Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[Qwinn]

Without the critics, I'd have nothing to be angry about. If you wish, I can cite you EXACTLY what I am angry about, from Krauthammer's article, from Dowd's rant, from Malzberg's diatribe - I can cite for you outright -lies- and -demonization- and -bigotry- on their part.

Are you denying me the right to be angry and hostile toward demonization and bigotry? It really sounds like you are. Apparently, it's okay for -you- and Dowd to be offended at those things, to lash out with anger at Christians for it, but if I am offended by them, then it's the part of some sinister cabal's evil plans of evangelism.

Heh. Listen to yourself. "You were the target audience some hoped to reach with this movie for evangelism." You make them sound like some sort of evil cabal. Sound familiar?

Well, guess what? The movie couldn't have done a damn thing to spur anger in me without the critics. I would simply have -nothing- to be angry about. You keep trying to pretend as if the movie AND the criticism is what makes me angry, as if the movie did some, and the criticism some more. Bull. It is -just- the criticism that has angered me, because it's been so patently unfair. There is absolutely nothing in the movie itself that angers me.

But you claim that it's obviously the movie, because it's watching it that triggered it. Well - DUH. There is one reason and one reason only that my anger was triggered by the watching of the movie - and that is because the critics launched their diatribes BEFORE THEY EVER SAW THE MOVIE. Before the movie was even -able- to be seen. They made it -impossible- for me to see the movie, react with no hostility toward anyone, and -then- see the criticisms and get angry at them.

And that's very convenient for you, isn't it? It was made -impossible- for me - or anyone who doesn't live in a hole, for that matter - to see the movie without having all the false criticisms in the forefront of my mind. So you tell me - how could my anger at false demonization of Christians -not- coincide with my seeing the film and gauging for myself if the attacks were warranted, given that the demonization went on for a whole year prior to the film's release?

But even so, you're still so so so off about me. You've got me pegged into a little box, and you couldn't be more wrong.

Cause, you see, I actually wasn't even a little angry during the watching of the movie, or afterwards. It was only until late tonight, upon coming back and -rereading- Krauthammer's diatribe, and reading comments like yours that claim "personal attacks" were there were none, that I grew angry.

Yup, it's true, and I'll swear that on anything you wish me to. I wasn't angry today until I came back on FR and reread some of the screeds which until today I couldn't really evaluate, not having seen the movie myself. It was only upon coming back tonight and rereading the demonizations that I realized how absolutely, wildly distorted they are, and how often they simply, blatantly, outrageously LIE about it. The distortions go so far beyond any possible difference of perspective that I can't just dismiss it (however much I might want to, and this may surprise you, but I wish I -could-) as a difference of opinion. No. There's simply too many outright falsehoods, too many actual discrepancies to -fact- of what occurs in the movie.

So, no, sorry. It wasn't the movie that ignited my anger. It was coming on FR and rereading the lies and wilful distortions, which you apparently are only too happy to continue. As long as you continue to, I'll continue to be angry. But I know you won't be happy unless you can keep right on doing it while playing yourself as a victim as you keep on demonizing me and the evil cabal of evangelists for manipulating me (hehehehe - it's so ridiculous, as if they are responsible for Dowd's article, or Krauthammer's), so go right ahead. It's obvious that your bigotry will permit no other response.

Qwinn

[Just mythoughts]

"Are you Ken or associated with his organization ?"

Never hear of Ken or his organization.


But I do know the Song of MOses, that song the overcomers will be singing.

[af_vet_1981]

Are you denying me the right to be angry and hostile toward demonization and bigotry? It really sounds like you are.

You have declared me to be a bigot with whom you are angry and hostile and you are asking if I would deny you that right ?

You have your opinion, your reaction, and are another data point for what the movie has produced so far.

Heh. Listen to yourself. "You were the target audience some hoped to reach with this movie for evangelism." You make them sound like some sort of evil cabal. Sound familiar?

You are the target audience some hoped to reach with this movie for evangelism. Their assertion was that the movie would be a tool of evangelism to cause you to repent of your sins and convert, to produce love instead of hate. I'm simply one of the first targets you can reach with hate and anger so you are acting it out online.

