Posted on October 25, 2008 - by Frank
Palestinians and Christian Reductionism
Warning - this post may offend many. The situation I am about to address is a firebrand that causes high emotion for many people. I am not seeking to make any friends with this, I have just decided that for the first time, I wish to air publicly, some of my privately held opinions on this matter and I believe it entirely relates to the point of this site. I cannot, in good conscience, remain silent on this issue only to protect my own reputation. If it ruins this site and my reputation, I will walk away with a clear mind and heart. Peace.
Let’s be clear from the outset that when I use the term “reductionism”, I am not using it in the sense of scientific inquiry where reductionism refers to investigating something by reducing it to the study of the components within it. I am instead referring to the reduction of complex situations and arguments to oversimplifications that simply heighten and negatively feed already volatile situations.
Allow me to also be clear that when I approach the situation, my Christian faith and position as a Christian Minister is one large part of me that informs my approach to the problem – I am especially interested in the many varied factors of religion playing out.
———
As the person who operates this site, I was recently asked by an avid reader, what two world issues I feel the most passionate about – the answer was easy. Amongst the many areas and problems that grip my attention, there are two I keep coming back to and that spark me up at the drop of a hat – human trafficking and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict – with a specific leaning towards the plight of the Palestinians and Palestinian Christians.
I have a focus on the plight of Palestinian Christians, not because I wish to exclude all else, but because I think that if Christians around the world can be alerted to the plight of these people and reminded that they have an obligation to offer support and care to their brothers and sisters in the faith where they have been sidelined and neglected for far too long, enormous headway can be made to mobilize the large voice of Christianity towards true justice, peace and some real solutions for the area.
By helping Christians to first see their fellow disciples of Jesus who are of Palestinian-Arab descent, it then becomes easier to help them see the wider Palestinian picture that includes Muslims and those of no stated faith.
Christianity has a rich heritage in the area known to many now as the modern state of Israel and referred to many others as Palestine. That heritage dates back to the time of Jesus himself and throughout that history, has included a strong contingent of Christians who would identify themselves as Arabs.
It was not unusual when the area was under Ottoman rule and following that, British rule in the early 20th century, for western missionaries to enter the area and work closely with Arab Christians. Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, Arab Christians enjoyed the support of and connection they had to their Christian brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. Prior to the formation of Israel through the war of 1948, it was also not unusual for Christian, Muslim and Jew to live in close quarters with one another in the same way we would expect of any civil community now. Life was never easy in Palestine, but it was doable for those whose families had been in the region for generations and generations.
Behind this, the seeds of a devastating change were planted with the establishment of the secular political Zionist movement in the late 19th century and it’s slow co-opting of religious affections amongst some factions of Judaism and what was a minority Christian view at the time – Dispensationalism, a view that a few key British and American politicians of the late 19th and early – mid 20th century identified with.
Before we go further let’s look at some brief definitions for Zionism and Dispensationalism for the uninitiated:
Zionism = An international political movement that was initially established to support the creation of a homeland for the Jewish people and now supports the established state of modern Israel and the movement of international Jews into the state. It was a movement initially established in response to rumblings of antisemitism throughout Europe.
Dispensationalism = A Christian view that divides history and future into a number of dispensations. Dispensationalism asserts that we are currently in the dispensation of the Church,a time “between” God’s ultimate dealings with the nation of Israel. It is believed that the current dispensation is the age of the Gentiles, where jews and non-jews are offered an opportunity to “receive salvation” through Christ. It is believed that when the fulness of the gentiles is reached, the nation of Israel (God’s “chosen” people) will be fully restored to the land, accept Jesus as their Messiah and God’s kingdom will be properly established on earth with a new temple in a new Jerusalem, centered in what is geographically recognized as Israel.
It is easy to see how Zionism could appeal to those who adhere to Dispensationalism. Many Dispensationalists see a direct link between the establishment and growth of modern Israel and the eventual return of Christ, thus many Dispensationalists give their support to Israel and sadly, many do so with no question about how it was established and maintains its viability.
Once upon a time, Dispensationalism was a minority view, but that has changed and the Zionist movement has taken full advantage of the shift. In political movements, Dispensationlism is a powerful force. Many Christian organisations have been established to support, lobby for, endorse and fund the state of Israel, with some organisations being established to actively shift international Jews into Israel. There is an uneasy alliance between what is essentially a secular state (modern Israel) and the strong movement of Dispensational Christians – many of whom wouldn’t consciously identify themselves as Zionists, but unwittingly are.
Some of the results in the global Christian community have been:
1. The marginilzation of Palestinian Christians to the point where some Christians internationally would be surprised to even hear that such a group existed.
2. Ignorance in relation to much of the history of the area and a poor understanding of how modern Israel was established.
3. A lack of understanding about the diversity of biblical interpretation and understanding.
4. Quick and unjustified use of the term “antisemitism”.
5. Conscious and unconscious ignoring of injustices committed against the Palestinian people and therefore indirect endorsement of such injustices.
6. The obstruction of peace accords that give any benefit to the Palestinians.
7. In some instances, direct endorsement and encouragement of Israeli activites that marginalize Palestinians and force them from their lands.
8. Demonization of Palestinians, all those of Arab decent and those who identify themselves as Muslims.
It is this last result that I wish to focus on for this is the result of the type of reductionism that I am referring to.
The ongoing reductionism of the history, complexities and naunces of the situation has resulted in one simple view being adhered to in the eyes, minds and hearts of many Christians who think, speak and act accordingly – it can be summed up like this:
Israel is God’s chosen people trying to make their way in the land He promised to them – they are the good guys. The Palestinians and all other groups that identify themselves as Arab and/or Muslim are the evil entity that acts to work against God’s plan and destroy Israel – they are the bad guys.
In the minds of many it is simply a battle of good vs evil and those who are identified as the enemy are reduced to being seen as much less than human. This reduction is played out on many levels and can sadly be heard in the rhetoric of some very high level politicians who have the ability to command vast armed forces.
It is time we stopped the reductionism and the oversimplifications of the situation and started asking some tough questions that allow for all the nuances and diverse complications that feed the problem. This is not about the good guys vs the bad guys. It is time we recognised the humanity of all involved. Everyone involved is a human being, with loves, fears, apprehensions and desires. Everyone involved is a family member and a friend to someone.
We also need to be willing to admit some things about the establishment and the means employed to strengthen the modern state of Israel. Unless Christians are willing to face up to some cold harsh realities, we will be a muted voice in the situation. To describe the place of Christianity in relation to modern Israel by employing biblical metaphor - we will continue to be a prostitute, used and abused by a power that seems to have little regard for the concepts of justice and mercy.
In the biblical story, ancient Israel was punished severely for activities that neglected justice, mercy, care for the alien and oppressed and they were called to look after the widow and orphan.
Allow me to state some things at the risk of being accused of antisemitism.
