• eliminate all government-to-government foreign aid, including aid to the State of Israel
• learn what the Bible says about Israel's right to real estate in the Middle East.

Millions of Americans believe that a group of people calling themselves "Israel" or "Jews" have a divine right to possess certain land in the Middle East.

Who Owns the Holy Land?

• An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul by Walter Block
• Pro Libertate: The Fatal Embrace, Revisited
• War Crimes: Evidence of Israeli 'cowardly blending' comes to light
• Michael Neumann's Israel-Palestine Page
• Is Israel a "Holy Land?"

Who Funds the Terrorists?

The Bubble of U.S.-Israeli Dominance

What is Left? What is Right? Does it Matter?

August 28, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative

Taki Theodoracopulos

In June 1967, I was married to my first wife and living in Paris, playing tennis and polo. When the Six-Day War began, Israel asked for volunteers of any nationality and religion. It took me about one minute to decide. I presented myself to the Israeli consulate and was sent by bus to a gathering place near Clichy, where I spent an extremely uncomfortable night among young French Jews who occasionally would scream out “Israel Vivra!” Needless to say, we were all sent home the next day, Israel’s blitz attack having destroyed the Egyptian air force on day one, the Syrian army and the Arab Legion on days two and three. Then came the Egyptian army’s turn. After one week it was all over.

The reason I volunteered was that like many of my friends, I was pro-Israel. Two things made me change my mind: Yehudi Menuhin and the sinking of the USS Liberty and its immediate cover-up by the LBJ administration.

In London, Menuhin, a Jew, declared that he would go to Palestine and give a concert in aid of the displaced Palestinians. When I met him at a friend’s house, he told me things that were hard to believe: about the terror tactics of the Stern Gang and of Irgun, both initially formed to force the British out but who had turned to killing innocent Arabs in order to gain territory. Coming from a devout Jew and the greatest violinist of his time, the point sank in. I eventually made my way down to Palestine and saw the squalid camps the refugees were living in and heard about Deir Yassin, a village that lived in peace with its Jewish neighbors until the massacre by Irgun. As a result, 600,000 Arabs fled the Palestinian territories the UN had set aside for a Jewish state, ensuring a Jewish majority in the new state.

So someone who was ready to fight for Israel’s survival eventually turned pro-Palestinian, while terrorists like Menachem Begin, a future prime minister, were turned into heroes by the propagandists in Israel and in America.

Labels simply don’t work. The old cliché of today’s terrorist becoming tomorrow’s freedom fighter, however, does.

The same applies to world politics. As a child, I witnessed armed communist gangs rounding up teachers, priests, workers, and so-called capitalist exploiters of the people and murdering them outright in camps surrounding Athens. I was eight years old. I, of course, became an arch right-winger, a Cold Warrior, and stayed one until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Uncle Sam was my hero and guiding light. My father offered our large house near the royal palace to the CIA so that American spooks could listen in on Soviet spooks in the Russian embassy next door.

But after the Evil Empire’s downfall, I saw a different America — not one dedicated to defending freedom but an empire out to exploit friends and imaginary foes alike. Why, for example, are we surrounding Russia with NATO bases? Why are we in Iraq? Why are we threatening Iran and Syria? Why are we not restraining Israel? Why is Bush inviting the Saudi head kleptocrat to Texas and holding his hand like a long-lost brother?

What are Right and Left any more? Who is a liberal and who is a conservative? When Madeleine Albright proudly announces that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children via the sanctions on Iraq were worth it, even God becomes suspect. Which liberal or conservative can explain to me the difference between an Iraqi insurgent’s roadside bomb that kills civilian passersby and a U.S. bombing raid that also causes the deaths of innocent women and children? Both are acts of savagery: in both cases one knows in advance that civilians will most certainly be killed. Bush and Americans in general claim the moral high ground, but both are terribly wrong. War is a barbaric business. Only defensive wars are justified.

When this journal began four years ago, a bum by the name of David Frum accused us of being unpatriotic Americans — this from a man who has never seen war up close and would never send his son or daughter to serve their country. But we were proved right. Iraq is the greatest American foreign-policy failure, bigger than Vietnam, but the neocons have yet to apologize. To the contrary. The Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, a sofa samurai par excellence, is urging Uncle Sam to stop dithering and to engage in more pre-emptive wars. Kristol calls himself a conservative. Could I possibly call myself the same? Not on your life.