Maybe a second viewing of the movie would help you but I wouldn't want to see even more anger from you. The movie is apparently very powerful. One of the Jewish writers who saw the preview with Christian friends reported the Christian came out of the movie wanting to kill the Jews responsible in the movie. That is quite understandable and I'm not complaining about that but simply pointing out how incendiary a movie can be when the simple preaching of the text is not.

Somehow I don't see you coming out of an Independent Fundamental Baptist or Evangelical or Catholic church after a sermon on the crucifixion doing what you have done here tonight.

[Qwinn]

"Somehow I don't see you coming out of an Independent Fundamental Baptist or Evangelical or Catholic church after a sermon on the crucifixion doing what you have done here tonight."

That would be correct, because my going to a Catholic reenactment of the Stations of the Cross would not have been preceded by a year-long propaganda campaign of lies, smears, demonization and misrepresentations about the Stations of the Cross.

If it -had-, and then I went and saw it for myself and it contained no such thing, -then- I would be extremely angry, and rightly so. But you just can't seem to accept that my anger cannot be extricated from the virulent anti-Christian attacks that I've witnessed in this last year, and that's why you keep drawing false analogies.

Qwinn

[af_vet_1981]

But I do know the Song of MOses, that song the overcomers will be singing.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Doctrine of the Song of Moses." Obviously it is some code word for your church group but you haven't sufficiently identified that group or its doctrinal statement for me to comment further.

[Sabertooth]

You wrote:

---

To: Mamzelle

In addition to the disdain and disgust eminating from so many toward Christians, there's also the added insult of condescension. Well, just because Christians support Israel doesn't mean that they're too stupid to realize the contempt in which they are held.

You seem to keep repeating this train of thought. There is no need to pretend to be a supporter of Israel. People are not that dense. Just declare yourself to be an adversary and move on.

738 posted on 03/05/2004 11:17:07 AM PST by af_vet_1981

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

I ask:

What's the Hebrew word for "adversary?"

[Sabertooth]

It doesn't. It was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and occupation of the Arabs of Palestine that has engendered this hatred

There's some selective and inaccurate history.

Israel invaded the lower strip of Lebanon in self defense to put an end to the terrorist attacks that were being launched from there. Lebanon had become anarchic since the beginning of the civil war between the Muslims and Maronites began in 1975.

And once again: Israel does not occupy "palestine," the Hashemites do.

As far as the Syrian Alawites/Muslims: it seems the Christian leadership of Lebanon view the Syrians as their allies-- and views the Jews of Israel as their enemies.

You must know that the Christians are being driven out of Lebanon by the Lebanese and Syrian Muslims.

What right did the UN have to "create" a Palestinian homeland?

The UN didn't. Learn your history. The League of Nations did, because proto-Israel was willing to trade 78% of the Transjordan for peace in response toi Arab atrocities after the Balfour Declaration.

Many Jews were murdered and driven out, but not by the Christian of Palestine, and not even by the Muslims who conquered the area around 640AD. The first wave of Jewish departure began in the Roman period. The second wave occurred around the time of the Crusades, when Arab Christians, Muslims, and Jews were slaughtered by European Christians who couldn't tell them apart.

You sorta glossed over the Jews and Christians who were killed or converted at swordpoint when the Musliims conquered the Levant.

To this day, there are Palestinin families whose olive groves are still nurtured with the same tender care as they were a thousand years ago. Except, of course, when the Israelis burn them.

There were no such things as "palestinians" 100 years ago, let alone 1000.

I'd burn those groves too, if "palestinians" were shooting at me and other settlers from their confines.

"What is now Israel was largely depopulated by the 19th Century, and it was the Turks who began selling land to the Jews in the latter part of that Century." The first part of what you state here is unfortunately factually incorrect, the latter part is true

Wrong.

See: Palestine, a Land virtually laid waste with little population

In 1920, the demographic balance between Arabs (Christian and Muslim) and Jews in Palestine was at least 4-1.

