Christianity Today ran an interesting piece today in which one Botrus Mansour was interviewed about the Israel-Palestine conflicts. As the title would suggest, the theme of the interview was how to look at this conflict and keep with a “Pro-Jesus” mentality. As one who is interested in both theological and political concerns, when there is a “crossroads” issue, it almost always piques my fascination.
The first statement by the interviewer (in bold) immediately had a devastating response (in regular), at least according to both religious standards and libertarian political theory. I recognize that I am on dangerous ground here in my willingness to reject the standard “conservative” line or opinion on the Israel matter. But actually, it is my conservative principles, which lead me to caution rather than accept the general consensus by the religious left.
The prospects for peace seem bleak at the moment.
There are four million-plus Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. What does Israel do with them? There are few options.
“What does Israel do with them?” Well, it seems that the whole “Pro-Jesus” thing is already being compromised. Israel should do nothing. The Palestinians are on Palestinian land and Israel ought to mind its own business and relieve itself of the mindset (the very socialistic mindset we should add), that it needs to purify the country of Israel by expanding its boarders being its own jurisdiction.
You see, Israel has already spent the last half century stealing land and growing its government. That is what socialistic countries love to do.
To “do something” (except to tolerate) about the Palestinians living on their own land is to ignore private property rights. An interesting conversation for groups of so-called conservatives.
Now, if we are to be pro-Jesus, perhaps we should quote Him, and I can think of a very relevant verse that was once quoted by an inspirational figure who was subsequently booed by a large base of other so-called conservatives. The verse is Luke 6:31 and it reads: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Thus, to be pro-Jesus, it would seem, is to take the position that Israel should not violate (initiate aggression) the persons and property of the Palestinians.
But, the interviewee, Botrus Mansour, does mention that there are a “few options.” Let’s mention them.
A two-state solution is one option. Another option is annexing these territories and these people to Israel. Then, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state. It will be 50-50 Arabs and Jews, and Jews don’t want that. The third option is just dragging these four million Palestinians out of the Holy Land to Jordan. But can you do that in the 21st century with the international law and with international court?
The only option possible that can lead to living side by side peacefully is the two-state solution. Everybody’s talking about it. America’s pushing for it. Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech at Bar Ilan University said he was for a two-state solution.
This is difficult to analyze because there is a lot of words and assumptions that are extremely misleading. Firstly, the underlying theme here is that the status quo cannot be kept, but no one mentions why, exactly, the status quo is not working. No one mentions the fact that Israel’s aim is to march eastward, to take over Gaza totally, and to establish an even bigger territory for itself. No mentions that Israel is initiating the conflict by illegally erecting Israeli settlements after driving Palestinians away because the Western Media has put forth the opposite (and wrong) narrative: that Israel is being victimized by a necessarily violent Muslim population. But such a standpoint is assumed, never proven. And property rights are hardly entered into the equation. Such a heterodox analysis as I just gave seriously undermines the viability –indeed the sincerity –of a two-state solution. The two-state solution being “pushed” (ha!) by America and Netanyahu is clearly going to have a very different meaning for the Israeli die-hards, and those considering the situation on other principles (including property rights, the rule of law, and a Biblical standard of ethics). For more on the two-state solution, see Jeremy Hammond here. In fact, read Hammond on Israel in general. He has done great things for the sake of liberty in America’s relation to Israel.
But we certainly should have more to say about the “options,” even though the two-state solution is being pushed with darker agendas. Look that the second option: annexation. Why is that an “option?” Perhaps it’s an option in the same way that it might be an option for some American President to annex Mexico, to force them to “join the Union!” But the “Jews” don’t want that? Personally, I’m far more concerned about the fact that the Palestinians don’t want that. The Jews don’t want that, fine. But ultimately, it shouldn’t matter if they do. Are murder, theft, and the eradication of the Golden Rule on the table if the Jews want it? Regarding the third option: I am immensely frustrated that the so-called “problem” with this option is that “international law” will get in the way. Indeed it will! But not only has Israel long ignored international law, but it also shouldn’t really matter. Is not ethics far more basic than the fiat legal system of the globalist world rulers? If international law rendered murder “legally permissible” would this really be all it takes to sanctify such evil conduct?
What kind of state is even possible for the Palestinian Authority? There is chronic corruption, insufficient religious freedom, no economy, and weapons on the border.
There’s always a risk. I’m not saying tomorrow this Palestinian state is going to be this beautiful, liberal democratic state. Remember this is a people under occupation for 46 years. It won’t be easy. Palestinians are educated people. Palestinians are more than half the population of Jordan, and Jordan is a viable country. Palestine could be also.
