This week I watched a repeat of the BBC's six part documentary Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution' on one of the repeat entertainment channels on Sky. Originally broadcast in 2005, the series traces the establishment and history of the Auschwitz death camp using various documentary sources and eyewitness accounts of the atrocities committed there. The result is a series which is both compulsive and repulsive, as one seeks to grapple with the concept of how humans could plan the systematic murder of millions of fellow humans in that manner, and what went through their minds as they engaged in the most unspeakable acts of cruelty and horror. The problem is, we forget so easily, which is why the BBC is to be commended for making a quality documentary like this.
It all begs an important question, namely, the motives of those who blatantly liken Israel to the Nazis. It is quite one thing to criticise and oppose strongly Israeli policy and actions, but when that opposition translates into comparing Israel with the architects of the Holocaust, it surely indicates one of two things: either a complete ignorance of the realities of the Holocaust, or else a pathological hatred of Israel and its people that spills over into anti-Semitism. Having been reminded again of the Nazi horrors, I can't see any other alternative.
King's Evangelical Divinity School
25 comments:
Happy new year Calvin! You may have noticed that Revd Sizer has posted a blog item about Walid Shoebat and his calls to 'nuke muslims.' Shoebat
Shoebat has spoken from a CUFI platform. So, equally, is it right for Christians to whip up anti muslim sentiment, and to see muslims as Islamo-fascists?
No, I don't read Stephen's blog. If the fellow you mention has moved beyond legitimate criticism of aspects of Islam to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment for the sake of it, or sees all Muslims as Islamo-fascists (I presume you meant to add the word "all" there), then I have no problem whatsoever rejecting such views (unlike, with respect, you seemed to have when the boot was on the other foot).
But let's stick to the issue at hand for this post, namely those who equate Israel with the Nazis.
And what, with respect, do you think is my problem Calvin?
Well, a suspicion of prevarication, for example, on these pages:
http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2010/11/what-shoud-we-do-about-this.html
http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2010/02/in-britains-hallowed-halls-of-academia.html
http://www.calvinlsmith.com/2010/01/we-are-all-seismic-now.html
Now, let's get back to those who compare Israelis to Nazis shall we?
Calvin - I don't wish to go back over old ground - my new year's resolution is not to get into more arguments. For the record, I don't think it is helpful putting political labels such as Nazism on people to force a humanistic social change, as I have written in my book about the apartheid label. My interest is in challenging the spiritual and moral aspect of these questions.
Consider this - Deuteronomy 10:12-22. Although the Israelites were told to destroy the Canaanites and Amalakites etc for their idolatry and sin, they were told to love the righteous foreigners living in the land and uphold justice. I put it to you that many Muslims could be seen as adhering to Jewish beliefs because they recognise the prophets and worship the God of Abraham - even if in ignorance concerning Christ. They should not be seen in the light of the Canaanites of the pre-Mosaic OT. So in that light Palestinians should be treated justly under the guidance of the Mosaic Law in the State of Israel, and expulsions and house seizures are unlawful in terms of Moses' Law. This is one reason I believe the State of Israel is a lawless state towards God in terms of the Mosaic Law and it should be challenged along those lines. I find CZism to be rather naive in this regard putting away the Law of Moses while upholding a lawless form of Judaism.
Deut.10 12 And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?
14 To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. 15 Yet the LORD set his affection on your ancestors and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations—as it is today. 16 Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. 17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. 20 Fear the LORD your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. 21 He is the one you praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes. 22 Your ancestors who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.
A better resolution would have been to stop generalising and polarising the issues rather than recognising the complexities. For example, juxtaposing righteous Muslims with "a lawless form of Judaism" blatantly ignores Hamas' wickedness and Jews who follow the Torah and do not agree with their secular government's policies. Moreover, it's pretty inflammatory to generalise a religion that way (ironic, given how you started by condemning someone for whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment). As ever, your generalisations of CZ lack nuance. And if you are going to quote the Bible, don't be selective. Inclusion of the alien was a reciprocal arrangement, where they came into full covenant with God and the House of Israel.
"I don't think it is helpful putting political labels such as Nazism on people".
Mmm. Didn't you recently, on this blog, compare Gaza with the Holocaust in terms of "action and intent"? Thus (for a third time) let's focus on the central issue raised in this post.
