The OP is not very clear.
As far as I can tell, Road Rash is buying into the following quote from the article to which he linked:
And some Christians support the state of Israel and its current government - therefore we (I am both Christian, and committed to the idea that Israel has the right to exist) are acting unethically.
Is that what you would like to debate?
Or are you claiming that the settlements are obviously immoral, and that by supplying aid to Israel, the US is supporting immorality? If so, it is not clear to me that Christians are completely or mostly to blame for supporting aid to Israel.
Or else you are claiming that some Christians supply funds to assist Jews in relocating to Israel, and Israel allows some Jews to relocate to the settlements. Therefore all aid to all Jews to allow them to relocate to Israel is immoral, and done in order to further the Apocalypse. Is that it?
Incidentally, did you have any cites on what proportion of the aid given to assist in relocating Jews to Israel came from those who donate specifically to accelerate the timetable of the Apocalypse? There isn’t much by way of hard data in the article you cite.
You wrote:
Imagine the thrill I felt at actually being allowed to join in this debate :rolleyes: even though I am a member of the “radical Christian front”. Your generosity is touching. However, if you would like to rule out in advance any argument based on the Jewish right to the land, the discussion is not going to be very productive.
Do you see the problem? You are willing to entertain arguments in favor of the settlements, but not if they are based on the idea that they have the right to do so.
I am not sure this argument can be allowed under your ground rules, but I will give it a shot.
On the one hand, you have some Jews in Israel who believe that Israel has the right to exist within the borders set by the Old Testament. On the other hand, you have some Palestinians who refuse to accept that Israel has the right to exist at all.
The Palestinians as a whole were offered a deal under which they got most of what they claimed they wanted. Their part of the bargain was that they would refrain from committing terrorist acts against Israel, and accept Israel’s right to exist. Neither side got everything they wanted, I grant you, but it was a compromise. I cannot imagine any agreement in which either Israel or the Palestinians got their whole wish list that would last for more than an hour or two.
The Palestinians refused the deal. Not only that, but since their refusal, there has been an uptick in the number of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. These terrorist attacks are aimed, not primarily at the settlements which you allege are the real problem, but at Israel as a whole. These attacks would seem to be driven by two desires - one is to threaten and attempt to drive Israel out of the area altogether, and the other is to try to provoke a crack down by the Israeli military, and thus eliminate the chance that any further compromised peace will occur.
I cannot imagine that even the Palestinian authorities would be silly enough to believe that they can terrorize the Israelis into giving further concessions. And if the settlements are the sticking point, why aren’t the Palestinians trying to suicide bomb them? What are they doing at bus stations and street corners in Tel Aviv?
It seems to me that the Palestinians are not only refusing to accept an agreement of land for peace, they are attempting to poison the well such that the Israelis cannot believe that any deal guaranteeing security for Israel can be believed for an instant.
The Palestinians, in other words, will not accept any deal that does not include the destruction of Israel. And they (or at least the radical elements within their group) are trying desperately to make sure that the Israelis believe that this is their goal.
So the Israelis, having offered a deal and had it refused, know very clearly that giving up land for peace will lose them the land but never give them the peace. The land will be used simply as a base for further terrorist attacks designed to bring about war whose desired end is the end of Israel.
So compromise has failed. Well, as C.S.Lewis wrote, if your sword breaks, you draw your dagger. If the Israelis cannot get security by giving up land, perhaps they can increase security by forming settlements and occupying land that would otherwise be inhabited by terrorists. Is this the best possible outcome? Of course not, but the best possible outcome (peaceful co-existence and a secure Israel) has already been refused. Second best is all that can be hoped for.
If you accept this line of ethical reasoning, Christians who support the relocation of Jews to Israel are not acting unethically. And no speculation about possible motives to accelerate the Apocalypse are necessary. It is hardly unethical to assist your friends in making their homeland secure. If they don’t occupy the land, it will be used to launch terrorist attacks against you by those who have already shown themselves to be unwilling to compromise, and who wish for your destruction.
So Israel’s rights are not even being based on documents going back 3,000 years, nor even by right of conquest. It is security for Israel, which cannot (apparently) be gained by compromise.
Best I can come up with on short notice. If that is not good enough, we could argue that Israel owns the land by right of conquest and by defeating those who launched a war of aggression against them.
Regards,
Shodan
:wally ;j