- Ancient Israel and the modern Israeli state are not the same thing. The ancient state of Israel, though it had its faults and many of us struggle with the way it took the land, was still a nation that adhered to a law dictated by God that demanded it respect and look after the most vulnerable in its midst and it was clear that its creation was to demonstrate the glory of God to the world around it. The modern state of Israel is not the same in any sense.
- Contrary to some popular Christian thought that idolizes and romanticizes the current modern state of Israel, it does not represent a pure blood-line relating to the ancient Israelites. Most current Israelis are best described as Westerners, being directly from Western nations or, in our current time, the first generation born from Western Jews who moved into the territory. Their bloodlines are strongly mixed. In fact, it could be argued that many of the Palestinians probably have more “Jewish blood” in them than many of the people who have migrated into the area onto what was once the land of the people who are now refugees.
- The modern state of Israel is a secular state that seeks its own growth and protection at any cost. Allow me to repeat those last three words – at any cost.
- The biggest price paid for the establishment of Israel is to be seen in the thousands upon thousands of refugees known as Palestinians – people that poured across borders into neighbouring countries and who were forced from their homes into settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Gaza and the West Bank are essentially refugee lands full of families that once occupied the greater Palestine.
- The state of Israel was formed via blood in the war of 1948 where those of non-jewish decent who had not fled their homes in fear or sold their lands to Jewish settlers and land-owners were forcibly evicted from the land their families had lived in for generations. But we also cannot discount all the injustices that were committed leading up to this, including the terrorist activities of the Jewish Irgun. If it wasn’t for the activities of the Irgun and the arming of Jewish factions in the lead up to 1948 while native Palestinians were not allowed to arm themselves, Israel as we know it would not have been born.
- The taking of the land for the formation of Israel in 1948 and the further expansion and winning of the 1967 6 day war are not events that act as evidence of God’s providence. They are not examples of David vs Goliath with miraculous outcomes. Instead they are evidence of a horrendous willingness to engage in ethnic cleansing and expansionism at any cost. They are evidence of the pursuit of nationalistic identity at the cost of a very real people group – the inhabitants of Palestine who called it home before it was identified by Zionists as the place to see out their desire. They are also evidence of a small group of people being equipped and enabled by much larger nations.
- Sadly, the abused has become the abuser. There aren’t too many people in the world, including the Palestinians who would not recognise the atrocites committed against the Jewish people throughout history – predominantly in Europe during the height of the European Christian empire and even in recent history. Having a space to call home and the formation of Zionism to achieve that goal was not unreasonable. What was unreasonable was Europe’s desire to see that goal achieved in a place outside of their own borders – essentially they exported their problem to somewhere else. In so doing they created a situation where the Zionists, to see their goal achieved, had to become the abusers.
- From the outset of the working out of the goal of a national identity for the Jewish people to the present day – the predecessors to the modern state of Israel and their political descendants have actively engaged in the abuse of the people native to the land they desire(d) to occupy.
- Israel has an active need to defend itself, this need exists because it has engaged in a military offensive since prior to 1948 that has seen it beat down a people group. Whilst not to be condoned, it is understandable that the retaliation would be of a violent and militant nature.
- The modern state of Israel is a law breaker. Israel has consistently paid lip service to, yet ignored basic international laws laid out in the Geneva Convention that directly relate to their situation – laws that give rights to the Palestinians. They have also ignored and flouted screeds of UN resolutions that have been passed in order to uphold the human rights and well being of the Palestinians. Instead they have actively engaged in subjugating and demeaning the Palestinian people whilst all the while taking more and more land and resources in the West Bank for their own betterment. Alongside this, America has been the constant lone voice on the UN Security Council that has vetoed any proposal to force Israel to act upon UN resolutions passed and agreed to.
- The Separation Wall is not a defence mechanism – it is a mechanism to annex more land, cut of the Palestinian people from needed resources and make them second rate citizens subject to military control – it is racist.
To put it bluntly, the modern state of Israel is the result of a goal to displace a people group from their homeland so that it could be occupied by people from other nations. This goal has and is being achieved violently. The people who once occupied the land are now a people group with no rights or home.
There is nothing distinctly Christian about supporting the modern political state of Israel, just as there is nothing distinctly Christian about supporting the activities of either side that results in the reduction of the value of humanity.
We can no longer accept and allow reductionist arguments that paint this as an argument of good vs evil. Human beings are involved on both sides and any discussion or activity invested in that area must recognise the humanity of all involved and must give recognition and value to the Palestinian people, the people of that land.
Allow me to venture towards a big picture possibility. Where hope is maintained I see two possible solutions.
1) A two state solution. I don’t believe this solution is viable on its current trajectory that sees Israeli settlements within the West Bank and resources that originate in the West Bank syphoned off for Israeli use. For this solution to work, Israel needs to remove themselves from the West Bank completely and allow for Palestinian governance of the area and its resources. They also need to recognise that such a move is a concession on the Palestinian side, not an Israeli act of generosity since most of the land that was once Palestine and home to the people who are now refugees will remain in Israeli hands.
2) By far I think the best solution for all, but probably the most unlikely, is the dissolution of the state of Israel that exists now and the reformation of a government and state that represents all the people within the land that makes up Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Such a state would allow for the repatriation of the Palestinians who exist as refugees in other nations and would encourage the mutual co-operation and free movement of all people groups within its border while allowing all those who have entered the land since 1948 to remain.
Christians can begin by dropping the good vs evil reductionism and recognizing and supporting their fellow brothers and sisters of faith that identify themselves as Palestinian Christians rather than lending ill conceived, unquestioning support to the state of Israel.
Visit My Website
October 26, 2008
Permalink
Wow… Im surprised there have not been a flood of comments. Could it be that most of your audience agree? or that they are still digesting the information.
I recall Bill Koenig visiting us at RBG a while back and he commented that the belief amongst christian politicians in the United States was that “God was holding back judgement on the evils of the United States because of its unconditional support of Israel”.
I find this sort of thinking just fundamentally flaw; And find it disturbing to see it come out constantly in US foreign policy.
At the end of the day everyone is acting out in terms of their own self preservation. Christian Based Nation States support Israel to garner God’s favor.
Visit My Website
October 26, 2008
Permalink
Thank you for the article, very intesting. I guess the first question I would ask how do you view Israel today in view of the scripture and prophets, are they still God’s chosen?
If the answer is yes then how do you view the Palistine Liberation Organisations view that all Palestine will be liberated and they will not rest until every Jew is dead, this view is also held by Israels neighbours.
Visit My Website
October 26, 2008
Permalink
Well put Frank. Before you brought up this topic I had no idea of all of this. To be honest, I never bothered to think further than the ‘Israel = good / Palestine = bad’ argument. It’s crazy how that’s been ‘taught’ to us - I remember teacher’s explicitly stating this at intermediate school. I don’t for a second condone either side of this, but it’s time that people stopped and looked at what the ‘good’ side is doing & held them accountable. It’s so easy to de-humanize this and stop thinking about the effects on the lives of everyday people stuck in the middle of this.