Calvin - I am trying to prevent a generalisation of muslims as being seen as all suicide bombers - some I beleive may be seen as Corenlius was, a God fearing man, but in ignorance (Acts 10:1-2) "He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly." There are Islamic fanatics I accept (as I have accepted numerous times and criticised them strongly), but we should resist the attempt to paint all Palestinians / Muslims as murderers. Instead we should uphold their rights, and the State of Israel has a duty of care not to take their houses and possessions away from them even according to the Mosaic Law. As I said, in some sense perhaps peaceful Islam may be seen as a form of Judaism because of its adherence to Moses and the prophets. So are they under the Old Covenant? - if some CZs believe the OC is still valid. I also quoted the passage in total Deut. 10:12-22, and saw no reciprocal clause, but if you can find it please show it to me.
As you know some Torah Jews are opposed to Zionism because it is seen as a rebellion against God's judgement in the Law of Moses. So clearly I am not attempting to paint all Jews as Talmud following, or extremists, but recognise the shade of opinion. I have also called for a loving response to all Jews as part of our gospel mission and recognise their right to life, peace and freedom.
As for Gaza and Nazism, I recall quoting an Israeli government minister over use of the selectively forbidden word 'shoah' and was roundly condemned for it as out of order. I then said we should ask questions about 'action and intent' apart from labels such as Nazism.
As for motives Calvin? What of the motives of those who wish to twist words and forbid certain words as 1984 newspeak. I am trying to have a respectful debate, express love for all sides, but I find this a minefield of thought police - there are even some words of Jesus I am reluctant to quote out of fear generated by some CZists.
But what of my motives and prevarication? I will say it plainly. My concern is that some forms of Christian Zionism are leading Christians away from Christ and Pauline doctrine about the unity there now should be between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Some forms of Christian Zionism are trying to ressurect Old Jerusalem while Paul said it was like Hagar the slave woman and needs to be 'cast out.' Abrahams's 7-fold blessing has come to gentiles through Jesus, but CZs ignore this and seek to apply it to Jews only. Read Galatians 3-4 and Ephesians 2 (and Hebrews about Christ being the High Priest of Melchizedek, the Temple and the Sacrifice).
So my motives are to try and get Christians to read and understand all of Paul (not just Romans 9-11), and to apply the commission to make disciples of all nations to our approach to the State of Israel and Palestine. To love Jews, Arabs and Levantines equally seeking to bring all into Christ and work for peace, justice and reconciliation on all sides, not to seek to re-establish some Old Covenant Jewish state that is forbidden by Paul in the NT. I have said all this in my book.
"I am trying to prevent a generalisation of muslims as being seen as all suicide bombers."
But Andrew, this blog has made no such generalisation. Neither is it relevant to the above post. Please do refrain from bringing everything posted back round to your disagreements with some within the CZ m't.
"We should resist the attempt to paint all Palestinians / Muslims as murderers."
Again, irrelevant to this blog. Vent your frustration with those who take this view.
"I find this a minefield of thought police."
But you do it as much as anyone else! You repeatedly hark on about an Israeli minister using the word "shoah" (as if that proves anything), and opened the new year by criticising Shoebat's choice of words.
"Some, I believe...", "peaceful Islam may be seen...", "some Torah Jews are opposed...", "...recognise the shade of opinion...", "some forms of Christian Zionism..."
Better! I do wish you always a little more nuanced like this, rather than your many generalisations over the past couple of years.
"If you can find it please show it to me."
A footnote from a paper I delivered at Tyndale, Cambridge, details the reciprocity element:
The alien was expected to observe certain religious and other laws (Ex 12:19, Lev 16:29, 17:12, 17:15, 18:26, 24:16, Num 19:10, Deut 26:11, 31:12, Ezek 47:23). Moreover, if he was to become a member of the congregation and participate in the Passover feast (a key aspect of being an Israelite), he was to be circumcised (Ex 12:48-9, Num 9:14). Certain religious observances were expected not just from the alien, but also the sojourner (Ex 12:45, 20:10, Deut 5:1).
