A Theology of Love rather than a Theology of Sacrifice and Atonement

It has now been a bit more than five-years, since my daughter’s God-mother died following a long and miserable battle with cancer.

When I was told her death was imminent, I stopped by her home one night to say good-bye. I don’t recall how our discussion began, but the two of us eventually began discussing how an all-loving, all-just God could require his blameless son to die ignominiously, nailed to a cross as an atonement for the sins of mankind.

During the discussion, we also wondered how an all-loving, all-just God could have punished men and women for all generations for the “sin of Adam and Eve” — for eating fruit from the forbidden tree. How could an all-loving, all-just God impute the “sin” of Adam to men and women who did not exist at the time of “Adam’s sin,” and who had no part in committing that sin?

Both before and after that night, I have pondered these questions. I have never been quite able to accept that an all-loving, all-just God demanded a blood sacrifice of his only, and entirely innocent and blameless, son to restore God’s children to God’s friendship.

So, did Christ come into the world to be sacrificed? Not if we take Christ at his word. At John 14: 6, 7, Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

I have never doubted that God and Christ were omniscient. Afterall, Christ told his apostles that “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.” Mark 9:31.Actually, Christ predicted his death and resurrection three times.

Over time, I have concluded that God sent his son incarnate to show mankind the way that God wants us to walk, the truth that we have an all-loving, all just father, and that if we walk His way, our reward is eternal life.

That God sent his wholly-blameless son into the world to be “murdered” and “sacrificed,” seems utterly inconsistent with Christ’s teaching that God is an all-loving father. What all- loving father would require his son to be crucified — sacrificed?

So, did God intend that Christ be sacrificed? Or did he, in his omniscience, simply know that it would happen?

Did God really intend that his son be crucified as a condition of restoring his own children to his friendship? That’s the essence of “atonement theology.” In the words of my daughter’s God-Mother, “surely an omniscient, all-loving God could have come up with another way to reconcile mankind to Himself, short of ordaining his son’s crucifixion.”

But if God did not intend his son be sacrificed, who did?

Did the Romans and/or Jews who killed Christ think they were offering a “sacrifice” to God? Or did the Jewish leaders insist on Christ death because they believed him guilty of blasphemy?

Certainly, Pilate did not order Christ execution as a “sacrifice” to the Jewish God or any Roman God. Christ was condemned as a criminal.

Did Christ intend to sacrifice himself? Was Christ suicidal? If so, why did he pray that the Father might let the cup pass by?

Is it not equally probable that Christ became incarnate to show mankind the “way” to please God, and the “true way” to achieve everlasting life, knowing that men would put him to death, but also knowing that God would place His supreme “stamp of approval” upon all He did during his mission on Earth, by raising him from the dead, on the third day — precisely as he had predicted.

This op ed was prompted by a short article that a Protestant-thinker and lawyer-friend sent me earlier today.https://cac.org/daily-meditations/at-one-ment-not-atonement-breaking-up-old-logic-2020-02-05/

I had not realized that as early as the 13th century, there were theologians who questioned how an all-loving, all-just God could send his beloved son to Earth, and demand his crucifixion. Among them, were the scholar and theologian, Duns Scotus, and members of his Franciscan Order.

The Center for Action and Contemplation sums up Dun Scotus’ position thusly:

“Duns Scotus was not guided by the (Jewish) Temple language of debt, atonement, and blood sacrifice, which was understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul. Instead, he was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18). While the Church has never rejected the Franciscan position, it has remained a minority view.”

“Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely andfreely acts out of love. 

“Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God! God is not someone to be afraid of, but is … on our side.”

Whether all this plays any part in church closings, I leave for you to decide.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 19, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Imagine an America with no Churches and no Synagogues.

On the feast of Pentecost, commemorating the birthday of the Christian church, the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Peoria, announced that between now and May 2026, “the diocese will be “reshaped” from 156 parishes to 75 parishes, with 129 worship sites.”

Two reasons are given for the contraction: a decline in Mass attendance by the faithful, and a prediction of a shrinking number of priests. Seventy percent of the 145 total priests ministering in the diocese are over the age of 50. According to the diocese’s projections, in the next 10 years, there may be fewer than 100 active priests.

But then, what happens when the number of active priests falls to 50? When even fewer “Catholics” attend Mass? Remain active in their parishes? Will half of the remaining parishes be shuttered?

How many parishes can be closed before the Catholic Church fades into utter irrelevance? And what happens, when it does?

For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught that there is an all-loving God who eternally rewards men for the good they do, and punishes them for their evil deeds. And that Christ, his only son, is the way, truth and life.

