MENU

israel
Tag Archive

On October 14, 2023 By In Culture

Thinking Christianly about Israel

The recent attacks by Hamas on the State of Israel and the rapidly expanding war in the Middle East that has followed have prompted many Christian preachers and pew-warmers to try their hand at theo-political punditry. This, by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. The last few years have rightly undermined confidence in the competence of credentialed experts in many fields. We should bear in mind, however, that the fact the experts are making it up as they go is not an argument for the superiority of uninformed and ill-thought out opinions.

Many dispensationalists, predictably, see the latest violence in Israel as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and harbinger of the last days. The fact this is how they have interpreted every instance of violence involving Israel since their particular prophetic perspective appeared in the mid-1800s does not seem to dim their enthusiasm and confidence in reading the tea leaves of providence.

Christians who lean left politically (or long ago toppled over) can be heard making arguments about nuance, context, and the evils of colonization, as if any of those things had anything to do with deliberate war crimes against a civilian population, rape, kidnapping, multilation of the dead, and calls for systematic genocide against an ethnic group. If this argument is relevant, I suppose we might offer the same nuance and context for the Holocaust and Final Solution carried out by Nazi Germany. Maybe there was something to their claims about the Jews and their manipulation and control of financial markets after all.

Even among, more politically conservative, Reformed Christians there seems to be a perverse need to state the obvious. Ethnic Israel is no longer the covenant Israel of God and The political State of Israel is not God’s chosen people—believers in Jesus are. That is true, and there is a place for noting it. So many Christians in the west have been indoctrinated by dispensational theology that we must be prepared to offer such clarifications. But what does such a claim have to do with recent violence and the present war? Why would we make this clarification our emphasis at such a time? Is it helpful or appropriate?

How are we to think christianly about ethnic Israel? The Jews are not accepted by God simply on the basis of their heritage. Membership in the covenant is delineated by faith in Christ, not merely by biological lineage.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Galatians 3:26-29)

This does not, however, mean there is no longer any distinction to be found between ethnic Jews and the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The same apostle who wrote Galatians 3 also clearly affirmed:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!

(Romans 3:1-4a)

He goes on in the same epistle to the Roman saints:

I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

(Romans 9:3-5)

These historical, bibliographical, religious, and spiritual advantages do not mean that Jewish people are saved apart from faith in Christ.

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

(Romans 10:1)

The Jews must embrace their Messiah, but Paul says they will.

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

(Romans 11:25-32)

All Israel will be saved. All Israel, i.e. ethnically Jewish people, as Jews, will come to faith in Christ. This means that while the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down in Christ, ethnic identities still exist. The fact that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people in the way they once were does not mean they have merely been absorbed into a mass of undifferentiated humanity. That is not what Scripture claims, quite the contrary.

Even under the Mosaic economy, the Jews were in proximity to covenant blessings that could only be fully and finally possessed by faith (John 8:31-58). Those who trusted in their ethnic heritage would not be accepted by God. They were sons of the Devil, not of Abraham. Abraham’s children have always been defined by their participation in Abraham’s faith. What has changed is not the recognition of Jewish ethnicity but the expansion of Abrahamic blessings to all nations through the resurrection and reign of Israel’s long-awaited Messiah.

God does not have two people groups with separate identities and destinies, as dispensationalism claims. But the Bible does acknowledge the persistence of the Jewish people, their distinctiveness as an ethnic group, and their future conversion to faith in Christ. Their destiny is not distinct from the Church of God but is rather to ultimately be united with the Church of God.

How are we to think about the recent attacks against Israel and their war with violent Islamists who openly state their intention to exterminate the Jews? All of the theology explained above may be true, and it may be helpful to Christians who are ill-taught on these issues. But it is of little use or relevance in responding to the kind of godless slaughter we have lately seen. Christians are sometimes guilty of the kind of theology as comfort practiced by Job’s friends. Miserable comforters are you all (Job 16:2).

Would Christian pastors have chosen September 12, 2001 as an opportune time to remind us that many of those killed the day before were unbelievers and now in Hell? Would it be helpful to observe, what is undoubtedly true, that American believers have more in common with Arab Christians than unbelieving New Yorkers who worked in the World Trade Center? The death of a neighbor’s child is not the time to lecture them about the mysteries of election. The young woman may have been dressed inappropriately, but the hours after her rape are not the best moment to discuss the importance of modesty.

