I think the part that he was arguing was that the Amalekites weren't be targeted because they were Amalekites. In other words, Israel didn't attack without provocation or justification. We don't see that trend with what is defined as genocide today. For instance, we consider what the Jewish people endured as an attempt at genocide because they didn't act in any way to justify being exterminated at the hands of the Nazis. The other example given is the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda because they were both internal groups within their own country and one of the groups had the control of the government to carry out such an attack. What we find with the case of the Amalekites is a repeated attempt to kill the Israelites even though had do nothing to warrant such an attack. In fact, that article states that the Amalekites repeatedly attacked the Israelites for 200-400 years. I think he has other arguments that I can't remember off the top of my head.
It seems clear to me that the only justifiable argument people have is that they don't agree with the fact that women and children were killed as innocent bystanders. The main points that the dude makes in the article in this regard are:
- Criminal actions by parents always effect the lives of the children. For example, if I'm the head of the household and I decide to gamble my family's savings account away and am no longer able to provide food and shelter, my children and wife are effected by my poor decisions. If I decide to murder and am sent to jail then I would also put them in a precarious position. The difference is that in today's society we have the means to shelter individuals from some poor decisions that can act as a buffer. We have social services in place that can provide some type of support. Ancient Israel, and other civilizations for that matter, probably did not have access to such a luxury. To tie this into the story, Amalek and his men and their actions were directly responsible for the fate of those who depended on them.
- His second point, and one that gets more complicated, is that there's morally a huge difference between the dependents being killed as a punishment on them or as a direct consequence of the punishment on the fathers. I believe the author lists other scripture to tie this point in as well. So, in a sense, the children were killed as a consequence of the punishment of the fathers but it's not like this is anything new to a society. As a said earlier, we just have the means and social services to lessen the impact on the children.
I am glad that you took some time to read the article, however. I know many won't agree with his arguments or conclusions but at least you see a different side of things that non-Christians won't present.
You're right about it being a
very long and well researched article (over 20,000 words). There are many interesting points that he brings up, but he doesn't do a very good job of really tying them all together and actually ends up contradicting himself.
Of the 4 types of genocide, he mentions one called retributive. Here's his description:
"Retributive--is undertaken to eliminate a real or potential threat"
Then about 10,000 words later he mentions that Israel was threatened by Amalek:
"For Israel EVER to enjoy a moment's peace in the land of promise, Amalek must be rendered non-hostile. Without some kind of self-defense action on the part of Israel, Amalek would simply continue inflicting 'active suffering' on Israel's families, their food, their freedom. Something had to be done--somehow Amalek must be stopped."
Israel then proceeds to attack Amalek (from NIV 1 Sam 15:3):
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
The U.N. definition for genocide is (taken from Wikipedia):
"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
An ethnic group is defined as (taken from Merriam Webster):
"groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background."
The Encylcopedia Brittanica defines the Amalekites as:
"...an ancient nomadic tribe..."
It would therefore seem to me that based on points which Glenn Miller brings up in his own article and also our current definition of the terms, that Isreal did in fact commit genocide against the Amalekites. The fact that the Amalekites were a threat to Israel does not absolve them of their actions. Nowhere in the U.N. definition or articles could I find any mention that genocide might be OK in a retributive sense. I realize in the article that he has a different view on this and he spends a considerable amount of text explaining it (much more than I plan on giving in this rebuttal which is already too long), but none of what he says jives with the actual definition of genocide.
As you mentioned in your response, Glenn Miller also attempts to portray the murder of children and infants as not a punishment on them, but as a consequence of the threat that their fathers posed to Israel. His reasoning goes like this: Amalek posed a threat to Israel, the only way to address this danger was by murdering ALL of the Amalekite men, consequently you might as well murder everyone else rather than have them wander in the desert and die of thirst or starvation! This type of thinking is abhorrent and reminds me of the cold callous logic which lead to the final solution from WWII. Murdering these children was in no way merciful or moral, it just completed the act of genocide.
I'm sorry for the length of this post. If you've read this far, just imagine this: Glenn Miller's article is 40 times longer than this is and he ends up with the wrong conclusion!