One question (apologies if this shows my ignorance) - what does America stand to gain by supporting Israel? Oil?
Visit My Website
October 26, 2008
Permalink
Skip,
Good point. Some current thinking in some Christian circles is disturbing. I would venture to say that no favour is gained from God by supporting the modern state of Israel.
Peter,
Thank you for reading and thank you for commenting.
In answer to your first question, my simple response is no, I do not believe that the modern state of Israel is God’s chosen in the way I’m assuming you mean that. My longer answer would involve a discussion about the nature and history of promises and prophecy in the Old Testament and the way they are interpreted and understood in the New Testament. Even if I did believe the modern state of Israel to be a nation God plays favourites with, I still could not condone their clear desire to break the Palestinian people and the actions they employ to achieve that end.
In response to your second question. I do not condone extreme violence from either side, but I do not believe that any sentiment that involves wiping all Jews off the face of the earth is representative of the majority - I believe the fact that we’re all well aware of that position held by many militants (and let’s ask ourselves while assessing that sentiment, why it could possibly be held… you might find the answers in some real world historical events that involve the years 1948 and 1967), shows a clear bias in reporting. Allow me to illustrate - how many people are aware of these quotes given by the first Prime Minister (David Ben-Gurion) of Israel, a militant Zionist who condoned terrorist attacks committed by militant Zionist organisations in Palestine prior to 1948:
The latter quote is a sentiment expressing action that is still being played out - whilst it should not be condoned, a violent response is understandable.
How about this from Ariel Sharon, the extremist Israeli General who committed some major atrocities and later became Israel’s leader:
There’s plenty more, but those adequately express a sentiment never heard in the media or Christian circles. Is it any wonder that extreme factions would form expressing a similar sentiment back? I don’t support either. I do however support Palestinians and Israelis using non-violent action to protest the state’s subjugation of the Palestinian people.
Rachel,
That’s a question with a lot of answers - a presence in the Middle East, a place to send Jewish refugees following World War II, political votes for aspiring politicians (lobby groups promoting support for Israel are powerful), religious appeasement and the list goes on.
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
Those quotes are appalling. If Robert Mugabe were the one saying such things, he’d find himself facing a massive response. Why not Israel?
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
That quote from Ariel Sharon just floored me. How could a leader of the Israeli People even contemplate saying this.
One could rattle off a large list of Nazi Leaders who defiantly declared a similar sentiment (obviously for a different cause)
Im not antisemitic, and will always be mindful of the horrific crimes against the vast range of ethic groups during the second world war.
But i am getting more and more frustrated at the fact that the western world turns a blind eye to various “Flavor of the Month” groups participating in the middle east as they perform some of the worst crimes against humanity of recent times.
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
[...] [...]
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
Rachel, international politics is a dirty, messy, self serving game… it’s why I can’t be bothered entering politics. Having Israel maintain a strong presence in the Middle East serves the interest of some powerful nations our country is traditionally aligned with, so they help it along and turn a blind eye to many of the issues.
On the other hand, there is a strong response. That response comes from nations like Iran, Syria, Jordan etc and the Palestinians themselves… but it’s often not couched in language we like and that we find jarring because we’ve been lead to see Israel as our Western friend in the Middle East. The violent rhetoric, whilst not to be condoned, is a response.
For a comparative example of the same thing happening on the other foot - let’s take Sudan as an example. We in the West speak out heavily against the actions of the Sudanese government towards the people of Darfur (an area in its own borders), yet China and Russia take a very softly softly approach with that same government. The difference is political interests - China and Russia have oil interests in Sudan and Sudan is a larger purchaser of their weapons - so one side speaks strongly against while another doesn’t. The same is happening in the Israeli conflict - the side with vested interest keeps quiet while others yell about it.
The response is strong - suicide bombers, rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza regularly, the President of Iran speaking strongly against Israel, Syria constantly acting as an aggressor. Whilst I don’t condone violent responses, it’s a response.
People who see other Middle Eastern nations and the Palestinians as the aggressors and Israel as the victim also need to put this into perspective.
Prior to 1948 (in modern history) there was no Middle Eastern aggression against a nation called Israel. Israel is a new nation that was formed by Western nations enabling a stack of non Middle Eastern Jews to flood into an already inhabited block of land (Palestine), expelling it’s people and setting up a new state - flooding neighbouring countries with refugees and creating a refugee group within its own borders.
Hear this - in the current conflict, Zionism was the original aggressor in that land and everything else is a response to that activity. Whether the responses are right or wrong, Israel was the aggressor. This isn’t about a good nation needing to defend itself against the bad guys, it’s about the establishment of a foreign nation in the Middle East where it was not needed or wanted - the violence occurring is a direct result of that aggressive action. The sooner people understand that, the better. Any room given to Israel is a concession on the part of the nations in the area. Any room Israel gives to the Palestinians (or nations bordering it) is not an act of generosity, as is often portrayed, but an act of handing back what was theirs in the first place.
Hear me though, I am not condoning or trying to vindicate violence of any sort. If peace is to truly be achieved, all sides need to truly listen to each other, hear each other and understand each other. But when history is given its rightful place in our understanding then the violence begins to make sense and stops simply being a reduced argument about the good guys vs the bad guys… or about religious extremism gone nuts. Religious extremism is one response to an already desperate situation.
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
Here’s an interesting thing to throw into the mix for all those who condemn the Palestinians for fighting back - the United States Declaration of Independence states this:
Essentially, this principle of revolution that is ingrained in U.S culture gives justification to the revolutionary actions of the Palestinian people against the state of Israel where the state of Israel has been an aggressor that has abused the people in the land that it has occupied.
Some drastic changes need to take place and history needs to be recognized and rectified for any real movement to be made towards peace.
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
Thank you for your reply.
If Israel is not God’s chosen at the present time do you think this will change in the future?
The remarks you quoted are not uncommon, after all one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
As far as I can see Israel has been accomodating to the Palestinian people, unfortunately for them and particularly their past leader Yasser Arafat turned out to be their biggest enemy creaming off millions of dollars destined for them and not willing to sign any peace deal not matter what.
Your comment “In the biblical story, ancient Israel was punished severely for activities that neglected justice, mercy, care for the alien and oppressed and they were called to look after the widow and orphan”, that was very true however you may recall that the aliens in that case chose to be under Israel’s care, that was their choice, and Israel had to respond appropriately.
I have every sympathy for Palestinian Christians and any other Christian individual or group who are suffering persecution. I agree that all christians should support them in any way they can.
