Joshua's invasion of Jericho was anti-Jewish

Opening Statement I will argue against the proposition "Joshua's invasion of Jericho was anti-Jewish" given that it was commanded by Yahweh in the Torah as written by Moses rendering this claim both false and absurd. I believe that Joshua was justified in his siege of Jericho and the destruction of the city along with all who inhabitated the city. Assertion 1 - Pro's assertion that no legal right existed can be stricken from the debate given the Torah (the law) commanded it and he has failed to demonstrate any other law in the ancient world that would legally forbid it. Assertion 2 - Pro's second assertion that he did not have the "religious right" would again be completely negated by the fact that Joshua's siege and destruction of Jericho complied with command of the Torah thus it can be stricken from the debate as well. Assertion 3 - Pro's third assertion that Joshua didn't have the moral right is the one I consider the most pertinent to this debate and I will argue he did have the moral right as the Torah outlined the exceptionally evil and abhorrent practices and customs of the Canaanites. Assertion 4 - Pro's fourth assertion that Joshua did not have the military right has yet to be argued, but I would argue from the Torah that if you accept Yahweh's guidance and commands, it was requisite to follow his clear instructions noting the numerical superiority (Deuteronomy 7:1, Deuteronomy 7:17, Deuteronomy 7:22-24) warning that a failure to comply with his instructions would led to their corrupting the Israelites and their own destruction. Jericho was a necessary target from which you would need to take in order to advance into the land of Canaan. It was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5-15). I see nothing in ancient warfare of the time that would validate this assertion. John Wenham notes, "Ancient armies in this territory did not hold captives. They defeated them totally." Assertion 5 - Pro's fifth assertion that Joshua had no political right should be stricken from the debate because politics itself arguably wouldn't go past Aristotle's politika and at any rate, the origin of the state can be found in the development of warfare. Assertion 6 - Pro's last assertion is a straw man considering Joshua never claimed to be redeeming or retaking the fortress of Jericho, however, considering the covenant God made with Abraham and the promise of the land of Canaan, you could argue he was redeeming that promise (Genesis 17:8). Justification - Severe Punishment for Extreme Sin I would contend that God patiently waited (Genesis 15:16) before giving the Israelites the command to enter Canaan and destroy them, because they were exceptional in their evil and their many abominations became so great that their destruction was warranted. They were an abhorrent manifestation of evil and the analogy I would use loosely is they were on the moral scale of a Nazi Germany although I'm not making any comparison other than wickedness of the two. I'm always amazed by the condemnation of this instruction to utterly destroy the Canaanites because it always begs the important question - why? In Leviticus, chapter 18, we find some of the abominations that cause such as incest, adultery, homosexuality, beastality, and child sacrifice for which even "the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." The response would be to say these sins, or at least carnal sins, are not enough to justify the destruction of the people. The Canaanites also drew first blood. The Amalekites, a Canaanite tribe, attacked them while they were travelling in the wilderness (Exodus 7:8-14). They would continue attacking the Israelites picking off the weak and the weary stragglers, which would be the women, children, and elderly (Numbers 14:45, Deuteronomy 25:17-19). They sought te destruction of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:3-4). You also must gauge warfare in this time and I offer this example - "The Neo-Assyrian annals of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) take pleasure in describing the flaying of live victims, the impaling of others on poles, and the heaped up bodies for show. They boast of how the king mounded bodies and placed heads into piles; the king bragged of gouging out troops" eyes and cutting off their ears and limbs, followed by his displaying their heads all around a city." Ritual Child Sacrifice - A Measure of Sadistic Wickedness The Canaanites would ritually take their first born child to the idol they created placing the child in the arms stretched out and would proceed to destroy the child in most heinous manner by burning him or her alive by fire (Deuteronomy 18:10). This was an every day religious practice of the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:21). John Wenham said, "Molech sacrifices were offered especially in con"nection with vows and solemn promises, and children were sacrificed as the harshest and most binding pledge of the sanctity of a promise. It is not surprising that the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), where Molech worship was practised in the days of Manasseh, should have provided the Jewish image of hell." "Molech was portrayed as a man with the head of a bull standing upright with his arms outstretched. Inside his stomach was a fire, and children would be placed in his arms for burning. Molech required that you sacrifice your firstborn son to him in order to ensure the blessings of the gods. Infants and children as old as four were offered up to him. If you built a house, you were to lay one of your sacrificed children as the cornerstone to the building to ensure that the gods blessed the house and family all of its days. If someone wanted to guarantee a victory in battle, they could sacrifice one of their children to ensure the gods fought on their behalf (Judg. 11:30-40; 2 Kgs. 3: 26-27)." This provides some insight into the scope and magnitude. Rebuttals Claim: The moral argument is that Jericho was destroyed because the people of Jericho were wicked. And yet Joshua does not kill Rahab the harlot. Not only was Rahab a harlot but she was a traitor. This person Rahab was morally bankrupted if ever a person was. And yet Joshua accepted Rahab into the nation of ancient Israel. Response: "...charge that Rahab would "sell out her own city in order to save her own skin," she simply realized that God was with the Israelites, and she aligned herself with reality. Rahab is no more "selling out" than those Germans disenchanted with Hitler who joined the Allied cause. Rahab's embracing Yahweh and finding salvation illustrates the theme of Exodus 34:6: Yahweh's gracious, compassionate character extends salvation to all and relents from judging, whether Canaanite or?much to Jonah's dismay?Ninevite (Jon. 4:2) or those from any "nation" that "turns from its evil" (Jer. 18:7?8). Yahweh desires that the wicked turn rather than die (Ezek. 18:31?32; 33:11). And when Israel and Judah reached a point of no moral and spiritual return ("until there was no remedy"), God judged them severely (2 Chron. 36:16; cp. 2 Kings 18:11?12; 1 Chron. 5:23)." Of course my opponent is neglecting the extreme idolotarous worship of the Canaanites of human sacrifices including their own children, ritual prostitution whereby people would go to a temple to have sex with male and female priests (prostitutes) and so forth. Also, "...Rahab was in charge of what was likely the fortress tavern or hostel " not a brothel " even if prostitutes sometimes ran these taverns." Claim: There are two reasons why God did not command Joshua to utterly destroy the city of Jericho- Joshua's actions violated the 10 Commandments There was no need to hurry. Response: Thou shall not murder did not prohibit warfare nor executing God's judgement on the Canaanites nor did it preclude self-defense or capital punishment. Hurry or haste? You mentioned their 40 years of wandering...this charge has no merit. And it begs: why wait any longer?