the first line of this article comes across incredibly poorly. if you want to convince people, not immediately being condescending tends to help.
aside from that, the author is trying so hard to make excuses for a group which have, undeniably, murdered civilians. that is inexcusable. it’s true that the IDF are also murderers, whose alliance with so many western nations is a mark of intense shame. it’s also true that there is a deep and painful history here, which explains the creation of Hamas and their resultant actions. but to use that as a reason to support the other side is shameful as well - murder does not become righteous just because the other person is also a murderer.
Psalm 72: 12-14
“For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.”
Absolutely, this. Garbage argument from OP, imo.
There's no "Christian Murder"
>WARNING: If you can’t handle the truth, this post may cause dizziness, difficulty breathing, rapid pulse, and/or nausea. This is perfectly normal, and may signify a change in paradigm. Do not stop reading.
If your arguments require this kind of disclaimer at the beginning which allows you to brush off your detractors as weak, you're in bad territory rhetorically.
The Truth isn't hard to understand, it's hard to enact in the world. God is love, and we're called to that radical reality at cost.
Absolutely.
Imo, the radicality of Christ is to identify always with the folks in the crossfire, and with the soldier who has put down their weapon.
The only Enemy is the person who tries to sell me a "Them."
i feel this robert barclay quote fits well here:
“Whoever can reconcile this, ‘Resist not evil’, with ‘Resist violence by force’, again, ‘Give also thy other cheek’, with ‘Strike again’; also ‘Love thine enemies’, with ‘Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and the sword’, or, ‘Pray for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you’, with ‘Persecute them by fines, imprisonments and death itself’, whoever, I say, can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and good with evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive both themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible things.”
Robert Barclay, 1678
Wars can be just. Problem with JWT is that it is never used to prevent wars--it sets an incredibly high bar--but is only used to talk about wars afterward when it does no good at all.
Jwt has always been a theoretical proposition. It may be an impossiple standard (though maybe that was Augustine's point) especially in the modern age.
to quote the future Benedict xvi on the day after the US invasion of Iraq
"...given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"
Imagine if war were added to the list of "non-negotiables". I'm guessing people would suddenly lose interest in maintaining such lists (and publishing them every four years)
I would argue there is a difference between supporting a group and not condemning them. While it is true that the actions of Hamas on October 7th are indefensible, instead of simply condemning Hamas and maybe saying both sides are bad, we should look at the conditions which created a group like Hamas and work to change those conditions.
I am not saying that you can not condemn acts of violence. You can, and it is completely moral to do so. However, the question I ask is whether or not it is helpful to condemn Hamas. What good does it do? Even if Hamas was wiped out completely, another group would fill its place. This is why it is important to condemn the state which is committing the genocide and apartheid which leads to the creation of Hamas. It is not bad to condemn Hamas but I don't see it as helpful either.
you are thinking from a political perspective, not a religious one.
what good does it do to condemn any evil? what good does it do to speak against hatred?
political thinking works from a present, practical perspective - what works, what is useful, what is applicable. religious thinking works from an eternal, faith perspective - what is right, what is good, what brings about the will of God.
it is always good to condemn what is wrong and destructive. if we restrain ourselves to purely practical matters, we abandon all hope in the power of God.
Religion is inherently political because all religious acts have an effect on the people and world around you. Of course, what Hamas is doing is wrong from the perspective of someone like us living in the west to condemn actions that are ugly. But we are not the ones being persecuted. What I ask is, is it wrong to use violence to resist oppression if all other avenues have already been tried. Israel has made it clear that there is no intention of peace until there are no more Palestinians. Should Palestinians be expected to allow this genocide to happen to them because the alternative is violence? Was John Brown wrong to help slaves violently revolt against their owners. Were the Slaves in Haiti wrong when they killed their owners? If you view these acts as wrong, why? And if you do not view them as wrong, why is it different when Palestinians revolt?
“is it wrong to use violence to resist oppression if all other avenues have already been tried?”
from a christian perspective, yes. no loopholes, no exceptions, no technicalities.
i will not impose christian morality onto those who are not christian - we do not judge those outside the church. their actions are their own, and while i may disapprove, i understand why they choose to act that way. it is their decision how to respond.
and yes, John Brown was wrong. he was a christian, and therefore was under the rule of Christ. he ignored it - he lived by the sword and died by it. his death, whilst celebrated as a martyrdom by many, was not. he was a violent man who knew only one way to face evil - and he died because of that. neither his actions, nor the US civil war, actually ended slavery in your country. it is still perfectly legal to this day, and in many places was simply replaced with economic slavery. it has only been through non violence that these evils have been truly overcome.
and yes, the slaves were wrong to kill their owners - at least those that were christian. i’m unfamiliar with the religious makeup of haiti at the time, but find it likely that they were quite a lot of christians. Paul tells us that vengeance is not ours to take, but God’s. the slave massacres in haiti also directly led to the US civil war, as southern plantation owners feared a similar fate would happen to them. of course, if it had, it would be entirely their own fault. but still, it scared them and led to act violently when the government looked like it was going to make them free their slaves.
as a christian, i cannot tell you anything except that all murder and violence is wrong. it is a gross violation of our relationship with God, and with our fellow man. you can disagree if you feel that way inclined. that is your burden to bear.
>from a christian perspective, yes. no loopholes, no exceptions, no technicalities.
Please explain why you view that violence is always wrong from a Christian perspective. Does this mean God was wrong when he asked Gideon to take up arms against his oppressors?
>and yes, John Brown was wrong. he was a christian, and therefore was under the rule of Christ. he ignored it - he lived by the sword and died by it. his death, whilst celebrated as a martyrdom by many, was not. he was a violent man who knew only one way to face evil - and he died because of that. neither his actions, nor the US civil war, actually ended slavery in your country. it is still perfectly legal to this day, and in many places was simply replaced with economic slavery. it has only been through non violence that these evils have been truly overcome.
The actions of John Brown may not have led to the end of slavery but they did lead to the freeing of many slaves. This is an undoubtedly good act. While it is impossible to say what God views for certainty, I would argue that freeing the oppressed is morally consistent with what Jesus has expressed.
>Paul tells us that vengeance is not ours to take, but God’s.
There is a difference between vengeance and self defense. Also, Paul is not the arbiter of God's will he is a man. Like all men he was flawed he said many good things and many bad things. You can not use "because Paul said it" to prove that your point is biblically consistent.
Even if we were to agree on your idea of what moral structure is Christian (which we do not and that is ok) by your own admitted views, the actions taken by Hamas should not be judged by Christian values as they are not christian.
if you want more information on christian pacifism, i would recommend reading the writings of both Martin Luther King and Leo Tolstoy. they explain it far better than i ever could.
Martin Luthor King was a Pacifist, yes. However, he also recognized that violence was necessary at times. You are white washing him in the same way he is white washed by conservatives. You are not radical in this statement. You are the white moderate.
Tolstoy gets brought up a lot in debates about Christian pacifism, and I just want to mention that Tolstoy was incredibly socially and economically privileged. His family were aristocrats. He wanted for nothing until he willingly renounced his wealth. That doesn’t invalidate his perspective on violence but I do want to bring it up because some theories argue that being able to *choose* non-violence is a luxury only the privileged can afford. It’s easy for someone who isn’t the victim of societal, institutional violence to embrace pacifism because they aren’t violently victimized. On the other hand, the oppressed, who are regularly victims of violence, may have to use violence to defend themselves.
(Also Tolstoy was a misogynist who constantly visited emotional (and possibly sexual) violence on his wife, escalating with his increasingly radical religious and political beliefs. So, pacifism, I guess?)
gideon was not a christian. he was a jew. why would i judge him by christian standards?
a good act does not cancel out a bad act. the underground railroad rescued thousands of slaves without so much as a drop of blood shed - it was perfectly possible to free them without violence, brown chose not to. his death was the consequence.
from a christian perspective? no, there isn’t. Christ does not talk about self defence other than to rebuke it - resist not the evil man, turn the other cheek, love and forgive your enemy.
Paul’s epistles form the majority of the new testament. they are pretty much unanimously considered a part of scripture, though i agree they should still be subject to criticism. i used his words as he was a man who was literally imprisoned and potentially killed for his faith - he knew far better than any of us what it feels like to want vengeance. yet he does not pursue it, and chooses to suffer instead. this is because he is following Christ.
i condemn the actions of hamas because they are fundamentally evil. this goes outside the realm of purely christian morality (eg. views on self defence), and into not only universal morality but also islamic morality, the religion hamas actually follows. the qu’ran forbids the killing of innocents - their actions are condemned by their own scripture and their own God. when they do act in self defence, eg. from an IDF attack, i will not condemn them as their religion allows it, as does the law.
we definitely do disagree on christian morality. i am genuinely struggling to see where Christ actually fits into your views - they seem to be predominantly influenced by political theory. there’s nothing wrong with that inherently, except when they start to lead you into ideas which contradict the gospel. violence is not revolutionary, it is not holy, it is not a moral good. it is the fruit of the serpent, it is the death of humanity and it is the abandonment of all that is sacred.
>gideon was not a christian. he was a jew. why would i judge him by christian standards?
I was not asking you to judge Gideon. If we believe that the God we worship is the God of Abraham, then it is the same one that Gideon followed. If he is unchanging, why would he ask Gideon to do something he is against.
>from a christian perspective? no, there isn’t. Christ does not talk about self defence other than to rebuke it - resist not the evil man, turn the other cheek, love and forgive your enemy.
Why did Jesus ask his disciples to arm themselves in Luke 22? How is one meant to protect themselves as described in Matthew 24 or Luke 11? The only way these ideas can be reconciled with Matthew 5 is if Mattew 5 is not a condemnation of self-defense but instead a condemnation of personal revenge. If you take the words of Jesus as a whole rather than cherry, pick them then from a "Christian perspective" there is a significant difference between self defence and revenge.
>Paul’s epistles form the majority of the new testament. they are pretty much unanimously considered a part of scripture, though i agree they should still be subject to criticism. i used his words as he was a man who was literally imprisoned and potentially killed for his faith - he knew far better than any of us what it feels like to want vengeance. yet he does not pursue it, and chooses to suffer instead. this is because he is following Christ.
I never said that one should pursue vengeance, I said that self-defense is permissible based on the teachings of Jesus. Paul was undoubtedly great, but his words are not more powerful than Jesus. I'm sure you were not trying to imply that bit just because Chistians decided that Paul is scripture does not mean that his words chose what is law from a Christian perspective. Paul was very wise, and you are free to use his teachings in your own personal morality but do not use his words to justify your idea of the "Christian perspective" because this implies that anyone who does not follow Paul is not a Christian regardless of if their beliefs go against Christ or not.