It is true that American believers have more in common with a Palestinian Christian than they do with a secular Jew. It is also true that a believer has more in common with an American Christian than with his unbelieving cousin. But it would be naive and inappropriate to imagine that because one person (or group) is unbelieving, there can be no special connection to them. I have family members who are not walking with Christ, and I have far more affection and compassion for them than for anonymous Christians I have never heard about or met.

The Jews are the Christian’s cousins, and one day the family will be reunited. Christianity is a Hebraic faith. There is no denying the impact of Hellenistic language, philosophy, and culture on various aspects of the Christian tradition, but insofar as the two streams of Hebraism and Hellenism stand in opposition to one another in interpretation of Scripture, typology, liturgy, and ethics, the Christian faith stands in line with the tradition of the Hebrews, not the Greeks. Christians worship a Jew as the Son of God. Our spiritual fathers, first teachers, and foundational Scriptures are all Jewish. This is not to diminish the way in which God used the Greek language and culture to advance the cause of Christ. It is not to deny that the Jewish people, by and large, rejected their Messiah, fell under God’s condemnation, and have been estranged from the covenant of promise. But we should affirm that the Christian Church has more in common with modern Jews than with the average Gentile unbeliever, and we have vastly more in common with the State of Israel than we do with militant, Islamic terrorists.

One does not have to be a Zionist, neo-con, or dispensationalist to support Israel in its war with Hamas. The State of Israel is largely secular, but the conduct and stated mission of Hamas is explicitly, indefensibly evil. There are no mitigating circumstances, no excuses, no room for context, nuance, or negotiation. The Arab-Israeli conflict may be complicated. The Israel-Hamas war is not. To think christianly means not only thinking theologically and covenantally; it requires us to think with ethical clarity.

Read more

On October 12, 2023 By In Culture, Politics, Theology

IS ISRAEL THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD?

THIS DISPENSATIONAL MOMENT

Every time a rocket is launched from the Gaza strip, a dispensationalist gets his wings. And by wings, I mean like Red Bull, in that he will receive a rather large boost of courage, enough, in fact, to crawl up and out of the hole he has been hiding in from his last failed prediction and to flood the internet with a panoply of reasons why the end times are really here this time and happening right before our eyes. This confusion is entirely unhelpful and could be cleared up if any of my former 28 articles and podcast episodes on the topic of eschatology were seriously engaged with. Shameless plug intended.

Along with this, I have also seen a litany of social media posts proclaiming solidarity with Israel in their current war with Hamas, because they are God’s chosen people and we do not want to be on the wrong side with God. For this reason, before getting on to our topic today, I thought it might be wise to mention a few things to consider regarding the covenantal status of modern-day Israel.

STILL GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE?

Perhaps the best place to start would be with what the word Israel means. From the Scriptures, the first time the word is used is when God wrestles with Jacob and then renames Him Israel, which means “the one who wrestles with God.” Knowing this, it is obvious that “Israel” is not a genetic term that is passed through bloodlines down through families in the same way “Egyptian” would be. To be a member of Israel was a spiritual activity, of knowing God and wrestling with Him in intimate fellowship, not just merely inheriting the right DNA.

We know this is true, because God calls all kinds of ethnic peoples “Israel.” For instance, when the Israelites leave the land of Egypt, escaping from the slavery to be a free people serving their covenant God, the text tells us that a “mixed multitude” went out with them (Exodus 12:38). Apparently, there was a contingency of Egyptians who were so impressed by Yahweh, that they abandoned the empire of the Pharaohs and joined themselves with Israel, becoming followers of Jehovah. Just like the ethnic born sons of Abraham, they too were accounted as Israel.

Moses also reiterates that Israel was a spiritual distinction, when he admonishes the people to “circumcise their hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16). All of the men of Israel had performed the physical sign of circumcision on their genitals, but there were many of them who were not true Israel in the heart (Romans 9:6). This is because being a member of true Israel was never about biology or physicality, but of spiritual allegiance to Yahweh.

Thinking also of the lineage of Christ, from the genealogies recorded in the Gospels, we can ascertain that Ruth the Moabite was a part of His lineage and was grafted into Israel. Along with Ruth, Rahab the Canaanite prostitute was a part of His line as well as Bathsheeba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite and could have been a Hittite herself (the text is unclear). Regardless, the Servant of the Lord, whom Isaiah calls “true Israel” was the one who assimilated people who were far off, and foreigners to His covenant promises, and brought them into Him as one people. This is why Paul says that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28) because all are one in Christ, made one through His finished work (Ephesians 2:14-16), to be children of Abraham by faith (Galatians 3:29), and have been made into a new nation, the “Israel of God” which includes slaves and free, male and female, Jews and Gentiles together as one unified people of God (Galatians 6:16).

