The litmus issue

Michael B

Hear, hear.

Nick

Well, no, the biggest moral issue of our time is the reluctance of many to admit the reality of climate change, and furthermore, to do anything about.

Stuart

For those who argue for the rights of The Palestinian people, will you argue in favour of the prior rights of The Jewish People - or is your argument ONLY based on prejudice against the Iconic Jew? The establishment of The Jewish National Home by the League of Nations was actually defined as being between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Israel is based on less than that. Jordan stole a large chunk of that land to create Trans-Jordan. So, if you support self-determination will you continue to support Israel's determination to survive?

jose garcia

ok, so you can start by selling your car, use cold water for showers, dont ever go on holidays to another country(flying is evil) and switch off the tv as it is powered by electricity from coal..... also dont use any form of plastic ever again as is not biodegradable..... oh i forgot pay more ecotaxes....!!!!

Nick

Mr Garcia. I have never owned a car, I don't allow televisions in the house, and furthermore I don't fly overseas. I'm doing my bit. Are you?

Graham

I believe the most recent solution to climate change is simply for us not to exist, presumably with Israel being the test case.

tom

'Doing my bit' is fine for self-righteousness. It won't make any difference to climate change though; for every Briton who gave up TV in the past few years there were hundreds of Indians and Chinese who bought one for the first time (and hundreds of millions who can't wait to do join them)

Lynne T

Nick: Climate change is a continual situation and there are many scientists of note who don't buy into the notion that carbon emissions created by modern western lifestyles have had much impact on climate. Some of the hottest, driest weather experienced in central North America occurred in the 1930s, and the unusually mild winter we had in central Canada the year before last was the result of a once-in-a-century meteorological event (and not "war" as posited by Robert Fisk): the polar vortex sat lower over Russia than usual, bringing unusually cold weather to places like Lebanon and Pakistan instead. In noting this, I am not saying that it is wise to conserve non-renewable forms of energy and to reduce the release of pollutants into the environment, I am saying that we should be wary of the agendas behind some of the "global warming" proponents who are relying on less than solid scientific evidence and whose salaries depend obtaining research funds and get to travel around themselves to conferences in such lovely places as Bali or go on book tours of North America like George Monbiot did recently instead, because that's a much more effective way of flogging books than staying home in the UK and relying on electronic media to get his message out that we should quit travelling by air, which I do less than once every five years, in order to see my daughter, who lives 3,000 miles from me.

Nigel

Thank you, Melanie, for continuing to speak truth about Israel in this climate of lies and misinformation. This is a spiritual battle, but the forces of darkness will be defeated - I have read the end of the Book!

James Murphy

Can I be fantastically childish for a minute, put two bulimic fingers down my throat and throw up at the nauseating sanctimony of dear old Nick and his non-flying, non-driving, non-telly watching, non-anything existence! Aargh! Nick, you are a a moral onanist and a dinner party nightmare. Wake up, man. Life is passing you by and all you'll have to show for it when the grim reaper comes is a useless smug look on your face and a long list of the ways you didn't enjoy yourself and the people you didn't like.

Morgan

James Murphy is right Nick you are wasting your life on a lie. Sure there is climate change. There has always been climate change and there is nothing we can do to prevent it predictably or economically- and furthermore its not man made. I do hope you don't have children who have to suffer your sanctimonious BS.

N. Simon

Can I ask what the moderators are thinking when they put comments about climate change into a great article about the survival and existence of Israel?

Michael B

We live in an era where the incredibly stupid and short-sighted, as long as it has a body of intellections and moral trumpery behind it, passes for "yet another opinion" to be given its presumptive due. The moral issue of our time is not to ensure the Gore's, DiCaprio's, et al. have their moral maunderings catered to. That doesn't mean conscience doesn't need to be applied to the eco-system, but to the extent it does, it needs to be leveraged via intellectual and moral integrity and balance, not via exciteable egos together with their presumptive preachments, emoted at stopping-off points as they travel the planet in private and transnationally funded jets.

