Recovering Evangelicalism – Seeking a Justice-based peace in the Middle East –

Posts tagged ‘Anti-Zionism’

Zionism is antiSemitic

(Edited from Original post of September 2016)

My Objection to Zionism has nothing to do with Jews as a people group.  It isn’t Jews I have a problem with but the ideology that some Jews, (and sadly, some Christians) hold. I have to oppose Zionism because it is racist, exceptionalist and militarist. These should not be attractive characterstics for evangelical Christians, (like me), although they will be if you have an affinity with e.g. KKK, BNP, Frances FN or any other ethnic supremacist party, (whether white, black or other).

Zionism claims that it is simply about the rights of Jews to live in a land of their own, which sounds reasonable until we examine what that means in practice. The fact is that the land most Jews in Israel-Palestine now live on and the land they are taking away daily by building settlements is land where another people, Palestinians, live and have lived for many generations.

The Zionist arguments in justification are exceptionalist – the Jews are special (that, by the way, is not the same as the ‘chosen people’ argument. Most of the early Zionists were secular socialists).  Zionists believe that Arabs are inferior, not just different. It is only necessary to listen to their descriptions, ‘snakes’, ‘rats’, ‘dirty’, etc. That is racism.

Thus, to defend Zionism is to give comfort to a system that denies the inherent equality of humankind —  contradicting both creational monotheism (Hebrew) and the Christian Gospel — and demands special treatment for one people group, Jews, over all others, especially Palestinians. Defending Zionism is to support an ideology that achieves its aim of occupying all the land through overwhelming military force – the ‘Iron Wall’ and retains control by militaristic, economic and political oppression. It is to praise a system that allows democracy only when Jews are in a substantial majority.  Militarist, racist, exceptionalist, it is utterly at odds with true Judaism and as far as can possibly be from the Sermon on the Mount. (Mt 5-7) and the commssion Jesus gave his followers.

The claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic reverses logic. The real anti-Semitism is the claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Put it simply; because in its inherent nature it defines all Jews as racist, militaristic and exceptionalist it is Zionism that is anti-Semitic.

Advertisements

Posting this link because Robert Cohen is spot on.

 

Balfour blog link

The Protestant Romance with Zionism HERE

Inspired by God

‘Malc’ commented on an earlier post that I ought to be ashamed for suggesting we (evangelical Christians) need to repent for the Balfour Declaration. I asked him what evidence he had to justify his claim that Balfour was inspired by God.I’ve heard none because there is none.

The shame I have, as I put in my reply, is for the evangelical church’s  complicity in evil and in undermining the message and the mission of Jesus. I’ll be following through some of those themes on a separate 100 day blog leading up to the centenary of the letter (2nd November) You can follow that blog here

If you live anywhere near the Midlands UK you might be interested in another date. On 28th October 2017, Claudia Prestel will be speaking at an event organised by Kairos Leicester. Her title,

‘From Balfour to the Present: 100 years of conflict’

The Bad Shepherds

Reflecting on Jeremiah 23:1-8 in his book ‘The Good Shepherd’, Kenneth E. Bailey writes, ‘Jeremiah emphasizes that failures on the part of the leadeship of the community of faith are very serious and that those failures will not be overlooked’.

Do our Christian leaders believe that, in this age of forgiving grace, their failure of leadership will be ‘overlooked’?  Interfaith dialogue and calls to prayer focus on the evils done in the name of Islam. Imams dissociate themselves from the actions of e.g. IS. (Daesh), but when their protestations are heard they are often not believed. Bishops, Imams and Rabbis, together with priests and representatives of other religions stand together and call for freedom of religion, as they should.

Christians have a duty, and Christian leaders a duty to lead, to speak out against injustice, against racism and discrimination, whether the objects of injustice are Christians or not. In the scheme of things Palestine may seem a minor matter to our ‘shepherds’: is it so for God?

