Why Christians are not pro-Israel
In Summer 2006, as Israel and Lebanon were embroiled in a short war, I wrote a polemic post called: Why Christians are not pro-Israel. I think it was too polemic, but I believe the theological argument still stands up to scrutiny. Christians are certainly pro-Jewish (in the sense of having a deep respect and awe for those people who share the same roots of faith), but certainly not pro-Israel (in terms of blind support for a modern state).
My argument doesn't concern the "right" of modern states to defend themselves against attacks etc. My argument is a theological one, born out of living in Germany, where post-Holocaust theology has done some strange things with some Christians, leading to the belief that the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 is a sort of eschatological signpost which fulfills the Old Testament promises concerning the land.
The theme of "the Land" is completely redefined in the New Testament. Firstly it is spiritualised: The hope for a land is now the hope for God's "rest/peace" (Heb 4) and secondly it is universalised: the call of Joshua to "take the land" which belongs to God's people can now only be understood as a call for God's people, now gathered around the Messiah, to fill the space of "all peoples" (Mt 28) with the sound of the gospel.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
10 Kommentare:
Being 'pro-Israel' and 'blind support for a modern state of Isreal' are certainly two different things. Saying 'Why Christians are not pro-Israel' is not the same as saying 'Why Christians do not blindly support Israel'. Christians, as you clearly point out, ARE pro-Israel. They do support the right of Israel to defend itself. This is not merely pro-Jewish, it is pro modern state of Israel, and it is not blind support, but with eyes wide open.
Germans are right to understand that the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 is an eschatalogical sign post.
You are incorrect to say that the New Testament has 'completely redefined' the theme of "the Land". The intertwining of the land / rest promise is NOT new to the New Testament. It is clearly right there in Deuteronomy 3:20, which states, "until the Lord gives rest to your fellow countrymen as to you, and they also possess the land which the Lord your God will give them beyond the Jordan." Acquisition of the Land and the concept of rest are right there in the Torah, the earliest part of our Christian bible. Your comment is twisted, and it does not do justice to scripture. In fact, it does the opposite of creating peace, it twists people against people who have not only been the victims of the holocaust, but also of perpetual rocket attacks since giving up Gaza for 'peace'.
The creation of the modern state of Israel was not the result of a zionist war for land, it was the result of the declaration of the state by the international community. Israel has not been on a campaign to take land, but instead has been attacked on numerous occassions in which their enemies subsequently lost. "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you." is a part of the covenant. If you want God's curse, go ahead and attack his people. This is probably the most assured way for the boundaries of Israel to increase.
If you want the Jewish people to embrace the call to take the gospel to the nations, then start evangelizing (i.e. befriending and embracing) Jews. The best way to do that is to hold the Torah and its word, including the dual concept of land / rest contained in it in high regard, instead of acting like concept of land got completely redefined into rest the New Testament, when it clearly did not.
There needs to be a healing at an international level. This requires Muslims to repent of the hatred of their Jewish neighbors and plans to wipe them out. This will only happen when the Jewish people are loved back to the Lord. And it appears it will only happen by the hand of the Lord, because Christians such as yourself seem to be so off base and prone to escalate conflict instead of de-escalating it. De-escalating could be done through calling the actions of groups like Hamas and the people who empower them (Palestinian voters who elected terrorists) to task.
I don't understand your motives for the topics you decide to write about, but your focus and incorrect interpretation is abhorrent to me.
Dear Friend,
Thank-you for replying to my post. Your argument seems to be threefold.
Firstly you defend Israel's "right" to defend. I have no bone to pick with that, as I see the position as a necessary extrapolation of Romans 13, given the sad state of humanity.
Secondly you question the NT's redefining of the theme of "the Land". But in doing so you merely state your case and quote the OT, not engaging with the NT or my arguments.
Thirdly you talk about the need for healing and repentance, which I agree with, but think that this will only come about when Christians "hold the Torah and its word". This is a serious error, for: "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Gal 2:21). Removing the stumbling-block of "salvation apart from Torah" means negating Christ's work. It might be more attractive, but it's not the gospel.
Another point I want to make is that orthodox Jews have a much more differentiated view of the modern State of Israel. Some are political Zionists, while others identify with the prophetic tradition which says: "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit" (Zech 4:6). In other words "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matt 26:52).