(more…)

Read more

On November 26, 2019 By In Politics

God’s Divided People: Biblical Lessons for the Church

The recent observance of the 502nd anniversary of the Protestant Reformation should once again prompt us to reflect on the unity of God’s church amidst so many divisions. Christians everywhere can point to Jesus’ high priestly prayer recorded in John’s gospel: “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:21), yet wonder why this cannot be a present reality. It’s not just that churches are organizationally distinct but that they do not enjoy full communion with each other, erecting barriers preventing their members from recognizing outsiders as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Of course, some church bodies deny that God’s church is divided at all. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one holy catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago. Other communions are officially in schism from this one true church, and their members constitute at most separated brethren in imperfect communion with Rome. The Orthodox Churches, while organizationally more pluriform, return the favour, claiming that Rome, along with every other ecclesiastical body, is outside the one true church, embodied in global Orthodoxy.

(more…)

Read more

On July 28, 2017 By In Theology

The Seed and the Serpent: Genesis 3:15 fulfilled in Exodus, Part 2

Guest Post by Jacob Gucker

According to Genesis 3:15 the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head. This post argues for a near fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Israel as a nation and the crushing of Pharaoh in the Red Sea. Part one dealt with the “seed of the woman” facet of the prophecy. This part deals with “crushing the serpent’s head.”

Pictures of King Tut’s sarcophagus offer a visual clue that Pharaoh might indeed be an embodiment of the Serpent, his royal headdress clearly resembling the hood of a cobra rising up to strike. The new Pharaoh who did not knowJosephh “rose up” to strike Israel by drowning Hebrew boys in the Nile. It might have been an aggressive or violent rising with a change of regime; the language may reach back to Genesis 4 where Cain “rose up” to kill his brother.[1]

Passages in the writings of the prophets offer the strongest evidence that Pharaoh is the embodiment of the serpent of old. They call Pharaoh the dragon of the Nile (Ezekiel 29:3), the dragon of Rahab (Isaiah 51:9). The word translated “dragon” is not the same as the word for serpent in Genesis 3, nahash, but it is the same word, tannin, used in Exodus 7:9 and 12 when God instructs Moses to throw Aaron’s staff on the ground for it to become a serpent. This differs from the word used in Exodus 4 when God instructs Moses to throw his staff on the ground for the first time where it turns into a nahash. One finds that a serpent and a dragon are in the same family of animals in the Bible. The tannins might be seen as “super serpents.” They are the often serpentine chaos monsters of the Bible and the Bible refers to nations and rulers as embodiments of these beasts. Furthermore, Isaiah 27:1 places tannin and nahash in parallel with one another. Pharaoh and Egypt are thus the embodiment of the same enemy that tempted Adam and Eve, only escalated.

In Isaiah 51:9-10 the speaker urges the “Arm of the LORD” to wake up and put on strength.  At one time, according to this passage, the Arm of the LORD “cut Rahab to pieces and pierced the dragon.” In the same instance He “dried up the sea,” making the depths of the sea “a way for the redeemed to pass over.” In the crossing of the Red Sea God made a way for His people to cross over, but He also drew Rahab the dragon, embodied by Pharaoh and his army, into the depths to leave him there, crushed by the flood of water.

There is yet another clue in Exodus 3 when God commands Moses to throw his staff on the ground that it might become a serpent. Humorously, Moses flees from the serpent when he sees what has become of his staff. This seemingly insignificant detail has great literary import. Moses fled from the presence of Pharaoh when his Hebrew brothers rightfully accused him of murdering an Egyptian slave-driver. Now, Moses is fleeing from the serpent. But God tells him to reach out his hand and grab it by the tail. Soon, Pharaoh will be the fleeing serpent. God hardens his heart when he hears that Israel has fled from Egypt. This incites him to give chase. God commands Israel to encamp by the Red Sea. Yahweh is laying a trap for the serpent so that the salvation of Israel and the destruction of the serpent occur in the same act of redemption and judgement. The serpent pursues, but when it becomes apparent that Yahweh is fighting for Israel, the Egyptians flee, only to be swept into the sea and destroyed.

As Israel emerges from the water alive, Miriam is there once again. She was like a midwife for her brother’s new birth from the waters of death and now she is a midwife who has helped birth the nation. She takes a tambourine in her hand and leads forth all the women of Israel who have seen Yahweh’s victory over Pharaoh. Yahweh has vindicated their courage and faith.