The Muslim Turks had lost that land in a war of aggression. In 1917 Great Britain gave that land to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration, as was their prerogative. When the Jews gave up the land East of the Jordan in 1922, it amounted to 78% of the total land of the Transjordan.

78% to 22% is almost exactly 4 to 1. Not enough for the Arabs, though, and their bloodthirsty, Jew-hating ways continued through war after war to this day.

As far as chosen peoples go, God chooses different peoples to carry his word at different times. Once he chose the Jews, but the Jews rejected Jesus.

But we digress...

No, you digress.

The Promised Land was given to the Jews forever. They were warned by Moses that disobedience would lead to a scattering across the world, but that a remnant would be called back. After almost 2000 years, this has happened, exactly as prophesied, and you are denying the Word of God by your digressions.

this thread is about Jesus.

No, this thread is about charges of anti-Semitism swirling around "The Passion of the Christ."

Did you like the movie? I saw it with my Muslim relatives and my Catholic in-laws. Gibson was true to the Injeel (the Good News). Most movies about Christ are so sanitized they fail to inspire. This one was powerful. Mostly historically accurate. And the fluent Arabic speakers amongst my relatives loved the Aramaic as they picked up words and word roots here and there.

The movie was outstanding. I believe it's one of the last hopes for Christian revival in increasingly secular, increasingly Muslim, and increasingly anti-Semitic Europe.

[af_vet_1981]

That would be correct, because my going to a Catholic reenactment of the Stations of the Cross

That was not what exaclty what I meant. The assertion or hope of the Evangelical community was that by seeing this movie, you a self-described agnostic, would be moved to repentance of your sins and convert. You seem to have come out of the movie with a score to settle. I don't think hearing a sermon (even though millions have denied its message for centuries) is likely to produce that same reaction. There is a documented history of the Passion Plays and what effect they had on people in Europe. The Stations of the Cross, as I understand them, are introspective and meditative; not incendiary at all (at least that is my limited knowledge of them).

This movie does not seem to have had the effect on you the Evangelical community hoped for. You are only one data point, but you are here, in my face so to speak (I did not initiate this conversation with you).

[Qwinn]

"There is a documented history of the Passion Plays and what effect they had on people in Europe."

That's true. That documented history is that only one Jew has been killed after a Passion play since the Middle Ages. That one was in Germany, in (I believe) the 19th Century. There has never been one in the United States.

Given that fact, the virulent attacks and implications that Christians are just waiting to start "another" pogrom after seeing -this- Passion play are absurd.

Again, you cannot see that my anger is focused only on the hatred I have seen heaped on Christians for absolutely no justifiable reason. I came out of the movie with a score to settle because it confirmed the suspicions I already had that the complaints against the movie were highly exaggerated. What was surprising to me upon coming back and rereading the rants of Krauthammer, Safire, etc. was that they weren't simply exaggerated, they were often completely fabricated.

Now, you should understand (and I hope I've made this plain many times over) that I -by no means- believe that only Jews have launched unfair attacks against Christians over this movie. Not even close. Practically every Leftist I know has done so. I -expect- such miserable behavior from them - I've known that Leftist secularists are incredibly hostile toward ALL religion, be it Jewish, Christian or Islamic, and if they ever even pretend to support Jews it is only on a racial basis, with their primary concern being other secularist Jews only. And when they claim to support Muslims, it's only because they consider Muslims as allies against America.

I expect repulsive, disgusting slander from them. I've been swamped by it my whole life as a conservative (cause I support slavery, don'tcha know, even though a greater percentage of Dems than Pubs voted against the Civil Rights Act).

What has distressed me -so much- though, is seeing how many conservative Jews have joined the bandwagon since the movie came out. I so totally did not expect that. For months on this board, before the movie came out, it never occured to me that the trashing of the film and of Gibson was a Jewish phenomenon - it seemed to me to be a strictly Left-Right divide. I believed that Jews on the Left would be against the movie, and Jews on the Right would oppose them.