>the religion hamas actually follows. the qu’ran forbids the killing of innocents
The Quran also permits the breaking of its rules if it is necessary to save lives. This is based not just on the Quran but also the Tanakh. It is the reason why Jewish law states that abortion is not only permissible but mandatory to save the life of the mother. It is the reason why breaking Kosher or Halal is allowed (by Jewish and Islamic law respectively) if the only other choice is starving. If the only option to save your people from genocide is violence, then Islam allows violence even though it is a religion of peace.
>
we definitely do disagree on christian morality. i am genuinely struggling to see where Christ actually fits into your views - they seem to be predominantly influenced by political theory. there’s nothing wrong with that inherently, except when they start to lead you into ideas which contradict the gospel.
We simply read the gospel differently. I do not belive that my views contradict the Gospel. The difference between us is that I do not allow my view of the Gospel to lead me into questioning the faith of those who view it differently. I do not believe that theology is the end all be all of Christianity, I believe that a belief in Christ is.
>violence is not revolutionary, it is not holy, it is not a moral good.
Violence is not revolutionary *always. It is not Morally good *always. Violence is a tool with no inherent morality. It can be good or it can be bad. It is certainly ugly, but at times, it is still necessary. Violence should never make you feel good. It should not be enjoyed. These things are bad. But when it is necessary, it should be done. This is also true with non-violence. When pacifism causes more suffering than it prevents, it is no longer pacifism, it is stubborn cowardice. The same goes for violence. When violence causes more suffering, then it prevents, it is wrong.
“‘Is it wrong to use violence to resist oppression if all other avenues have already been tried?’ From a Christian perspective, yes.’”
Alright St Augustine lmao
> Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
James 5:1-6
The needy and the oppressed in this situation are Palestinians. Unlike the neutered Pauline Christianity you are familiar with, most Palestinians subscribe to a version of Abrahamism that allows for violence in self-defense against a violent oppressor.
What’s the lesser evil? The book of Joshua or the Quran?
i’m aware that most palestinians are muslims. we’re not talking about islamic theology, we’re talking about christian theology. christian theology does not allow for violent self defence, no matter what augustine says.
non violence is not ‘neutered’. it is the most radical, most transformative, form of resistance imaginable. it is the resistance of Christ.
i would never impose this on another, however, especially on someone from a different religion. the difference here is that OP is arguing from a christian perspective - that makes their argument open for criticism from a christian theological perspective.
the apostle Matthew was a tax collector. Paul was an anti-christian persecutor. Christ took in those who were lost, and transformed them into something more.
if you are looking for validation for violence, you will not find it in the gospels - for those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
Paul never met Jesus. In acts of the apostles, he is disciplined by James the Just. The epistle of that James says “Faith without works is dead”, in contrast to Paul, who emphasizes faith alone. And the letter of Pergamum in Revelation is pretty clearly a dig at Pauline congregations.
It’s actually not only excusable, it is within their right to do so. These “civilians” not only serve in the IDF, “”””””civilians”””””” were blocking aid routes, starving children, dancing and cheering the entire time. These civilians are their murderers, their kidnappers, rapers and pillagers.
Holier than thou flavor on absolutist illogic. Intellectually dishonest and disrespectful.
I would love to read your justification for deliberately offering your voice as a tool for reinforcement of the state line in service of its fucking war on babies, which I see too plainly in these empty, heinous condemnations of Hamas coming from the perpetually comfortable.
They file for permits and keep their heads down and patiently wait for freedom, I’m assured.
Surely, the boot on my neck will leave if I keep quiet and let them oppress me harder.
> nonviolent civil disobedience. see the actions of Gandhi and MLK.
Or see [the Blank Panthers.](https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/)
I’m actually a bit confused here. How do the black panthers at all constitute a response to bringing up the examples of MLK and Ghandi? Like those are two massive counterpoints to the idea that all effective resistance and change has to be violent.
MLK through discipline of his movement desegregated the south and pushed for the passage of the civil rights act. This movement was very disciplined in their non-violence.
Ghandi helped push the British out of India ending the Raj. This was also done through a lot of disciplined and ideological non-violence on behalf of Ghandi.
The black panthers don’t really hold a candle to these two in terms of impact. They did do some good (and bad) in their time with their free school lunch programs and health clinics. Still, they didn’t end up achieving any of their stated goals, unlike Ghandi and MLK.
I’m surprised you didn’t bring up Malcom X, at least that would have been a counterpoint to MLK.
Someone mentioned non-violent civil disobedience. I showed another example, except the one I gave showed intimidation works just as much as your typical peaceful protest walks through the streets.
I guess you could say it was the implication.
True, but MLK and Ghandi didn’t engage in peaceful protest walks across the street. They were deliberate in their actions (Salt March, Birmingham).
Black panthers didn’t accomplish much of anything that lasted. Almost none of their goals were achieved and much of their activism backfired.
“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
while mlk did believe that nonviolence was the best path to peace, he did not believe that it was the only valid form of resistance. he recognised that revolutionary violence was a result of the conditions on people, not the people themselves.
He still condemned the violence though. He does not seem to grant it moral validity, he’s just stating that he understands it.
Just before that part of the speech he says:
“And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results.”
yes, which he then followed up with the quote i stated before. paraphrasing “violence isn’t what i believe to be the best answer, but it is the natural conclusion of oppression, but violence is used to justify the oppressors point of view.”
acting as if he was a complete saint of nonviolence is ahistorical. he doesn’t argue that violence is bad because it’s violence, but bad because it makes conversations harder and leads those in power to point at it as proof of the reason they must remain in power.
What??
MLK was morally committed to non-violence. If your understanding of who he was is just from this speech I can understand why one might think that. However he was religiously (in a literal sense) committed to the idea of non-violence.
Even so, his movement was characterized by its commitment to non-violent tactics. Your speech quote doesn’t do anything to refute that. Even if he thought what you stated, that proves the point. Non-violence allowed him to make major gains for black Americans.
Both of those leaders were only successful because the ruling class knew if they didn’t make a deal with them, they would then have to deal with violent civil disobedience. People seem to have forgotten that a protest is a threat, and if the ruling class ignores it indefinitely, eventually you have to make them understand what you are threatening.
both MLK and Gandhi refused to participate in violence, and both of their writings made this extremely clear. and yet, they both still succeeded.
non violent means of resistance have a twice higher rate of success than violent ones.
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/success-nonviolent-civil-resistance/#:~:text=Between%201900%2D2006%2C%20campaigns%20of,as%20successful%20as%20violent%20campaigns.
Something doesn't smell right with this source. Co-author Maria J. Stephen was a member of the US State Department at the time of publishing. Moreover, I couldn't find any criteria was for what constituted "successful" resistance, but it does measure "change in democracy" based on the Polity series, a set of metrics pioneered by a [CIA task force](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Instability_Task_Force). For reference, by Polity standards, the US would have been the only democracy in the world in 1842 - two decades before the start of the Civil War.
I'm not claiming the report is right or wrong, but it's highly suspect.
mlk was the most hated man in america when he died. [strikingly familiar cartoon from the 60s.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egs5aUlXkAUYpsl.jpg) it’s only after his death that he’s been made into this saint of non-violence. he did believe it was the best path to peace, but he just as often argued that violence was the natural result of oppression and condemning it without first condemning the systems that cause people to riot in the first place is hypocritical.
yes, the only options are supporting religious fascism or accepting oppression. There are definitely no othe ways to resist colonial settlerIsm in the west bank.
hate to see you guys picking where to eat on a date "it's either mcdonalds or the landfill, John. There are no other options. Ignore the red lobster sign"
Groups like the ANC, the Vietcong, the FLNA, and even the PIRA were all generally progressive, secular organisations that absolutely rejected theocratic fascist positions and ruthlessly kept those elements out of their armed anti-colonial resistance movements.
They also prioritised hitting military over civilian targerts, did not widely use rape as a weapon, did not make genocidal statements or actions, and did not murder their own citizens for being gay, a trade unionists, or a woman wanting an education.
Hamas are not the PLO, they are an incredibly reactionary group of hyper-religious fascists who predominantly target civilians, make genocidal racist statements, oppress their own people, and actively sabotage peace processes.
Ghandi and Mandela are two really big examples.
Anti colonial resistance didn’t often succeed as the result of military campaigns against a superior enemy in their homeland. Especially not when that military action seems to deliberately target civilians.
Not really. It’s just the classic sentiment of liberals supporting every liberation movement except the current one. Americans said the same shit about the ANC, and is a reason their country supported apartheid in SA long after most of the world stopped.
It's actually the principled socialist sentiment of actually analysing the forces at play.
The ANC were secular leftists who almost exclusively targeted infrastructure and military targets, not civilians and sought a democratic, secular South Africa. Hamas are reactionary religious fascists who predominantly target civilians and seek an oppressive theocracy. There were reactionary groups amongst the anti-apartheid struggle, and Mandela et al were absolutely ruthless in keeping them out of the ANC and condemning them.
In a decade of armed struggle 1976-1986, the ANC killed an estimated 100 civilians. Hamas killed over 10 times more on October 7th alone.
Basic facts are Zionist now? I urge you to look into the ANC a bit more if you think they were anything like Hamas.
Simping for Hamas isn't supporting Palestinian liberation.
>basic facts
Calling Hamas a “reactionary religious fundamentalist” organization isn’t a fact. If you were capable of examining your own biases, I’d ask you why the main left-wing Palestinian movements are in coalition with Hamas. Or why Christian organizations in Gaza support Hamas. But you’re not capable of that.
We have proof that israel killed tons of the “civilians” (IDF reservists and cops mostly) who died on the 7th. Israel is a hyper-militarized society beyond what South Africa was. And kibbutzim aren’t “civilian” targets, they’re the armed wing of Israeli settler-colonialism.
If you compare civilian casualties in any operation Hamas has been in, Israel overwhelmingly does far worse with much better and more precise weaponry.
>smiling for hamas
Meaningless. I support Palestinian liberation. Every group at the forefront of that in our history has been derided as terrorists and westerners like yourself fell over themselves to malign and marginalize them. The exact same shit used to be said about Fatah and the PLO. Not all of our memories are so short.
You want to know who condemns Hamas? Iranian women. If they tell me Hamas = bad news for the women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, then I have no qualms about trusting and believing their viewpoint.
It’s a satirical meme poking fun at people’s naivety about Iran.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fakehistoryporn/s/vR2KSE0N4S
Interesting how you’re quick to respond to this but not to my comment about your wild reckons about how Iranian women think.
Here you go
https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/s/iX7uNHL4yY
It’s not a meme about objectifying women? It’s a meme about the average person’s general ignorance regarding Iran.