Andrew, I really want to focus what little time I have available for this blog (given my other commitments) discussing the specific issues raised by each post. This particular post suggests comparing Israeli policy with the events of the Holocaust is unacceptable, even anti-Semitic in many cases. Therefore, could we please focus on that issue alone here? Thank you.
Hi Calvin
We spoke earlier on today so I upon looking up your credentials, bumped into your blog, which admirably is concerned with social and political issues.
We the evangelicals tend to almost instinctively support Israel, having this romantic as well as Biblical view about their history and place in the Biblical eschatology instilled in us.
Sometimes we forget the fact that Israel is mostly a secular( I mean often in a very strong sense such) country and probably half of the population is openly atheistic. Israel is one of the most corrupted of the developed countries and generally, most of them do not give a toss about the Biblical values and their unique place with respect of relationship with God, the world and the end of times.
Having said that I categorically disagree with the notion that they are even remotely akin to the Nazis, and yet, it seems, a lot of what they do (in terms of public policies) is not sanctioned by the Tanakh.
So along with our natural reflex to support them we should also healthily criticise and nudge towards being more in line with the "Love your neighbour as yourself" commandment.
BTW, Israel being ungodly (lets say it)a nation does not mean at all that this is inconsistent with the prophecies in the Bible about them. Nonetheless, it looks that they are gradually approaching the climax of their history i.e. the return of Jesus exactly in a manner described in the BIble .
Milen
OK Calvin - to respond to your comments about Nazism. Firstly, it would be helpful if you could give specific examples of who is making this case seriously, I haven't heard it except perhaps from extreme Islamic groups. Secondly, you use 'Israel' loosely, to imply both the state and the Jewish people. Now to play devil's advocate. Presumably those Germans of the Confessing Church who left the German Evangelical Church because of its support of Nazism, and instead opposed Nazism did not hate the German people as a whole, (or hate members of the German Evangelical Church who supported Nazism). So it would be possible to oppose a particular party that had control of a state because of fascist tendencies without it being an attack on all people in a state. So I don't think your points necessarily hold true, if a state of affairs arose where someone felt it necessary to criticise a party in a particular state it isn't hatred towards all in the state. It could be out of love for the people and the state, in the same way some German Christians such as Bonnhoffer and Barth opposed Nazism not because they hated Germans but because they loved them and wanted to free them from Nazi error.
Now for some observations. When I was at school an Israeli official gave us a positive talk about tourism in Israel, how it was a multi-ethnic nation with Jews, Arabs, and Bedouin who still lived in tents! I was impressed. Today the Bedouin are being forced from their way of life and Palestinian Arabs are being expelled from their land and houses as Israeli settlements expand.
Twenty years ago those with an interest in end times and Israel, thought Israel had been established by God and would soon convert to Christ and join with Christian nations to build God's kingdom on earth (or that is what I thought I heard - I don't always listen carefully). Today when I hear CZs teach or read some books, I find that Jews do not need to come to Christ, I find a desire to rebuild the temple, and I hear a 'Jew first' teaching that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who oppose Israel will be cursed (ignoring Paul's teaching that the blessing of Abraham has come to the gentiles as well as Jews who are in Christ i.e. Galatians 3:14; and that God wishes to bring Jews and Gentiles together in Christ, Ephesians 2:22). I also do not hear much from moderate CZs in opposing such erroneous teaching, which is why I am raising concerns.
So my question is this, at what point are we allowed to question where Zionism is really going and is it for Christ or is it opposed to Christ and the Church? My desire is to avoid labels such as Nazism because they are unhelpful and instead address spiritual questions, as I have tried to do in my book. I don't know why some feel the need to question the motives of those of us who genuinely care about peace, justice and reconciliation in the Middle East and genuinely care about the health of Evangelical Christianity and feel the need to question odd doctrines that are going around the churches.
"Give specific examples... I haven't heard it except perhaps from extreme Islamic groups."
Quite extraordinary! Just a few mainstream egs...
