Phalasteen, Oh, Phalasteen!

Salam Aleikhum companion Superme

Pardon for the delay in answering you. My work also steals me a lot of time, I hope that you apologize me.

First, you ask for a reference of the OT that justifies the attitude of a government - the Israeli - (who is not that of the whole people - the Jew - as you will be able to suppose). In this regard we might enter a dialectical game without end because, since you know, any verse of the Torah, of the Bible or of the Sacred Quran has had multiple interpretations, according to the interests of the commentators every epoch. And if we base on these commentaries everyone can try to justify very different things. 

But if I, personally, had to choose a textual appointment, for what this have of universally (directed to all the villages) and out of time (for not referring to a certain historical period) I would remain with this part of the Decalogue (The Commandments) that this says precisely: you will not kill, and will not covet the foreign properties. This is said in an incisive way and ado commentary. One does not speak not about Philistines, cananeans, nabateans, Romans etc � .. or blacks, indians, china people etc �. It doesn�t even have caducity. Even today I believe that no people and much less no govern has been capable of respecting faithfully these procedure. However we try to camouflage, the wars, the death penalty, the abortions and other pearls of our current "civilization" (beyond our religions, races, cultures and ideologies) do not stop being a flagrant violation of this divine mandate.

Secondly you handle a few terms difficult to make compatible. To speak about (political) "governments" and "innocence" turns out to be Utopian. Habitually we are accustomed to an equation equally difficult Government / Justice for that we must fight. But, seriously, you believe that it is feasible to bring together Politics and Innocence?.

And thirdly, when you debate with the companion Dworsky, speeches of the support yanki to the Israeli government, saying: The power bases of them is the American support. This is something undeniable. But say me: In the Politics of Middle East when there has not existed a support partial to any power (United Kingdom, USSR / Russia, The United States) in this zone?. Do you think that other not less important countries like for example Saudi Arabia or Iran are free of interventionisms?. Then what does happen with other cases as Kashmir, Beluchist�n, Sudan or the Sahara?. For this line of discussion we might manage to raise such very delicate questions as: are some interventions permissable according to the religion, race or culture of the interfering agents?.

The route of the solution I believe that one finds in "make a devils"  with the enemy neither, in mixing the religion with the politics. We take the risk that the pagan or atheistic peoples accuse the monotheists of being the most bloodthirsty peoples of the History. I do not believe that this it is Allah's will (salaju ale�ji wa salam).

Salaam