John Rich

Israel has been described as the West's "canary in the mine." How the West defends Israel will, ultimately, be reflected in how it defends its right to continue to be free. Stated differently, one should agree that how we treat Israel reflects how we in the West treat our very foundation. You wrote "The Jewish claim to the land of Israel was based on justice, international agreement and law." True enough. But there is also the Scriptural foundation for Jews possessing Israel. One need not take the Hebrew Scriptures as literal history to understand that those of us who believe in God must also affirm the absolute, as in God-given, right for Jews to live in peace in the Middle East.

Alan Stoddart

Israel, of course, is an illegal creation and should be cancelled out? But then shouldn't that newly created Muslim Homeland, Pakistan, be so treated? After all Muslims already have plenty of States to call Home. Pakistan is part of India, invaded by Muslims and clearly still in submission to them now...why go on your knees 5 times a day and pray towards Mecca and an Arab God. As an Arab imperialist recently said: 'Pakistanis aren't real Muslims, Islam was only revealed to the Arabs.' Up to 1 million people died and 17 million refugees were sent fleeing on the creation of Pakistan...will all the Sikhs and Hindus have a right of return to the land where the Muslims burnt all the houses and farms to prevent such a return? Perhaps Abdul Bari would like to answer that, or someone from the BBC, perhaps they would like to mention the political prisoners in Cuba in the same breath that they talk of Guantanamo Bay? How is it that the PKK are 'surely terrorists' according to John Humphrys and Turkish attacks on the Kurds are in self defense whilst Israel's actions verge on terrorism and war crimes?

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

I will echo N. Simon's concern -- how did this get to be a thread about global warming? Please moderators, do some moderating. Cf. Rashi to Lev. 25:!-- Mah inyan shemittah etzel Har Sinai (what possible connection is there between Mt. Sinai and the laws of the sabbatical year)?

Herbert Thornton

Until I read N.Simom's question, I thought that either my computer or the Spectator web site was malfunctioning.

What does climate change have to do with the topic in Melanie's article?

N. Simon

Ahad and Herbert, It's possible that the moderators aren't in agreement with Melanie's blog here and are allowing "trolls" to disrupt the comments process. Of course, Melanie is absolutely spot on with this article. Can you imagine the outcry if the world, and the media would say that Jordan's existence is illegitimate? After all, it was also created from the region called Palestine. Or if the global leaders said to the Palestinians they had their chance for a state in 1947 and rejected it, so they can't demand one now? Imagine if the Sudetenlanders wanted their own state now, or the Kurds (which the world has rejected), or the Armenians? They have legitimate claims to their own lands, whereas the Palestinians rejected their chance for a new state, and are whingeing about it to this day.

Brian

Briefly on climate change-there has indeed always been climate change. What we are seeing now (after 70's and 80's particularates were responsible for cooling-now removed) is a rapid and unpredictable warming never seen before. We should err on the side of caution and that will mean restrictions on 'our way of life', as well as major investment in new technologies (I am not entirely opposed to nukes but they are not the panacea some are making out unless you don't care about generations in say 400-500 years time, or the close links with nuclear weapons) To deny man made GW puts you in with creationists and 6000 year earthers, the science is around 99% not on your side. Melanie has been particularly irresponsible in her coverage of this topic. She is far better on Israel. However, I dispute the idea that current Israel is based on the original land of Israel-this is particularly dangerous as a)archaeological evidence that it existed in biblical form is very very weak b)the most likely descendents of the biblical Israelites are now Syrians and possibly Palestinians. c)Basing national sovereignties on rights initially established long in the past is both technically flawed, immoral and impractical. Won't someone think of the Hittites? Perhaps the relevant Greek factions can revive Minoa? Or the Aboriginals kick out anyone arrived within the last 300 years in Australia...

Peter

No need for a moderator,the penny will drop and the eurobulb over Nick's head will flicker dimly and he will turn his computer off.