German bishops - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544821/German-bishops-compare-Israel-to-the-Nazis.html
Syrian g't minister - http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/30/le.01.html
Several UN officials, eg - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7335875.stm
Arab media more generally - http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/demonization.asp
Western media outlets - http://cifwatch.com/2010/10/23/a-comparison-from-hell/ (there have been several scholarly studies exploring the latter)
Haven't even got on to the wider Arab world, some pro-Palestinian groups, extreme right and hard left, and some Islamists. Indeed, doesn't the EU officially define Israel-Nazi comparisons as specifically anti-Semitic? http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf
This unawareness of aspects of the conflict calls into question other generalised statements you all too frequently and casually make. Even your reference to Bedouin above appears more a repetition of polemical statement rather than facts gleaned on the ground or through careful research. Even a couple of visits to the region (you said you had never been there) would quickly lead you to see such a statement is misleading (eg it ignores the many Bedouin who retain traditional life, others who utilise modern methods out of choice, Bedouin who join the IDF, economic conditions which affect ancient lifestyles, etc etc).
As to the rest, as is often the case (including in your book) some of what you say is unclear and lacks focus. Moreover, again I note you keep bringing the discussion back to views I have not expressed here. A case in point: "I don't know why some feel the need to question the motives of those of us who genuinely care about peace, justice and reconciliation in the Middle East". Well, I haven't, and indeed I want it as much as anyone, so please do take up your grievances with the relevant people, not here.
Milen, you are most welcome here! I hope you hang around to provide erudite comment and feedback in this and subsequent posts.
Aside from the Nazi comparison - which I'm glad you categorically reject - I agree wholeheartedly Israel is far from sinless. After all, if biblical Israel sinned it is folly to argue today's predominantly secular g't is whiter than white. Indeed, some within that nation act wickedly by God's standards, as in any other nation, and arguably with less excuse given their calling and revelation, as discussed by the apostle Paul in Romans 2:9-29.
Regarding a couple of issues you raise...
"Israel is mostly a secular (I mean often in a very strong sense such) country... probably half of the population is openly atheistic."
Can you point to some statistical evidence for this? Anecdotally, my overriding experience there is that it is far less secular than most Western nations I visit. Even many so-called secular Jews are not so in the Western sense of the word.
"Israel is one of the most corrupted of the developed countries and generally most of them do not give a t*** about the Biblical values and their unique place with respect of relationship with God"
Again, could you elaborate, with some evidence for us to consider? Thank you.
Calvin - I have noted a move towards making personal comments against me in this thread, but I have a thick skin so will over look it. I have carefully refrained from responding in kind and tried to keep to rational arguments. I acknowledge my book needs further work and a revised edition is planned in time. Yes some of my comments lack qualification too. The fact that I have not been to the Middle East means that I don't have personal knowledge to take sides about truths 'on the ground' but seek to build my own understanding of what is going on from all the press, right and left. But my main aim is to develop a theological response to CZism, and leave politics to others. You can read my blog Zion's New Name to see some of my posts if you wish which I hope gives some balance.
Blessings.
"I have noted a move towards making personal comments against me in this thread."
What are you talking about? What personal comments? I have focused wholly on your arguments and methodology.
I must say, Andrew, if your plan is eventually to complete postgraduate studies and write, you'll have to be a little less touchy than that.
I can assure you that as a creationist there is an awful lot of abuse around to soak up - look at Sam Berry's review in S&CB of the IVP book 'Should Christians Embrace Evolution?' that I wrote a chapter for. But I thought that perhaps you wished a more measured tone in light of your recent comments; “Let’s disagree by all means but labelling each other heretics and retreating to shout from the sidelines is causing considerable disunity within the church,” [Calvin Smith] said.
Anyway, I have looked at the scripture references you gave. It suggests foreigners were to come completely within the Old Covenant as equals in terms of both rights and duties - rights not to have land taken. So a foreigner's duties were to be circumcised, not eat meat with blood in it, and stone blasphemers. I think many Muslims can score highly on these, and I think legally according to the Old Covenant should be considered as'crypto-Jews.' Not that I am seeking to argue that the OC is still valid, but those who do should consider this line of thought. But we know from Jesus' own words that Jewish leadership had reinterpreted the Torah with the Tradition of the Elders, and now the Talmud.
