The current US administration also derives a lot of its support from evangelical Christians, who have a belief that Israel must exist in order for Jesus to return to earth. Which I’m sure he’d be a fan of all the lying and killing that was done to make that happen…
Not all evangelical Christians are like this. There are two main branches: covenantal and dispensational. Dispensational theology is basically the same thing as Christian Zionism, and was invented in the 1800s by John Darby and his followers[1]. Covenantal theology goes way further back and is still popular today. For example Presbyterians are a major covenantal denomination.
They leave out the part where their end time scenario says the Jews will ally with the Anti-Christ, will nearly all be killed in a war with Gentile armies, and then the remaining Jews will all convert to Christianity.
I don't think you have to be an evangelical Christian to belief that Israel should exist. I think a lot of people not heavily invested in politics or world affairs simply see Israel as more of a Western country aligned with their values and beliefs and want them to exist.
> Which I’m sure he’d be a fan of all the lying and killing that was done to make that happen…
I'm not sure if Israel ceased to exist there would be less killing and lying. In the first order effect maybe. But if you let a terrorist state control an area, that's obviously not good for global stability. But then again it might be self contained, kind of like a backwards place that exists in its own bubble.
If Israel ceased to exist, Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed Shii will come in and slaughter Sunni Hamas. Iran funds Hamas not out of love for Hamas, but out of spite for the Jewish state.
Yes, support started for Israel once Epstein got dirt on them. There is no history of support for Israel prior to that. Yours it totally the most likely/rational take.
WTF is going on with this site? You sure have people real comfortable to say this kind of shit here.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."
--Jean-Paul Sartre
If you claim that America, which has supported Israel forever and long before Epstein, is supporting Israel because 'Epstein' based on conspiracy theories, everything I said and quoted applies to you. OP brought Epstein into it for a reason, not a mistake. You continued referencing Epstein, not a mistake.
But everyone reading this, see how the above post turned the words just slightly from OP they defended and my response, to try and change the discourse/make me defend something different/uncomfortable versus what I originally replied to? Not claiming they did that on purpose, but if they did it would be an example of what Sartre said. Not saying you intentionally misconstrued/misrepresented what I said. Just saying that you happened to do the thing.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." --Jean-Paul Sartre
Edit: can't post but there is no need to bring Esptein into it at all if it's just about manipulation fears (since the USA has supported Israel long before Epstein). Both of you specifically brought Epstein needlessly into your arguments. I'm done dancing and doing word play like the quote says.
No there was a factual mistake in that person’s comment. That’s not identical with anti-semitism. Someone holding a mistaken view isn’t anti-Semitic simply because anti-Semites hold mistaken views.