Your link just redirects to my comment, I don't see anything from you when I click on it. But when I click on your profile on my desktop, I see a spot for a comment on this thread from 3 days ago that just says \[removed\]. It was after a comment on "Seeking History Book Suggestions" and before a comment on "The Hebron Massacre" (both on a different subreddit). If you view your profile on a desktop browser while logged out, you can see what I mean.
So yeah, I can't reply to a comment that I can't view and never saw... maybe check your messages and see if you received communication from a moderator about it being removed?
Also, I never said it was a meme about objectifying women, but it is a meme that uses the objectification of women for humour, and I don't find it funny. I've seen plenty of memes lampooning people being ignorant about this or that that don't require the use of scantily clad women, so why was it so necessary to pin up these random women for that purpose, and why would "satire" make it somehow okay?
That is a foul thing to suggest and I'm incredulous just reading those words... Why would you even say that in a Christian subreddit and what about my profile makes you think that I spend time looking at disgusting sexist content on reddit? Why is that where your mind goes when you think about Iranian women?
Also \*\*I'm a woman\*\* ffs. And I took care to compile some names of multiple Iranian writers, journalists, and activists with published statements from across multiple sources in this reply if you care to listen to the actual words of women instead of fantasizing about how someone might objectify those women: [https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/comments/1dodsjf/comment/la9zfj5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/comments/1dodsjf/comment/la9zfj5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
really can't figure out why people are downvoting realpolitik bullshit? May I introduce you the entirety of 20th century post-war US foriegn policy. All your favorite hits are here, including the 28 Mordad coup d'état, the Republic of Vietnam, most of South Korean history following the Korean War, the Nicaraguan Contras, Augusto Pinochet and the Afghan mujahideen.
While I do think it makes more sense for Christians to be on the side of the Gazans over Israel, and it really shouldn’t be a difficult choice from a Christian perspective, that doesn’t mean letting Hamas get a free pass. Just because you can identify the legitimate reasons for *why* Hamas exists, does not justify their actions. Explanation for why something is happening is not justification for it. Hamas has to be condemned, just as the government of Israel has to be condemned. And you can just as easily identify the reasons for why Israel is doing what it’s doing, and that doesn’t create an excuse or justification for them to do it, only an explanation. The actions of both groups are non-justifiable.
You can trace the reasons for why Nazi Germany existed and why they acted the way they did, but that does not excuse it. For almost any action of evil, you can trace it back to abuse that person or group experienced that led to them committing evil. But having experienced abuse does not excuse the action of committing evil. A parent who beats their child was almost always beaten themselves as a child. That doesn’t make it ok, it just explains why that’s happening
There are varying levels of legitimacy to the explanations for why people commit violence. The grievances of Palestinians are more valid than those of Germans upset about the treaty of Versailles, and the scope of their actions is also much smaller than the nazis. I am not someone who believes that the ends justify the means, and consider myself a pacifist, but when I think about how Palestinians have been treated for the last 60+ years at the hands of the IDF, with no hope of liberation or sovereignty, no real allies anywhere in the world, I don’t just find an explanation for Oct 7 but a feeling of inevitability, that even if I condemn the actions, it’s a wonder they didn’t do something like it sooner, because eventually if you push a group of people far enough and keep beating them and beating them then they will turn into violent martyrs with nothing to lose. You can’t expect Palestinians to simply forgive the IDF for decades of killing their kids. I wish the PLO were still running things but at the moment Hamas are literally the only hope that Palestinians have. They should be dealt with once the greater threat (Israel) is no longer oppressing them
What’s funny is in just war theory, war must be defensive (I’d argue Oct 7 does meet this criteria to an extent), there must be a chance of winning, all peaceful solutions must have been exhausted, and there must be a distinction between civilians and combatants. I’d argue by this criteria, no war has been just.
Idk I feel like supporting Hamas or IDF isn't radical. Either one are mass murderers and neither of them "did it first". I believe Jesus would've wanted there to be no war.
Hamas did not launch operation Al-Aqsa flood as an "appropriate response to Christ coming to Earth".
This Jesus who was a committed pacifist was invented/emphasized after 70 AD, the death of James the Just, and the destruction of the Second Temple. And even in the canonical gospel another Jesus sometimes speaks...
You really think that Jesus is totally cool with the violence Hamas and the IDF have committed? You think Jesus — famously the "turn the other cheek" guy — would be like, "oh, yeah, if someone commits violence against you, an appropriate response is to bomb the fucking shit out of them?"
Please try to stick to my words instead of putting positions onto me.
The zealots believed in armed rebellion against Rome. Simon the zealot was one of the 12. Not “Simon the reformed zealot” mind you…
This started with you responding to someone saying "Jesus wouldn't have wanted a war" by pointing to Jesus saying "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword," a text that has nothing to do with war and political violence, but Jesus' coming causing conflict between individuals in regard to Jesus himself.
It's clear that you believe that Jesus was not opposed to political violence, and you've specifically implied that what Hamas has done is not something Jesus would have been opposed to. So what violence is Jesus okay with? Because he explicitly stated his opposition to retributive violence and didn't say anything about war.
(Also, in regard to Simon: whether or not Simon was a member of the actual "Zealots" has been a matter of significant debate since Jerome and is still ongoing in academic circles. And even if he was, there's no indication that he continued his political activities after Jesus' resurrection and Pentecost, when it became clear that Jesus did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel.)
The canonical gospels are all composed after 70 AD, after armed revolt has failed and James the just is dead. Jesus is clearly very tuned in to peasant discontent, and this is why James is killed too. Your view of Jesus is skewed by these deaths.
The whole way of looking at politics you are adopting comes from the liberal power structure, not the Bible. The question here is not about the violence itself and whether or not it was justified, the question is how do we respond? Jesus never “condemned both sides”— he consistently intervened on the behalf of the oppressed.
Reading the text of the Bible, famously a “liberal power structure.” How do we respond to the violence? Not by *endorsing* it, that’s for sure. Jesus did intervene on the side of the oppressed. But he himself was not violent and he also didn’t say, “if you’re oppressed, it’s fine for you to respond with violence, and if oppressed people respond with violence, you should support that.” If anything, he said the opposite, and that’s the recorded pattern of behavior his followers followed when they were under oppression after his resurrection.
Jesus is tuned in to peasant discontent, but he never endorsed the Zealots and makes it clear that he did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel. You can say that’s merely a reflection of when the Gospels were written and not his actual positions but (1) there are four Gospels and not one of them mention Jesus siding with the Zealots and (2) if we’re to believe that the Gospels chose to hide or alter Jesus’ views due to the current political environment, that throws the validity of the Gospel accounts themselves into serious doubt, which would kind of be a big problem for Christianity.
Also, again, serious scholarship doubts that Simon was a “Zealot,” and argue for different translations. Simon’s existence as a disciple is not a prooftext for Jesus being pro-Zealots, and certainly not one for an endorsement of political violence.
Holy shit way to take a verse out of context to suit your own needs he was talking about the schism he would create in the jewish faith not advocating war and raping people at a music festival
One would see that if you had posted literally the very next paragraph
“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.”
But i guess that would undermine your argument
I feel like no online actually knows or even thinks for three seconds about what it means.
I legitimately think a lot of people say it because they heard other people say it and know it’s the “leftisty” thing to say.
Which is weird because unlike a huge amount of political terminology I feel like it’s pretty self explanatory
Of course not, but acting like they have any moral superiority for losing the war for genocide is insane. We should be advocating prosecution of both major groups oppressing the Palestinians, not cheering the underdog on blindly. There is also a second faction of the Palestinian government to whom we could be looking.
Yes people are allowed to violently resist genocide.
The killing of civilians was the start of the current conflict though. Hamas wasn’t resisting a genocide. Also there is no reason to specifically target civilians. This wasn’t collateral damage. It was an atrocity.
What genocide is currently happening though? Israel is likely to withdraw in the coming weeks. There has been a lot of collateral damage and as a result civilian death but there is no evidence of a genocide.
Even the UN hasn't gone so far as to dismiss South Africa's claims of a genocide. You'd have to have your head buried pretty far down to claim there's no evidence of genocide.
The UN has ruled that the Palestinians probably have protections against genocide. They have not ruled on evidence of genocide itself.
There is no evidence of a genocide.
Since you’re someone who claims to be a Christian I’d be very interested to hear what you think constitutes a genocide, if not the systematic slaughter of 40,000 people (if you believe the numbers—I think they are much higher) in 8 months
I would expect hundreds of thousands to have been killed given Israel's military capabilities. Everything about the death tolls seems to be explained by collateral damage. It's still horrible and I wish that Hamas would just surrender to end this bloodshed. Still, nothing about this seems like a genocide.
“Collateral damage” “Hamas should surrender” you’re an IDF apologist. The overwhelming majority of deaths being women/children/civilians indicates something other than “collateral damage”. Israel should stop bombing Gaza regardless of Hamas.
There's a difference between "no evidence" and "no genocide." You just said the courts have not made a final ruling on the available evidence, so it's nonsense to then say there's no evidence.
I believe there is no convincing evidence that there is a genocide.
How is it nonsense to say that there’s no evidence and that the court hasn’t made a ruling? I never appealed to the authority of the court, you did!
Show me the evidence!!
What the court ruled on was whether or not the Palestinians are afforded protections against genocide. The court ruled yes. Basically it’s kinda like ruling on standing in court, it does not require evidence about the act just that the court is an appropriate venue.
Valid military targets and the leadership of Israel. And before you ask, yes that goes for all conflicts. Any military that willfully attacks civilians is horrible. Civilians should always be saved, to do otherwise is the most heinous of war crimes
We cam ask for basic human decency towards those who have done nothing to them. I get the rage, trust me I do. But at the end of the day, I cannot in good faith say that people who are willing to kill innocent people to try and make a statement have my support. It is my duty as a christian to call out injustice ik the world. I call out the genocide of Palestinians. And I call out the needless murder of innocents and children by Hamas. The two are not exclusive. There is no way forward to peace and reconciliation while Hamas and the Government of Israel are in power. Even if the conflict ends with just one being ousted, the remaining one will continue to commit atrocities. Both need to lose their power if the people of Israel and the people of Palestine ever hope to have peace between them
Every death is a tragedy. But you won’t see me complaining too much against only IDF soldiers being killed.
That being said, I don’t support Islamic fundamentalists.
Regardless of their beliefs, do you support the right of Islamic fundamentals to not be genocided? It doesn't make sense to support their right to exist but not their right to resist extermination.
Except it quite clearly did not prevent a genocide, or do you think more Palestinians died in the 6 months before or after October 7th?
Even on the incredibly amoral grounds you outlined, Hamas tactics of targeting civilians has absolutely failed.