For the most part, I was very wrong. I'd say about (maybe a little more than) half of conservative Jews that I've met or raed have hopped on the "Christians are just dying to launch another pogrom" tirade. Quite frankly, I don't know what to make of it. As a Conservative who has -staunchly- defended Israel my entire life (I was actively jeered 20 years ago by my classmates in high school for saying something that wasn't politically correct in defense of Israel) and very condemnful of anti-Semitism, and seeing virtually every conservative and Christian in my entire life behaving the same way, with EVERY bit of anti-Semitism I've ever seen on the Left, I cannot imagine what conservatives/Christians in this country have to do to get more than token respect or camaraderie from Jews when the tables are turned and it's Christians being slandered and persecuted.

Incidentally, I just saw another thread in which you agreed that blaming the vandalizing of a synogogue on the movie was wrong and unfair until more facts were found out. I was gratified to see that, and perhaps I somewhat misjudged you based on a small cross sample of posts I saw you make on this thread. At the very least, you don't seem to be utterly knee-jerk in your position, because if you just wanted to hop on the bandwagon, you could have there.

So let me ask you two questions - 1) Have you actually seen the movie? 2) If so, did you perceive all the heaping tons of anti-Semitic bigotry claimed by Krauthammer and Safire?

Qwinn

[bondserv]

You have accurately presented the Biblical history regarding the execution of Christ from man's perspective.

Now let us view the Biblical spiritual view of Christ's death from God's perspective.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The death of Christ is attributed to Satan, but not decisive in that it bruised His heel only. Jesus conquered death and is alive today.

Isa 53:10
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,


John 10:15
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Rev 13:8
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Luke 23:46
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.


Matt 26:1-2
1And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Another partial spiritual, partial historical.

John 19:11
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

You have hit on precisely why strict 5 point Calvinism is not true. There are two perspectives to reality.

God's perspective i.e. spiritual perspective (Our position of perfection in Christ despite our continuing sin, election by God of the saints which are given to the son by the father, Lamb slain from the foundation, God hardening Pharoh's heart, Pilate given authority by God, Past Present and future sins forgiven, better if Judas was never born...).

Man's perspective i.e. historical non-eternal perspective (Jesus as a historical Man the Father did not reveal the day or the hour of Christ's second coming, Pharoh hardening his own heart toward God, Jews culpable for killing Jesus, repentance and obedience, To Judas [And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come?] one more chance to repent...)

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

No, to be sure, Jews who are knowledgeable about their own religion don't fear Christianity at all and don't fear at all that the movie will lead Jews to convert to Christianity. Jews understand the evil of religious intolerance and respect all others to practice their religions in peace. What they fear is a new outbreak of hate and pogroms, because that has been the history of the fanning of the flames of prejudice that Christian passion plays have brought in Europe and in the Americas. Call the phenomenon whatever you want, but it has brought rapes, mayhem, and death to countless Jewish communities.

The Islamic radicals who are the declared enemies of both Christians and Jews must be overjoyed at the wedge this movie is driving between Christians and Jews. Truly sad for Christians and Jews and for interfaith progress.

[af_vet_1981]

That's true. That documented history is that only one Jew has been killed after a Passion play since the Middle Ages. That one was in Germany, in (I believe) the 19th Century.

I suppose you don't count Hitler's and Himmler's visits to Ober Ammergau. I wonder if you ever read their quotes. They are not widely publicized but are available.

The Jewish people take a long view of history. In America we have been safe. There has only been one pogrom here that I know of.

So let me ask you two questions - 1) Have you actually seen the movie? 2) If so, did you perceive all the heaping tons of anti-Semitic bigotry claimed by Krauthammer and Safire?

1. No. I would see it with Mel and Hutton Gibson in their home, just the three of us.
2. From what I've read and seen about the movie I think Mel tried to make a movie that was true to his Catholic heritage. He used artistic license to add things to the movie that are not in the NT text. Some of them can be viewed by people who do not trust him as antisemitic. I don't think he plotted them from antisemitism. I believe him when he says he is not antisemitic. I also believe he had to be exposed to antisemitism from Hutton for many years. I am uncomfortable with his comments wanting to kill Frank Rich, blaming Jews for blaming the Holocaust on Catholics, saying Jews would come to his house to kill him, blaming everyone else accept his father Hutton. I'm much more concerned about the effect the movie has on people than what Mel actually put in the movie or left out. I think he could have made the movie in ways that mitigated the criticism without deviating from the NT text. I think he made mistakes.