What happens when the Jewish/Christian God comes to be regarded as nothing more than a pious fable? Who/What replaces him?

Does each man become a little “god” who creates his own rules — his own divine law?

Once you’ve rejected the Jewish/Christian law-giver, who replaces him? If there is no divine law-giver, who punish violations of the laws of our society, that go unpunished by our criminal justice system?

A man commits murder, and by perjury convinces his jurors that that he is innocent. A dictator, operating on the principle of “might makes right” confiscates and amasses a personal fortune of half the wealth of his country, while unjustly executing millions of his countrymen? A tyrant, who like the Roman emperors of old, declares himself “the only true god?” Without divine punishment of evil in an after-life, where is the “justice?”

Before you applaud the decline of the Catholic Church, and/or the decline of the other organized Christian religions, consider what you are seeing in the news:

Mobs of masked criminals invade a jewelry store, smash the counters, and in two minutes loot a million dollars-worth of jewelry;

Organized gangs send kilograms of fentanyl across our southern border, earning millions of dollars — which in the course of three years kills 300,000 U.S. citizens;

Young street-gang members shoot down city streets, killing members of the rival street gang — and bystanders,

Do the people who do these things believe that if not punished in this life, that that will be in the next?

Do they believe in the Judeo-Christian teaching that we must love God with out whole heart, soul, mind and strength, and love our neighbor as ourself?

If you love your neighbor as yourself, do you steal his goods? Sell him deadly drugs? Shoot and kill him in a dispute over who can sell illegal drugs in a given neighborhood?

Or does each such predator set himself up as “god,” and determine for himself what is “good” and “evil?” Does “might make right?” Does possessing the deadliest gun make right?

And if the Christian churches and the Ten Commandments are relegated to the scrapheap of history, how many cops will we needed to protect the disabled, the elderly, the meek and the peacemakers from the predators? One in every home? Two? How many on every street corner?

In a nation where every inhabitant loves God and loves his neighbor as he loves himself, few, if any, police officers will be needed., In a nation where every man is a law unto himself, an officer at every street corner will not be enough.

When the churches and synagogues are gone, who will teach that there is a God, and that that God rewards good and punishes evil? Not the public schools. In many cases, not even the parents. So, who? Hollywood? The internet?

The Ten Commandments, which Judaism and Christianity teach are God-given, are the underpinnings of our criminal law. It is in the Ten Commandments that we have “objective” right and wrong. Without a divine lawgiver, one man’s guess as to what is right and wrong, is as good that of any other. Without a God, we are all little gods, and right and wrong becomes “subjective” to each one of us.

A few years ago, the beautiful Tri-City Jewish Center closed. Now 81 Catholic parish will die, in large part because many Catholics have lost interest and no longer attend.

The choices people make have consequence. The state, by its criminal law, will still teach what is right and want is wrong. Some parents will still take the time. But without the churches teaching that God ordains what is right and what is wrong, and punishes transgression of his laws, the state loses the strongest underpinning of its laws.

I therefore mourn that the loss of 81 Catholic churches as a great loss to our society. I would feel the same way if 81 protestant churches were to close. I would also mourn the loss of the last Quad City synagogue.

Without a divine law-giver, do we revert to the law of the jungle? To might makes right? You decide.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 9, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Is it fair to label the President, “Genocide Joe?”

The so-called protesters at Columbia and the other colleges, have taken to calling President Biden, “Genocide Joe,” largely for the military support that the President is supplying and has supplied to Israel, in the days following October 7, 2023— the day when Hamas broke into Israel, murdered Jewish men, women and children, took men, women, children and the elderly hostage, and raped Israel women.

While “Genocide Joe” may have a nice ring to it if you are unhappy with our President’s support of Israel, does it have a right of truth to it? I don’t think so.

Taking for purposes of argument the figures of the Gaza Health Ministry as true, Reuters reports that as of April 30, 2024, 35,535 Palestinians have been killed and another 77,704 have been wounded.

Israel says its war is against Hamas. But who elected Hamas? Put Hamas in power? Provides the “warriors” for Hamas?

Prior to 10-7, the Hamas “soldiers,” lived and made their war preparations among the Palestinian civilian population. On that day, the emerged from Gaza, murdered, raped and took hostage. They then slipped back to hide among the civilian population. They now claim, “You can’t retaliate for our war crimes, because if you do, you will kill innocent civilians.”

Hamas, which adhered to no “rules of war” on October 7, now demands that Israel scrupulously abide by all “rules of war,” while all the while hiding among the civilians of Palestine. And all the while continuing to hold non-combatant Israelis as hostages.