I think it would be interesting to do a study of the history of the so called Palestinian people and see just where they have from in the past 150 years, and how their brother Muslems have treated them too. You may be very surprised. It’s also interesting to note that Jerusalem was not of particular interest to the Muslems before the restoration of the State of Israel. Now we hear that Jerusalem had always been one of their vital centres. That is just not true. Read some of the accounts by people like Mark Twain and other notable people and they will tell you that the few Bedouins that lived in or near Jursalem were not interested in anything.
Gaining a good understanding of Islam and the Bible is vital in my view of understanding this issue. I don’t believe alot of what Islam tells me. I only have to read the Palestinian history of what they call Palenstine to arrive at that conclusion but I don’t believe either what the media tells me of what is going on either. I personally know of people who live in the Land and mix openly with Palestinians and well as Jews and know full well that the message we get in the West is pretty distorted.
One final thought, go back and read scripture, turn your back on Israel and maybe you will be turning your back on God Himself!
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
Peter - is anyone here turning their back on Israel? I would say they’re simply being called to account for what they’re doing. Didn’t God himself do that many times too?
I think there’s a danger here in becoming either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. Both sides are doing unbelievable wrong to the other. I sympathise with Frank’s thoughts as this is the only place that I have heard a critique of the actions of the Israeli people. That doesn’t make me against Israel, nor does it make me pro-Palestine.
Also - can you elaborate on your point that ‘aliens’ in the case mentioned above chose to be under Israel’s care. Are you saying that if people don’t chose to be under Israel, that means God doesn’t command justice / mercy etc be extended to them. Wasn’t the most important commandment love God & the 2nd love your neighbour? I know I’m being quite simplistic, my understanding of this is simplistic..
If the Israeli nation want to make claims because of their status as God’s chosen & his promises to them, how is it they are able to so conveniently ignore the most simple of commandments given to them?
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
Hi Rachel
The idea of God being compassionate and merciful to everyone is true however tell that to Sodom or Gormorrah, tell that to the people living on earth in the days of Noah, tell that to to the people who God told Israel to destroy when they took over the Land (that even included killing women and young children). It seems that we have missed something here. Yes God is a God of compassion, mercy, love, etc, etc but He is also a God of Justice, not our justice but His justice. As believers we don’t seem to see the fear of God very much, it doesn’t fit with our theology too well.
In Gen 12:2-3 God says “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you” At this point he was making Abraham and his descendants into a nation saying that all nations would be blessed by Abraham. God tells Abraham, and later Isaac and later Jacob that the Land he is giving is their’s forever (Gen 13:14-17, (forever is a long time). That view is not taken into account today (usually) and unfortunately when the restoration of the Land occurred in 1948 the Arab world was determine to surround a very tiny new nation and make sure it did not survive, fortunately God had other idea’s and in my view the Muslem world has portrayed a view that there is no place for Israel at all.
I do sympathise with the Palestinian people because they are a nationless people they have been shunted from pillar to post over the years because no one wants them. Israel has offered them peace many times, work, and provided aid and all sorts of assistance, usually to be repaid by shells and mortars being aimed at them. Sending human bombers in even including women and children prepared to take their own lives to kill a Jew. Saddam Hussein giving the bombers money and fame to do the work. The Palistinian mothers being so proud of their children killing Jews. What sort of people are these.
Having said that there is a move today where Palestinians are turning to the one true God and realising they have been cheated and lied to. Sure Israel is not perfect, and one day they too will turn to God for their own redemption.
We should all pray and assist these people to hasten that day.
Visit My Website
October 27, 2008
Permalink
There are two discussions that seem to be emerging here… or at least, two discussions that need to take place. One is around Palestinian identity - which involves the history you have said might surprise me Peter - which I can assure you most certainly has surprised me. That suprise has caused me to remove any emotional and mental support I was giving to the state of Israel. The other discussion involves the Bible and specifically promises made to Abraham and ancient Israel around the land.
In this comment, allow me to address the former - the identity of the people we know as Palestinians. But before I do, I will answer one of your other questions - no I don’t think the modern state of Israel will become a chosen people. I believe the concept of “Israel”, “land”, “temple”, “High Priest”, “sacrifice”, “Jerusalem” etc are much bigger and broader concepts than they were in the Old Testament.
Let’s begin by removing any disputes over claims to Jerusalem. Any discussions about claims to Jerusalem are secondary to the larger issue of claims to all the land within the borders of Israel/Palestine.
The assertion is often made that Palestinian identity (as a distinct people group) is essentially an Arab fabrication invented since 1948 to lay claim to the current land of Israel and that prior to 1948 the Palestinian people were simply part of the surrounding Arab people groups and migrant workers from surrounding nations.
This assertion ignores some factors and ignores some historical social conditions prior to 1948.
Indeed there were people groups in the area who identified very closely and could be easily connected to people groups in surrounding areas, such as the nomadic Bedouins you mention, Peter, but similar assertions could be made about some European nations that have many similarities in terms of culture, religion and ethnic origins but still maintain distinct national identities even with those connections and close ties.
“Palestine” found it’s birth as a political entity with distinct borders in Roman times. Since then it has been through many different occupations where the borders have changed but it has maintained it’s name.
The history where it gets familiar for many people is the rule of the Ottoman Empire that included Palestine alongisde many neighbouring nations creating one region that had Damascus as its center. (Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were a part of that same region).
When the British invaded and took the land, it divided Palestine into three regions (Jerusalem, Acre, Nablus).
Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent British rule, nationalism had started to emerge as a movement with the Empire with many nations starting to assert their own distinct identities and campaigning for independence.
Certainly there were people groups within Palestine, such as the desert dwelling Bedouins who may not have participated in such nationalistic pursuits, but that was not true of all. A Palestinian identity was emerging under the Ottoman Empire, alongside distinct identities in surrounding nations.
During British rule, that pursuit continued and Britain clearly recognised it when they created Palestine as a distinct political unit from other lands they administered in the area such as Transjordan.
As British rule was drawing to an end, the Palestinians started asserting their national identity even more and double promises were made by the British to the Zionists who were laying claim to the land, and the Arabs. The British only saw through the promise they had made to one group.
Most certainly, Palestinian identity has formed stronger under Israeli occupation, but that’s understandable - an identity was already forming, a tragedy took place that through the indigenous people into a shared suffering… it’s understandable that such events would have a huge impact on the formation of identity.
The Palestinians are now a nationless people, that has not always been the case, and yes surrounding nations around them have largely not absorbed them. In response to this when it is leveled as a criticism of surrounding nations - how well do we think our country would cope with a sudden influx of thousands upon thousands of refugees? I bet we would struggle for a long time. It’s understandable that Palestine’s surrounding nations would struggle to absorb them… as they have.
Really? On what terms has peace been offered? Shall we go into things like the Oslo accords and the infamous Camp David negotiations?
Work? When curfews were introduced, thousands of Palestinians lost their jobs in Israel because they could not meet work commitments. Aid? You’re joking right? We could go through lists and lists of supposed concessions that Israel has offered only to be taking more with the other hand.
Suicide bombers? Now there’s an interesting discussion where the statistics paint a very interesting picture about what sort of people are engaging in such extreme action. That picture is surprising and certainly doesn’t meet the stereotype we’re often fed.
I’ve heard the one about Saddam as well, though I’ve never seen the evidence for it. Are you able to point to a credible source for that, Peter? I’d be genuinely grateful for the chance to examine it properly.
It’s safe to say though, that suicide bombers and mothers who may be proud of their children killing Jews are an extreme minority.
I openly condemn any violent action and sentiment - I hope that as you condemn violent rhetoric and action on the Palestinian side, that you also feel the same sentiment towards the leaders of Israel who assert the need for violence against Palestine’s Arab population as I have demonstrated above.
Peter, may I also say that reading scripture is not the issue here… we probably just disagree in how it should be understood - but that’s another (very interesting) discussion.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Great write-up Frank.
In my life I went from being a kind of de-facto supporter of Israel regardless of their actions to being totally bemused at the violence that people can justify in the name of an arbitrary group or imaginary deity.
It’s good to hear a voice amongst Christians at least arguing for a more informed and educated view.
If only everyone would also drop that most unreasonably proposition that there was ever divine justification for anyone’s nation-state! (But I’m jumping the gun here; I’m happy that at least this conversation is happening and that it’s in the direction of reason.)
Cheers fella.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Hi, one reason there is not peace in the Middle east because anyone who believes the Koran is the word of God won’t offer peace to anyone who is a non believer.
(in Allah)
If Israel stopped fighting there would be no more Israel but perhaps that is what some christians would like.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Hi Esther
Thank you for your reply, an interesting comment. Would you like to expand abit on your comments about the Koran.
Sure Israel is not perfect and never will be but their position in my view is very understandable.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Hi Esther, thank you for commenting.
I have to strongly disagree with your first comment and state that I think it is a poor stereotype:
I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, this has not been my personal experience. Secondly, history would demonstrate this to be false. There are many instances prior to the establishment of Israel prior to 1948 that demonstrate Christian, Jew and Muslim living alongside each other. The establishment of the modern state of Israel has caused much of the tension currently being exhibited in the region and is, I believe, to blame for many modern hostilities between the major monotheistic religions.
The latter part of that assumption is a poor generalization. Many seem to equate an open critique of the nation-state of Israel with a desire for its demise. That is not necessarily so.
I have openly critiqued the government of Sudan for its actions against the people of Darfur - that does not mean that I want the government of Sudan destroyed, it simply means I want to see it drastically change.
Israel has a right to defend itself, nobody is denying that. What is being called out here is a need to recognize the realities of the causes of the hostilities and a reduction in the simplistic arguments (such as you have presented about Muslims) that reduce it to good guys vs bad guys. Until the reality of the situation is recognized, including the mess that was the establishment of the modern state of Israel and it’s continued Zionist expansionism, no solution will be found. Wrongs committed need to be rectified for anyone to move forward.
There is a difference between fighting simply in defense and fighting to take what is rightfully the belonging of another. Israel is guilty of the latter while trying to paint it as the former.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Frank
You asked for a reference about Saddam and payment. You may care to consider this one:-
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a “martyr” and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”
This is from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
There are others including TV footage showing the congratulations from Saddam.
I shall to some of your other comments later.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Frank
You asked for a reference for the claim that Saddam was funding terrorism one site says this:
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a “martyr” and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”
This comes from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
Also I would strongly disagree with you on Esther comment.
Whether we like it or not Israel has been a terrible thorn in the Arab world. Several times over and since all major wars between Israel and its neighbours have resulted in Israel victory (in some instances against incredible odds), the muslems have asked their religious leaders why they cannot win, answer they are not fundermental enough. Since that time many muslem states have had civil war in their countries. This has resulted in a far more fundermentalist following towards Islam. This in turn has led to the spread of the islamic people throughout the world and especially into the West.
Its abit like the christian church, some areas of it as dead as, simply because it does not believe the Word of God is the Word of God. Fundermental islam is alive, growing and will continue to, simply because Christian countries are not longer Christian and therefore no threat whatsoever to islam.
Many countries (especially in Europe have bend over backwards to accommodate them and are now suffering the consequences. Some even paying them to leave their countries. If you think Islam is a nice, quite, peace loving religion, think again!
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Thankyou for your comment Peter, I agree none of us is perfect.
I was refering to the numerous verses in the koran urging believers to chop off bits of non believers if they don’t submit to Allah.
Sura (8:39) - “And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah”
Sura (8:12) - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Sura (47:35) - “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Thankyou for repling frank, I agree most muslims don’t act on what is in the koran but it’s probably hard to tell which ones are going to and which ones just want to live peacefully with everyone.(Those muslims Mohammed called hypocrites)
Islamic history doesn’t often show Islam living happily alongside people of other faiths unless they can reduce them to dhimmitude.
Sura (9:29) - “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Sura (3:28) - “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah…”
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Thanks for the comment, Esther.
If I had time right now, it would be interesting to have a discussion about how people were treated in both the Western “Christian” Empire and the Eastern Islamic Empire during the middle ages when they did not hold to the same belief system as the governing authorities. I would venture to say that the track record of Christian Europe was far worse than that of the Islamic world… and the Bible was used as a justification for violence on many occasions… and still is.
Holy writ, of any origin can be a complicated topic. If we examined history, we could find countless numbers of people who have been killed with the name of Jesus and the words of the Bible being used to justify such heinous activity. One doesn’t have to look too far these days either to find violent groups who use their understanding of the Bible to justify their thinking.
Yes, there are Islamic militants, but these groups are a minority. The simple fact is, they garner a disproportionate amount of media attention - because we have a lazy media that prefers showing masked militants raising guns in the air and shouting violent slogans than it does, showing the life of the average citizen in any conflict.
Peter and Esther, I would be interested to hear your response to the clearly violent rhetoric inherent in the leaders who established and continue to promote Zionism. I’m not denying the wrongs of extreme Islamic factions and I am not denying that wrongs have been committed by surrounding Arab nations. I’m showing that there is a whole other side to this story that clearly demonstrates blood on the hands of the group that so many support without real question and that in actual fact, it’s the blood that group is guilty of shedding that might be at the heart of the problem.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
For those interested, here’s a link to look into the concept of Dhimmitude that Esther mentioned:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Esther, if you have any other information that people could look at, that would be great.
Essentially it was a form of protection/security and life afforded to non-muslims who submitted to Islamic authority without fighting when their lands were conquered by Jihad.
It is a fairly nuanced concept and differed according to area and the religion of the non-muslim… and of course different scholars and commentators take varying approaches as to whether or not it was a good thing.