[sfRummygirl]

You have sent me freepmail, and I have asked you to stop. I now think you are extremely distrurbed. I am not responding to you in any form anymore.
I advise everyone to avoid this person. I'm very serious.

[af_vet_1981]

Admin, sorry to bother you but this is ridiculous. sfRummygirl sent me a fifth email just now (sfRummygirl received 03/06/2004 11:16:19 PM PST) even though I have not sent her anything since my last note simply defending myself from her uninvited and uninitiated personal attacks.

Posted by af_vet_1981 to sfRummygirl On News/Activism 03/06/2004 6:39:53 PM PST #1,094 of 1,173

You know folks, I got some interesting freep mail from one of the 'level headed' posters ... Next time my church has a board meeting, can you come?

You issued three unsolicitied personal attacks on me (939, 942, and 979 951). I have four private messages from you (two vulgar and one denigrating my Jewishness). You claim to be an "Evangelical Christian." I would be happy to discuss your behavior with your pastor should you invite him or her on this thread. In any case I ask that you cease and desist personal attacks and stay on topic.

I do not intend to correspond with her. I do not wish her to correspond with me. I am only posting this publicly because of the note she just posted.

[sfRummygirl]

The freepmail said,
"Do not freepmail me anymore."

Help, I'm scared now.

[GulliverSwift]

Muslims have their story: God's revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story: the covenant between man and God at Sinai.

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people.

How ignorant. Krauthammer ought to know that every religion "involves other people." Islam specifically repudiates all other religions as says that Mohammed is the final and ultimate profitphet. Judaism similarly could be adjudged to be anti-Egyptian in its roots. And it certainly has many things spoken against the Phonecians and other ancient Semitic peoples. Buddhism talks about Siddharta's failure to find enlightenment in Hinduism and other religions...

[Qwinn]

"I suppose you don't count Hitler's and Himmler's visits to Ober Ammergau."

Hmmm. That name really rings a bell, I believe that is the name of the one case in Germany I was referring to, in which case I may just be wrong about it being in the 19th century, and it was the 20th, and the one you're talking about is the same one I'm thinking of. Personally, I thought my version was worse.

As to your answer to my questions - well, I think you ought to see the film if you're going to discuss what effects it has on people. But at least your conclusions have been mostly accurate, so I won't make an issue of it. I can fully respect your answer to #2, though I don't agree with everything you said.

"From what I've read and seen about the movie I think Mel tried to make a movie that was true to his Catholic heritage. He used artistic license to add things to the movie that are not in the NT text. Some of them can be viewed by people who do not trust him as antisemitic. I don't think he plotted them from antisemitism. I believe him when he says he is not antisemitic. I also believe he had to be exposed to antisemitism from Hutton for many years."

I'm totally with you on all of the above.

"I am uncomfortable with his comments wanting to kill Frank Rich,"

I'm not, not after what Rich said about him and his father first, and how. More detail on that at the end of this post.

"blaming Jews for blaming the Holocaust on Catholics,"

Well, some of them have. I've spent man-weeks defending some really horrific slanders about Pope Pius XII, many quoting Jewish sources. The funny thing is though, I've mostly defended those charges with quotes -from other Jews- who bore witness to how many of them were -saved- by Catholics, and who have documented the Pope's active challenge to Hitler. So in that sense, many Jews have made a vicious and unfair charge against Catholics, and many others have defended Catholics in inspirational and absolutely honorable ways. In other words, some were good, some were bad. Just like in the movie. Just like in life.

"saying Jews would come to his house to kill him,"

If I remember correctly, he specifically said SECULARIST Jews in the quote you're alluding to. It bothers me that that's always left out. That's a massive difference. And I bet you anything that Gibson would find far more in common between a Secular Jew and a Secular Christian, than he would a Secular Jew and a Practicing Jew. He knows that most of the hatred comes from secularists posing as Jews, not from real Jews.