Israel, of course, has the power to burn the other cheek. But Hamas could end the fighting in an instant by coming out from among the civilian population, surrendering, and facing a war crimes trial before neutral nations.

When in December of 1941, the empire of Japan executed a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, the U.S declared war on Japan. The war ended only when the U.S dropped two atom bombs on Japan. It didn’t have to end that way. Japan had beaten back all the way from New Guinea, the Pacific archipelagos, the Philippines to Japan’s home island. We could have invaded and suffered a million casualties, and inflicted millions of casualties on Japan. Or Japan, knowing that it couldn’t win, could have surrendered before the bombs were dropped, Was President Truman “Genocide Harry,” or did he do what had to be done to end the war and avoid far greater casualties?

If Israel quits now, and Hamas survives, how long will it be before Hamas again emerges from among the civilian population and repeats October 7?

I am sorry, but for supporting Israel, I cannot agree with the protesters that President Biden should fairly be called “Genocide Joe.”

But then is there anything President Biden has done that might support labeling him “Genocide Joe?”

President Biden seems to support abortion without any limits. In the words of Vice-President Harris, “Joe Biden and I have a different view … we believe no politician should ever come between a woman and her doctor.” So, if five-minutes before delivery of a healthy, full-term baby, would Biden and Harris really stand by if the mother and her doctor decided to abort/kill a perfectly healthy child?

If it is “genocide” to kill Palestinian civilians who put Hamas in power, and who support Hamas and its October 7th atrocities, how can it be anything but “genocide” to abort an unlimited number of perfectly-healthy children, minutes before they will emerge naturally from the mother wombs?

And then, what about the President turning a blind-eye to the fentanyl crisis at our southern border?

CBS news reports that, “In 2021, 90% of some 80,000 opioid-related deaths involved fentanyl.”

PBS reports, “Drug deaths nationwide hit a new record in 2022. 109,680 people died as the fentanyl crisis continued to deepen, according to preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

“In 2023 the overdose death rate topped 112,000 in a 12-month period for the first time," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


In the last three years, what has President Biden done to staunch the flow of fentanyl manufactured in China and sent through Mexico into the U. S. to kill nearly 300,000 Americans?

Closed holes in President Trump’s border wall? Declared “war” on the fentanyl smugglers?

If it is “genocide” to supply Israelis with weapons used to kill 35,000 Palestinian civilians, and if the President’s primary duty under the Constitution is to “preserve and protect,” why isn’t President Biden properly labeled “Genocide Joe” for exacerbating problems at the southern border by his acts in furtherance of keeping our southern border wide-open, except at the ports of entry? Or will the label be proper only after 400,000 American die from fentanyl overdoses?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 24, 2024. 
Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Biden's political version of 'stolen valor'

Every so often, President Biden says something so bizarre that even the mainstream media is forced to report it.


On April 17, while campaigning in Pittsburgh, Fox News reports that Mr. Biden told members of the United Steel Workers a bizarre story of about his long-deceased uncle, Ambrose “Uncle Bozey” Finnegan.

"Ambrose Finnegan, we called him Uncle Bozey, he was shot down. He was Army Air Corps before there was an Air Force. "They never recovered his body, but the government went back when I went down there, and they checked and found some parts of the plane,"

"He flew those single-engine planes as reconnaissance over war zones, and he got shot down in New Guinea. They never found the body because there used to be, there were a lot of cannibals, for real, in that part of New Guinea."

Mr. Biden’s account, notes Fox, bears scant resemblance to the official report of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency.

"For unknown reasons, this plane was forced to ditch in the ocean off the north coast of New Guinea." … "Both engines failed at low altitude, and the aircraft’s nose hit the water hard."

The report also said three men failed to emerge from the sinking wreck and were lost in the crash, one crew member survived and was rescued by a barge, and that Finnegan’s remains were not associated with any of the remains recovered from the area after the war and are still not accounted for.


The report filed by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency makes no mention of (1) Uncle Bozey’s plane being shot down; in fact, the cause of the crash was determined to be failure of both engines. Additionally, the official report (2) makes no mention of no mention of “cannibals,” no suggestion that President Biden’s uncle was eaten by cannibal, or that the plane carrying went down in the 200-miles stretch of ocean between New Guinea and Los Negros, near enough to New Guinea for cannibals to canoe out for dinner.


So, how does a rational Democrat explain the President’s latest surreal personal account? Did it really happen and did the military get the facts wrong? Is the president lying about his family history in an effort to convince a few steel workers to vote for him? Does Mr. Biden have a screw loose?