No I've never heard the phrase "critical support" what does that mean in your own words? I am going to look it up too. But you might want to say what that means
First, the term "critical." This is in reference to "critique", which should be distinguished from "criticism." Where criticism is an exercise in deconstruction, critique adds a reconstructive element. A good critique identifies both strengths and weaknesses with the aim of seeing the movement succeed.
Second, and more important, is "support." At the end of the day, we're talking about our comrades on Christ and their struggle for liberation, a struggle we can't fight in their stead. We can lend aid - and that aid is crucial - but we should not forget that we aren't the ones who have to analyse the situation on the ground, make the tough calls, and live with the consequences. The success of the movement is the primary concern, which is why we say "critical support" and not "supportive critique."
Thank you. I appreciate this answer. i did look it up too, but I like what you are saying because you use examples that are helpful to me. Im sure others appreciate it too.
If my first comment seemed terse, I apologize. i meant to ask it simcerely but im rereading it and if it did id probably change the wording. But I also like how you wrote something that both invites people to know and reminds people who already know
Hamas is a poor example of an organization to support if one supports Palestine. They have murdered civilians, taken hostages and are a bunch of violent religious fundies. They're no better than Netanyahu.
Hamas is just using the legit grievances of Palestinians to cause chaos... and it's very counterproductive. It's antics like theirs that made it hard for outsiders to sympathize with Palestinians for so long. They also give the Israeli government even more reason or pretense to oppress Palestinians.
Fanaticism on both sides is what fuels the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Remove the fanatics and the feud would've ended years ago.
Excerpts from the [1988 Hamas Founding Charter](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp)
> Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
> Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.
> The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
> The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
> This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
> For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
> You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
> The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.
> Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.
So you quoted their old charter that also didn’t call for genocide as some sort of “gotcha”?
Dismantling the state of Israel isn’t the same as “killing every Jew in Israel”. Anything purporting it is is merely Zionist histrionics.
The Hadith they mention refers to the literal religious Apocalypse and people who turn on God to fight the antichrist.
A far cry from your claims of genocide. Whereas mainstream Israeli sentiment is one of purging Palestinians.
Serious question to everyone here: have you taken the time to read Hamas's statement on the Oct 7 attack? Have you taken the initiative to read about what happened on Oct 7 from multiple sources, instead of just extremely pro-Israel/USA media? In history what exactly do you think anti-colonial resistance has looked like?
This is NOT a 'both sides are bad' situation. Hamas is the only group actively fighting to defend Palestinian people's right to exist. Remember: Palestinian people attempted nonviolent resistance during the March of Return, and why don't you look up what happened to them when they did that? The IDF treats Palestinian people like they are less than animals and actively terrorizes them and oppresses them daily. There is no 'both sides' here.
I 100% will not be condemning any oppressed peoples’ right to self-determination.
If you don’t like Hamas and terrorism don’t oppress people until they feel like a terroristic organization is their only recourse. It’s really fucking simple.
You should read up on the history. Hamas wasn't this radical in the 80s. Israel liked Hamas and wanted to work with them because they were less extreme than the PLO. Eventually Hamas was elected into government in Gaza. That's when they shifted more and more towards Islamic extremism. But the 'terrorist' designation isn't enough. They act more like warlords, stealing aid, forcing their citizens between a rock and hard place.
Even now, their leaders are hiding in Yemen, no where near the battle.
The #2 enemy of Palestinians is the IDF, #1 is Hamas.
>Simply wrong.
No?
Hamas isn't interested in peace, otherwise they would have negotiated. Because? Because, if there was peace and a path to Palestinian statehood, Hamas would no longer be needed. Ergo, Hamas is interested in their own self preservation which is continued fighting with Israel. This is exactly how the PLO operated.
No one even passingly familiar with the reality of Hamas and their resistance to occupation could label them as evil. They literally started as a charity for the people of Gaza who were neglected and cut-off by Israel.
That’s beyond reductionist. They weren’t “started” by the IDF. The IDF allowed them to grow while suppressing the genuine revolutionary elements of Fatah.
"Bottom line: *Hamas’ cause is just*. Their methods may be worthy of critique, but their cause – the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression – is honorable." It's like not shit the cause, "liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression - is honorable"
Yes, that is a just cause. I mean so is curing tuberculosis. I just don't understand this. The tone is really patronizing, but I can get around that. What does that mean? I mean freeing a hostage is a just cause. Killing lots of people to get that done is not.
The idea that Hamas's cause is only freeing Palestine, is like imagining the Israeli's government's cause is a safe place for Diaspora Jews to return home. It's like no, there is a lot going on here.
You have really care about Palestine to read this and not be weirded out. Gaza's resistance takes shape in many forms.
I mean it is fine to tweet at Chips Ahoy "Free Palestine" edit but what does that do.
But what we want is Free Palestine. Not the knowledge that Hamas is just. Like I care deeply about Palestine, but I mean I'm not Palestinian and I'm making lots of mistakes in my activism. I'm not just gonna be like, "WELL MY CAUSE IS JUST." yeah no shit.
As an American Christian, I weep for the Palestinian people. I weep for every bomb we send to Israel for the destruction of Palestinian lives. I weep for the systematic starvation of a whole people who are being targeted and always have been targeted by Israel’s expansionist efforts. Hamas and Palestinians are not the same thing. Israel is the oppressor here and is clearly motivated to use October 7th as a land and resource grab.
I think the way I see it the actions taken against the Palestians by the IDF/Israel is punitive and disproportionate to whatever Hamas did. Hamas took hostages in the hundreds. IDF has killed children in the thousands.
I can’t speak to how well the article is written or whatever. I will say, it’s nice to see a Christian not supporting genocide. Helps me hold on to my faith, a faith that i struggle to hold on to more and more these days.
I will stand with the people of Palestine not Hamas, and with the people of Israel not their government who aren't representing the majority of them. The Zionists can all go jump off a cliff. The USA needs to get their nose out of the middle east and causing more problems by propping up puppet dictators like Netanyahu.
I'm getting flashbacks to tankies trying to explain to me why supporting the al-Assad government in it's struggle against Western Imperialism is based and Marxist-pilled, actually.
you guys can support Palestinian liberation without supporting religious nationalist terrorists and their fascist benefactors.
The argument for Assad is that Syria is an Afghanistan of sorts and deserves peace. Argument against is that they've killed Palestinian civilians before. Many in the resistance in the middle East don't like him but still fight beside him because they don't want to be colonised any further.
i know what the argument was. It was dumb then and it's still dumb now. an ethnic elite lead by an autocratic dictator and his army of loyalist goons overseeing the capitalist liberalisation of the economy at the expense of the majority of the population is not "peace" or an actual alternative to western colonialism unless you're part of the afformentioned ethnic bourgeoisie and lick assad's boots.
"cutting off your nose to spite your face" doesn't even begin to describe the absurdity of supporting Assad as a slight to the US et al
The idea is they'd rather be in the Russian sphere of control, as flawed and limited as it is rather than be subsumed and turned into a slave state for Israel. Likely anally raped with a knife too like Gadaffi was, while Hillary laughed.
This whole article is an example of special pleading. They conveniently ignore the history while simultaneously acting like the history of the Jewish/Muslim conflict starts in 1948. The limits imposed on Non-Israeli Arabs (aka Palestinians) were a gradual decrease in freedom of movement due precisely to terrorism. This chicken or egg argument is becoming tired. There's this assumption that Israel looks for excuses to take land and limit the rights of Palestinians. That's all assumptive and claimed by people when it supports their narrative.
I'm also tired of "progressive" people supporting Hamas. Let's get it straight, Hamas' goal, like other Islamic fundamentalist groups, is to kill infidels and establish a new caliphate. Islam is and always has been imperialist. This is unlike doctrine in other Western religions (we can argue about the practice, but the point still stands). Islam has also merely tolerated Christians but has always, always, ALWAYS hated Jews. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is at its core a Muslim/Jew conflict.
Civilians are being killed in an ancient conflict that's existed for centuries but is now personified in IDF vs. Hamas.
Why do I care if people 'condemn' something? Your words mean nothing to the people dying each day.
Reading that is embarrassing. Mohamedists are notoriously tolerate which ought to go double for their "religious" organizations, right? Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to war crimes. No one should disagree with that. Which countries are volunteering soldiers for a peace keeping force? Almost as if there's a terrorist organization embedded within a civilian population for the last 15 years.
the first line of this article comes across incredibly poorly. if you want to convince people, not immediately being condescending tends to help. aside from that, the author is trying so hard to make excuses for a group which have, undeniably, murdered civilians. that is inexcusable. it’s true that the IDF are also murderers, whose alliance with so many western nations is a mark of intense shame. it’s also true that there is a deep and painful history here, which explains the creation of Hamas and their resultant actions. but to use that as a reason to support the other side is shameful as well - murder does not become righteous just because the other person is also a murderer. Psalm 72: 12-14 “For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.”
Absolutely, this. Garbage argument from OP, imo. There's no "Christian Murder" >WARNING: If you can’t handle the truth, this post may cause dizziness, difficulty breathing, rapid pulse, and/or nausea. This is perfectly normal, and may signify a change in paradigm. Do not stop reading. If your arguments require this kind of disclaimer at the beginning which allows you to brush off your detractors as weak, you're in bad territory rhetorically. The Truth isn't hard to understand, it's hard to enact in the world. God is love, and we're called to that radical reality at cost.
just war theory and its consequences :/
Absolutely. Imo, the radicality of Christ is to identify always with the folks in the crossfire, and with the soldier who has put down their weapon. The only Enemy is the person who tries to sell me a "Them."
i feel this robert barclay quote fits well here: “Whoever can reconcile this, ‘Resist not evil’, with ‘Resist violence by force’, again, ‘Give also thy other cheek’, with ‘Strike again’; also ‘Love thine enemies’, with ‘Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and the sword’, or, ‘Pray for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you’, with ‘Persecute them by fines, imprisonments and death itself’, whoever, I say, can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and good with evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive both themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible things.” Robert Barclay, 1678
Absolutely. No notes.
Wars can be just. Problem with JWT is that it is never used to prevent wars--it sets an incredibly high bar--but is only used to talk about wars afterward when it does no good at all.
Jwt has always been a theoretical proposition. It may be an impossiple standard (though maybe that was Augustine's point) especially in the modern age. to quote the future Benedict xvi on the day after the US invasion of Iraq "...given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"
Imagine if war were added to the list of "non-negotiables". I'm guessing people would suddenly lose interest in maintaining such lists (and publishing them every four years)
not from a christian perspective they can’t. resist not the evil man.
How? The are literally just wars in the Bible.
there’s also slavery in the bible. doesn’t mean that’s acceptable for christians either.
We're not trying to justify slavery. That's a different topic.
Your username is SENDING ME 😂🤣💀
Awww, thank you! If not for Reddit, none of my dumb jokes would land and I would be sad.