Personally, I consider the entire perception of Jews as a race to be ridiculous. The only reason I ever address anyone who isn't religious as a Jew is out of some respect for the concept of self-identification, but I also believe that anyone who calls themselves a Jew because their great grandmother was one and they like the occasional bagel is no more Jewish than John Kerry is Catholic. Judaism is a religion, not a race, and 99% of the problems we have stem from the distortion of that fact.

"blaming everyone else accept his father Hutton."

I assume you mean "except", not "accept". I don't get what you mean here. Is he supposed to blame his father for the lies spoken by his critics? Or just for questioning Holocaust figures? Personally, I found his comments to Diane Sawyer to be entirely appropriate in terms of completely repudiating his father's position without being so dishonorable as to DISHONOR HIS FATHER. That's the 4th Commandment, remember? If someone were to demand that I help them gang up on my father when 90% of the world is already against him, I'd tell them to bite me. Mel's obligation was to say what his position was on the questions of his father's claims, and that that position didn't match his father's. He did so in no uncertain terms in his interview with Diane Sawyer (despite media spin to the contrary). To demand more than that is just plain wrong, as it is to force a man to elevate political correctness over the bonds of his own family. That way lies tyranny.

"I'm much more concerned about the effect the movie has on people than what Mel actually put in the movie or left out."

Okay, although it troubles -me- that you don't seem to be able to distinguish a "reaction to the movie" from a "reaction to unjust, false criticism of the movie".

"I think he could have made the movie in ways that mitigated the criticism without deviating from the NT text."

I don't see how you can say this, given that there was massive criticism of this movie before -anyone- had a chance to see it. Frank Rich's criticisms in particular. He had no chance to see it. He made his incredibly virulent judgments completely sight-unseen. What could Mel -possibly- have done in his movie to mitigate -that- criticism, given that those rants were done -blind-? Rich's tirades were born of pure bigotry, nothing else (and it's the main reason why I don't have a problem with Mel's reaction)

Then the ADL followed up, even before that bogus stolen script came out. The smear campaign began before anyone had any idea what Gibson did or didn't do.

Also, something you need to know - Mel inserted things into his interpretation that were -not- in the Gospels that were clearly, blatantly -pro- Jewish. One example is the high priests in the Sanhedrin who oppose the trial of Jesus, and the statement by some of them that Caiphas and the rest of his cohorts held the whole thing in secret so that most of "the Council", other clergy of the Temple, that would have opposed the trial would not be present to object to it (and the couple that did oppose it on camera in his film were forcibly removed). I don't recall any of that in the Bible - or, at least, if Caiphas held it in secret, it was not because of other members of the "establishment" but because of the common people. What enraged me upon rereading some of the screeds is how so many of them repeatedly claim that Mel "left out anything that was good by the Jews", when dammit, he -inserted- stuff that was even complimentary to Jewish high priests that isn't in the NT! -That- is what enrages me. The critics -hoped- most people would be too stupid or easily misled to question them, and on top of being manipulative and wrong, that's also repulsively arrogant.

Qwinn

[Hamza01]

As in your earlier post, it appears that you grasp part of the truth, but lose your grip on its totality.

Israel invaded the lower strip of Lebanon in self defense to put an end to the terrorist attacks that were being launched from there.

The Israeli invasion of south Lebanon began as an effort to root out PLO elements who were indeed attacking Israel. Some suggest that the campaign was a pretext for long-term occupation-- but I'm not arguing that. And initially, the Shiites, some Sunni, Armenians, and the different Arab Christian groups supported the invasion. (can you imagine that-- those crazed murderous Arabs suppporting Israel?) THE PROBLEM WAS THAT ONCE ISRAEL WAS IN-- THEY DECIDED TO STAY. The Shiites of Southern Lebanon effectively said to the Israelis: It is good that you have come. The PLO is making trouble in the land. But be sure to leave.

