is not helpful. If you are pro-Israel, we don't want you on our side. Really."
However, your kind of analysis of the peace problem is not helpful. Not only is it vague, but it dishes out one uninformed cliche after another. Not only does it dish out one uninformed cliche after another, but it commits the plurium stupidium fallacy. Not only does it commit the plurium stupidium fallacy, but it might as well be summed up by this argument. In any case, if you are "pro-Israel," we don't want you on our side either. Really.
It is interesting how Hubner uses well-poisoning to derail the conversation before even trying to make his points.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to meet the One Secular Liberal that all these second and third tier types ape. Dealing with them is like attempting to interact with a room full of noisy, squawking parrots - no original thought, just lots of loudly pronounced regurgitated platitudes.
ReplyDeleteOh well...
In Christ,
CD
TF,
ReplyDeleteNot dissimilar to the last back and forth exchange between Hays and Hubner that you cataloged at your place. Apparently Jamin didn't learn anything useful from that trip to the woodshed.
In Him,
CD
Seclib,
ReplyDelete1. There are left-wing Jews who are just as gullible as Hubner.
2. Muslims aren't reliable. Even if an individual Muslim is trustworthy, you don't know that he's trustworthy in a pinch. You don't know until it's too late whether or not he can be trusted. Will he watch my back or will he shoot me in the back?
3. This isn't just hypothetical. We've already had a number of cases in which Muslim-American soldiers turn on their comrades. Malik Hasan is the best know case (because the body count was so high), but there are several others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"By the way, Steve, the Church is Israel (Galatian 6:16). The modern State of Israel has absolutely no theological significance whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteThis is a non-sequitur. The sense in which the Church is Israel is in a Spiritual sense. That does not necessarily mean that there is no theological or religious significance to the state of Israel (either when Paul wrote Galatians, which is hardly "modern" or now).
-TurretinFan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes. You were wrong. There are other views of Israel besides dispensationalism and "no theological or religious significance."
ReplyDelete@Nicholas Leone: "All elements of Old Testament typology are fulfilled in Christ and His church."
ReplyDeleteTypology, sure. But there's quite a list of specific, often-emphatic, and as-yet-unfulfilled promises in the Old Testament that remain and for which we have no warrant to spiritualize away or allegorize out of their plain meaning and context.
NICHOLAS LEONE SAID:
ReplyDelete"All elements of Old Testament typology are fulfilled in Christ and His church. I thought only Dispensationalists saw theological significance in the modern state of Israel. Was I wrong?"
i) Since my post wasn't predicated on the theological significance of modern Israel, your objection is beside the point.
ii) From a Reformed perspective, every event has theological significance. God has predestined every event for a reason.
Well Steve, maybe God predestined the regathering of Israel to deceive us, you know, like he did with the fossil record.
ReplyDelete;P