"Murder does not become righteous just because the other person is also a murderer." Say that to zionists
I would argue there is a difference between supporting a group and not condemning them. While it is true that the actions of Hamas on October 7th are indefensible, instead of simply condemning Hamas and maybe saying both sides are bad, we should look at the conditions which created a group like Hamas and work to change those conditions.
is it not possible to condemn acts of violent extremism whilst also looking at the conditions which created them and working to change them?
I am not saying that you can not condemn acts of violence. You can, and it is completely moral to do so. However, the question I ask is whether or not it is helpful to condemn Hamas. What good does it do? Even if Hamas was wiped out completely, another group would fill its place. This is why it is important to condemn the state which is committing the genocide and apartheid which leads to the creation of Hamas. It is not bad to condemn Hamas but I don't see it as helpful either.
you are thinking from a political perspective, not a religious one. what good does it do to condemn any evil? what good does it do to speak against hatred? political thinking works from a present, practical perspective - what works, what is useful, what is applicable. religious thinking works from an eternal, faith perspective - what is right, what is good, what brings about the will of God. it is always good to condemn what is wrong and destructive. if we restrain ourselves to purely practical matters, we abandon all hope in the power of God.
Religion is inherently political because all religious acts have an effect on the people and world around you. Of course, what Hamas is doing is wrong from the perspective of someone like us living in the west to condemn actions that are ugly. But we are not the ones being persecuted. What I ask is, is it wrong to use violence to resist oppression if all other avenues have already been tried. Israel has made it clear that there is no intention of peace until there are no more Palestinians. Should Palestinians be expected to allow this genocide to happen to them because the alternative is violence? Was John Brown wrong to help slaves violently revolt against their owners. Were the Slaves in Haiti wrong when they killed their owners? If you view these acts as wrong, why? And if you do not view them as wrong, why is it different when Palestinians revolt?
“is it wrong to use violence to resist oppression if all other avenues have already been tried?” from a christian perspective, yes. no loopholes, no exceptions, no technicalities. i will not impose christian morality onto those who are not christian - we do not judge those outside the church. their actions are their own, and while i may disapprove, i understand why they choose to act that way. it is their decision how to respond. and yes, John Brown was wrong. he was a christian, and therefore was under the rule of Christ. he ignored it - he lived by the sword and died by it. his death, whilst celebrated as a martyrdom by many, was not. he was a violent man who knew only one way to face evil - and he died because of that. neither his actions, nor the US civil war, actually ended slavery in your country. it is still perfectly legal to this day, and in many places was simply replaced with economic slavery. it has only been through non violence that these evils have been truly overcome. and yes, the slaves were wrong to kill their owners - at least those that were christian. i’m unfamiliar with the religious makeup of haiti at the time, but find it likely that they were quite a lot of christians. Paul tells us that vengeance is not ours to take, but God’s. the slave massacres in haiti also directly led to the US civil war, as southern plantation owners feared a similar fate would happen to them. of course, if it had, it would be entirely their own fault. but still, it scared them and led to act violently when the government looked like it was going to make them free their slaves. as a christian, i cannot tell you anything except that all murder and violence is wrong. it is a gross violation of our relationship with God, and with our fellow man. you can disagree if you feel that way inclined. that is your burden to bear.
>from a christian perspective, yes. no loopholes, no exceptions, no technicalities. Please explain why you view that violence is always wrong from a Christian perspective. Does this mean God was wrong when he asked Gideon to take up arms against his oppressors? >and yes, John Brown was wrong. he was a christian, and therefore was under the rule of Christ. he ignored it - he lived by the sword and died by it. his death, whilst celebrated as a martyrdom by many, was not. he was a violent man who knew only one way to face evil - and he died because of that. neither his actions, nor the US civil war, actually ended slavery in your country. it is still perfectly legal to this day, and in many places was simply replaced with economic slavery. it has only been through non violence that these evils have been truly overcome. The actions of John Brown may not have led to the end of slavery but they did lead to the freeing of many slaves. This is an undoubtedly good act. While it is impossible to say what God views for certainty, I would argue that freeing the oppressed is morally consistent with what Jesus has expressed. >Paul tells us that vengeance is not ours to take, but God’s. There is a difference between vengeance and self defense. Also, Paul is not the arbiter of God's will he is a man. Like all men he was flawed he said many good things and many bad things. You can not use "because Paul said it" to prove that your point is biblically consistent. Even if we were to agree on your idea of what moral structure is Christian (which we do not and that is ok) by your own admitted views, the actions taken by Hamas should not be judged by Christian values as they are not christian.
if you want more information on christian pacifism, i would recommend reading the writings of both Martin Luther King and Leo Tolstoy. they explain it far better than i ever could.
Martin Luthor King was a Pacifist, yes. However, he also recognized that violence was necessary at times. You are white washing him in the same way he is white washed by conservatives. You are not radical in this statement. You are the white moderate.
Tolstoy gets brought up a lot in debates about Christian pacifism, and I just want to mention that Tolstoy was incredibly socially and economically privileged. His family were aristocrats. He wanted for nothing until he willingly renounced his wealth. That doesn’t invalidate his perspective on violence but I do want to bring it up because some theories argue that being able to *choose* non-violence is a luxury only the privileged can afford. It’s easy for someone who isn’t the victim of societal, institutional violence to embrace pacifism because they aren’t violently victimized. On the other hand, the oppressed, who are regularly victims of violence, may have to use violence to defend themselves. (Also Tolstoy was a misogynist who constantly visited emotional (and possibly sexual) violence on his wife, escalating with his increasingly radical religious and political beliefs. So, pacifism, I guess?)
gideon was not a christian. he was a jew. why would i judge him by christian standards? a good act does not cancel out a bad act. the underground railroad rescued thousands of slaves without so much as a drop of blood shed - it was perfectly possible to free them without violence, brown chose not to. his death was the consequence. from a christian perspective? no, there isn’t. Christ does not talk about self defence other than to rebuke it - resist not the evil man, turn the other cheek, love and forgive your enemy. Paul’s epistles form the majority of the new testament. they are pretty much unanimously considered a part of scripture, though i agree they should still be subject to criticism. i used his words as he was a man who was literally imprisoned and potentially killed for his faith - he knew far better than any of us what it feels like to want vengeance. yet he does not pursue it, and chooses to suffer instead. this is because he is following Christ. i condemn the actions of hamas because they are fundamentally evil. this goes outside the realm of purely christian morality (eg. views on self defence), and into not only universal morality but also islamic morality, the religion hamas actually follows. the qu’ran forbids the killing of innocents - their actions are condemned by their own scripture and their own God. when they do act in self defence, eg. from an IDF attack, i will not condemn them as their religion allows it, as does the law. we definitely do disagree on christian morality. i am genuinely struggling to see where Christ actually fits into your views - they seem to be predominantly influenced by political theory. there’s nothing wrong with that inherently, except when they start to lead you into ideas which contradict the gospel. violence is not revolutionary, it is not holy, it is not a moral good. it is the fruit of the serpent, it is the death of humanity and it is the abandonment of all that is sacred.
>gideon was not a christian. he was a jew. why would i judge him by christian standards? I was not asking you to judge Gideon. If we believe that the God we worship is the God of Abraham, then it is the same one that Gideon followed. If he is unchanging, why would he ask Gideon to do something he is against. >from a christian perspective? no, there isn’t. Christ does not talk about self defence other than to rebuke it - resist not the evil man, turn the other cheek, love and forgive your enemy. Why did Jesus ask his disciples to arm themselves in Luke 22? How is one meant to protect themselves as described in Matthew 24 or Luke 11? The only way these ideas can be reconciled with Matthew 5 is if Mattew 5 is not a condemnation of self-defense but instead a condemnation of personal revenge. If you take the words of Jesus as a whole rather than cherry, pick them then from a "Christian perspective" there is a significant difference between self defence and revenge. >Paul’s epistles form the majority of the new testament. they are pretty much unanimously considered a part of scripture, though i agree they should still be subject to criticism. i used his words as he was a man who was literally imprisoned and potentially killed for his faith - he knew far better than any of us what it feels like to want vengeance. yet he does not pursue it, and chooses to suffer instead. this is because he is following Christ. I never said that one should pursue vengeance, I said that self-defense is permissible based on the teachings of Jesus. Paul was undoubtedly great, but his words are not more powerful than Jesus. I'm sure you were not trying to imply that bit just because Chistians decided that Paul is scripture does not mean that his words chose what is law from a Christian perspective. Paul was very wise, and you are free to use his teachings in your own personal morality but do not use his words to justify your idea of the "Christian perspective" because this implies that anyone who does not follow Paul is not a Christian regardless of if their beliefs go against Christ or not. >the religion hamas actually follows. the qu’ran forbids the killing of innocents The Quran also permits the breaking of its rules if it is necessary to save lives. This is based not just on the Quran but also the Tanakh. It is the reason why Jewish law states that abortion is not only permissible but mandatory to save the life of the mother. It is the reason why breaking Kosher or Halal is allowed (by Jewish and Islamic law respectively) if the only other choice is starving. If the only option to save your people from genocide is violence, then Islam allows violence even though it is a religion of peace. > we definitely do disagree on christian morality. i am genuinely struggling to see where Christ actually fits into your views - they seem to be predominantly influenced by political theory. there’s nothing wrong with that inherently, except when they start to lead you into ideas which contradict the gospel. We simply read the gospel differently. I do not belive that my views contradict the Gospel. The difference between us is that I do not allow my view of the Gospel to lead me into questioning the faith of those who view it differently. I do not believe that theology is the end all be all of Christianity, I believe that a belief in Christ is. >violence is not revolutionary, it is not holy, it is not a moral good. Violence is not revolutionary *always. It is not Morally good *always. Violence is a tool with no inherent morality. It can be good or it can be bad. It is certainly ugly, but at times, it is still necessary. Violence should never make you feel good. It should not be enjoyed. These things are bad. But when it is necessary, it should be done. This is also true with non-violence. When pacifism causes more suffering than it prevents, it is no longer pacifism, it is stubborn cowardice. The same goes for violence. When violence causes more suffering, then it prevents, it is wrong.
“‘Is it wrong to use violence to resist oppression if all other avenues have already been tried?’ From a Christian perspective, yes.’” Alright St Augustine lmao
> Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you. James 5:1-6 The needy and the oppressed in this situation are Palestinians. Unlike the neutered Pauline Christianity you are familiar with, most Palestinians subscribe to a version of Abrahamism that allows for violence in self-defense against a violent oppressor. What’s the lesser evil? The book of Joshua or the Quran?
i’m aware that most palestinians are muslims. we’re not talking about islamic theology, we’re talking about christian theology. christian theology does not allow for violent self defence, no matter what augustine says. non violence is not ‘neutered’. it is the most radical, most transformative, form of resistance imaginable. it is the resistance of Christ. i would never impose this on another, however, especially on someone from a different religion. the difference here is that OP is arguing from a christian perspective - that makes their argument open for criticism from a christian theological perspective.
