Mission in the Middle East
Using the word complicated to describe the affairs in the Middle East is an extreme understatement. There are many layers to the conflict and few solutions in sight. It would be foolhardy for me to think that I can lay out the answers in a blog post. However, there are a couple things about the situation in the Middle East that bother me relative to how many Americans view Israel. The first is the sense that Israel has yet to use up the “free passes” that have been granted to them because of past persecution. The second is the effect that Dispensationalism has had on shaping United States’ policy in the region.
Without pulling out the history and theology books, I think that it is important for us as Christians to remember that God chose Israel. It was not because they were special or great — Israel was a tiny stiff necked nation — rather God simply set His covenantal love on them. Fast forward to the New Covenant, which is really part of the same covenant of grace that God made with Israel, and you see that God’s plan of salvation is characterized by the same grace and mercy. He save us, both Jew and Gentile, not by works which we had done, but by the blood of Christ Jesus poured out richly on us.
In the Middle East hate runs deep on both sides of the border. While it is painful to see the bodies of Palestinian children being lifted out of the rubble, or watch people live under the constant threat of rocket attacks, it is also difficult for us as Westerners to comprehend that at a very young age these people are taught to hate their neighbor — Palestinian or Israeli, Arab or Jew. The closest we come to this in America is the cycle of racism. Both are generational problems, but over there it manifests itself far more violently.
I think we need to be careful about how we view the war between Israel and its neighboring Arab countries. It would be very, very easy to side with one group, or the other, and forget that neither side is special. This is where our favoritism toward Israel gets in the way, because the people on both sides of the conflict are equally deserving of our prayers and compassion. Until we repent of this behavior and see the Palestinian people on par with the Israelis, as the neighbor Jesus speaks of in Matthew 22, then I think in a very real sense we become passive participants in the cycle of hate.
I know a missionary family of five that moved overseas several months ago to minister specifically to Palestinian refugees. The Hastings’ presentation at our church and their love for these people opened my eyes to a suffering that I would not have otherwise seen. They were supposed to be in Beirut, but at the last minute the mission agency routed them to Jordan. Please pray for this family, their ministry and for all who are carrying the gospel to this needy region. By God’s grace, the work by people like Jonathan is the only real hope for a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East.
I would probably say the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is borne more out of a cultural rather than a generational problem, which means it will change more slowly – if at all – by passage of time. Needless to say, it is all a display of the shattering of man’s identity as a result of the Fall. We do need to see lives – both Jews and Muslims – transformed by the Gospel.
Yes, I’d agree that it’s a cultural issue, too. Seems like you’re making more of a refinement than disagreeing, wouldn’t you say? The collective culture passes it along, but it also is reinforced and carried on in the family structure as well (which is probably a stronger unit there than it is here).
I think it has to be broken in the individual first, as you say, by the power of the Gospel, which in turn will slowly change family, friends and eventually the broader culture. It’s kind of like our approach with the Middle East has been to try to enlighten, or culturize, the people in the same way we try to socialize children in the public school system. You can’t teach morality in the classroom anymore than you can lecture Israelis or Palestinians to stop hating each other.
Do you get the Desiring God Ministries newsletter? The following timely text was in my email box today.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/04/030704.html
Did you notice what happened in Seattle the other day? The Muslim man who killed the Jewish woman and shot 5 others? He claims to have done an Internet search for locations where he could kill Jews. Now you can make a case if you like that he is mentally ill. I call it hate.
When you’re Jewish, you live with knowing that any given person on the street hates you..many people still believe that “Jews have all the money and own the banks” Really, even if you don’t know anybody, it’s very prevalent.
I remember in high school, going into the stalls in the washrooms and seeing derogatory slang written on the bathroom walls, such as “Kill kikes” and so forth. It was scary and it was best if people didn’t know you were Jewish. Fortunately, I didn’t have the last name “Cohen” or “Levin” so I flew under the radar. It wasn’t just usually people of Arab descent who committed most of the acts against Jews in the 1970′s.
Frankly, I don’t see that many Jewish people who personally perpetrate hate crimes against Muslims. It’s usually the other way around.
Debbie: Maybe Mel Gibson needs to hear that, but I don’t believe any of those conspiracies about the Jews owning all the banks, starting all the wars, etc…any more than I believe that if we can just convert all the Jews then Jesus is going to come back. But I also think there are plenty of Arab-Americans here in the States who probably feel persecuted, too (esp. post 9/11)…not to mention that racism against Hispanics is on the rise (i.e., the immigration backlash).
I understand that Israel has its back against the wall, but at the same time they seem to be taking excessive military risks. The main point of my post is to discuss how and why many Americans throw their support on Israel, not to condone hate crimes or acts of terrorism. I’ll be branded a liberal for saying this, but I think that up until now–we’ll see how things go with Condi and company–the current administration has pretty much unilaterally supported Israel. Politically, I think this is to the detriment of the peace process. However, I also think the sentiment behind it is to the detriment of the Gospel.
I reviewed the Desiring God site. A good article. Romans 11 has always been a difficult passage for all to understand. But as we look at Paul’s – and the entire Bible’s – focus, we see that God gives a promise to a people who are covenant breakers, and as a result are subject to the curse. I like to think of the OT giving us a picture of God’s revealing to us WHY we need a Savior – a Covenant keeper, because we fail in grand order. It is Christ Himself who enters into covenant with the Father for a people of his own – a spiritual people (even in the OT, salvation was a spiritual Israel (individual) and not a National one). In some ways it is not in the end about a piece of real estate, but a New Heavens and new Earth – about Christ and His Kingdom. There is restoration coming, and I would point out that the current land is under the curse of the Fall (where is all that milk and honey anyway?), so it is not about a present piece of real estate but something much better. That being said, we look at Israel and Palestine as each being broken and in need of redemption. Can we – or should we, then, look at the Middle East conflict any differently than others who fight over land rights?
I agree with you that the kneejerk “support Israel no matter what” attitude is an artifact of rampant dispensationalism. I also agree with you that there are two sides to this story, and that the only lasting peace will be through Jesus Christ our Lord. Where I differ with you, and correct me if I am interpreting you incorrectly, is that in this situation and in previous ones our country has unilaterally supported Israel and that said support may be wrong. I disagree. In the 90′s, the peace process brokered by President Clinton led to the acknowledgement by the US and Israel that there is a need for a Palestinian Sate. In keeping with that acknowledgement, Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. Israel even forcibly removed Jewish settlers from Golan and Gaza. The international community poured massive aid into the fledgling state, headed by Yassir Arafat. How was Israel repaid for this act of good faith? Wave after wave of suicide bombers came forth from Gaza, to the point that Israel had to build a wall and institute a “Checkpoint Charlie” type border crossing. The Palestinian people then elected a Hamas government, dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Some payback, don’t you think?
The current conflict was instigated by the Hezbolah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and escalated by the firing of massive numbers of rockets into population centers along Israel’s northern border. There is indication that Hezbolah is firing these rockets from amid population centers in Southern Lebanon, thus ensuring massive collateral damage when Israel returns fire on these installations, both in deaths of hapless Lebanese civilians and destruction of Lebanese buildings and infrastructure. I do not believe we should support Israel simply because they are Israel, but because in this instance they are in the right. Israel is a sovereign nation, and has every right to defend their borders and population. Remember, the only requirements Israel has extended for a ceasefire are the return of the kidnapped soldiers and the cessation of hostilities on the part of Hezbolah. Not too much to ask in my opinion.
DAM: Land of milk and honey? Check out this map. The areas with vegetation almost perfectly match up with Israel (click on the HYBRID button to overlay the map with borders).
Steven: You are right that Clinton did an excellent job with Middle Eastern affairs. I was referring more specifically to the current administration and how it has, or at least how it is perceived to have, favored Israel to the point of undermining the peace process (e.g., straying from the roadmap and supporting rebuilding of settlements in 2004, though that seems to have had more to do with regime change in Israel…but tacit approval nonetheless). I use the term unilateral loosely, because I do not truly believe that Bush has supported Israel 100%. However, I think that the perception is important, because you cannot completely discount the opinion of millions of people in the Middle East (as ludicrous as some of the stuff you see on the news sounds). And let us not forget that Bush claims to have been converted by none other than Billy Graham, a noted Dispensationalist.