Peter

"To deny man made GW puts you in with creationists and 6000 year earthers, the science is around 99% not on your side."

To put it briefly and finally,99% science,is an oxymoron,science has always been contested.You are talking about a belief system,not science.
Now if we could get back to the trifling subject of the survival of Israel? You never know,we might just need those Jewish scientists.

Zhombre

An eloquent post about Israel devolves into a My Moral Issue is Greater than Your Moral Issue argument because of poor lame eco-nutter who in addition to not having a telly and never flying, probably is a vegan with vasectomy. Israel may be doomed, and the West as well, simply by changing the subject.

ASG

With Brian’s suggestion that the likely descendants of the biblical Israelites as now Syrians and Palestinians is it any wonder that we believe his dictum on climate change, where if he opened his “inquiring” mind and realised that the rapid warming that he speaks of is in fact derived from a graph commonly known as the Hockey Stick and this graph was fabricated in order to show that current "global temperatures" are "unprecedented". McIntyre and McKitrick two Canadian scientists eventually showed that it had been calculated wrongly and when the correct mathematics was used it restored the medieval warm period so that it was even warmer in the 14th century than it is today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not supply an honest reply to this criticism and they do not admit they were wrong to this day, and many lecturers still use this faked graph. All the same, the IPCC have silently dropped the graph from their publications. Further, the average global temperature has ceased to rise for the last eight years or so despite the ever increasing atmospheric CO2 and is showing signs that if anything it’s decreasing at odds with all the IPPC’s projections. Contrary to Brian’s thoughts, many eminent scientists and many others together with M.P. have indeed been particularly responsible to highlight the fact that despite persistent efforts, the IPCC has never succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate and the evidence that has been supplied by the IPCC is based on unsound scientific methods and mathematics.

cyllan

Actually i am a bit fed up with all the histeria aganist creationism, if you want to convince me that humans evolucioned from rock and water with help from nothing but time you must believe we are stupid somebody please explain to me how do u make a human out of rocks+ water.... we will discuss later too who created those rocks by the way.....

Robert Houghton

This historical account of Israel contains what is a common mistake made by Jews and non-Jews alike: there were no Jewish refugees from the Spanish Inquisition. This organization of the Spanish State inquired only into Christian heresy: no Jew was subject to it; no Jew was burnt by it.

J. Isaacs

The omniscient Brian asserts that "the archaeological evidence is very weak" and the Biblical Israelites are now Syrians or Palestinians. Brian is clearly one of the new anti-Zionists referred to in Dore Gold's brilliant article, which he appears neither to have read, understood, nor inwardly digested. Brian's antecedents seem more likely to be among another of Israel's long-vanquished foes; the Philistines.

Stuart

If you are a follower of either Christianity or Islam then you have to accept the existence of Israel because the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran all state that the Children of Israel were granted the Land of Israel by God/Allah. If you accept bibles as "the word of God" then to deny the existence of Israel is blasphemy/apostacy. If you are not a believer then the Old Testament contains enough verifiable history to establish that Israel was an entity that was conquered by many other people. It is the singular home of the Jewish People. Don't forget they are a People and NOT just people who follow Judaism. Not all Jews are religious and yet they belong to the Jewish race irrespective. Its like most people being Christian but not necessarily following Christianity.

Lee Jakeman

There IS a connection between climate change and Israel's right to exist. Here it is: The people who are most vociferous in their criticism of Israel are invariably the same people who are most vociferous in their "concern" for climate change - i.e. LEFT WING TRENDIES.

Mike

Since Melanie's article is merely an interpretation of Gold and Helmreich's historical account of 2003, one shouldn't rush to condemn it out of hand simply because it refutes so much of what has been written by Jewish and other historians in recent times. It really does come down to who and what you wish to believe. Since it is pointless to debate 'Israel's right to exist' - it DOES, it's a political fact - my overwhelming concern is for it to withdraw from the Palestininan lands its occupied since 1967 and take all its other baggage with it. This may then signal the end of the Zionist project, and allow Jews to breathe more easily wherever they are. This would enable also the so-called 'Civilised West' to take on the Islamist threat less encumbered and with a clearer conscience.