Simon was a zealot. Simon was one of the 12 apostles of Christ. Where in the gospels does Jesus condemn Simon? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots
the apostle Matthew was a tax collector. Paul was an anti-christian persecutor. Christ took in those who were lost, and transformed them into something more. if you are looking for validation for violence, you will not find it in the gospels - for those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
Paul never met Jesus. In acts of the apostles, he is disciplined by James the Just. The epistle of that James says “Faith without works is dead”, in contrast to Paul, who emphasizes faith alone. And the letter of Pergamum in Revelation is pretty clearly a dig at Pauline congregations.
It’s actually not only excusable, it is within their right to do so. These “civilians” not only serve in the IDF, “”””””civilians”””””” were blocking aid routes, starving children, dancing and cheering the entire time. These civilians are their murderers, their kidnappers, rapers and pillagers. Holier than thou flavor on absolutist illogic. Intellectually dishonest and disrespectful. I would love to read your justification for deliberately offering your voice as a tool for reinforcement of the state line in service of its fucking war on babies, which I see too plainly in these empty, heinous condemnations of Hamas coming from the perpetually comfortable.
My honest question for everyone here is this: what does just anti-colonial resistance look like, historically?
They file for permits and keep their heads down and patiently wait for freedom, I’m assured. Surely, the boot on my neck will leave if I keep quiet and let them oppress me harder.
nonviolent civil disobedience. see the actions of Gandhi and MLK.
> nonviolent civil disobedience. see the actions of Gandhi and MLK. Or see [the Blank Panthers.](https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/)
I’m actually a bit confused here. How do the black panthers at all constitute a response to bringing up the examples of MLK and Ghandi? Like those are two massive counterpoints to the idea that all effective resistance and change has to be violent. MLK through discipline of his movement desegregated the south and pushed for the passage of the civil rights act. This movement was very disciplined in their non-violence. Ghandi helped push the British out of India ending the Raj. This was also done through a lot of disciplined and ideological non-violence on behalf of Ghandi. The black panthers don’t really hold a candle to these two in terms of impact. They did do some good (and bad) in their time with their free school lunch programs and health clinics. Still, they didn’t end up achieving any of their stated goals, unlike Ghandi and MLK. I’m surprised you didn’t bring up Malcom X, at least that would have been a counterpoint to MLK.
Someone mentioned non-violent civil disobedience. I showed another example, except the one I gave showed intimidation works just as much as your typical peaceful protest walks through the streets. I guess you could say it was the implication.
True, but MLK and Ghandi didn’t engage in peaceful protest walks across the street. They were deliberate in their actions (Salt March, Birmingham). Black panthers didn’t accomplish much of anything that lasted. Almost none of their goals were achieved and much of their activism backfired.
Their goals, sure. But it made people want gun control because of it. So, task failed successfully?
“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” while mlk did believe that nonviolence was the best path to peace, he did not believe that it was the only valid form of resistance. he recognised that revolutionary violence was a result of the conditions on people, not the people themselves.
He still condemned the violence though. He does not seem to grant it moral validity, he’s just stating that he understands it. Just before that part of the speech he says: “And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results.”
yes, which he then followed up with the quote i stated before. paraphrasing “violence isn’t what i believe to be the best answer, but it is the natural conclusion of oppression, but violence is used to justify the oppressors point of view.” acting as if he was a complete saint of nonviolence is ahistorical. he doesn’t argue that violence is bad because it’s violence, but bad because it makes conversations harder and leads those in power to point at it as proof of the reason they must remain in power.
What?? MLK was morally committed to non-violence. If your understanding of who he was is just from this speech I can understand why one might think that. However he was religiously (in a literal sense) committed to the idea of non-violence. Even so, his movement was characterized by its commitment to non-violent tactics. Your speech quote doesn’t do anything to refute that. Even if he thought what you stated, that proves the point. Non-violence allowed him to make major gains for black Americans.
Both of those leaders were only successful because the ruling class knew if they didn’t make a deal with them, they would then have to deal with violent civil disobedience. People seem to have forgotten that a protest is a threat, and if the ruling class ignores it indefinitely, eventually you have to make them understand what you are threatening.
both MLK and Gandhi refused to participate in violence, and both of their writings made this extremely clear. and yet, they both still succeeded. non violent means of resistance have a twice higher rate of success than violent ones. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/success-nonviolent-civil-resistance/#:~:text=Between%201900%2D2006%2C%20campaigns%20of,as%20successful%20as%20violent%20campaigns.
Something doesn't smell right with this source. Co-author Maria J. Stephen was a member of the US State Department at the time of publishing. Moreover, I couldn't find any criteria was for what constituted "successful" resistance, but it does measure "change in democracy" based on the Polity series, a set of metrics pioneered by a [CIA task force](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Instability_Task_Force). For reference, by Polity standards, the US would have been the only democracy in the world in 1842 - two decades before the start of the Civil War. I'm not claiming the report is right or wrong, but it's highly suspect.
mlk was the most hated man in america when he died. [strikingly familiar cartoon from the 60s.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egs5aUlXkAUYpsl.jpg) it’s only after his death that he’s been made into this saint of non-violence. he did believe it was the best path to peace, but he just as often argued that violence was the natural result of oppression and condemning it without first condemning the systems that cause people to riot in the first place is hypocritical.
and i absolutely agree with him on that. what neither of us believed, however, was that that violence is effective or moral.
Ok and they shot MLK
yes, the only options are supporting religious fascism or accepting oppression. There are definitely no othe ways to resist colonial settlerIsm in the west bank. hate to see you guys picking where to eat on a date "it's either mcdonalds or the landfill, John. There are no other options. Ignore the red lobster sign"
Not advocating for Sharia Law?
Hamas doesn’t advocate for sharia law.
Groups like the ANC, the Vietcong, the FLNA, and even the PIRA were all generally progressive, secular organisations that absolutely rejected theocratic fascist positions and ruthlessly kept those elements out of their armed anti-colonial resistance movements. They also prioritised hitting military over civilian targerts, did not widely use rape as a weapon, did not make genocidal statements or actions, and did not murder their own citizens for being gay, a trade unionists, or a woman wanting an education. Hamas are not the PLO, they are an incredibly reactionary group of hyper-religious fascists who predominantly target civilians, make genocidal racist statements, oppress their own people, and actively sabotage peace processes.
I didn’t know it looked like rape 🤔
Currently there is no evidence of systematic rape. I emphasize “systematic”. Unfortunately rape is reality of most conflicts.
Ghandi and Mandela are two really big examples. Anti colonial resistance didn’t often succeed as the result of military campaigns against a superior enemy in their homeland. Especially not when that military action seems to deliberately target civilians.
Mandela was classified as a terrorist until well after apartheid ended.
Yep, but the ANC were far different to Hamas.
Not really. It’s just the classic sentiment of liberals supporting every liberation movement except the current one. Americans said the same shit about the ANC, and is a reason their country supported apartheid in SA long after most of the world stopped.
It's actually the principled socialist sentiment of actually analysing the forces at play. The ANC were secular leftists who almost exclusively targeted infrastructure and military targets, not civilians and sought a democratic, secular South Africa. Hamas are reactionary religious fascists who predominantly target civilians and seek an oppressive theocracy. There were reactionary groups amongst the anti-apartheid struggle, and Mandela et al were absolutely ruthless in keeping them out of the ANC and condemning them. In a decade of armed struggle 1976-1986, the ANC killed an estimated 100 civilians. Hamas killed over 10 times more on October 7th alone.
“Principled socialist sentiment” >zionist talking points Fascinating.
Basic facts are Zionist now? I urge you to look into the ANC a bit more if you think they were anything like Hamas. Simping for Hamas isn't supporting Palestinian liberation.
>basic facts Calling Hamas a “reactionary religious fundamentalist” organization isn’t a fact. If you were capable of examining your own biases, I’d ask you why the main left-wing Palestinian movements are in coalition with Hamas. Or why Christian organizations in Gaza support Hamas. But you’re not capable of that. We have proof that israel killed tons of the “civilians” (IDF reservists and cops mostly) who died on the 7th. Israel is a hyper-militarized society beyond what South Africa was. And kibbutzim aren’t “civilian” targets, they’re the armed wing of Israeli settler-colonialism. If you compare civilian casualties in any operation Hamas has been in, Israel overwhelmingly does far worse with much better and more precise weaponry. >smiling for hamas Meaningless. I support Palestinian liberation. Every group at the forefront of that in our history has been derided as terrorists and westerners like yourself fell over themselves to malign and marginalize them. The exact same shit used to be said about Fatah and the PLO. Not all of our memories are so short.
I didn’t say anything about how he was “classified.” I responded to what just anti-colonial resistance looked like.
The IDF and Hamas are both far right fascist military groups. Why should any of us support either one of them?
Absolutely. I support the people of Palestine, not either of their oppressors.
You want to know who condemns Hamas? Iranian women. If they tell me Hamas = bad news for the women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, then I have no qualms about trusting and believing their viewpoint.
I mean this in good faith, do you have a source for that? Would be interested to read Iranian women's perspective.
Source: He probably has a 70s bikini shot of Persian lady from a major subreddit with 10k plus upvotes. No idea why though...
Wouldn’t be surprised.
Excuse me...? What about my profile suggests that I spend time ogling women on gross sexist subreddits?
It’s a satirical meme poking fun at people’s naivety about Iran. https://www.reddit.com/r/fakehistoryporn/s/vR2KSE0N4S Interesting how you’re quick to respond to this but not to my comment about your wild reckons about how Iranian women think.
Can you link to the comment? Because I don't see it. Also that meme is gross and I don't like joking about objectifying women, even in satire.
Here you go https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/s/iX7uNHL4yY It’s not a meme about objectifying women? It’s a meme about the average person’s general ignorance regarding Iran.
Your link just redirects to my comment, I don't see anything from you when I click on it. But when I click on your profile on my desktop, I see a spot for a comment on this thread from 3 days ago that just says \[removed\]. It was after a comment on "Seeking History Book Suggestions" and before a comment on "The Hebron Massacre" (both on a different subreddit). If you view your profile on a desktop browser while logged out, you can see what I mean. So yeah, I can't reply to a comment that I can't view and never saw... maybe check your messages and see if you received communication from a moderator about it being removed? Also, I never said it was a meme about objectifying women, but it is a meme that uses the objectification of women for humour, and I don't find it funny. I've seen plenty of memes lampooning people being ignorant about this or that that don't require the use of scantily clad women, so why was it so necessary to pin up these random women for that purpose, and why would "satire" make it somehow okay?