Of course, the Israelis being who they are stayed and ultimately transformed apolitical, quiescent Lebanese Shias into Hizbollah, and bulllied the Maronites and other Christians to the point where fighting Israel became a unifying national struggle. That's why even Arab Christians in Lebanon along with their Muslim counterparts hate Israel. Emile Lahoud (Christian President of Lebanon) said: "The Israelis are our enemies". So, why should it surprise anyone that Arab Christians hate Israel.

And once again: Israel does not occupy "palestine," the Hashemites do.

That's just too rich. Even the Israelis don't use that line anymore.

You must know that the Christians are being driven out of Lebanon by the Lebanese and Syrian Muslims.

Yes, that's why they accepted a Christian as head of state in Lebanon. Sarcasm aside, both Christian and Muslim migration away from Lebanon has declined as stability has returned. The business climate is getting better and the fact is-- Lebanon's one of the most beautiful places in the world. Lots of Christian Arab/ Lebanese Armenian Americans are going back to set up shop now that there's hope. Now that the Israelis are out.

The UN didn't. Learn your history. The League of Nations did I think you're forgetting that the League of Nations ceased to exist before Israeli independence. Besides, neither the League, nor Lord Balfour, or the UN had any right to partition land or property that rightfully belonged to someone else.

proto-Israel was willing to trade 78% of the Transjordan for peace. Yes, a truly generous people that they were prepared to give back part of stolen property.

You sorta glossed over the Jews and Christians who were killed or converted at swordpoint when the Musliims conquered the Levant. As I understand it, the Christians who died in the Muslim conquest of the Levant were almost all soldiers. If they killed civillians or Jews-- then the Muslims who did it are burning in hell(soon to be joined by Bin Laden). But by and large Muslims of that era were civilized relative to their contemporaries, and did not subscribe to the mindless hate that now permeates too much of the Islamic world.

There were no such things as "palestinians" 100 years ago, let alone 1000. That's semantics. Call them the Arabs of Palestine if you prefer. By the way, Jesus was a "Palestinian Jew" according to the Romans.

I'd burn those olive groves too, if "palestinians" were shooting at me and other settlers from their confines. Land is sacred. Trespass on another man's land and of course he's going to shoot you. Justifiably so. Problem with the Palestinians is that the stupid bastards shoot innocents.

The Promised Land was given to the Jews forever. Now we're getting somewhere... This seems to be the center of gravity for your support for Israel, regardless of anything they do. Since this is an article of Faith for you, I'm not going to belabor the point much. My view is that God at one time chose the Jews. After the Jews broke the covenant, God sent Jesus to reform the Jews and they rejected him except for the Jews who accepted him as the Messiah (Christians).

All this being said, I don't begrudge the Jews their homeland. I do hope that someone of obviously deep faith as you would ultimately recognize injustice no matter how cleverly it's cloaked. But I'm curious, in the view of your particular faith (I assume you're an evangelical Protestant), what happens to the Jews after their return to the Holy Land? Is it true that most of them die in an apocalyptic war and the rest convert to Christianity? Will the Jews that die without knowing Christ be condemned to hell even as they fulfill God's word?

That's the aspect of your otherwise rich and beautiful faith that troubles me. I guess it troubles even many Jewish people who otherwise celebrate the unswerving support of Christians like you.

You see, to me God is just,compassionate, and merciful. How could a just God send one who believes in Him and does good in this world-- to hell?

[Hamza01]

You're quite welcome. I'm Arabic/Iranian and my wife's Italian/German. So, I understand precisely what you mean about defending family. What really offended me about the media-- specifically the ABC interview-- was the way she kept trying to lure him, coax him into condemning his dad. It was so utterly shameless. But that's the essential nature of the media, I guess.

Being a good Catholic boy he kept his cool. Me-- I might have ripped her head off.

[Hamza01]

Look. There's no question that his father's a Holocaust revisionist. And perhaps Mel should convince his father that his views are wrong. But that's something that must be done privately within the family. And gently, when dealing with an 85 year old man whom he loves. With time, and God's help, maybe he could change his father's thinking.

I understand what your're saying about rebuke and not suffering sin. But publicly? It would devastate his father who's an old man. It would break his spirit and kill him. And then Mel would live have to with that. I couldn't do it. I'd shoot myself first.