Hereford

Can I say first that I am not trying to make a point here, I am just interested as someone has raised prior historical possession as conferring a right of abode to a people. My biblical history is weak I'm afraid. But didn't the Israelites take biblical israel by conquest themselves? Or was this a return to and reoccupation of a homeland from which they had been previously expelled?

ASG

As J. Isaacs has hinted so eloquently, linking a satirical relationship between the present life of Brian and the ancient Philistines, so too there appears to be perhaps a similar connection with Robert H. who also has not absorbed or recognized and even has the temerity to refute the section of Dore Gold’s reference to the Jewish refugees from the Spanish Inquisition in the late 1400’s and discounts this to zero together with his assertion that no Jew was subject to it and no Jew was burnt by it. The following description would suggest otherwise: “Between 1367 and 1417, however, Spanish Jewry, including the descendants of those Jews who had escaped the Muslim Almohad depredations, experienced an era of “furious persecutions”, including anti-Jewish pogroms, which caused the majority of Spanish Jews to abjure their faith under coercion and convert to Christianity (becoming “Marranos”). Subsequently those Marranos whose conversion was deemed “insincere”, would be subjected to the fanaticism of the Spanish Inquisition, officially decreed by the Spanish rulers Ferdinand and Isabella on September, 27, 1480. Following the issuance of an “expulsion” decree in 1492—a dozen years after the founding of the Inquisition—until 1499, as Henry Kamen has established, only a minority of Jews left Spain—most decided to convert. Indeed, as Kamen observes, The “expulsion” decree of 1492 was a decree aimed not at expulsion but at conversion. Moreover a total of perhaps 40,000—50,000 Jews were expelled between 1492-99, and no more than half of those sought refuge under the suzerainty of Ottoman Muslim rule.”

kotzabasis

Melanie speaks the truth. But will the truth be heard among so many loud lies or find an abode in the thinking of people when there are so many prejudiced minds in the West and elsewhere against Israel? Israel is hated because of its success and cosmopolitan civilizational power that made it the dominant state in the midst of a huge Muslim civilizational desert that has long ago DESERTED its great Arab civilizational accomplishments by embracing fanatically the religious cult of Wahhabism.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

R. Houghton says "there were no Jewish refugees from the Spanish Inquisition." There were, however, numerous Jewish refugees from the 1492 expulsion from Spain, which Ferdinand and Isabella decreed AGAINST JEWS. "This organization of the Spanish State inquired only into Christian heresy: no Jew was subject to it; no Jew was burnt by it." Depends how you define Jew. Numerous Jews converted to Christianity because of anti-Jewish persecution. Some of them continued to observe Judaism in secret, others did not. All were subject to the Inquisition, to determine whether they were indeed good and sincere Christians, or whether they were committing heresy by adhering to Jewish practices or beliefs.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Lee Jakeman, there is a second connection between Israel's right to exist and global warming -- all the CO2 discharged by those who will promulgate any lie, no matter how absurd, and excuse any outrage, no matter how violent, in order to deligitimatise, endanger or destroy Israel and the bogeyman version of "Zionists" that they have conjured up to replace the bogeyman Christ killers.

Alan Stoddart

All the arguments about history and rights are irrelevant...Belgium, Jordan, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Liberia exist because they were created, as were many of the borders of Europe after the Wars...where are the arguments about Tibet, Chechnya and taiwan? You either accept them or you don't...how far back in history would you like to go to create a right of abode? Go back to the beginning and apparently we are all descended from Africans so perhaps Kenya actually has the right to the Gaza Strip et al.

Achilles

The League of Nations merely repeated the arguments the British used to justify the Balfour Declaration. There were a few thousand (mostly orthodox, fanatically anti-Zionist) Jews in Palestine when Zionist settlement began. How can such a "link" negate the rights of the overwhelmingly non-Jewish, indigenous population?