What’s interesting is that when Christians approach Dhimmitude as a negative for Christians under Islamic rule, they neglect that what Israel is trying to do with the Palestinians could be argued to be far worse… or at the very least… the same.
The argument made by many who are pro the modern state of Israel is that the Palestinians have been offered the chance to be absorbed into Israeli society - to become citizens of the state - documented evidence from Zionism would say that whilst this offer (similar to Dhimmitude) has been paid lip service, the driving sentiment against the Arab population and the actions of the state have said something completely different. The quotes I gave from people such as Ariel Sharon and David Ben-Gurion demonstrate this very clearly.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Frank
You asked for a reference for Saddam paying terrorists, here is one:
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a “martyr” and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, “You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue.”
The scource is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
I have also seen TV footage from Palestinian homes showing the stuff sent by Saddam and being very proudly displayed.
I very strongly disagree with you as far as Esther’s comments are concerned. When Israel became a nation in 1948 the surrounding Arab armies decided to chuck Israel out. They failed miserably, and since then there has been a succession of wars they have lost. Following 1948 the muslims have gone to their religious leaders wanting to know why they cannot overthrow Israel. Their reply has been that they were not fundamental enough, and since then there has been an uprising in almost all muslem countries resulting in a more fundamentalist regime.
We now only need to look around the western world to realise that as Christianity has declined and it surely has, Islam has marched in with nothing to stop it. In fact some countries have bent over backwards to accommodate them. They are now going to pay the price, with countries even offering to pay muslims to leave western countries. Unfortunately Christianity is as dead as in many countries. The problem is christianity just does not believe that God’s Word really is God’s Word. Islam has been told to go the other way and follow Mohammed’s words to the letter. If you think that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and understanding then frankly you are mistaken.
Esther
I am not sure about your comment about muslims not following the koran. I think you may find that there is a move afoot for all of them to be more one-eyed. This was probably the case in the past but not now. Even in Christchurch the teaching they receive in their Mosque is pretty full on
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Peter, have you been there to hear the teachings? I would be interested in your evaluation - though this is an aside to the main discussion that still has many points being addressed.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Hi, a quote from ‘Islam and the Jews, the unfinished battle’ by Mark A. Gabriel PH.D (Former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt)
“The only acceptable solution, from the Muslim point of view, is to eliminate Israel. As the Covenant of the Hamas 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 6.9
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
-Preamble to the Covenant of Hamas
It is not just the radical jihad groups who make these kinds of statements. They are preached in mosques throughout the world . You can go to a website on the Internet that gives you the English translations of some of these sermons (www.alminbar.net).
End Quote
At the risk of idolizing and romanticizing let me quote the scripture
‘And it will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured.’
-Zechariah 12:3 NAS
God has issued a warning to any nation, any government, any politician who would seek to impose a merely human solution on Jerusalem. All who attempt this will be ’severely injured.’
Roll on ‘forever’ I say.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Unfortunately my posts are not showing, I have tried several times but they don’t come up.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Hi Peter, they were held for moderation because of links. It’s a measure to hold back the screeds of spam this site gets hit with. I’ll pick one of them to leave since they all say pretty much the same thing.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Visit My Website
October 28, 2008
Permalink
Peter, thanks for the link. I wonder if that report has any connection to evidence for the weapons of mass destruction that American intel had on Saddam as well.
That matter is a side issue though and doesn’t change the point I am trying to make.
My response to Esther related to practices amongst the Western Christian empire and the Eastern Islamic Empire in the middle ages… the response of 1948 is not relative to that discussion.
My question to you, to keep coming back to the point I am pushing is why did the Arab nations try to chuck Israel out and how did Israel get the area?
Allow me to repeat, I am not trying to deny the destructive nature of Islamic extremism, nor am I denying wrong doing on the part of the Arab nations - what I am pointing out is the violent birth of the nation state of Israel and the intention to drive Arabs from the land… which they did violently. I am saying that it is that very act that is the cause of the tension in the area.
If the area had been left to its indigenous inhabitants who were forming a national identity, and the nations in the area had been allowed to do with it what they willed rather than importing westernized European, Russian and American Jews through the agenda of a Zionist movement that was already using violent, terrorist tactics (even against the British) to achieve its goal, there wouldn’t be a problem.
On another note, quoting violent sentiments from Islamic quarters doesn’t sway this at all, I am well aware of them - what I have pointed out is the violent mindset that Zionism entered the fray with and has pursued to this day. A mindset that hardly gets noted in Western circles and even less in Western Christian circles.
I would suggest that if Europe had sorted out its anti-Semitism problem by finding an area in Europe for the Zionists to develop a state then the issue wouldn’t exist - but they did not do that, they instead created a western outpost in the Middle East, that mostly America has been funding to the tune of billions of dollars every year since the 50’s. It’s no miracle that it is a strong nation and one of the strongest military powers in the world - its entire economy and military is funded by American aid, loans (which are mostly written off), grants etc etc.
When the facts are looked at, in both the formation of Israel and how it has grown, it’s no surprise the surrounding nations would be hostile.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
The answer is fairly simple, on the 29 November 1947 the UN voted to establish the Jewish state in Palestine.
This was the result of a number of moves as follows:
A man by the name of William Hechler was prominent in certain circles and arranged for Theodor Herzl’s name to be well known in the royal Courts of Europe. In 1900 the World Zionist Congress met in London “Palestine for the Jews” was the rallying cry. In 1902 a new wave of pogroms in Russia threw panic into the budding Zionist movement. The Zionist Congress were willing to accept any piece of land to save the lives of those being slaughtered. The British offered Sinai, that proposal fell to bits, then Uganda was considered, in 1904 that idea was abandoned too.
Jews continued streaming into Palestine from Russia, Eastern Europe, Morocco, Iraq, Turkey, and Yemen, 40,000 of them. With the defeat of Germany in WW1 and the end of the Otterman Empire rule in Palestine, British mandatory rule began.
On the 2 November 1917 Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary declared that His Majesty’s Government favoured a homeland for the Jewish people. This declaration did not create a Jewish state but prepared a way for it.
In 1919 the Zionist had reached an amicable agreement with Emir Faisal the leader of the Arab movement and could live side by side with other. Faisal’s brother Abdullah had other idea’s and moved into eastern Palestine with a band of guerillas in 1921. Winston Church recognized Abdullah as Emir and promptly portioned Palestine creating a territory called Transjordan. The League of Nations confirmed these boundaries. From the time of partition, no Jewish immigrant was permitted onto eastern Palestine, i.e. Transjordan, no such restriction was applied to Arab immigration into the Jewish homeland. Arabs entered freely taking advantage of the higher wages and living standards. The Jewish population rose by 375,000 and the non-Jewish population by 380,000. Arab interest was only in areas where there was a intensive Jewish development.