How often do we hear our preachers, teachers, leaders speaking out about the causes of extremism? When do we see those leaders speaking truth to power and calling out on the history and policies that lead to hate, fear, and marginalisation?  For Zedekiah we have Bush – Blair – Obama – Cameron, and now Trump. Where is our ‘Jeremiah’, a prophetic leading voice inveighing against the imperialist-colonialist sins that have led us to this point?

There is plenty of work, including in the Muslim community, challenging extremist theologies, the practices of IS, al Nusra, etc. Their challenge arises from a conviction that, whatever the sectarian system, it is not and never was truly Islam. They say, “That’s not Islam”, and, when we Christians are faced with the same problem, as with white supremacists who claim to act Biblically, we too say, “That’s not Christianity”.

So, where is the challenge to Zionist Judaism? Where in UK and USA are the Christian leaders, where are the Rabbis and our ‘bishops’? Why are they not showing that Zionism is a recent, secular and extreme invention that has little if anything to to with historic Judaism. And why, when Zionism, in both its forms, provokes or is directly responsible for the persecution of Christians, do our leaders remain silent? Worse, why do they compete to be ‘good christian zionists’? Zedekiah suffered in hope. Our hope is in Christ, but will the ‘Son of Righteousness’ overlook the neglect of those appointed shepherds of his flock?

This is not a plea for them to be punished, but that they repent …

Balfour re-visited: Broken promises

This is an edited re-post as we approach the centenary of BALFOUR

The correspondence between the Sharif of Mecca (Husayni, or Hussein) and Sir Henry McMahon, HM High Commissioner in Egypt, is clear: Great Britain…

promised an independent Arab nation in the whole of the Arabian peninsula bounded on the West by the Red Sea and Mediterranean, on the South by the Indian Ocean, on the East by the Arabian Gulf and the border with Iran-Persia, and the North along a line just south of parallel 37, subject to minor exceptions which included  Basra and Bahgdad; the Trucial States, and certain coastal  districts to the west of Damascus, Homs, Ham and Aleppo.

Earl Grey, Foreign Secretary during WW1, stated to Parliament in 1923

“I think we are placed in considerable difficulty by the Balfour declaration itself. … it promised a Zionist home without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the population of Palestine. A Zionist home, my Lords, undoubtedly means or implies a Zionist Government over the district in which the hoome is placed, and if 93% of the population of Palestine are Arabs, I do not see how you can establish other than an Arab Government without prejudice to their civil rights. … I do see that the situation is an exceedlingly difficult one, when it (Balfour) is compared with the pledges which were undoubtedly given to the Arabs.”  Quite so!

In the same debate Lord Buckmaster remarked,   “I think we ought to say what we mean, and I think we ought to do what we say…. We certainly meant what we said in 1915. We did not do what we said in 1918″ and concluded that the British government should “go back to obedience to the promise that we gave at a moment when we were gravely beset by difficulties, to the relief of which the Arab help in no slight degree contributed”

On April 27th 1920 Field Marshall Viscount Allenby wrote (by telegram) to Emit Feisal:

“As regards Palestine you have always been aware (he was not), that His Majsty’s Government were pledged to creating a national home for the Jews in Palestine, an intention in which administration acquiesced. His Majesty’s Government will regard themselves as under an obligation which will be confirmed by terms of mandate to safeguard in fullest manner the interests of indigenous inhabitants of the country.”

In his reply, amongst other things Feisal points out:

“As regards …  the creation of a national home for Jews in Palestine … all that I have admitted is to safeguard rights of Jews in that country as much as rights of indigenous Arab inhabitants are safeguarded and to allow same rights and privileges.     Arabs of Palestine, both Christian and Mahommedan, have repeatedly availed themselves of every opportunity against any agreement or pledge that they would make their motherland the national home of Israelites.” 

Britain promised Palestine to the Arabs, we lied and we broke covenant. Scripturally, God regards any promise as made through him. We have taken in vain the Name of The Lord. Christ have mercy.

If you who are still wondering why the Mufti hated the British and sought help from Hitler in the 1930’s perhaps you should seek help not from history but from an analyst.

%d bloggers like this: