Posted by
darrelmulloy on Monday, January 14, 2008 6:00:26 PM
If you had a good friend who you respected for his families history, and he had neighbors who didn't like him for the same reasons, would you first: give your friend things that he needed, such as a means to protect himself from his enemies? and then second: give his neighbors who didn't like him two to three times more of what you gave him? Should you then be able to tell your friend that he should not defend himself or protect his property?
If you did this, would you expect that your friend would be able to adequately defend himself against those who didn't like him?
If you had the opportunity to take away from your friends enemies all that you have been giving them, but at the same time be required to take also from your friend the one half to one third of what his enemies had received, and then left them alone to resolve their differences, would you do it?
If you did, wouldn't that make your friend better off against his enemies than when they were receiving much more than he was?
If your friend was Israel, and his enemies were all of his neighboring states, would you be considered anti-semite?