Stuart

Achilles, let me help you with that missing link. I don't know how YOU know they were a few "Orthodox Jews" but they were related to Jesus and Moses. (Just thought I'd throw that one in as a true non-sequitor!). In fact, they are related to all Jews because the Jewish Nation was scattered by conquest. Therefore, Ancient Israel is the homeland for the Jewish People (Race). Enshrined in the Declaration of Independence are the rights of all non-Jews to freedom of worship, language and all rights granted to Jews, except I can't see the Mufti of Jerusalem ever becoming the Chief Rabbi. Had the Arabs NOT tried to steal and erode the Jewish National Home then they would have enjoyed the SAME rights as Jews since that was ALSO written into the original League of Nations Mandate. Jewish Israeli rights do NOT take anything away from Palestinian or Israeli Arab rights.

Achilles

Stuart I know because that is the consensus of all mainstream historians on the middle east (both pro and ani zionist). Try Benny Morris and Martin Gilbert for starters. As to rights - are you saying that mass expulsion involves no infringement of rights? And are you denying the openly stated Zionist expansionist claims made by Israeli leaders again and again (and thoroughly documented). As to relation to Jesus - yes, racially - but as the Gospel of John makes clear - those who reject Jesus reject Moses as well - so any claims of title to land based on Jesus (and you brought him up) are utterly invalid (even if we accept this way of justifying title). Happy Christmas.

Achad Ha'amoratzim

Achilles recommends: "Try Benny Morris and Martin Gilbert for starters." Yeah, and right after that, you can try Noam Chomsky, David Irving and Juan Cole. Achilles then adds "as the Gospel of John makes clear - those who reject Jesus reject Moses as well", which suggests that he is a bit of a supercessionist, with all of that baggage that implies. If also raises an interesting conundrum - if John is right, then Moses himself rejects Moses (see Deut. 13:3 et seq.)

Johanna

Ms Phillips is an intelligent commentator but she has an unfortunate tendency towards hyperbole which is manifest in this comment. Of course, the State of Israel has the right to exist, but to describe it as the most pressing issue of our time, indeed a matter pertaining to the survival of Western civilization, seems somewhat overblown. After all, Russia and China pose as much of a threat to freedom as Islamic fundamentalism and to that we might add the hypocrisy of the West in propping up despotic régimes throughout the world (remember the recent Saudi arms scandal in the UK?), thereby subverting the very principles it purports to uphold. Ms Phillips should also realise that many more reflective individuals make a distinction between the legitimate existence of the state of Israel, and its often disgraceful treatment of its Palestinian neighbours. Some criticism of Israeli behaviour really is legitimate; wasn't Sharon condemnced by a court in his own country for his part in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila?

Achad Ha'amoratzim

Johanna, your misconception is a common one, when you suppose that Sharon was "condemned by a court in his own country for his part in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila." In fact, he anticipated that leaders of a Christian militia might try to attack those camps in revenge for the PLO's assassination of a Christian Lebanese leader. Sharon met with the Christian leaders and told them in no uncertain terms that they were not to do so. The Israeli court found him negligent for trusting the Christian leaders when they assured him that they would not attack; the Israeli court ruled that Sharon should have stationed IDF troops to prevent the attack. (One can only imagine the world outcry had the IDF "besieged" Sabra and Shatila.) Ironically, it has become accepted that Sharon committed those massacres, when the truth is that he tried hard (just not hard enough) to prevent them. An American court examined the charge that Sharon colluded with the Christian militia to commit the massacres; the court found that charge to be a deliberate and scurrilous lie spread by one of Sharon's political opponents. Time Magazine escaped liability in that lawsuit only because it uncritically accepted the opponent's story without looking into it; as a public figure, Sharon could not recover under US libel law without proving that Time knew at the time of publication that the story was false. The actual perpetrators have been welcomed by those who still condemn Sharon. Menachem Begin was correct when he observed bitterly that when gentiles slaughter gentiles the world still blames the Jews.

Rob

Yup. And you fail on all counts.

George

"There IS a connection between climate change and Israel's right to exist. Here it is: The people who are most vociferous in their criticism of Israel are invariably the same people who are most vociferous in their "concern" for climate change - i.e. LEFT WING TRENDIES" Yeeees ... interesting ... I am and have always been a 100% supporter of Israel against her Fascist enemies and their fellow-travellers. But then, what can I do, I know Israeli and Jewish history pretty well. I am also very concerned about climate change. But then, what can I do: unlike Melanie Philips, I have a science background. And I have never, ever, been even remotely a leftie, trendy or otherwise. In fact, I have always detested the trendy and ignorant airheads of Islinton.

George

"my overwhelming concern is for it to withdraw from the Palestininan lands its occupied since 1967 and take all its other baggage with it. This may then signal the end of the Zionist project" This merely proves that you have no clue as to what Zionism IS. It is, quite simply, the creation of a free homeland for the Jews in their own country. Are we to understand, on the other hand, that since you object to Zionism you object to the Jews having their homeland? I am merely curious, don't you know. As to 'Palestinian lands' - there is no such thing historically, geographically, ethnically, politically or legally. It is a gigantic hoax, and the gullible of N1 fall for it every time. Not, of course, out of any antisemitic sentiments, to be sure ...

Achilles

Achad Ha'amoratzim states as a reply to me: ""Try Benny Morris and Martin Gilbert for starters." Yeah, and right after that, you can try Noam Chomsky, David Irving and Juan Cole." Well - glad to see that you put Martin Gilbert in that company - whose history of Israel is praised by Effraim Karsh as "the most comprehenive account of Israeli history yet published" - Karsh being such an anti-Zionist that Melanie refers to him (as a critic of Morris/Shlaim) approvingly. As for supercessionism - I suggest that you learn some basic theology - presumably you see no difference between the teachings of the Church Fathers and Marcionists (whom many CFs condemned as did the Church). No evidence for either of your points - standard Zionist fare sadly. The absurdity of your point re. Deuteronomy (which regards false prophets who do not hand down what God has told them - unlike Moses) is telling. Please try and read some books before posting again.

George

Perhap Achilles should try reading some books, too, maybe the Puffin History of the Middle East. Sure, some Israeli leaders have been in favour of expansion. Others, on the other hand, have not. It is a standard antisemitic gambit to take the words of this or that Jew and then claim that this is what all Jews say.

Achilles

George - I didn't say ALL Israeli leaders - try learning how to read posts - let alone books! As to the idea that it is necessarily "antisemitic" for someone to draw attention to or overly emphasise the degree of expansionist claims among Israeli leaders - I suggest a course in Logic 101 (beats smearing/character assasination). Besides, the point re. expandsionist claims is not even relevant for refutation of what Phillips is saying. Lucky for her that some of her (Zionist?) readers/posters don't know much history or theology.

George

Comments about 'character assassination' are quite comic from people determined to commit such character assassination on the leaders of the Jewish people in their homeland simply because they are the leaders of the Jewish people in their homeland. It is antisemitic to quote selectively from what some Jews have said in order to smear the entire nation. So is an obsessive campaign to demonise Israel, while paying no attention to what the world's fascist and genocidal regimes in Syria, Sudan, China, Iran and so on are doing.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Achilles,any absurdity was in your post and the Gospel of John, not in my reply. You posited that, per John, anyone who rejects Jesus (yemach shmo) rejects Moses, and has therefore forefeited any Biblical claim to the land. I merely pointed out that Jesus prophesied things that were contrary to the laws of Moses, and if John is correct, Moses -- by rejecting Jesus -- rejects himself. Absurd yes, but the absurdity is in John, not in my pointing out the contradiction. As to whether to call your position supecessionism or something else, I have better things to do than read Christian theology, and so will defer. Call it what you will, though, your position appears to be that by refusing to accept Jesus, the Jews have forefeited whatever promises G-d made to them. That rather disgusting belief is contradicted by the express words of Hebrew Scripture, and has resulted in the deaths of quite a few innocent Jews over the millennia.