As Isaiah said, it was the “Arm of the LORD” who ultimately did this and readers of Isaiah 53 find that the “Arm of the LORD” is a suffering servant who “was pierced for our transgressions,” and  “crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed.” This is Jesus and His crucifixion was a baptism in the wrath of the gentiles. As with the Exodus, the Serpent was drawn out to pursue Him into death. The Kings of the earth assembled and took counsel together, but it was a trap! God condemned Sin in His body on the tree.  Jesus is Israel and the ultimate seed of the woman who would crush the Serpent’s head.  All the faithful who are united to Him by baptism have gone with Him through death and are thus born again.

[1] Bodner, Keith. “Old Promise, New King.” In An Ark on the Nile: Beginning of the Book of Exodus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2016. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198784074.003.0003.

Read more

On June 16, 2017 By In Politics

Not So Special

Guest Post by Peter Leithart

Why is the US embroiled in the Middle East? There are two primary answers: Oil and Israel. Both are fairly intractable problems, the latter in significant part because of the unique convergence of theology and politics that has forged American policy in the region. Dispensationalists insist that we must bless Israel or incur the curse of Israel’s God, and dispensationalism has had an enormous influence on US policy. Daniel Pipes has said that “America’s Christian Zionists” are, next to the Israeli armed forces, “the Jewish state’s ultimate strategic asset.”  For obvious religious and political reasons, American Jews pressure the US government, very effectively, to support Israel militarily and diplomatically. Any deviation from a pro-Israel policy is liable to be tarred as anti-Semitic.

Just ask John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. In 2011, Mearsheimer was condemned for his endorsement of Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who, which a group of writers condemned as anti-Semitic. Alan Dershowitz claimed that Mearsheimer had crossed the “red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism.” This wasn’t the first time that Mearsheimer had dealt with the charge. His 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, co-authored with Stephen Walt, was condemned as “anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.” “Yes, it’s anti-Semitic,” wrote Eliot Cohen in the Washington Post. In response to the original essay that served as the basis of the book, Alan Dershowitz called the authors bigots whose ideas were similar to those found on neo-Nazi web sites.

Mearsheimer and Walt deny the charge, of course. They insist that Israel has a right to exist, reject the notion that the “Israel lobby” of the title is all-powerful or conspiratorial, agree that Israel’s advocates in the US are playing the same game of advocacy as everyone else in political life. Their central thesis begins from their conclusion that the US has neither sufficient moral nor strategic reasons to give unconditional support to Israel. Since moral and strategic considerations don’t explain US policy, there must be another factor: “The real reason why American politicians are so deferential is the political power of the Israel lobby” (p. 5).

I’m less interested in the argument about the Israel lobby than in Mearsheimer and Walt’s analysis of the moral and strategic rationale for US support for Israel. They argue that there is a “dwindling moral case” for supporting Israel. They don’t find the “underdog” argument plausible anymore.  While Jews have been victims for centuries, they observe, “in the past century they have often been the victimizers in the Middle East, and their main victims were and continue to be the Palestinians” (p. 79). Israel is no longer the David facing the Goliath of Arab states; they are instead “the strongest military power in the Middle East.”

Nor does support for Israel entail support for democracy, at least not democracy as most of today’s Americans understand it. Israel is, after all, a Jewish state, and “its leaders have long emphasized the importance of maintaining an unchallenged Jewish majority within its borders” (p. 87). The initial draft of the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty contained an explicit guarantee that “all are equal before the law” and an assurance that “there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, nationality, race, ethnic group, country of origin.” When the Knesset passed the Basic Law in 1992, however, that article had been dropped (p. 88). As a result, “Israel’s 1.36 million Arabs are de facto treated as second-class citizens” (p. 88).  (more…)

Read more

On April 7, 2015 By In Politics, Pro-Life

5 Reasons I am Thrilled with Rand Paul’s Candidacy for President

“Today I announce with God’s help, with the help of liberty lovers everywhere, that I am putting myself forward as a candidate for President of the United States of America.” – Rand Paul

The two most conservative candidates, in my estimation, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have announced they are going to run for president. Rand Paul’s announcement today has drawn remarkable coverage from the left and the right.

I speak as only one member of the KC community, but as it stands, my vote is with the Kentucky Senator. Here are five reasons I stand with Rand:

First, Rand Paul is already being attacked by hawkish, neo-conservative ads. According to the neo-cons, there is no room for diplomacy. We need sanctions and more sanctions. This line of reasoning is both archaic and a proven failure. What is it that makes Rand so unique in this field? The National Journal observes:

Despite being from the party often thought of as the home of defense hawks and ballooning defense budgets, Paul has spent most of his tenure in the Senate challenging foreign-aid disbursements, the U.S. spy apparatus, and—in a defining 13-hour filibuster—where to draw the line on overseas drone strikes.