Sam,
I didn't engage with the New Testament or your argument, because when I look at Hebrews 4 (actually starting from the beginning with Hebrews 1 through 4), I see nothing in it talking about redefinition of the theme of "the Land". So, the scripture you quoted as support for your statement that the theme of the land has been redefined says nothing about any such redefinition. You did not engage the scripture, New nor Old Testament. You offered no logic for your statement that the New Testament somehow redined the concept of ‘the Land’, and the scripture you threw out there as evidence doesn’t speak to this issue. Since you are the one blogging and making cases, I suggest you better engage the scriptures. I think your engagement was weak, if not altogether nonexistent. I at least provided direct evidence that the concept of Land and rest were together from the beginning of scripture, something your post would have a reader believe just magically came up in a redefinition in the New Testament.
Readers of Hebrews did not have to ‘take the Land’. They were already there in it. The writer of Hebrews is exorting the people in the land to not harden themselves. Jesus said not one stone of the temple would be left upon the other. He also said, not a jot nor a tittle (not the least stroke of a pen) would disappear from the Law. Blessed are those who keep the Law and teach others likewise.
Gentile Christians are not called to keep the Torah. Jews are. They are not trying to merit salvation by following the Law. It is a faith walk for them to follow it. Indeed, the righteous shall live by faith. Abraham lived by faith, and he also circumcised his household. Paul said Christ is the end of the Law. In Hebrew, Torah means to aim or to point. Christ told people that they were blessed to follow the Law. Christ followed the Law. When Paul says Christ is the end of the Law, he means Christ is the end to which the Torah points. James talks about the perfect Law that gives freedom. The Law is not a yoke that is too difficult to bear.
The Law is a constitution to the Jewish people. It is not a straw man to be knocked down by the coming of Messiah. You need to look at the WHOLE of the New Testament.
And you quoted only a portion of what I said. I said “hold the Torah and its word, including the dual concept of land / rest contained in it IN HIGH REGARD.
You don’t read carefully, and therefore you misunderstand. I wasn’t telling to keep the Torah. I was telling you to hold it IN HIGH REGARD.
Then you tell me I am in serious error. THE ERROR AGAIN IS YOURS. Stop coming at things with your own agenda, and start reading them for what is said. When you hold something in high regard, you show RESPECT for it.
Your repeat of the ‘Why Christians are not pro-Israel’ headline / polemic again shows a lack of respect for people and words. The Jewish people never thought they would merit salvation by following the Torah. You apparently feel that an attempt to follow the Torah is an attempt to merit salvation, instead of an act of faith. That is a serious error. The problem with idolatrous kings of Israel was that they forgot to follow the Torah in faith. That is what lead to the destruction of the nation. Not following the Torah was for them, a DEAD end – leading to Destruction, Exile, Assimilation, and Death.
As Christians, we need to allow the Jewish people to believe in Messiah and still keep the Torah – i.e. remain Jews. We’re one in Messiah, but they are still the chosen people. The new covenant is not with us Christians in the church. It is with the Jews. And the promises of the covenant still stand. The new covenant is the renewed old covenant, just like the moon is made new each month. Look up in the sky, and declare ‘Look a new moon.’ I see a new moon. It’s the same old moon though.
What are you going to do when theres a new temple, and the Jews start instituting sacrifices there – get mad at them and rouse others to go kill them and drive them out? They are called to be priests for the nations. They just have a partial hardening right now. They don’t know Messiah Jesus as Lord. Lay off of them, and start trying to love them back to the Lord. That is YOUR CALLING. ROMANS 11:
“1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
“
According to Paul’s word, YOU are to provoke the Jews to jealousy through the love of their word. You can only do it if you hold the Torah in high regard. OUR SALVATION HAS COME THROUGH DISOBEDIENCE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
“ 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. “
Dear Friend,
I've made you angry with my remarks. This wasn't my aim. I do not believe that my comments turn people against people, but I think that removing the theological justification of the modern State of Israel causes people to calm down and think about the situation in the middle east politically and fairly, rather than each side claiming God's approval.
