Recently the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, appeared at an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council. On his jacket was a bright yellow Star of David, similar to what Jews were forced to wear when Nazis ruled Germany.
But there was a difference between the star worn at the UN and those worn during the Holocaust.
During the Nazi era, the yellow badging branded Jews as loathsome and unclean. But the U.N. star was different. It bore the words “Never Again,” symbolizing to the world that Israel will never again allow itself to be subjected to tyranny and terror.
The Israeli U.N. ambassador’s visible statement was timely. Amazingly, arguments are being bandied about by pro-Palestinian supporters that Israel is to blame for the attacks on its people, that Israel is an “apartheid state,” that Israel is an occupier of Palestine, and most egregious, that Israel is conducting genocide. These arguments fall into one of three categories: They are either fallacious, salacious or downright contumacious.
Fallacious means they are based on a mistaken belief or a fallacy. Salacious, usually reserved for sexual content, means they are arguments bordering on the obscene, the corrupt, and indecent, appealing to the most carnal of interests. Contumacious means they are arguments projected for the sole purpose of being stubborn or willfully argumentative. None of these are good.
How is it that such differing narratives exist?
Israel was savagely attacked on Oct. 7, yet there are protests in the streets of New York, protests that vandalized the gates of the White House, and protests on some of America’s most vaunted university campuses claiming to be on the side of Hamas.
Is this the public view? When did anti-Semitism become vogue? Why would anyone join in the fallacious, salacious, and contumacious arguments that portray Hamas terrorists as the good guys?
It bears noting that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel in this current conflict with Hamas. A recent NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist national poll conducted after Oct. 7, found that roughly 65% of Americans want the U.S. government to openly support Israel. Some 23% felt we should just stay quiet. Only 8% say the U.S. should criticize Israel.
If you sense that anti-Israel protestors represent a small but vocal minority, then you are right. U.S. public sentiment does not lean toward anti-Semitism or against Israel, not by a long shot.
But if we believe that the Jewish nation is on the right side of things, then how do we put that into context? Under what framework do we build our own argument to counter the false narratives that the other side is yelling in the streets?
The underpinnings for my own views supporting Israel can be made from three different perspectives:
The first is based on faith. As a Christian, I believe the Bible to be the unerring word of God. My belief system centers on salvation through Jesus Christ, but I also recognize the “chosen” status of Israel’s people. I also believe that the Bible talks of an end-of-time warfare in which Israel’s enemies will fail in epic fashion as they coalesce in efforts to wipe Israel off the map. So, the first baseline for my support of Israel is because my faith leads me to do so.
Can an atheist support Israel’s right to make war on Hamas? Absolutely. Adequate grounds for support can be found in a military and foreign policy perspective. In 1948, the United States was the first nation to openly recognize the sovereignty of the newly re-established nation of Israel. Since then, we have forged one of our most enduring alliances with that nation. We trade technology, arms agreements, and have pledged military support. The U.S. has openly supported Israel on the world stage. Allies do not turn their backs on allies. Meanwhile, Palestinian terrorism has been a factor in world events for decades with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hamas, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Islamic jihad wreaking destruction on innocent noncombatants. Americans can easily support Israel solely based on military and foreign policy considerations.
But then there are geopolitical premises. Arab nations are not welcoming Palestinian refugees. There is history there. In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the nation of Kuwait expelled several hundred thousand Palestinians from its country because they had been largely supportive of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s Kuwait invasion. In 1970, Palestinian factions in Jordan began fomenting rebellion, calling for the overthrow of the Jordanian government. They armed themselves and warred with Jordanian authorities in what became known as “Black September.” Palestinians were expelled from Jordan, but not before they assassinated the Jordanian Prime Minister. Palestinian militants also invaded and destabilized Lebanon causing a bloody war there. In short, Palestinian militants have sowed unrest, discord, and violence across the Middle East for decades, resulting in very little support from most of our Middle Eastern friends and allies. From a purely geopolitical standpoint, it is not difficult to decline support for Hamas’s position.
But the arguments against Israel still remain, despite their overwhelmingly misguided fallacious, salacious, and contumacious nature. Hamas does not want peace. Hamas and its sympathizers want the extermination of Israel and Jews worldwide.
"The Daily Wire’s" Ben Shapiro said it best recently when he opined: "If the Palestinians put down their guns tomorrow there would be a [Palestinian] state. If Israelis put down their guns, there would be no Israel."
I agree with Israel’s UN Ambassador and the majority of Americans … “Never Again”!
To contact Phil or request him for a speaking engagement, go to www.rightsideradio.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to Commentary@1819News.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