The Jews paid more than $20 million between 1933-35 to absentee Arab landlords paying exorbitant prices for swamps, rocky and sandy soil.
On the 29 November 1947 the UN voted to partition Palestine into two separate states, Jewish and Arab. On the 14 May 1948 the British forces finally withdrew from Palestine and the State of Israel was officially proclaimed. A few days later the war of independence began.
There are a number of points here, like I said earlier the Arabs were not interested in Palestine until the Jews turned up. The land was owned by absentee landlords, they didn’t even live there, there was nothing there. What’s more the land was purchased by Jews.
This information comes from “The last word on the Middle East” by Derek Prince and many other books I can refer you to if you wish.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
No need, I’ve read Derek Prince’s book and would consider it an extremely biased take on the situation with an interest that swings him beyond a reasonable look at the facts at best and at worst, introducing fabrications of information that have wrongly been propagated… but arguing that point is futile as we would probably both accuse each other of a wrong bias and continue slinging information back and forth in a bid to show who’s right
I’m not interested in pursuing that. What I am interested in is genuine moves towards peace.
What I think we can both agree on is that there are two peoples (however they got there) with a desire for a homeland in the area once known as Palestine. Both groups make historical claims to the land - both groups are subject to the meddling of outside forces pursuing their own ends - both groups are poorly characterized in a number of ways (though one is most certainly stronger than the other and therefore has the upper hand in any negotiations) where statistics would paint another picture - polls amongst both Israelis and Palestinians clearly show majorities in both groups desiring a two state solution as opposed to wiping each other out… sadly the extremists on both sides get heard more often.
Until BOTH sides can recognize wrongs committed, make amends for those wrongs, free themselves of outside interference (including misguided religious agendas from Jews, Christians and Muslims alike), be willing to make real compromises, rather than compromises that simply make it look like they desire peace, and attain a negotiating mediator that does not have a high vested interest in the area like the U.S and surrounding nations - nothing will move forward.
Both sides need to truly commit to listening to each other and seeking the best for all parties.
But of course, if anyone reading here thinks the modern state of Israel has a right to the land because of a belief that God has given it to them and are willing to turn a blind eye to Israel’s murderous, expansive and oppressive pursuits then we can find no agreement in this discussion
I say that with respect.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
As far as weapons of mass destruction goes one of Saddam’s Generals wrote a book and mentioned them. Yes they did have weapons of mass destruction, they were distmantled and sent to Syria. The General was in charge of Saddam’s airforce, he is also a Christian. I can find out his details if you like.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
No need, it’s not relevant to the discussion - it was a cheeky side comment from me
…plus, information could be produced from U.N Weapons inspectors saying he could not possibly have had the capability to produce such weapons after the dismantling of much of Iraq’s weapon producing ability.
Information can be produced to support almost any argument… surely that’s clear. It’s well recognized that any force engaging a conflict these days will be well versed in information warfare and have an ability to manipulate media towards their cause…. the bigger the force in question, the better their ability to manipulate the dissemination of information. When it comes to the production of information, there’s wisdom in the line that says “trust no-one and question everything”
I would hope anyone engaging and reading this discussion would see that very clearly. We should never take any party line hook line and sinker.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
Peter, here’s a good exercise we could engage in to round this discussion out and give people a chance to search for information to examine this topic themselves.
Take the opportunity to suggest 3 books people could read and 1 website to further their understanding of the issue and I will do the same. That way, people will have equal opportunity to examine our differing sides of the discussion
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
Thank you Frank for your last comment. This is where the discussion ends I think. I do believe that God has indeed given them the Land according to the scriptures. To me that is a clear, and this conflict is indeed spiritual after all if the Jews are not there then the Messiah cannot return according to scripture.
Bless you.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
Peter, though we may fundamentally disagree on that last point, allow me to offer a genuine, heartfelt thanks to you for taking the time to engage the discussion here and offer your perspective.
Thank you for putting up with me
May I also encourage you to take up that last offer, I would love for people to be able to leave reading this with further information they can follow up on to broaden their knowledge, understanding and perspective on both sides of this.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
So long as conversations about land occupation ends with “I do believe that [deity] has indeed given [nation] the Land according to the [divine revelation]” I don’t know if issues like this will ever be resolved.
Wouldn’t everyone be better off just leaving faith-based beliefs at the door when attempting to negotiate issues like this? Even if you happily get back on with your beliefs afterwards surely there will be a chance at success compared to a scenario where faith-based beliefs are bought to the negotiating table?
When we fall back on “I know because I know because I know” or “my book says so” then both reason and further dialogue is stopped in its tracks.
Your faith-based beliefs might well be correct. But then so might those of your negotiating partner. And neither of you can know for sure who’s right.
Faith has no place at the negotiating table because it is unreasonable. And until faith is set to one side I really don’t see an end to issues of this nature.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
I would be pleased to recommend the following:
“Our hands are stained with blood” by Michael Brown.
“Controversy of Zion” by Claude Duvernoy.
“The last word on the Middle East” by Derek Prince.
“Ploughing Sand, British Rule in Palestine” by Naomi Shepherd. This last one I have not completed yet. I would not recommend any particular web site, although plenty are available.
Thank you.
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
I should also add the Bible is pretty good too!
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
Thanks for the recommendations, Peter.
I’ve heard that Ploughing Sand is a well researched, even handed look at the events leading up to 1948.
Our Hands are Stained With Blood would be an interesting read as well… just had a look at it online. Christians most certainly need to take stock of the persecution of Jews that has taken place since it gained the political upper hand over a millennium ago.
The guilty conscience Europe has over its treatment of Jews is a major contributor to the Middle East situation, but the sad thing is that it is that conscience that stops people from speaking out against the modern political State of Israel - because we’ve often wrongly labeled political criticism and anti-Semitism alongside each other and branded valid criticisms of the State and actual hate of Jews as the same thing when they are not.
The placating of a guilty conscious can cause many troubles… the current situation in the Middle East is evidence of that.
Here are my recommendations:
Whose Promised Land by Rev. Colin Chapman.
http://www.whosepromisedland.com/
Christian Zionism by Vicar Stephen Sizer.
http://www.stephensizer.com/
Palestinian Memories by Pastor Alex Awad (Palestinian Christian).
http://www.alexawad.org/
I have chosen all Christian authors for my recommendations as it relates to the point of the post. Each of the above frames the historical issues alongside many of the current problems well. Each of them also frames the biblical issues in ways that are accessible.
For a website, there are many peacemaker organizations on both sides of the divide I would like to point to, but I said to give only one (the above are all to give information on the books recommended) - so I’ll point to Ha’aretz, a daily Israeli newspaper that is relatively fair so that anybody wanting to follow what’s going on can keep up-to-date with any new developments:
http://www.haaretz.com/
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
Frank, thank you
I have chosen an Christian author for my quote
‘The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation’.
- Psalm 33:10,11
In the face of all unbelief and opposition, the Lord’s plan for the restoration of Israel and Jerusalem will be fulfilled - phase by phase - just as He has revealed it through His prophets.
Jeremiah 33:25-26
The Lord said: ‘I would no more reject My people than I would reject My laws of night and day, of earth and sky. I will never abandon the Jews or David My servant or change the plan that His Son (the Messiah) will someday rule these descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Instead, I will restore their prosperity and have mercy on them.’
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
Thanks Peter, I might try to get a copy of that Derek prince book you mentioned, if it’s as bias as Frank mentioned it might be interesting.
Thankyou also for that website Frank
Visit My Website
October 29, 2008
Permalink
David, thanks for your comment. I’m sure many Jews would be insulted to see you define the Psalmist and Jeremiah as “Christian authors”… an impossibility since Christianity is defined by the life/death/resurrection of Jesus, who came well after those specific passages were written - in fact, they would probably describe it as highly offensive and anti-Semitic.
I would agree with what is said in both of those passages, we would just disagree in how they are played out through and following Christ. I believe the picture gets a whole lot broader and that what we have in the Old Testament are “types” pointing to larger realities revealed in the New Testament through and after Christ. A thorough discussion of the New Testament would need to take place to look at our differences there, but that is not the point of this post.
Esther,
I hope the site helps in offering good balanced information. It is certainly interesting watching events unfold on a daily basis.
Thanks for reading here.
Visit My Website
October 31, 2008
Permalink
Yes indeed, to label them ‘Christians’ is wrong, however they had a very clear understanding of the Messiah.
John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
It is clear from the context of John Chapter one that the Word is Christ, the Messiah. Therefore, what John is saying by inspiration of the spirit of God – that before the world was ever formed (as in Genesis chapter one), the Messiah existed and participated in the creation of the world. Due to the fact that the Messiah existed then presumably both the Psalmist and Jeremiah followed the God of Israel, were believers of the Messiah and depended on His Spirit, much like a Christian of today. This begs the question can we equate the long awaited Jewish Messiah with Jesus?
Well ‘Allow me to state some things at the risk of being accused of anti-Semitism.’ and lets look at the ‘larger realities revealed in the New Testament through and after Christ.’
-Romans 11:7-8
Most of the Jews have not found the favour of God they are looking for. A few have – the ones God has picked out, but the eyes of the others have been blinded. This is what our scriptures refer to when they say that God has put them to sleep, shutting their eyes and ears so that they do not understand what we are talking about, when we tell them of Christ.
Does this mean that God has rejected his Jewish people forever? Of course not! His purpose was to make His salvation available to the Gentiles, and then the Jews would be jealous for themselves.
-Romans 11:11
I want you to know this truth from God, dear brothers, so that you will not feel proud and start bragging. Yes, it is true that some of the Jews have set themselves against the Gospel now, but this will last only until all of you Gentiles have come back to Christ – those who will. And then all Israel (who believe in Christ) will be saved.
-Romans 11:25
Regarding a solution I think we should pray that God would open the Christian Palestinians ’spiritual’ eyes, to see the God’s love and purpose for Israel and His Jewish people and their significance in world events. That both cultures would experience through their Messiahs death on the cross, the removal of the wall of enmity, enabling Jews and Gentiles to become that ‘One New Man’ for whom Christ died. That their desire to be united as ‘one family in Christ’ would exceed their allegiance to their respective national loyalties.
-Ephesians 2:14-17
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.
Through Israel the promised Redeemer and Messiah came into the world. Both the first and second comings of Jesus are to be on their territory.
The State of Israel has been re-established, though yet in unbelief. It has been so far preserved, remarkably if not miraculously, through many crises. Those who believe in the sovereignty of God within history find in this the marks of Divine Providence.
Visit My Website
November 12, 2008
Permalink
Palestinian peace negotiator says Jerusalem was never Jewish at all…ah I wonder how many people will start to believe this one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80382
Visit My Website
November 13, 2008
Permalink
Yes, both sides are guilty of ill comment. That has never been denied here.
It’s a pity you won’t ever hear World Net Daily reporting anything critiquing Israel though. It’s an extremely biased media outlet.
Visit My Website
November 13, 2008
Permalink
Frank, thank you for writing this. Christians really do need to take a hard look at their attitudes toward Palestinians and other Arabs, perhaps especially the Christians among them. One of my best friends is a Palestinian-born Christian: one of her parents is ethnically Arab, the other is white and was raised in the United States; she spent much of her childhood living in the West Bank. And, I am sorry to say, she has received some truly disgraceful treatment from fellow Christians, based solely on her ethnic and geographical background.
I met this friend at the Christian liberal arts college we both attended. At this school–which only admits professing Christians–she was asked by a few classmates whether she was a Muslim. (Which speaks rather strongly to what you said about Western Christian ignorance of the very real Arab Christian community.) Occasionally, people who found out about her background would “jokingly” ask her, “so, are you a terrorist?”
At one point, a Zionist-leaning club at the college sponsored a campus-wide screening of a film ostensibly about the threat of militant Islam. Even leaving aside its extremely problematic depiction of Islam and Muslim believers, this film was sickeningly racist in its rhetoric, imagery, and self-promotion. I was frankly astonished when I saw posters around campus that advertized the film with images of Middle Eastern men and Arabic script alongside guns, ominous dark clouds, and quotations about danger and terrorism. Throughout the situation, I kept thinking that if equivalent imagery and rhetoric had been applied to any other racial or ethnic ground, there would have been immediate outcry from any number of corners.
My main point in saying all this is that whatever their opinions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Western Christians have often failed miserably when it comes to showing Christ’s love to Arabs, even Arab Christians living in their midst. This is simply wrong. Christians of all political persuasions have an obligation to refrain from imflammatory rhetoric that could harm their brothers and sisters in Christ, or intensify hate or prejudice against any people group.
Frank, thank you again for bringing attention to this issue.
Visit My Website
November 14, 2008
Permalink
Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of one of the most revered leaders of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas here are some quotes from various articles, which could be seen as imflammatory rhetoric or ill conceived, unquestioning support to the state of Israel……….
Mr Yousef, who is known as Joseph by friends at the Barabbas Road church in San Diego, California, arrived in America 18 months ago but only recently made “the biggest decision of my life” to go public with his conversion to draw attention to how the Palestinian leadership is “misleading” and exploiting its people.
“Palestinians look really ugly in front of everybody in the world and they are very, very good people … they are misled, and their picture is very dark because of this leadership.
“They need some help, they need people to stop lying to them, and lying to the world.”
……….
Nor does he attempt to hide his affection for Israel, or his abhorrence of everything representing the surroundings in which he grew up: the nation, the religion, the organization.
“Send regards to Israel, I miss it. I respect Israel and admire it as a country,” he says.
“You Jews should be aware: You will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews. They believe that