All governments are monopolies of organized force, inherently unjustifiable. And once accepted, they are bound to get out of control sooner or later. No, there is no longer a Right or a Left. Bush’s mammoth expansion of government power and spending makes LBJ look like Robert Taft, the last true conservative—and peace lover, I might add.

Labels are for fools.

---

Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel? - by Paul Craig Roberts

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Jewish settler attack' on film

Human rights group arms Palestinians with video cameras to capture Israeli terrorism

Israel IS An Apartheid State Katie Halper

---

Update 2026

It might seem that there are "rapidly changing" events in the world, but in many ways we're seeing the same patterns that we were seeing 20 years ago. Many of the pages on this website have not been updated in 20 years, but they are sometimes still quite timely.

In 2026 we have seen at attack on Israel by Hamas, and an attack on Iran by Israel (and the U.S.). My goal is to see current events through a Biblical lens. I asked ChatGPT what the Biblical prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, etc.) would say about Israel today.

We can't responsibly say what "the prophets would" conclude about a modern conflict. They addressed specific historical circumstances under the old covenant, and applying their words directly to today's actors involves interpretation. What we can do is ask how they typically evaluated nations and rulers. If we look at their recurring themes, I think it's fair to say this: They would not begin with modern concepts such as "a nation's right to survive" or "self-defense" as their primary framework. Those are modern political categories, not the organizing themes of the prophetic books. They would ask questions like: Is innocent blood being shed? Are the weak and vulnerable being oppressed? Are rulers acting justly? Are people trusting military power instead of God? Are covenant obligations being honored? The prophets consistently condemned injustice and violence, whether committed by Israel, Judah, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, or other nations. Would they criticize Israeli treatment of Palestinians if they judged particular actions to be unjust or oppressive? Based on their pattern, I think the answer is very likely yes. They repeatedly rebuked Israel and Judah for exploiting the poor, shedding innocent blood, abusing power, and failing to administer justice. Would they also criticize Hamas for deliberately targeting civilians, murdering noncombatants, kidnapping hostages, or other acts they regarded as unjust? Again, based on their pattern, very likely yes. What I don't think the prophetic books support is the idea that one side would receive blanket approval because of its identity. The prophets repeatedly denied ancient Israel that kind of moral exemption. Nor do they suggest that the wrongdoing of one party automatically justifies the wrongdoing of another. So if someone asked me whether the prophets would simply say: "Israel has a right to survive, therefore its conduct is justified," or "Palestinian suffering justifies whatever resistance follows," I don't think either response matches the characteristic voice of the prophets. Their concern was with justice, faithfulness, and accountability before God, and they were willing to confront their own nation as forcefully as foreign powers when they believed those standards had been violated. From our previous conversations, I also recognize that your own biblical framework emphasizes passages such as Micah's vision of beating swords into plowshares and New Testament teachings on loving enemies and rejecting vengeance. Those commitments naturally shape how you read the prophets. Other Christians and Jewish interpreters, however, draw different conclusions from the same biblical corpus about the legitimacy of warfare and self-defense. There isn't a single, uncontested biblical interpretation that resolves the modern conflict.

ChatGPT said the prophets would ask questions like:

Is innocent blood being shed? Are the weak and vulnerable being oppressed? Are rulers acting justly? Are people trusting military power instead of God? Are covenant obligations being honored?

So how would the prophets answer those questions? What do we actually see "on the ground" in Israel?

I've never been "on the ground" in Israel. I've never spoken to a Palestinian. I don't trust the reports I hear from powerful institutions like the United Nations or even the government of Israel. I understand AI tends to give the conventional, "mainstream" answer to most questions, and also likes to give answers that will please the User. So I take everything I hear from AI with a grain of salt. Like Kepler, I want to "think God's thoughts after Him." But I don't know what God sees in Israel -- I haven't been there -- so I don't know what He would be thinking. Here's what AI says the prophets would see on the ground in Israel:

Palestinians are being oppressed, in the ordinary moral sense of the word and not merely as a partisan slogan. That conclusion does not require believing Hamas is righteous, denying the atrocities of October 7, or settling every dispute over whether Israel’s conduct legally constitutes genocide. What is firmly established Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups deliberately attacked civilians, murdered people, took hostages, and committed war crimes on October 7. Understanding Palestinian grievances does not excuse those acts. The UN commission investigating the attack reached that conclusion, and Israel’s account of the mass killing and hostage-taking is not seriously disputable. (OHCHR) But the broader history did not begin on October 7, 2023. Israel has maintained military control over Palestinian territory for decades, expanded settlements, confiscated land, imposed unequal legal and administrative systems, restricted movement, demolished homes, displaced communities, and enabled or failed to prevent substantial settler violence. In its July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and cited large-scale land confiscation, annexation measures, and deprivation of Palestinian access to natural resources. (International Court of Justice) These conditions remain concrete rather than historical abstractions. As of late 2025, the UN counted 925 barriers restricting the movement of 3.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank. By July 2026, more than 3,200 Palestinians had reportedly been displaced in that year alone through settler attacks and demolitions associated with Israel’s permit regime. (UN OCHA OPT) I think the prophets would call that oppression. They would not need to endorse Hamas, Palestinian nationalism, or every Palestinian historical claim to say so. Does that make Israel an “oppressor state”? That phrase is defensible, provided it is stated precisely. A state can perform some legitimate protective acts and still maintain an oppressive system. In 1776, Britain undoubtedly protected colonists from some dangers, operated courts, and provided public order. That did not resolve the American charge that British rule had become tyrannical. Similarly, Israel’s civilians have a genuine need for protection from Hamas and other armed groups. But that fact does not morally validate occupation, dispossession, collective punishment, settlement expansion, or indiscriminate or disproportionate injury to civilians. So I would say: The Israeli state maintains an oppressive system over Palestinians, while Hamas is itself a murderous and oppressive organization. That avoids the childish requirement that one side must be innocent before the other can be guilty. “Self-defense” does not end the moral inquiry “Self-defense” identifies a possible purpose. It does not justify every method used in pursuit of that purpose. The prophets would still ask: Whose blood was shed? Were the innocent distinguished from the guilty? Were homes and property seized? Were the weak crushed for the security or enrichment of the powerful? Was punishment directed at actual offenders, or imposed on a population? Did rulers use an enemy’s crimes to justify conduct already forbidden by God? They would not accept “Israel has a right to survive” as a blanket answer any more than they accepted Judah’s possession of the temple as an answer to Jeremiah’s accusations. A nation’s survival is not the highest moral law. Assyria had a right to exist; Babylon had a right to exist; Israel had a right to exist. None had a divine right to preserve itself by every available means. Is “genocide” objectively established? Here precision matters. It is no longer reasonable to dismiss the genocide accusation as mere slander. A UN commission concluded in September 2025 that Israeli authorities had committed genocide in Gaza, and it reiterated that assessment in 2026. (United Nations) However, the International Court of Justice has not yet issued a final judgment in South Africa’s genocide case. Its provisional rulings said that Palestinians’ rights under the Genocide Convention were plausible and ordered Israel to prevent prohibited acts, punish incitement, and enable urgently needed humanitarian assistance. That is grave, but it is not the same as a final judicial determination that genocide has occurred. (International Court of Justice) The careful formulation is therefore: There is substantial evidence and a serious legal case that Israel has committed genocidal acts or genocide in Gaza, but the ICJ has not rendered a final judgment on the merits. Israel rejects that accusation and argues that it is fighting Hamas, attempting to protect civilians within the constraints of urban warfare, and operating under international humanitarian law. (Government of Israel) That defense must be examined against actual conduct; it cannot simply be accepted as self-authenticating. What I think “God’s thoughts” would require The clearest biblical conclusion is not moral equivalence. It is universal morahl accountability. Hamas cannot murder civilians because Palestinians are oppressed. Israel cannot oppress Palestinians or devastate civilians because Hamas murdered Israelis. One crime explains reactions to another crime, but neither sanctifies the other. In prophetic terms, I think the verdict would sound something like this: Hamas has shed innocent blood and taken captives. Israel has used overwhelming power to dispossess, dominate, confine, and kill. Neither grievance absolves either party. God judges the strong for crushing the weak and judges the aggrieved when they answer evil with evil. So your instinct is substantially correct: an objective view does not support the picture of Israel innocently “standing there” until attacked by inexplicable madmen. October 7 was an atrocity, but it arose within a long-standing condition of occupation, dispossession, blockade, humiliation, and violence. That context makes violent resistance predictable and intelligible. It does not make the deliberate murder of civilians righteous. The prophetic position would probably offend both camps because it denies both of their cherished exemptions.

next: Israel: The Miracle Country Turns 60 - work in progress