But resume enhancement is nothing new for the president.

"In the first year of law school, I decided I didn't want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class." … "And then I decided to stay, went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class."

He later admitted that he graduated 76th in a class of 85.

And then there was his recounting of how he was arrested for trying to see Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

And then his story, told while in Maui, to show his sympathy for those who had lost their home to volcanic fires, about his house burning down due to a lightning strike. "To make a long story short, I almost lost my wife, my '67 Corvette and my cat."

In 2004, the American press still fact-checked Democrats, unlike today.

A 2004 report from The Associated Press, archived by LexisNexis, said lightning struck the Bidens’ home and started a "small fire that was contained to the kitchen." The report said firefighters got the blaze under control in 20 minutes and that they were able to keep the flames from spreading beyond the kitchen.


The military has a term for claiming you earned a medal when in fact you didn’t is “Stolen Valor.” President Biden seems obsessed with enhancing his political resume — the political version of “stolen valor.”


The problem with being untruthful of little things, is that it makes hard for the voters to know if you are telling the truth in big things.

Both of our candidates for the presidency have a serious character flaws. Mr. Trump says things that are crude and unpresidential. Mr. Biden says things that are patently untrue, and often screwy.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 24, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

You are paying for every “newcomer” who illegally crosses our Southern Border

During the Trump years, the Democrats declared the cities that they ran to be “sanctuary cities,” and refused to co-operate with Federal authorities to removes “newcomers” illegally here, even when they had committed serious crimes. Now that they are confronted with the costs of an open border. And now the mayors of New York and Chicago and the other large Democrat cities are demanding that the Feds “pick up the tab.” In NY, luxury hotels are being re-purposed — at taxpayer expense — to house the “newcomers” who have flooded across our Southern border and ended up in NY.

Does that make sense?

When my mother immigrated to the US (nearly a century ago), immigrants who were "unable to take care of themselves without becoming public charges," were declared unsuitable for American citizenship and therefore denied entry. Today family members who ask that their relative be afforded “green card status” are asked to “sponsor” them, to keep them from becoming “public charges.”

Do those rules make more sense?

Imagine that upon waking up in the morning, you hearing water running. Because the sound seems to be coming from the basement, you check. As you start down the basement steps, your worst fears are quickly confirmed. The one-inch water pipe, in the exposed rafters, some 8 feet above the meter, has burst, and is pouring 20 gallons a water per minute into your basement.

What do you do? (a) Climb back into bed and hope the problem goes away? (b) Grab a bunch of old rags and begin sopping up the water? (c) Begin moving the basement furniture outside to dry? (d) Close the main shutoff valve?

Any same individual would choose to close the main shutoff valve! But not President Biden.

Consider the crisis at our Southern Boarder, and compare.

President Trump’s first step was to “close the main shut off valve” — build a state-of-the-art border wall to keep “newcomers” from illegally entering the US between our ports of entry.

President Joe Biden’s first step upon taking office was to immediately halt construction to close the remaining gaps in the wall. He believes that if he welcomes the “newcomers” with open arms, provides them with free food, housing, schooling for their children, medical care, cell phones, etc. that the “newcomers” will be forever grateful to him and his fellow Democrats, and will vote “Democrat” for the rest of their lives, thereby guaranteeing that the Democrats win all future elections.

And what is the cost to the taxpayers of the Biden Vote-Buying scheme?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) after taking account of the taxes that the “newcomers” pay into the Federal Treasury — estimates the cost to be $150,000,000,000 annually. You can easily calculate your share of that —as well as the shares of your spouse and each of your children.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on March 13, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

The Art of the Judicial Screwing

Imagine that while you were a boy, that your father died, and that in his will, he left you a lot within the City of Moline. That lot, at the time, was valued at $10,000 in his estate inventory.

Fifteen years later, you have now graduated from law school, passed the bar, obtained your first job and married. You and you wife now wish to buy a home.

You go to the bank and ask for a $100,000 mortgage. They ask for your financial statement. You state that your income is $90,000 per year, that you have about $50,000 in savings, and that the lot your dad willed you, has a value of $25,000. In setting the value of the lot, you take into account the years of inflation since your dad died.

The bank loans you the $100,000. Under your note and mortgage, you are required to pay the loan off in 20 years. The bank sets the interest rate at 7%.

For the next 20, you faithfully make every payment of principal and interest on time and in full. (You also paid all real estate taxes as they came due). After you have made your last payment, the bank gives you a release of mortgage. You now believe that you own your house free.