Achilles

Oh dear. First you focus on a side-issue to the argument. Second you claim "selective" quotation when none has been made -and even if it were would not of itrself "prove" antisemitism - it might b contextually appropriate to account for Arab reactions (and look at Walter Lacquer on Zionism for more info on the preponderance of expansionists). Third - we are talking about Israel on a blog entry about Israel by a ell-known defender/apologist for Israel so, errr, I talked about Israel. And yes, branding as anti-semites critics of Israel who don't produce a shopping list of various horrid regimes is character-assasination. Thus far not A SINGLE point I have been made has been addressed by the likes of you (or my other responder). But, all too predictably, you bring up the canard of Anti-Semitism (even when nothing I have said is 1.)controvrsial among Zionist historians 2.) Offensive to anyone with basic conceptions of justice. There are serious issues to be addressed. But in some serious context, not this one.

Achilles

Ahad Ha'amoratzim - the Gospel of John (and Matthew) is unambiguous that those that reject Christ reject Moses (Christ's words). But they are also unambiguous about the compatibility (continuity) of the Old Covenant with the New. I.e. the true Jews (followers of Moses) became followers of Christ - they continued faithfully to cleave to God's convenant - realised ultimately in Christ (which IS compatible with realising the Mosaic covenant). Re. theology - I would recommend Roy Schoeman Salvation is from the Jews (interesting for Jews and Christians). I also wouldn't talk about supercessionism without knowing a bit about Christian theology. But I would try Schoeman - a Jewish convert - for some insight into Hebrew Scripture. Whether beliefs have been used to justify evil actions does not affect the truth/falsity of the belief itself (ask any of the numerous Jewish converts who feel for the suffering of their fellow Jews). Happy New Year - and apologies for any asperity in previous posts.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Achilles, thank you for your suggestions. It has been my experience that Jews who convert to Christianity tend to have been ignorant of Jewish scripture and Jewish law prior to their conversion, and then adopt Christian misreading of Jewish scripture after their conversion. Did Schoeman study in Yeshiva before his conversion, and if so, which one and for how long? What grounding did he have in midrash, aggadah and Gemara? If little or none, then the mere fact that he was born Jewish gives his opinions no more weight than that of any other Christian author. Best wishes, A.A. (who is beginning to wish he had picked a shorter screen name.)

Richard

Alan Stoddart has put his finger on the crucial issue. It matters not that Jews never renounced their claim to some land in the Middle East. This gives Israelis no moral or legal claim whatsoever. That said, what gives Israel the overwhelming legal claim to its lands? The fact that she took it and holds it by military action. Every other nation on earth exists for the same reason. Sometimes outside nations provide the muscle or the threat of it but one way or another if you want to set up your own nation get an army. Military control is the single criterion of legitimacy and people who talk about someone's "right" to territory guarantee they will spend their time in a Grade A, nickel-plated, pointless debate that misses the crucial point and wastes precious life span. If the Arabs or Nigerians want to take over Israel, let them send in their armies and get it over with. Short of that, they should stop their whining. Lacking military capability, that's all the Arabs have left, and they go about it with a vengeance. I also am uninterested in whether a country has a moral claim to sovereignty. If ever there was a country without a moral claim to rule, it was the U.S.S.R. The West may have thought Soviet Rule lacking in a moral foundation but no Soviet Soldier moved an inch back from the border as a result of that. Israel is especially hated because she has humiliated the Arabs and, by necessary implication, their aggressive political doctrines. The "morality" of Israel itself -- apart from the issue of sovereignty -- has some bearing on whether I think the West should ally itself with Israel. On that basis, I conclude that it is vital that we do, the civilizations on her borders and throughout the rest of the Middle East being so primitive and unbalanced.