Rand Paul’s constitutional principles mean that he will always seek congressional approval before voting in favor of war; a principle very few have followed. In this sense, Rand Paul’s skepticism of America’s foreign ventures makes him an excellent candidate, in my estimation.a

Second, Rand Paul opposes the government’s continual abuse of power by spying on millions of Americans. While many politicians are willing to give the government a carte blanche, Paul wants to constrain surveillance.

Third, Rand follows, at least in part, some of the Austrian school of economics as it relates to the Federal Reserve’s role in setting interest rates and its affect on the national economy. Who controls the money controls the country. Rand Paul, like his father before him, “wants a full review of the financial records of America’s central bank — and its decision making.” As Paul has stated in a recent op-ed piece:

“If the Federal Reserve was a real bank, without extraordinary powers, it would be insolvent.”b

Fourth, Rand Paul appears to be pro-life. The reason I say “appears,” is because I do not trust politicians’ claims until they are truly tested during the campaign. Paul’s position seems to be in principle pro-life. Life News reports:

When it comes to pro-life issues, there is little doubt Paul is pro-life and, on 10 votes on pro-life issues cast in the Senate during his tenure, Paul has a 100% pro-life voting record — voting against Obamacare, to stop abortion funding with taxpayer dollars, and protecting the conscience rights of pro-life people. Paul has said “personal religious belief” is that life begins at conception.

On his campaign web site, Paul makes his pro-life views very clear.

“I strongly believe in the sanctity of life. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Under the 14th Amendment, it is the government’s duty to protect life as defined in our Constitution,” he says. “As a physician, one of the first things we learn is to ‘Do no harm.’  Since Roe v. Wade decision, over 50 million children have been killed in abortion procedures. As President, I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade, in an effort to stop harming the lives of the unborn.”

Paul continues: “Our government should not be responsible for funding abortions, and as President, I will attempt to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion. I believe we may be able to save millions of lives, and do no harm, by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. By giving this power to the states, I sincerely believe we would save hundreds of thousands of lives.”

I will be closely monitoring his claims throughout the campaign, since the life issue is of tremendous importance to the flourishing of any society.

Finally, and this is the elephant in the room, I am thrilled about Rand Paul’s candidacy for president because he is Ron Paul’s son. I was a staunch supporter of Ron Paul’s platform, though not a strong supporter of Ron Paul as rhetorician and strategist. I think the elder Paul made some strategic blunders that I hope his son avoids. Rand needs to avoid spending time with Alex Jones and some of the media outlets that are too conspiratorial and hyper-libertarian for the general public. These interviews will simply distract people from seeing Rand as an authentic candidate that is not easily blown by every wind of doctrine.

Rand is much more capable of following his father’s footsteps and ideals with an irenic spirit. He is a reconciler, a compromiser in the healthiest of sense, and someone who can clearly work across the aisle. And in politics, you need to do that.

For these reasons, and certainly many others, I stand with Rand on this first day of his candidacy.

 

  1. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording: [The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;  (back)

  2. For more information, get Ron Paul’s wonderful book “End the Fed” http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul-ebook/dp/B002N0ADQG  (back)

Read more

On August 27, 2014 By In Politics

Palestine ≠ Terrorism

On July 8th, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, a military response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip by Hamas. The operation is currently in its 50th day. If you watch the news, you’ve heard about the strikes back and forth between Israel and Hamas. You’ve heard about the deaths of civilians and the destruction of property on both sides. You’ve heard many condemn Israel as being disproportionate in its use of force; you’ve heard many defend Israel for its use of force. Whatever the case, emotions are high and battle lines have been drawn.

In America, especially in Christian circles, it seems that the lines are drawn rather simplistically. Dennis Prager summarizes the conflict between Israel and Palestine as “one side wants the other side dead.” The glaring problem with such a statement is that there are more than two sides involved. When we think of the conflict as “Israel vs. Palestine” without distinguishing the Palestinian Authority from Hamas, or the West Bank from Gaza, we’ve accepted a false narrative. Prager uses general terms such as “Palestinians,” “Palestinian people,” or “Palestinian leadership” when describing the side that wants to kill the other. This causes his audience to see no distinction; they are left to assume that all Palestinians are thirsty for Israeli blood. Some clarifications are in order.  (more…)

Read more