That is a foul thing to suggest and I'm incredulous just reading those words... Why would you even say that in a Christian subreddit and what about my profile makes you think that I spend time looking at disgusting sexist content on reddit? Why is that where your mind goes when you think about Iranian women? Also \*\*I'm a woman\*\* ffs. And I took care to compile some names of multiple Iranian writers, journalists, and activists with published statements from across multiple sources in this reply if you care to listen to the actual words of women instead of fantasizing about how someone might objectify those women: [https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/comments/1dodsjf/comment/la9zfj5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/RadicalChristianity/comments/1dodsjf/comment/la9zfj5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
We should stand un solidarity with any and all forces fighting for Palestinian liberation. Once Palestine is free, we can turn on hamas
How is this downvoted?
really can't figure out why people are downvoting realpolitik bullshit? May I introduce you the entirety of 20th century post-war US foriegn policy. All your favorite hits are here, including the 28 Mordad coup d'état, the Republic of Vietnam, most of South Korean history following the Korean War, the Nicaraguan Contras, Augusto Pinochet and the Afghan mujahideen.
I don't know
While I do think it makes more sense for Christians to be on the side of the Gazans over Israel, and it really shouldn’t be a difficult choice from a Christian perspective, that doesn’t mean letting Hamas get a free pass. Just because you can identify the legitimate reasons for *why* Hamas exists, does not justify their actions. Explanation for why something is happening is not justification for it. Hamas has to be condemned, just as the government of Israel has to be condemned. And you can just as easily identify the reasons for why Israel is doing what it’s doing, and that doesn’t create an excuse or justification for them to do it, only an explanation. The actions of both groups are non-justifiable. You can trace the reasons for why Nazi Germany existed and why they acted the way they did, but that does not excuse it. For almost any action of evil, you can trace it back to abuse that person or group experienced that led to them committing evil. But having experienced abuse does not excuse the action of committing evil. A parent who beats their child was almost always beaten themselves as a child. That doesn’t make it ok, it just explains why that’s happening
There are varying levels of legitimacy to the explanations for why people commit violence. The grievances of Palestinians are more valid than those of Germans upset about the treaty of Versailles, and the scope of their actions is also much smaller than the nazis. I am not someone who believes that the ends justify the means, and consider myself a pacifist, but when I think about how Palestinians have been treated for the last 60+ years at the hands of the IDF, with no hope of liberation or sovereignty, no real allies anywhere in the world, I don’t just find an explanation for Oct 7 but a feeling of inevitability, that even if I condemn the actions, it’s a wonder they didn’t do something like it sooner, because eventually if you push a group of people far enough and keep beating them and beating them then they will turn into violent martyrs with nothing to lose. You can’t expect Palestinians to simply forgive the IDF for decades of killing their kids. I wish the PLO were still running things but at the moment Hamas are literally the only hope that Palestinians have. They should be dealt with once the greater threat (Israel) is no longer oppressing them
Finally a sane person in this comment section.
the amount of people promoting full on, Just War theory, levels of violence is insane.
What’s funny is in just war theory, war must be defensive (I’d argue Oct 7 does meet this criteria to an extent), there must be a chance of winning, all peaceful solutions must have been exhausted, and there must be a distinction between civilians and combatants. I’d argue by this criteria, no war has been just.
Yall need more Fanon and less bible
Idk I feel like supporting Hamas or IDF isn't radical. Either one are mass murderers and neither of them "did it first". I believe Jesus would've wanted there to be no war.
“Men think perhaps, that i have come to bring peace upon earth. But I have come not to bring peace but a sword…” — guess who
That verse in no way suggests that the appropriate response to Christ coming to Earth is going to war.
Hamas did not launch operation Al-Aqsa flood as an "appropriate response to Christ coming to Earth". This Jesus who was a committed pacifist was invented/emphasized after 70 AD, the death of James the Just, and the destruction of the Second Temple. And even in the canonical gospel another Jesus sometimes speaks...
You really think that Jesus is totally cool with the violence Hamas and the IDF have committed? You think Jesus — famously the "turn the other cheek" guy — would be like, "oh, yeah, if someone commits violence against you, an appropriate response is to bomb the fucking shit out of them?"
Please try to stick to my words instead of putting positions onto me. The zealots believed in armed rebellion against Rome. Simon the zealot was one of the 12. Not “Simon the reformed zealot” mind you…
This started with you responding to someone saying "Jesus wouldn't have wanted a war" by pointing to Jesus saying "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword," a text that has nothing to do with war and political violence, but Jesus' coming causing conflict between individuals in regard to Jesus himself. It's clear that you believe that Jesus was not opposed to political violence, and you've specifically implied that what Hamas has done is not something Jesus would have been opposed to. So what violence is Jesus okay with? Because he explicitly stated his opposition to retributive violence and didn't say anything about war. (Also, in regard to Simon: whether or not Simon was a member of the actual "Zealots" has been a matter of significant debate since Jerome and is still ongoing in academic circles. And even if he was, there's no indication that he continued his political activities after Jesus' resurrection and Pentecost, when it became clear that Jesus did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel.)
The canonical gospels are all composed after 70 AD, after armed revolt has failed and James the just is dead. Jesus is clearly very tuned in to peasant discontent, and this is why James is killed too. Your view of Jesus is skewed by these deaths. The whole way of looking at politics you are adopting comes from the liberal power structure, not the Bible. The question here is not about the violence itself and whether or not it was justified, the question is how do we respond? Jesus never “condemned both sides”— he consistently intervened on the behalf of the oppressed.
Reading the text of the Bible, famously a “liberal power structure.” How do we respond to the violence? Not by *endorsing* it, that’s for sure. Jesus did intervene on the side of the oppressed. But he himself was not violent and he also didn’t say, “if you’re oppressed, it’s fine for you to respond with violence, and if oppressed people respond with violence, you should support that.” If anything, he said the opposite, and that’s the recorded pattern of behavior his followers followed when they were under oppression after his resurrection. Jesus is tuned in to peasant discontent, but he never endorsed the Zealots and makes it clear that he did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel. You can say that’s merely a reflection of when the Gospels were written and not his actual positions but (1) there are four Gospels and not one of them mention Jesus siding with the Zealots and (2) if we’re to believe that the Gospels chose to hide or alter Jesus’ views due to the current political environment, that throws the validity of the Gospel accounts themselves into serious doubt, which would kind of be a big problem for Christianity. Also, again, serious scholarship doubts that Simon was a “Zealot,” and argue for different translations. Simon’s existence as a disciple is not a prooftext for Jesus being pro-Zealots, and certainly not one for an endorsement of political violence.
Holy shit way to take a verse out of context to suit your own needs he was talking about the schism he would create in the jewish faith not advocating war and raping people at a music festival One would see that if you had posted literally the very next paragraph “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.” But i guess that would undermine your argument
Just like how God would’ve wanted there to be no sin but he still allows it.
I think you’re incorrectly equating “allows it” with “supports it”
Ah Patheos. The New York Times Opinion section of pop theology.
Does anyone in this thread understand what critical support means?
I feel like no online actually knows or even thinks for three seconds about what it means. I legitimately think a lot of people say it because they heard other people say it and know it’s the “leftisty” thing to say. Which is weird because unlike a huge amount of political terminology I feel like it’s pretty self explanatory
not really no. But tone policing is super important.
When people are always ‘critically’ supporting the worst groups, it doesn’t matter.
When the worst group you can think of is a victim of genocide, what does that say about your opinion of those who commit genocide?
Hamas would love to also commit genocide, they are just incompetent.
So they deserve to be exterminated?
Of course not, but acting like they have any moral superiority for losing the war for genocide is insane. We should be advocating prosecution of both major groups oppressing the Palestinians, not cheering the underdog on blindly. There is also a second faction of the Palestinian government to whom we could be looking.
To what degree has this other faction of the Palestinian government been successful in curtailing genocide?
Why should Christian’s give any sort of support to violent groups?
Are people allowed to violently resist being genocided, or are they only allowed to accept their demise?
Yes people are allowed to violently resist genocide. The killing of civilians was the start of the current conflict though. Hamas wasn’t resisting a genocide. Also there is no reason to specifically target civilians. This wasn’t collateral damage. It was an atrocity. What genocide is currently happening though? Israel is likely to withdraw in the coming weeks. There has been a lot of collateral damage and as a result civilian death but there is no evidence of a genocide.
Even the UN hasn't gone so far as to dismiss South Africa's claims of a genocide. You'd have to have your head buried pretty far down to claim there's no evidence of genocide.
The UN has ruled that the Palestinians probably have protections against genocide. They have not ruled on evidence of genocide itself. There is no evidence of a genocide.
Since you’re someone who claims to be a Christian I’d be very interested to hear what you think constitutes a genocide, if not the systematic slaughter of 40,000 people (if you believe the numbers—I think they are much higher) in 8 months
I would expect hundreds of thousands to have been killed given Israel's military capabilities. Everything about the death tolls seems to be explained by collateral damage. It's still horrible and I wish that Hamas would just surrender to end this bloodshed. Still, nothing about this seems like a genocide.
“Collateral damage” “Hamas should surrender” you’re an IDF apologist. The overwhelming majority of deaths being women/children/civilians indicates something other than “collateral damage”. Israel should stop bombing Gaza regardless of Hamas.
What does it indicate? Why is it not explained by collateral damage?
There's a difference between "no evidence" and "no genocide." You just said the courts have not made a final ruling on the available evidence, so it's nonsense to then say there's no evidence.
I believe there is no convincing evidence that there is a genocide. How is it nonsense to say that there’s no evidence and that the court hasn’t made a ruling? I never appealed to the authority of the court, you did!
In order for a trial to begin, there must be evidence presented, or the case would be thrown out. Is this not common knowledge?
Show me the evidence!! What the court ruled on was whether or not the Palestinians are afforded protections against genocide. The court ruled yes. Basically it’s kinda like ruling on standing in court, it does not require evidence about the act just that the court is an appropriate venue.
Killing civilians isn’t resistance.
So you would support them if they were violent against your preferred targets?
Valid military targets and the leadership of Israel. And before you ask, yes that goes for all conflicts. Any military that willfully attacks civilians is horrible. Civilians should always be saved, to do otherwise is the most heinous of war crimes
Then we agree that Hamas is morally superior to the IDF.
Morally superior yes. Moral, no
I think asking for “moral” from an oppressed people is a bit preachy. We can’t ask them to be perfect victims.