As for the German Bishops and their comments. I think you need to consider their words in light of the 1930s German Evangelical Church situation where too many German Bishops stood by and allowed the evil of Nazism to grow. Only a few leaders such as Barth, Bonheoffer etc. stood up to Nazism. I am sure you are aware of that history. So in response perhaps they feel the need now to make a stand against a perception of growing extremism in Israel out of a collective guilt about previous failures to take a stand. However, clearly the situation in Israel is different to 1930/40s Germany. Extremeism in Israel is religious in nature, Nazi extremism was atheistic or pagan. But still even papers such as the Telegraph, and Haaretz are reporting growing concern about religious extremism in Israel with its control of the Knesset.
Hello Calvin
With respect of religiosity in Israel I myself was surprised, when as a Bible student some 7-8 years ago I read in “Operation World” that they have a significant chunk of their population that is not religious. I mean, given that their religion is almost solely (probably more than 90%) responsible for their preservation and non assimilation throughout their dispersal since 70AC, I had expected more in terms of practicing their religion. Here is just an excerpt from an article with a link below:
“Close to 9% of Jews in Israel define themselves as religious, while 12% of Jews in Israel consider themselves to be “religious traditionalists”. The “religious traditionalists” follow Jewish customs but not as those who are haredim or fully religious. On the other hand, 27% of Jews in Israel are “non-religious traditionalists”. The other 43% of Jews in Israel do not consider themselves associated with religion. Only 1% of Jews in Israel are unknown for their religious beliefs.
Read more: http://relijournal.com/religion/demographics-of-israel/#ixzz1Ai8Z6cJb
Other statistics show Israel slightly more religious but yet nowhere near one would expect given the contribution of religion to their history.
Then we turn to social issues:
the rate of abortion is roughly 11 per 1000 women of child bearing age. That is more than Germany 7.2/1000, Netherlands 8.6/1000, Italy 9.1/1000 etc.
In terms of same sex marriage, it is supported by over 60% of the population and for comparison in Britain, which is generally very relaxed about it mostly due to probably the deeply ingrained notion of personal freedom in the British ethos, it is supported by only 52%. (I checked Wikipedia on that for what it’s worth).
This means that Israel is a secular and liberal country which in light of their traditions and place in the world (amongst conservative Islam) is a stark observation indeed.
I am not passing moral judgements or appraisals here, as the space we have is limited and straightforwardness might be easily misinterpreted as bigotry or religious fundamentalism, both of which I naturally dislike.
In terms of the issue of corruption in Israel, you can look up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6276071.stm.
Just an excerpt: “Ten years ago, Israel was listed 10th in an honesty league compiled by Transparency International, an anti-corruption group based in Berlin. It has now fallen to 34th place.”
Milen
Hello Calvin
With respect of religiosity in Israel I myself was surprised, when as a Bible student some 7-8 years ago I read in “Operation World” that they have a significant chunk of their population that is not religious. I mean, given that their religion is almost solely (probably more than 90%) responsible for their preservation and non assimilation throughout their dispersal since 70AC, I had expected more in terms of practicing their religion. Here is just an excerpt from an article with a link below:
“Close to 9% of Jews in Israel define themselves as religious, while 12% of Jews in Israel consider themselves to be “religious traditionalists”. The “religious traditionalists” follow Jewish customs but not as those who are haredim or fully religious. On the other hand, 27% of Jews in Israel are “non-religious traditionalists”. The other 43% of Jews in Israel do not consider themselves associated with religion. Only 1% of Jews in Israel are unknown for their religious beliefs.
Read more: http://relijournal.com/religion/demographics-of-israel/#ixzz1Ai8Z6cJb
Other statistics show Israel slightly more religious but yet nowhere near one would expect given the contribution of religion to their history.
Then we turn to social issues:
the rate of abortion is roughly 11 per 1000 women of child bearing age. That is more than Germany 7.2/1000, Netherlands 8.6/1000, Italy 9.1/1000 etc.
In terms of same sex marriage, it is supported by over 60% of the population and for comparison in Britain, which is generally very relaxed about it mostly due to probably the deeply ingrained notion of personal freedom in the British ethos, it is supported by only 52%. (I checked Wikipedia on that for what it’s worth).
This means that Israel is a secular and liberal country which in light of their traditions and place in the world (amongst conservative Islam) is a stark observation indeed.
I am not passing moral judgements or appraisals here, as the space we have is limited and straightforwardness might be easily misinterpreted as bigotry or religious fundamentalism, both of which I naturally dislike.
In terms of the issue of corruption in Israel, you can look up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6276071.stm.
