Israel Declares War

And was there international law to protect European Jews from the Holocaust? "International law" is used for convenience only. How is it that all the evildoers are protected under international law?

When Arab Muslims chose to declare Jihad against the Israel and the West (while non-radical Muslims remained silent or silently supported them) then all claims to protection under international law were nullified. In 1948 all the Arab nations went to war against the new nation state of Israel. Therefore Israel had to defend itself by any and all means. They did not want Israel to exist, let alone have some land in Palestine (which was given to Israel completely by God Himself).

Later on Jihad was proclaimed against all non-Muslims, especially Christians and Jews. And yet the foolish and ignorant Western politicians failed to wake up, and instead opened the doors wide to Muslim migrant invasion (another aspect of Jihad). Now "Mohammed" is the most prevalent name in the West! And every European and North American country is paying a huge price for this foolishness.

International law to prevent genocide was codified in 1948, will Israel answer for their war crimes or are they being protected by the USA?

Israel committed ethnic cleansing prior to the war in 1948, everybody likes to conveniently leave that part out.

Do you have a reason why they should?

Then you are in favor of might makes right.

I am sure that the Native Americans would have like to expell the invaders if they had had the power.

my point is the other arab nations should not decry what Israel does to the palestinians while at the same time not take refuges.

I think you have failed to understand the shadows and types in the OT which prefigure the reality in the NT

They have already taken in those who were expelled since before 1948. Perhaps the people who lived there want to stay and not sure on what basis they need to be expelled out.

I think that the reason that "Arab nations" don't want Palestinian refugees, is because they fear that their leaving "Palestine" would encourage Israel to claim the land.

And the Nazis committed ethnic cleansing before that with the Jews. So why were they not protected by phony "international law"? And why did no one step up when the British betrayed them?

The British decision to withdraw from the Palestine mandate in 1947–1948 may at first glance appear contradictory to British strategic interests. The Middle East and Palestine were vital to Britain's Cold War strategy, and its government repeatedly stated the need for a continued British presence in the region to prevent Soviet expansion. Why then withdraw from Palestine just as the Cold War started? The traditional explanation is that Britain withdrew because of economic exhaustion and its inability to remain a great power. But this article shows that economic and strategic considerations both contributed to the decision to withdraw.
Britain's involvement in Palestine threatened to undermine its relations with the independent Arab states, and the decision to withdraw from Palestine was therefore taken in the hope that this would secure Britain's position in the rest of the Middle East.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs... Palestine threatened,rest of the Middle East.

"In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population; this requirement and others, however, would not apply to the separate Arab emirate to be established in Transjordan. The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities."

Except I'm the one who broached the Gibeonite saga and exegeted it to perfection as it applies to the NT.

In fact I doubt very much you understood or even knew anything whatsoever about the Gibeonite saga.

Hitler warmed over indeed.......

You say this as if those living in Palestine at the time were the same people responsible for Nazi Germany's ethnic cleansing. Why did/do they have to pay for what the Nazis did? Or is your argument, "So what? What's good for the goose is good for the gander"?

At the end of time, this world will be revealed as being topsy-turvy as scripture says "satan deceives the whole world". I wouldn't be surprised if many people who have been presented as "evil" and "good" in the media will actually be revealed by the Almighty as being the opposite.

Not at all. Firstly it was misleading and inaccurate to declare that Israel committed genocide. Israel did no such thing. Warfare against sworn enemies is definitely not genocide.

But there is no question that genocide was committed against Israel by the Nazis. This should have had an impact on Muslim Arabs in that they should have shown sympathy for the plight of the Jews, and the reason why they needed a homeland in Palestine. There should have been a willingness to peacefully negotiate a fair settlement. Instead there was the same genocidal hatred from the Arabs as there was from the Nazis. Of course we know who is behind all this hatred, but no one should be faulting Israel for defending itself and simply trying to survive in a very hostile environment.

Historically the land of Palestine never belonged to Muslim Arabs, but always to Israel (even under foreign rule). Arabs were simply occupiers who turned around and began to demand what never was theirs. But there was a good reason why Israel lost its place in Palestine in 70 AD. Had they all repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. things could have turned out differently. They still need to do so, and after the Second Coming of Christ God will gather Jewry from around the world to the land of Israel precisely for that purpose. Many will be saved at that time. See Romans 11.

Truly, Magenta. I just meant in the context of what the media pushes.

Tell again how "going going gone" could possibly be the least bit debatable.

We are one body because we are in Christ. But we don't always act as a whole or unified body. Scripture teaches that we are to endeavor to keep the unity of the faith. Scripture itself recognizes the reality of not being completely unified. So I see a contradiction in what we are called to, but not a contradiction with the reality of the body of Christ. So your assessment is correct, but it is also what I meant.
My reasons for supporting Israel have nothing to do with the Bible. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and are a strong ally. They are a trading partner as well as a source of intelligence.

That's exactly what scripture teaches.

He said ethnic cleansing, not genocide in his last post...unless you're speaking of a previous post prior to the latest exchange that I didn't read (I haven't read everything, admittedly). Ethnic cleansing isn't a genocide but can include genocide.

Ethnic Cleansing - Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law.

So, what I typically do is try to find a similar situation to see if a proposed reasoning still remains true. The more recent that comes to mind is a few years ago there was persecution occurring in South America which precipitated refugees desiring to come into America. You know, all of that border drama stuff the USA was dealing with under Trump. Should we have given sympathy to the plight of those refugees and allowed them freely to create their own homeland in the USA?

Or a simpler example; let's say my family and I were being persecuted for any reason in my state, so I drive to wherever you live, find your house, and attempt to move in. You've been living in your home for a while, with a title deed (even though it was previously someone else's property). Whether through sale or forfeiture, you received the opportunity to establish a home there...but I just came with my family. Should you have sympathy for my plight and allow my family to move into your home?

Let's say my great great-great-grandparents lived in your home. Should you be at least willing to negotiate my current family living there?

Again, does this reasoning remain true if we were to argue about European colonizers and their conquering of lands that weren't theirs? Do those who lost land and property have a right to receive it back? I mean, if we go back even further biblically the land was technically owned by the sons of Canaan until Ancient Israel conquered it and took it.

My point here is that the land, and all the land is the Almighty's and not any of ours and that He can give it and take it away from anyone. There were specific stipulations that Israel was to abide by to keep it that they failed to do...so The Almighty took the land away from them and gave it to another as He said He would. And no one gets to really dictate who it belongs to right now except for Him. We can only be witnesses of what's going on.

The Almighty was clear that until...until they turn to Messiah and say blessed is He, The Almighty would not give the land back to them. So we must reason that if there are people who currently control the land claiming to be Israel that don't even believe in The Messiah...then they must be Gentiles pretending to be Israel and not actually Israel because The Almighty is not a liar, right?