One of the things that always gets me is the constant (and true) claims about Palestinian corruption, lack of liberty, and terrible economy. But it is stated as if Israel doesn’t suffer from the same. I mean, want to see corruption, socialism, and murder all tied up into one glorious (albeit saddening) example? How about this:
Israel will pay for abortions for women aged 20 to 33 regardless of circumstance starting next year, health officials said Monday, adding that they hope to make eligibilty for state funding universal in the future.
Until now, subsidized abortions for women of all ages were available in medical emergencies or in case of rape and sexual abuse. Women under the age of 20 or over 40 were also eligible for abortion funding even when the reason was personal.
Now, America is headed in that direction unfortunately, but apparently Israel is leading the charge. But all we hear from the so-called conservatives, who have been conned by the “Neo-Conservatives,” is that we must never stop supporting, and funding via the hapless taxpayer, the State of Israel. Or, I should say, the murderous, corrupt, socialistic State of Israel. Harsh words, but where have I lied? Reality needs to be harshly stated on what is perhaps the most important issue in the United States: the devastating effect that Israel has had on the America that once was. No, all of our problems cannot be blamed on Israel. But it is absurd to say that Israel deserves none of this blame. Absurd.
The article then goes on about some more personal matters including the fact that the interviewee works for the socialist education system in Israel, which among other things, participates in putting the overstated glories of democracy in the heads of the little Arabs (the poor things). Now, he also mentions that he puts forth and teaches Christian values. I do pray that such a message (assuming it is theologically correct) would be seeds that might grow in the water of God’s grace. Let God use all circumstances to accomplish his will and exemplify His name.
The above discussion seems unnecessarily brutal. After all, the interviewee, as the article infers, is not a member of the Israel hard liners and the Zionists. These groups are the ones who are in bed with the Neoconservatives and the powerful Israel lobbyists here in the United States. In fact, it seems that the Zionists are generally opposed to people like Mansour who prefer peace to war and cooperation to domination. Thus, my point in the above was a small bit for shock value and my target was the System, not the man. The truth of socialism and corruption in Israel must be shown clearly and no punches should be pulled. That democracy, which is simply glorified socialism, and not a property-rights order (or at the LEAST Constitutional Republicanism) is being spread is a devastating development. Democracy needs to be opposed head on. For democracy is the illusion that the people are free and the rulers of the State represent them. As for the praises lavished on voting, what is voting but choosing the next overlord? And where is individual liberty?
But even though Mansour is no Israel hardliner, he has nonetheless fallen for the Israel-is-in-the-right narrative that has taken over so many. Such a misunderstanding of the true state of Israel should be opposed matter-of-factly. And secondly, regardless of Mansour’s own personal views on these things, it remains true that there will never be any solution without the truth. Israel is a fascist State. If such things can be said of Mussolini and Hitler, the same ingredients should convince us to same the same of Israel, the United States, and even the European Union.
But enough of the negative. The positive is here in this interview too and it shows that the interviewee, despite the fact that there is a difference of opinion about Israel’s role in the conflict, is certainly no Zionist nationalist. The following is a great response to something that the religious right needs to come to terms with.
Is there any harm in Christians viewing Mideast events primarily through the lens of prophetic fulfillment?
It is not harmless. It is harmful. We’re on the ground trying to live faithfully and realistically. It leads to harmful policies. It leads to harmful politics.
You cannot put eschatology above the Sermon on the Mount. You cannot put eschatology or any plan above Jesus’ clear words, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” We cannot live with war and the sword for all of life. This lack of peace will threaten the existence of Israel itself in the long run. A Christian should not be pro-Israeli, nor pro-Palestinian, but pro-peace, pro-Jesus.
Is this not profoundly agreeable to the Reformed Libertarian? Indeed, we have remarkable differences on eschatology and the putting together of the Biblical covenants than most mainstream Evangelicals. But despite that, should we not agree with Mansour here? Whether one is a dispensationalist or a Covenant Theologian, surely the Sermon on the Mount (and I should add: The Ten Commandments too) is not subservient to eschatological convictions. I am convinced that dispensationalism is a wrongheaded understanding of redemptive history, but I do think that the Christian should realize that any plan that God has for the world, is exactly that: God’s plan. Not man’s plan. And oh how ignorant is the United States if it thinks that it is the sole representative of God to carry out His plans. ”Blessed are the peacemakers” indeed.
Certainly then, if one considers himself “pro-Israel,” he must realize that peace is Israel’s best hope of survival. And if it pursues war, the State’s strategy of desperation, let us be Christians first, not pro-Israel first. Let us favor property rights and the non-agression principles over a certain people group. Such is the pro-Jesus way.
And Jesus never did his work with taxpayer money.