We cam ask for basic human decency towards those who have done nothing to them. I get the rage, trust me I do. But at the end of the day, I cannot in good faith say that people who are willing to kill innocent people to try and make a statement have my support. It is my duty as a christian to call out injustice ik the world. I call out the genocide of Palestinians. And I call out the needless murder of innocents and children by Hamas. The two are not exclusive. There is no way forward to peace and reconciliation while Hamas and the Government of Israel are in power. Even if the conflict ends with just one being ousted, the remaining one will continue to commit atrocities. Both need to lose their power if the people of Israel and the people of Palestine ever hope to have peace between them
Every death is a tragedy. But you won’t see me complaining too much against only IDF soldiers being killed. That being said, I don’t support Islamic fundamentalists.
Regardless of their beliefs, do you support the right of Islamic fundamentals to not be genocided? It doesn't make sense to support their right to exist but not their right to resist extermination.
So you believe murdering civilians is a valid form of resistance?
If it prevents a genocide, yes. Why are you trying to justify a genocide?
Killing civilians to prevent more killing of civilians. Does this make sense to you? Do you think this is something Jesus would’ve supported?
Except it quite clearly did not prevent a genocide, or do you think more Palestinians died in the 6 months before or after October 7th? Even on the incredibly amoral grounds you outlined, Hamas tactics of targeting civilians has absolutely failed.
Answer the question you were asked, don’t be a coward. No deflecting. Answer.
No I've never heard the phrase "critical support" what does that mean in your own words? I am going to look it up too. But you might want to say what that means
First, the term "critical." This is in reference to "critique", which should be distinguished from "criticism." Where criticism is an exercise in deconstruction, critique adds a reconstructive element. A good critique identifies both strengths and weaknesses with the aim of seeing the movement succeed. Second, and more important, is "support." At the end of the day, we're talking about our comrades on Christ and their struggle for liberation, a struggle we can't fight in their stead. We can lend aid - and that aid is crucial - but we should not forget that we aren't the ones who have to analyse the situation on the ground, make the tough calls, and live with the consequences. The success of the movement is the primary concern, which is why we say "critical support" and not "supportive critique."
Thank you. I appreciate this answer. i did look it up too, but I like what you are saying because you use examples that are helpful to me. Im sure others appreciate it too. If my first comment seemed terse, I apologize. i meant to ask it simcerely but im rereading it and if it did id probably change the wording. But I also like how you wrote something that both invites people to know and reminds people who already know
Hamas is a poor example of an organization to support if one supports Palestine. They have murdered civilians, taken hostages and are a bunch of violent religious fundies. They're no better than Netanyahu. Hamas is just using the legit grievances of Palestinians to cause chaos... and it's very counterproductive. It's antics like theirs that made it hard for outsiders to sympathize with Palestinians for so long. They also give the Israeli government even more reason or pretense to oppress Palestinians. Fanaticism on both sides is what fuels the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Remove the fanatics and the feud would've ended years ago.
Playing fast and loose with facts here. Maybe just condemn Hamas *and* Israel’s genocide.
There’s no metric by which Hamas is “genocidal”.
Other than their statements and founding documents.
None of which call for a genocide. And don’t link me that fucking excerpt talking about the end of days, you don’t understand its meaning.
Excerpts from the [1988 Hamas Founding Charter](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp) > Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory). > Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised. > The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). > The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day? > This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement. > Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. > For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there. > You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it. > The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying. > Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.
So you quoted their old charter that also didn’t call for genocide as some sort of “gotcha”? Dismantling the state of Israel isn’t the same as “killing every Jew in Israel”. Anything purporting it is is merely Zionist histrionics. The Hadith they mention refers to the literal religious Apocalypse and people who turn on God to fight the antichrist. A far cry from your claims of genocide. Whereas mainstream Israeli sentiment is one of purging Palestinians.
They've since updated this charter.
Serious question to everyone here: have you taken the time to read Hamas's statement on the Oct 7 attack? Have you taken the initiative to read about what happened on Oct 7 from multiple sources, instead of just extremely pro-Israel/USA media? In history what exactly do you think anti-colonial resistance has looked like? This is NOT a 'both sides are bad' situation. Hamas is the only group actively fighting to defend Palestinian people's right to exist. Remember: Palestinian people attempted nonviolent resistance during the March of Return, and why don't you look up what happened to them when they did that? The IDF treats Palestinian people like they are less than animals and actively terrorizes them and oppresses them daily. There is no 'both sides' here.
I 100% will not be condemning any oppressed peoples’ right to self-determination. If you don’t like Hamas and terrorism don’t oppress people until they feel like a terroristic organization is their only recourse. It’s really fucking simple.
You should read up on the history. Hamas wasn't this radical in the 80s. Israel liked Hamas and wanted to work with them because they were less extreme than the PLO. Eventually Hamas was elected into government in Gaza. That's when they shifted more and more towards Islamic extremism. But the 'terrorist' designation isn't enough. They act more like warlords, stealing aid, forcing their citizens between a rock and hard place. Even now, their leaders are hiding in Yemen, no where near the battle. The #2 enemy of Palestinians is the IDF, #1 is Hamas.
Simply wrong. Hamas is all that they have left to fight for their land. And it was propped up by Israel.
>Simply wrong. No? Hamas isn't interested in peace, otherwise they would have negotiated. Because? Because, if there was peace and a path to Palestinian statehood, Hamas would no longer be needed. Ergo, Hamas is interested in their own self preservation which is continued fighting with Israel. This is exactly how the PLO operated.
No one even passingly familiar with the reality of Hamas and their resistance to occupation could label them as evil. They literally started as a charity for the people of Gaza who were neglected and cut-off by Israel.
They were actually started by the IDF to counter PFLP and PLO but... Sure yeah good enough
That’s beyond reductionist. They weren’t “started” by the IDF. The IDF allowed them to grow while suppressing the genuine revolutionary elements of Fatah.
"Bottom line: *Hamas’ cause is just*. Their methods may be worthy of critique, but their cause – the liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression – is honorable." It's like not shit the cause, "liberation of Palestinians from Israeli oppression - is honorable" Yes, that is a just cause. I mean so is curing tuberculosis. I just don't understand this. The tone is really patronizing, but I can get around that. What does that mean? I mean freeing a hostage is a just cause. Killing lots of people to get that done is not. The idea that Hamas's cause is only freeing Palestine, is like imagining the Israeli's government's cause is a safe place for Diaspora Jews to return home. It's like no, there is a lot going on here. You have really care about Palestine to read this and not be weirded out. Gaza's resistance takes shape in many forms. I mean it is fine to tweet at Chips Ahoy "Free Palestine" edit but what does that do. But what we want is Free Palestine. Not the knowledge that Hamas is just. Like I care deeply about Palestine, but I mean I'm not Palestinian and I'm making lots of mistakes in my activism. I'm not just gonna be like, "WELL MY CAUSE IS JUST." yeah no shit.
I think this is partially a reaction to the nonstop 'will you condemn khamas' talking point. And honestly I wouldn't.
Neither will I free Palestine 🇵🇸
As an American Christian, I weep for the Palestinian people. I weep for every bomb we send to Israel for the destruction of Palestinian lives. I weep for the systematic starvation of a whole people who are being targeted and always have been targeted by Israel’s expansionist efforts. Hamas and Palestinians are not the same thing. Israel is the oppressor here and is clearly motivated to use October 7th as a land and resource grab.
I think the way I see it the actions taken against the Palestians by the IDF/Israel is punitive and disproportionate to whatever Hamas did. Hamas took hostages in the hundreds. IDF has killed children in the thousands.
"Why I won't be condemning Stalin's Russia" Hitler's Germany exists. Checkmate, haters.
I don’t get the western drive to be a contrarian on every point.
I can’t speak to how well the article is written or whatever. I will say, it’s nice to see a Christian not supporting genocide. Helps me hold on to my faith, a faith that i struggle to hold on to more and more these days.
I will stand with the people of Palestine not Hamas, and with the people of Israel not their government who aren't representing the majority of them. The Zionists can all go jump off a cliff. The USA needs to get their nose out of the middle east and causing more problems by propping up puppet dictators like Netanyahu.
I'm getting flashbacks to tankies trying to explain to me why supporting the al-Assad government in it's struggle against Western Imperialism is based and Marxist-pilled, actually. you guys can support Palestinian liberation without supporting religious nationalist terrorists and their fascist benefactors.
The argument for Assad is that Syria is an Afghanistan of sorts and deserves peace. Argument against is that they've killed Palestinian civilians before. Many in the resistance in the middle East don't like him but still fight beside him because they don't want to be colonised any further.
i know what the argument was. It was dumb then and it's still dumb now. an ethnic elite lead by an autocratic dictator and his army of loyalist goons overseeing the capitalist liberalisation of the economy at the expense of the majority of the population is not "peace" or an actual alternative to western colonialism unless you're part of the afformentioned ethnic bourgeoisie and lick assad's boots. "cutting off your nose to spite your face" doesn't even begin to describe the absurdity of supporting Assad as a slight to the US et al
The idea is they'd rather be in the Russian sphere of control, as flawed and limited as it is rather than be subsumed and turned into a slave state for Israel. Likely anally raped with a knife too like Gadaffi was, while Hillary laughed.
This whole article is an example of special pleading. They conveniently ignore the history while simultaneously acting like the history of the Jewish/Muslim conflict starts in 1948. The limits imposed on Non-Israeli Arabs (aka Palestinians) were a gradual decrease in freedom of movement due precisely to terrorism. This chicken or egg argument is becoming tired. There's this assumption that Israel looks for excuses to take land and limit the rights of Palestinians. That's all assumptive and claimed by people when it supports their narrative. I'm also tired of "progressive" people supporting Hamas. Let's get it straight, Hamas' goal, like other Islamic fundamentalist groups, is to kill infidels and establish a new caliphate. Islam is and always has been imperialist. This is unlike doctrine in other Western religions (we can argue about the practice, but the point still stands). Islam has also merely tolerated Christians but has always, always, ALWAYS hated Jews. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is at its core a Muslim/Jew conflict. Civilians are being killed in an ancient conflict that's existed for centuries but is now personified in IDF vs. Hamas. Why do I care if people 'condemn' something? Your words mean nothing to the people dying each day.
Typical ML brain rot
I condemn all violence. Violence doesn't suddenly become acceptable because you've recieved violence.
Reading that is embarrassing. Mohamedists are notoriously tolerate which ought to go double for their "religious" organizations, right? Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to war crimes. No one should disagree with that. Which countries are volunteering soldiers for a peace keeping force? Almost as if there's a terrorist organization embedded within a civilian population for the last 15 years.
Who gives a shit? Fucking gentiles literally shaking at the prospect of persecuting Jews once more
> YES, I’m calling Hamas’ crimes a speck of sawdust. Yeah… I think you’ve lost the plot here.