I confess that I quoted you wrongly - I replied hurriedly. This certainly wasn't my aim - it weakens my argument. In this case my third point (from my last comment) was not valid as you were not saying "hold Torah" but "hold it in high regard". I'm interested to hear what you mean by this.
I'm surprised that you didn't see anything in Hebrews 4. This is a shame because I really want you to engage with this. I'll try and explain what I mean:
The author of Hebrews is writing to strengthen faith in the Son of God (cf. 1:1-4). In chapter 1 he talks of Jesus superiority over the angels, in ch. 3 over Moses (3:3-6). He does not want the readers to revert back to their life in Judaism without Christ. There are similarities in the covenants; just as God's people in the desert had to be obedient to God's voice, so should God's people today do the same (3:7-15). Sin in the OT meant not entering the rest (= the Land), but dying in the desert (3:16-19). So this should be a spur to the reader of Hebrews to stand in faith (in Christ) despite opposition. The offer of entering God's rest still stands (4:1-2). "Those who have believed enter that rest" (4:3). Does this mean the land? As you pointed out, Jewish Christians are already in the land, but so are all the non-Christian Jews. The metaphor of "entering rest" doesn't mean entering the land here - this "entering rest" is only for believers in Christ.
old covenant people >> new covenant people
obedience /belief >> obedience to the gospel / believing in Christ
entering the land >> entering God's Sabbath rest
The "rest" new covenant believers receive is different from the rest promised to the people in the OT. It is "the seventh day"-rest we share with God (4:4). "Today" is the day to believe and obey. (4:5-7) Joshua brought the people into the Land (rest), but God still spoke later about another day, long after the conquest, in Psalm 95:7-8. (Heb 4:8). There was once a land-rest but there is another day. The Land rest can't have been the real final rest. There is still a "Sabbath rest" for the people where we finally rest from our hard striving working existence (4:9) - i.e. the consummation of all God's works - eternal salvation. That's the rest we should strive for (4:10).
This fits in with the rest of Hebrews: Just as the sacrifices were shadows of the one perfect sacrifice of Christ which removes the need for sacrifice (8:5, compare 10:18-23), so the Land-rest was a shadow of the perfect final rest for the people of God.
Perhaps you can understand my interpretation now?
Dear Sam,
I think that removing the theological justification of the modern State of Israel causes people to calm down and think about the situation in the middle east politically and fairly, rather than each side claiming God's approval.
There is a problem with this. If you want to remove God from the argument, then you are driving him out of the decision making. If you really believe God’s word, then it is okay to believe his word about the land in the middle east. Our bible really is a spiritual AND political document. Holding the Torah in high regard means showing respect, just like we show respect for the US Constitution or the Magna Carta. These are not documents that have become obsolete or are without meaning. They are documents which prescribe orderly governments. To speak as though the Torah is without legal standing is to act like God’s word is unimportant and should be thrown away. Also your ascribing the idea of rest as a replacement for the land in the old testament does not recognize that rest and land are spoken of jointly right there in the Torah. The New Testament is written by people who understood this. They were not spiritualizing the idea of the land and replacing it by rest. If they were doing that, they could have clearly said so. They did not. So, you read outside the lines saying they mean this, instead of reading what is clearly stated and saying it means what it says. You take a liberal approach to it. A liberal approach does not show high regard for the document and what it says, the liberal approach says, ‘What does this mean to me (and for us) today?”, out of context. I think it is bad interpretation, and there is a lot of that. Instead of listening to the Bible and what it really says, you kind of listen (but not really). Then you go into problem solving mode, your way, not God’s way. In a marriage this happens a lot. There is not listening to how people feel, and then they rush a decision that really is not what both parties want, and it does not recognize their feelings. So when you tell people to take out the theological justification, you are saying you don’t want to hear what is important to them. And this is really what happens anyway in the international community. I don’t see the international peace makers holding up the scriptures… They’ve not been doing this for decades. And there’s no lasting peace. It is a glossing over of reality. That’s what I hear people want when they want to take theological justification out of things. They don’t want to have to take a stand on which theology is right. The whole of history is God’s story. It will play out his way, regardless of the actions of individuals, political factions and nations.
