Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, German Lutheran pastor, theologian and anti-Nazi dissident.
The Holy Land is an attraction for us because of the Hebrew Torah, the Christian Bible, and the Quran with their stories of Judaism, the foundation of Christianity, and the creation of Islam. The history of the land is complicated.
Jerusalem is claimed by both Israel and Palestine.
For many Western Christians, Israel’s presence marks the ticking of the clock for the return of Jesus Christ. But we should note that Christians do not form a single unified bloc and have differing views.
Watching the news about the war is revolting and harmful to one’s mental health. Man’s inhumanity to his fellow man is unbelievable. The willingness to use people as sacrifices for the cause of establishing land ownership is mindboggling.
Yet, here we are. Can we remain silent?
The reality is that there are two wars afoot: an information and a physical war. Misinformation (false information shared without intention to mislead) and disinformation (intentionally misleading information) abound.
This week, Adobe, the software giant, was caught serving up AI-generated war photos through its stock photo site in an act of misinformation.
We will be well-advised to be like Santa and check everything twice before believing or sending on a viral round.
We have several myths circulating. A major one is that Israel was given a unique status by its reinstatement. The truth is that the British and French were colonisers that did not only use guns. They used pens and maps to carve up lands to suit their administrative needs.
Syria and Lebanon were given to France under a mandate, while the British got Palestine and Iraq. These colonial powers made many promises to different peoples, including the Arabs and the Jews, but always prioritised their interests.
The Arabs declined to participate in the Mandate-sanctioned institutions since they were not interested in approving the Balfour solution.
All the world could not satisfy the appetite of the British and the French crowns.
From 1914 to 1948, Britain twisted itself in deciding between the Palestinians and a Zionist state. Britain was conducting three distinct and conflicting negotiations about the region at one stage.
The failure of the Arab people to unite around a nationalistic ideal allowed Jewish diplomacy to win the day. The Jews understood better than the Arab leaders that the future map of the Middle East would be determined less by the desires of its inhabitants than by Great Power rivalries, European strategic thinking, and domestic British politics.
Britain, which possessed the Suez Canal and was dominant in India and Egypt, attached great strategic importance to the region.
The idea of Israel was not born “entirely out of altruistic love” but was designed to leverage “a potent factor on public opinion in America” (Winston Churchill). It was a solution to a European problem.
In 1937, addressing the Peel Commission, which was examining the Arab revolt against British decisions, Churchill said:
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.
“I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
This single statement explains the colonial mindset. It sets up the implicit hierarchy among different people.
Christians interpreted this ‘overnight’ creation as fulfilling Ezekiel 36:24-30: “For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.”
But to accept this is to ignore the fact that Jews already accounted for 12% of persons living in the land.
There is a school of thought among Conservative Christians that the Genesis 12: 1 -3 invocation about Abraham’s blessings applies to modern-day nations. Those who bless or support Israel will be blessed in return.
This interpretation has led to uncritical support for the nation of Israel. That embrace can smack of a transactional approach. Such an approach raises the question of whether God will enter a game of exchange with us. What conditions will apply?
A few problems arise. Firstly, in Genesis 21: 13, God promises Abraham that He will also make Ishmael, the son of Hagar, a nation. This action was in response to Hagar being ejected by Sarah.
Does this mean that Ishmael’s descendants are less valuable in God’s eyes? Then how do we respond to Ruth, the Moabitess, becoming the matriarch that led to Jesus?
Moab, as a nation, was forbidden from dwelling among the Jews (Deuteronomy 23). The story may begin with prejudice, discrimination and great hatred, but it appears that God’s purpose is to create openness, inclusion and affirmation.
In Galatians 3: 6, Paul asserts that Jesus, as the Son of Abraham, was the One—not the nations of Israel nor Ishmael—who would bless everyone.
Thirdly, Jewish history is filled with defeat from others. Indeed, the prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk spoke of the Jews being banished or punished because of reprobate leadership and self-pride.
(via Seattle Times)
Should Christians not be asking whether Benjamin Netanyahu is a fit leader for Israel? Have they examined his record? If he lived in Biblical times, would the prophets praise or rebuke him?
Throughout the 2000s, there were a series of crucial peace efforts: the Oslo process, the Cairo Agreement, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, and the Wye River Plantation meeting.
After Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, Netanyahu accused Shimon Peres of ‘sub-contracting Israeli security to the Palestinians’. What irony, given his previous Hamas strategy! Pot and kettle business.
Yasir Arafat was not blameless in his dithering over the 2000 peace initiative. Bombings and intifada have been present for a long time. Both sides are determined to get rid of the other. Self-interests of neighbours, especially Iran, torpedo peace.
Should not many of today’s Christians pause in their uncritical acceptance of the horrors meted out? How could the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, in late November 2008, be more restrained with the Mumbai terrorists?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticised Singh for “not show(ing) the courage” (NDTV.com, January 2017) while boasting of executing a surgical strike against Pakistan.
How does Jesus’ instruction to ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matthew 5: 38 – 39) fit this situation? He was discussing the imposition of Roman rule and the gross disrespect that entailed.
What should be done: follow the example of Singh or Netanyahu and Modi? How does one reconcile the embrace of Martin Luther King Jr with this situation?
Is it that Netanyahu’s invocation of Amalek is acceptable? The tale of Amalek is a gory one found in Deuteronomy 25: 17 – 19 and again in 1 Samuel 15. In those verses, Israel is given the right to blot out the memory of Amalek. This mindset explains the bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp to kill a Hamas commander.
When actions now ignore the international laws on war, why do some Christians not rebuke whoever—Israel or Hamas—does so?
Do the Christians who see this war as an omen to the return of Christ remember His words in Acts 1: 6 – 8?
(Copyright Khan Younis/ Reuters)
When asked about the timing of the restoration of Israel, Jesus never answered the question. Instead, he told them it was not their business. He urged them to focus on being witnesses.
Why is the modern-day believer so taken up with discerning the end times instead of being witnesses? Why speculate that support for Israel’s actions will hasten Christ’s return, or is morally right?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: “Your life as a Christian should make unbelievers question their disbelief in God.”
When will this be a reality?
“We didn’t want anyone to be in doubt of what we were offering policyholders because dishonest agents, men who lied, Read more
The transatlantic trade in Africans was founded on a misguided interpretation of Christianity. Prince Henry of Portugal, “the Navigator” (1394-1460), Read more
Iron shackles bound the African enslaved people together as they journeyed across the Atlantic. They were bound tightly. These shackles Read more
“[…] What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Read more
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate at Jesus’ trial (Luke 18:36). The Greek word for truth is aletheia, which literally means Read more
“Questions of silence always raise questions of memory. Who and what has been forgotten? Which peoples and events are downplayed? Read more
Noble Philip, a retired business executive, is trying to interpret Jesus’ relationships with the poor and rich among us. A Seeker, not a Saint.