But three years later, the Attorney General of your state enters the picture. He sues you for “defrauding” the bank by overstating the value of the lot your father willed to you, and your income. He claims that in your financial statement to the bank, you overvalued your lot by $10,000, and your income by $5000.

The Attorney General claims that had you honestly stated the value of your lot to be $15K rather than $25K, and your income to be $85K rather than $90K, the bank probably would have asked for interest at the rate of 8% rather than 7%. The Attorney General brings in a CPA to support his allegations. He asked that you be assessed a civil penalty equal to the extra 1% interest that the bank would have earned over the 20 year-period, or approximately $10,000.

The judge rules that for the Attorney General to prevail, it is not necessary that the bank deemed itself damaged by your ”fraud,” or that it even relied upon your “fraud.” The judge assesses a $10,000 civil penalty upon you. Moreover, he assesses interest, compounded yearly, on each of the twenty $1000 payments of interest that you should have made over each of the twenty years of your mortgage.

Remember: The bank has never made any complaint of “fraud.” They deemed that they had been repaid in full. `Indeed, they may never see a penny of the judge’s $10,000-plus award. That may all go into the coffers of the State.

Would you feel you had been treated fairly by the judge? By the Attorney General?

You would probably insist that you have been judicially screwed. That’s precisely what former-President Trump is doing — and for the same reason.

Mr. Trump has previously written The Art of the Deal. Now you and he can combine to write The Art of the Judicial Screwing.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 29, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea

Is only Israel required to fight a 'Just War?'

As I have watched the pro-Palestinian tumult in the streets of our great cities, I have wondered how many Americans have taken time to read Hamas’ founding document — “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement,”18 August 1988.1

In the “Covenant’s” preface, we are told: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Article VI states, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

Article VII concludes, “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Hamas believes that a land once “conquered by the armies of Islam,” is forever “consecrated” “to Moslem generations until the Day of Judgement (Art. 11):”

“Palestine is an Islamic Waqf (Holy Possession) land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day."

“This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.”

In Article XIII, Hamas rejects all compromise – all peaceful coexistence.

“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against a part of religion."

“Now and then, the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question.

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

“Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.”

Article XV sets out the means Hamas intends to employ to achieve its end.

“The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.

“It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).

“It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.”

 

On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacked the civilian population in Israel, in clear violation of the “laws of war.” Roughly 1,200 Israeli’s (including some foreign nationals) were murdered. The figure includes women who were raped, and children who were slaughtered; 250 more, including the elderly, women and children, were taken hostages.

So, what is Israel supposed to do? Abide by the Geneva Convention as to Palestinian non-combatants, while Hamas makes mockery of the Convention, revels in killing elderly Israeli women, pregnant women and infants, and exultantly sends iPhone videos of its atrocities to its supporters?

What Hamas did IS PURE EVIL.

Hamas calls for the “obliteration” of Israel and the killing of every Jew — for every Muslim to engage in Jihad. Hamas rejects all initiatives, proposals and international conferences as a waste of time and vain endeavors. And then wonders why Israel responds with total war?

Imagine living in a lawless part of town, and having a “neighbor,” who has repeatedly and publicly threatened to kill you and your family. That “neighbor” then breaks into your home, rapes your wife, beheads her and your infant daughter, and kidnaps your 2-year-old son. Not satisfied, he publicly announces he still plans to kill you and your remaining children. What do you do?

What is Israel supposed to do with an enemy who will not negotiate peace? Who calls for “Jihad” to “obliterate Israel,” and for the killing of every last Jew (who will not abjure his religion and become Moslem)?

The NY Times reports (12-27-23)

“Hamas … and its affiliates have continued to fire rockets at Israel nearly every day, … striking some of the country’s biggest cities.

“Hamas and other armed groups have fired about 12,000 rockets from Gaza into Israel ….”

Hamas hides its rocket launchers in Gaza among the civilian population, and fires its rockets at the civilian population throughout Israel.

Hamas claims the right to torture, rape and murder all Israeli non-combatants. It beheads women and children. Takes hostages. Refuses to negotiate.

The Jews, it seems, are required to love their Palestinian neighbors as they love themselves. Hamas requires the Palestinians wage murderous Jihad against every Jew until Israel is “obliterated” and every Jew is killed.

What standing does Hamas have to demand that Israel observe all “Rules of War,” when Hamas pisses on every one of them?

1. The Covenant is available online, in full, at Yale Law School’s Avalon Project — an online library of original documents dealing with law, history and diplomacy.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on January 19, 2024. 

Copyright 2024, John Donald O'Shea