Just an excerpt: “Ten years ago, Israel was listed 10th in an honesty league compiled by Transparency International, an anti-corruption group based in Berlin. It has now fallen to 34th place.”
Milen
Calvin, while I agree that comparing Israeli policy to Auschwitz is plainly absurd, based on the links you cite above, I would seriously recommend that you broaden your reading.
You've previously told me that your knowledge of Syria comes from Barry Rubin, whose book on the country is not only biased, but also misinformed (for example, claiming that Alawites are not Muslims).
Now you seem to recommend that we source info from the ADL and Cifwatch. The former is another extraordinarily biased source, while the latter more or less openly incites racism towards Arabs as well as posting support for the EDL. Not the most edifying, I would suggest.
Calvin, I think that comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is clearly an incorrect analogy.
But you set up to alternatives as explanations: ignorance or Israel-hatred. I think this is a bit polarised (dare I say polemical?). I can think of other alternatives - perhaps such a person is just honestly mistaken, or has got carried away, or something like that.
I worry about the line of argument, too, that seeks to limit what people can say by branding it offensive. (I realise you were not making exactly this point, but I think it's relevant.) This applies equally to the ridiculous reaction across the world to the Muhammad cartoons and the Sudanese teddy bear. Offence is not a suitable criterion for rejecting a statement.
On the question at hand, sure, the Israeli government has not perpetrated a genocide, nor a holocaust, and such suggestions are plainly silly. On the other hand, there are some historical analogies that are appropriate. For example, I visited the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Jerusalem a couple of years ago. One of the exhibits was on the Lodz Ghetto. What I found striking and appalling was how something very similar was happening only a few miles away from me at that very time. Every time I travelled through the separation barrier, the similarities were right there before me. And it's widely accepted that the state of Israel was founded by acts of ethnic cleansing.
Similarly, you tried to clamp down on the use of the word apartheid as a description of the situation. My only response would be, whether Israel is committing the crime of apartheid is a legal matter. We can look at the definition of apartheid in the Rome Statute, or other relevant conventions, and decide. I would love for a real legal opinion to be given on it, perhaps the ICJ ECHR can oblige one day.
But to go back to your original point, the Holocaust was a horrific event, and clearly Israeli policy has not reached those extremes.
Andrew...
"It suggests foreigners were to come completely within the Old Covenant as equals in terms of both rights and duties - rights not to have land taken".
Yes, but only for those who came into covenant with Israel, not existing inhabitants who rejected Israel. Ex 23:20-33 - is was to be a complete conquest, with no room for multiculturalism, but rather integration of those agreeing to come into covenant with the God and people of Israel (see also Judges 2:1-5 and Ezra 9:1. This continued to be an issue in postexilic times. Thus, the Palestinians as aliens analogy doesn't work... it is far more persuasive when brought to bear on the Israel Arab population who have come into a covenant of sorts with Israel.
As to the rest of your comment, I asked you to show me what personal comments I supposedly made about you in this thread. Your reply, which juxtaposed creationism with a comment I once made about unnecessarily polemical rhetoric, wasn't very clear, and I'm still waiting to find out how.
Milen, some question Operation World's (and indeed others') methods of securing reliable statistics. Certainly, methods relying on extrapolation (eg in the Latin American context) have been demonstrated to be inflated. This aside, I was questioning your original claim that around half of Israelis are atheists, which seemed excessive. Reading the excerpt you provided didn't quite state this. But if you are simply arguing Israel exhibits strong liberal and humanist elements, I couldn't agree more (especially away from Jerusalem, notably Tel Aviv). With 25,000 abortions per year, openness to homosexuality, and Western liberal values in general evident among large segments of Israeli society, those Christians who support Israel do well to make themselves aware of these facts.
Philip...
"You've previously told me that your knowledge of Syria comes from Barry Rubin."
When? It doesn't.
"...whose book on the country is not only biased, but also misinformed (for example, claiming that Alawites are not Muslims)."
But some Muslims themselves reject the Alawites as heterodox and not Muslim.
Rubin is biased, of course. But so is Benny Morris, who you once cited repeatedly here. Indeed, all secondary sources are biased, including CIFwatch and ADL. Does that make everything they say invalid? Surprised also to hear your generalisation of ADL this way. Even ADL critics don't make these charges. Are you sure about the EDL thing? I'd be interested to see more on this, given they seem poles apart.