As Christians, our entire basis of belief is in the Torah. It points to the coming of Messiah. It also documents how the Jewish people are to live and what will happen if they fail to follow Torah. The Jewish people’s presence in the land is an indication of God’s will to have them there. This is right in Torah. This does not mean that God will keep them there. In fact, it was God’s will to use nations in the past both to punish and bless Israel. The prophets spoke of coming destruction to warn the people to turn back many times. The writer of Hebrews points out that now, God’s son has spoken. So, as a nation, Israel must pay even more careful attention. If people were punished previously for disobedience, then more now so for ignoring ‘such a great salvation’.
Instead of ‘removing theological justiftication’ of the modern state, I think it is smarter to take a side and say what we believe. My belief is that God’s word indicates the Jews will be in the land if he wants them there, and they will be out if he thinks it is necessary. Since the Jews are there now, I think God wants them there. His word tells me this. And my attitude of judge not lest ye be judged tells me that I am not the one to orchestrate action against them. Leaving theological justification for the modern state of Israel out of the picture is asking me to close my eyes and not acknowledge God’s word as I believe it is revealed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
So when you say, we should not use theological justification, I hear, ‘Let’s leave God out.’ Then I immediately think you are not doing your job as a New Covenant priest. A priest stands between God and man, and he points them to God. This is leadership that I think you are abdicating if you want to leave God out.
How do we lovingly point all parties to God? I think the answer to that is the only answer for calming the situation, mitigating hostilities between parties, and saving lives (on earth now and eternally). If people had more knowledge of God’s word, then they would have a chance to repent and have a healing of their lands. This could mitigate hostilities short term.
Muslims are not leaving God out of their theocratic states, except when talking to the west to sound ‘moderate’ when the west has the upper hand. This is how they want to break down our resistance to them. They want to lull us into the idea that they are not dangerous, hostile, or power hungry, and when we believe it, that’s when they can strike with the sword most easily – because we take our eyes of the sword in their other hand while they hold out the olive branch.
Re: “He (the writer of Hebrews) does not want the readers to revert back to their life in Judaism without Christ.”
This sounds nice on the surface, but I don’t think it holds the Torah in high regard. The ‘their old life in Judaism without Christ’ makes it sound like the old Judaism was some inferior religion to be done away with by the coming of Christ.
The real problem was that their old life was NOT in Judaism. The people and leaders as a corporate whole abandoned it. This is what resulted in their being kicked out of the land. The people must embrace salvation. Christ is the end of the law (and if Torah means to point or to throw, then Christ is what the Torah points / aims at; http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Bible%20Study%20Notes%20No%20Two%20Torah.htm ; “The word torah is a noun derived from the verb yara meaning to ‘throw’ or ‘shoot’”). If they had really followed Torah, then they would have been leading the life God/Christ wanted them to lead. Disobedience to the Torah was prophesied by Moses, and another redeemer had to come, ‘Christ’. Because God told the Jews one way or another he was going to redeem the earth, with or without the chosen people’s obedience. The New Covenant is the Old Covenant finally observed.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34
Re; “There are similarities in the covenants”
It states above, the New Covenant is with the house of Israel, and it will now be written on their hearts, not broken. It is the same Old Covenant, but this time unbroken.
The rest achieved would be the same quality of rest had the people embraced the Old Covenant in the manner they should have. This is a call for the Jewish people to be Jewish (in Judaism).
Re: “The "rest" new covenant believers receive is different from the rest promised to the people in the OT. It is "the seventh day"-rest we share with God (4:4). "Today" is the day to believe and obey. (4:5-7) Joshua brought the people into the Land (rest), but God still spoke later about another day, long after the conquest, in Psalm 95:7-8. (Heb 4:8). There was once a land-rest but there is another day. The Land rest can't have been the real final rest. “
You are separating and making a distinction between land rest and rest in Messiah. These are intertwined, from the beginning of Torah. You cannot have a lasting rest in the land today without Messiah. The New Covenant does have newer and better promises. The curtain between the holy of holies is ripped in two. We can go in and pray. There is not now a high priest on earth, but Jesus represents a change in the priesthood.
I can understand your interpretation and your huge leap forward to saying there is a rest now that is not a land rest, but spiritual. However, Hebrews simply does not say this. You are not concentrating on what is really said, you are throwing out an analogy that the writer of Hebrews did not throw out. He was talking about the earthly tabernacle being a prototype of what is in heaven. Rest / land rest is way out on a limb – he makes no mention of land rest as a prototype for spiritual rest. If you want to proclaim yourself a prophet and say this, then your free to do it. I just wouldn’t want to have to explain to God why I went and did this when the writer of Hebrews could have said that clearly, but did not.
It sounds like the writer of Hebrews was urging people to embrace God as revealed in Torah and now through Messiah more fully, to prevent being kicked out of the land. So that finally, the Jewish people would be a real light to the nations as the Lord intended from the start.
In Christ,
Friend
Dear FOCBC,
your answers are incredibly long and your argument unstructured. This makes it difficult to respond, but I'll do my best!
Firstly, I am not leaving God out of it. I am saying that while the promises of God still stand for the Jewish people, the form of the promises has changed and the universal nature of God's purposes, foreshadowed in the Old Testament has been revealed.
The focus on the Land in the Torah and the Nationalism there has now been refocused upon the Messiah. The word of the Lord came out from Jerusalem in the first century (compare Isaiah 2:1-5 with Acts 1:8; 4:31; 6:7 etc.). The word which the nations are to be taught is not Torah but above all the gospel! Jerusalem isn't the centre any more, rather the Messiah is! (See how Paul distances himself from the city of Jerusalem in Gal 4,25-26).
Peter's vision shows him that no foods are unclean - that God, in the "last days" has other ways of doing things. After the baptism of Cornelius, he stays for several days - eating Gentile food no doubt!
God is in the centre, but he has changed things for the time of the Messiah!
Secondly, I am glad you understand my interpretation - that's a start. You still disagree that the author of Hebrews is making a distinction between land-rest and messiah-rest - are you saying that every time he says "rest" the author is referring to the land? I don't see how it's possible to read it that way.
Thirdly, you said that the bible is political. You're right in that it has political consequences for individuals. The Messiah, Jesus, warned his disciples very clearly about the end of zealot / zionist revolutions: those who fight by the sword shall die by the sword. (compare also Luke 13:1ff). He was making a political statement saying: don't be a Zionist, don't fight against the Romans: trust God - he will make sure his kingdom comes. And guess what... his kingdom is not of this world but his kingdom is the rule of God's Messiah in his people from all nations - not a territorial kingdom.
Dear Sam,
Sorry for not punctuating perfectly, and for not putting proper quotes everywhere I quoted you. I will try to do better on that. My response was mainly for your understanding, and not the casual reader. So I treated it more like an e-mail instead of a formal paper. I think that contributed to a feeling of being unstructured. I see now that it was also not helpful to you. My post was just over three standard pages long, no longer than your post from the summer of 2006.
Regarding your comment:
“Firstly, I am not leaving God out of it.”
You stated in your previous post,
“I think that removing the theological justification of the modern State of Israel causes people to calm down and think about the situation in the middle east politically and fairly, rather than each side claiming God's approval.”
Prefer people not talk about "the Land" in theological terms, but in purely political terms and in terms of fairness still sounds to me like you want to leave God out of it. If you cannot discuss things in theological terms, because they press too many buttons, then how can you talk about 'fairness' and political terms and talk about God too? I simply don't see how you can take theological out and still have Theo (God) in. Whose fairness is it going to be? Is secular, worldly fairness really God's will? When God chose his people, was he being fair to not choose you and me and our ancestor's nations instead? It seems God chooses favorites, and that's discrimination, and favoritsm after all is not fair. This is where I do see you wanting to take God out of the picture, and I think it weakens our Christian world view and is detrimental to all parties involved.
Next, regarding more of your full statement of your last post was,
“Firstly, I am not leaving God out of it. I am saying that while the promises of God still stand for the Jewish people, the form of the promises has changed and the universal nature of God's purposes, foreshadowed in the Old Testament has been revealed.”
The focus on the Land in the Torah and the Nationalism there has now been refocused upon the Messiah. The word of the Lord came out from Jerusalem in the first century (compare Isaiah 2:1-5 with Acts 1:8; 4:31; 6:7 etc.). The word which the nations are to be taught is not Torah but above all the gospel! Jerusalem isn't the centre any more, rather the Messiah is! (See how Paul distances himself from the city of Jerusalem in Gal 4,25-26).”
Now you are saying you are not leaving God out. Apparently, you want to be the only one who can invoke God’s name in the discussion though, because it bothers you when others use theological arguments.
I don’t understand why you don’t deal with my statement, quotations from scripture that the New Covenant is the same Old Covenant written on the hearts of the Jewish people. You say, “The focus on the Land in the Torah and the Nationalism there has now been refocused upon the Messiah.” This is your focus. You are being Christocentric in your reading of the scriptures. You put the focus there, because as a Christian you started there – with Christ. You are focusing on the fulfillment of the Law, not on the entirety of it.
I don’t understand your obsession with Israel. It is not like they are out to make a land grab like Iraq did with Kuwait, nor as Germany did in WWII. You’ve repeated twice now your false statement, “Why Christians are Not Pro-Israel”. Once in the summer of 2006 and now again more recently, in another big Polemic-style headline on your blog. You still have not repented of the falsehood. As a brother, I think you should tone down your rhetoric, or be thrown headlong from the church. It is a commonly held opinion that polemic statements from Luther paved the way for Hitler and the gas chambers. As a Mr. Paul A. Ackermann so eloquently put it:
I am tired of people apologizing for Luther's comments, saying that he is being taken "out of context". How do you take it "out of context" when you read that Luther said that we should round the Jews into their synagogues and burn it down? Is there a way that can be taken in a nice way? I have read how the apologists for Luther explain away his quotes, such as when he said we should "sin boldly". It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
When you say ‘Why Christians are Not Pro-Israel’ it paves the way for weaker brother to believe they should be anti-Israel. Your polemic statements reveal a mean spirit. It is really a waste of my time discussing scripture with you until the mean spirit in you is crucified fully.
I ran out of patience in trying to address every theological detail. I don't have enough time or love left to do it.
Your Friend.
without actually having read your post and comments above, you might want to check out this documentary here, if you haven't seen it already.
and this time with the link attached ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbjAanvUqs
all together it's about 2 hours long in 11 parts. It is about the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the history of it and Zionism... I wish that move was available in German since there are indeed quite many people who have weird views about Israel.
Matthias, the video makes emotional appeal, but I think this article provides a much more accurate analysis of the subject of 'occupation' with respect to Israel. I am sure it can be translated from English to German with Babel fish.
http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=78861
Myths and Facts
Mitchell G. Bard
MYTH
"Israel "occupies" the West Bank."
FACT
In politics words matter and, unfortunately, the misuse of words applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict has shaped perceptions to Israel's disadvantage. As in the case of the term "West Bank," the word "occupation" has been hijacked by those who wish to paint Israel in the harshest possible light. It also gives apologists a way to try to explain away terrorism as "resistance to occupation," as if the women and children killed by homicide bombers in buses, pizzerias, and shopping malls were responsible for the plight of the Arabs. Given the negative connotation of an "occupier," it is not surprising that Arab spokespersons use the word or some variation as many times as possible when interviewed by the press. The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria is "disputed" territories.
In fact, most other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them. This is true, for example, of the hotly contested region of Kashmir.
Occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state. In the case of the West Bank, there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Though the Palestinians never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state, only two countries — Britain and Pakistan — recognized Jordan's action.
It is also important to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense. A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. One that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category. And this is the situation with Israel, which specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 war, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel in 1967. While fending off the assault and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control the West Bank. Had Hussein heeded the warning, the Palestinians of the West Bank would in all likelihood be happily living as Jordanian citizens.
By rejecting Arab demands that Israel be required to withdraw from all the territories won in 1967, the UN Security Council in Resolution 242 acknowledged that Israel was entitled to claim at least part of these lands for new defensible borders.
Since Oslo, the case for tagging Israel as an occupying power has been further weakened by the fact that Israel transferred virtually all civilian authority to the Palestinian Authority. Israel retained the power to control its own external security and that of its citizens, but 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza came under the PA's authority. The extent to which Israel has been forced to maintain a military presence in the territories has been governed by the Palestinians' unwillingness to end violence against Israel. The best way to end the dispute over the territories is for the Palestinians to fulfill their obligations under the Oslo agreements and stop the terror and negotiate a final settlement.
Post a Comment