"I would seriously recommend that you broaden your reading."
With a string of international publications in academic peer-reviewed journals, my reading is relatively broad, thank you, so please avoid being condescending on this blog. Indeed, while your second comment (which I hope to respond to later) was more objective, unfortunately it was let down by your earlier quips which do you a disservice.
Sorry for not responding to your question about 'what comments?' I thought that was entirely a rhetorical question. Anyway, if you say you were not seeking to make personal comments I accept that and apologise for implying you were. I have said I am seeking to avoid unnecessary argumentation and instead keep to respectful dialogue and rational lines of thinking.
I am reading between the lines a little here; but the implication of the Christian Zionist narrative that possibly lies behind CZ thinking is that the Palestinian situation is in some way analogous to the Canaanites or Philistines of the OT? If so I don't think it holds. I am confused here because it seems you are suggesting there is a difference between Arabs in land controlled by Israel, and Palestinians in the West Bank? Surely they are identical ethnically and the muslims presumably hold similar beliefs in both parts. Is it just because modern Palestine has not submitted to Israeli government rule that they can lawfully be excluded from land and property? Surely the OC was about a priestly law, not a secular law? Because Muslims hold Moses as a prophet and seek to apply Mosiac Law, even though imperfectly through Islam-Sharia, I repeat they might be seen as 'cyrpto Jews' by those who hold to the OC and should be protected against loss of land & property rights for those who take Moses seriouly. Jesus though accused the Jewish leadership of not following Moses, so how can Muslims be faulted for following Moses imperfectly by those who follow Moses imperfectly? Not that I am seeking to defend the continuation of the OC because I believe it has been fulfilled in Christ, but would question whether Muslims have as much right to claim they are in covenant relationship with God through Moses as present day Jews. Anyway I don't see how the modern Jewish state can claim the Mosaic right to deny rights to those who hold Moses as a prophet and are seeking to follow a form of Mosiac Law.
My point is I don't think we should compare Palestine today with the Canaanite or the Philistine situation of the OT. Israel was told to put to death and drive out just seven nations, this included the Canaanites, for their sin 'detestable practices' (Ezra 9:1) that involved idolatry, child sacrifice etc. So it wasn't a blanket mandate against all nations, but a divine judegment, cleansing, against the sin of the Canaanites. Some Palestinians today are Arabs, some Christian, some Samaritan, some ethnically Jewish. As far as I am aware very few Palestinians are practicing the sins of the Canaanites which led to their destruction, but instead seek to follow Moses although imperfectly.
"I am reading between the lines a little here; but the implication of the Christian Zionist narrative that possibly lies behind CZ thinking is that the Palestinian situation is in some way analogous to the Canaanites or Philistines of the OT?"
No, it was you who first compared Palestinians to righteous aliens in OT times. Other anti-Christian Zionists do likewise, arguing that Israel is not obeying Torah commandments concerning the alien (notably, if I recall, Gary Burge). Yet such an analogy ignores the reciprocity element discussed above and the requirement for the alien to come into a covenant with the God and House of Israel. Palestinian leaders are in conflict with Israel, so the analogy doesn't work at all. It works better with Israeli Arabs in a covenant of sorts with Israel.
Calvin you wrote "Yet such an analogy ignores the reciprocity element discussed above and the requirement for the alien to come into a covenant with the God and House of Israel."
The old covenant was with God for both Israel and the foreigners who joined with them. Both approached God on the same basis i.e. of equality with God the Sovereign one.
Deut. 10 17-19 "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing."
The old covenant was not expected to be mediated through the national, perhaps secular, often very sinful, government; aliens had rights and duties before God directly on an equal footing before God in unity with the house of Israel, not as second class citizens within it. In the divided kingdom period both the house of Judah and the house of Israel were under the OC before God ,until 721 BC, even though divided kingdoms. God adminstered his coventant with the people through prophets and priests (and few CZs today are concerned to ask where the prophets of Israel are as Deut. 18:15 says God would raise up).
It was possible for there to be two divided units with separate kings, but both still could be under the old covenant.
Post a Comment