I do not discount your points on Israel needing to defend itself. However, one’s heart must go out to the Lebanese people. Israel dropped leaflets urging civilians to flee, but how do you reasonably expect 750,000 people to pack up and move? Which is safer–to stay where you are or to travel on the same roads that are being bombed? Furthermore, while the U.S. sometimes mistakenly hits civilians in Iraq, it appears so far that Israel has directly targeted the infrastructure of Lebanon. Say all you want about the terrorists using innocents as shields…Israel keeps doubling their bets and the losses keep mounting. Still, I agree that Hezbollah gets what they deserve. I just hope that it’s not a Pyrrhic victory.
But I digress, because what I really want to focus the post on is not the dynamics of who agreed to what, then betrayed the other party, resorted to terrorism, backstabbed, etcetera, etcetera. What I am trying to get to is something far more subtle. It’s the sense in which we Americans look at the news and say to ourselves, “If those damned Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims would just leave the Jews/Israelis alone, then everybody would be happy.” That’s the approach I think we take in terms of our favoritism of Israel. “Leave ‘em alone. They’ve been through enough”…that and the “they’re the chosen people of God/Left Behind” mentality.
We completely forget what oppression the Palestinians may have been through. That’s one of the things Jonathan Hastings brought to light…that you have generations of people who know nothing other than living in a refugee camp in Lebanon or Jordan. Some of them may be Muslims, but as David (a.k.a., DAM) alluded to…Palestinians are in no less need of being transformed by the Gospel than the Israelis. And yet I think that between our one-sided sympathy and our closet Dispensationalism, we tend to think of the non-Israeli as second class citizens.
Note to all: Hey, this is a great discussion. Don’t be afraid to jump in. In case I have scared you off, consider the following: 1) Jesus is the only way to eternal life (i.e., Islam is a works based religion that leads to Hell); 2) there are Elect from every nation, tongue and tribe (so keep praying for the spread of the Gospel); 3) I oppose terrorism and support just military action against it; and 4) if I hear one more yokel say that we just need to nuke ‘em all, then pray that I don’t end up in a fist fight.
Clinton did a great job with Middle Eastern affairs??? Are you kidding? All he did was PUNT the issue to the next president, as he did in ALL of his foreign policy. This latest war is the product of generations of hatred, and to simply cover it up and pretend to play nice for a photo op without getting to the root of the hatred is no way to ensure its future prevention. The man charged with protecting our country and liberties invited a terrorist to the White House on multiple occasions! That kind of “leadership” is akin to inviting the wolf into the henhouse. No wonder UBL thought the US was weak.
Incidentally, I don’t know that I feel sorry for the Lebanese. When Bush talked about being for us or against us, you could throw them in that mix. They refused to throw the Hezbos out of their country in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and as such, they are paying a price. It is difficult for me to feel sorry for people who do that, especially when they shamelessly use images of the deaths of their children (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT) to try to win the war in the press.
Rob: If you know me at all then you know I’m being somewhat facetious when I praise President Clinton. But again, what he did while in office is not really relative to the post. And I’ve seen the images of the dead children, but I don’t know if I’d call it “shamelessly using” them. Wait until the next terror attack hits the U.S. and we’ll compare media coverage.
It’s also easy to say that Hezbollah being around is the Lebanese government’s fault, but when you factor in the years of civil war and the occupations by both Israel and Syria…it gets quite complicated as to who’s really to blame. Like I started out in the post, it’s a very, very complicated situation with no simple answers. All I want to really talk about is the humanity of the affair (specifically how we perceive our fellow man).
Scott, this is where you and I part company. I do not think support of Israel is a knee jerk response to dispensational theology. In fact, I resent that characterization. I don’t need theologians to interpret G-d’s concern and love for the Jewish people. I take it straight from scripture. Of course, Arab-Americans have become concerned with this new racism, but that’s the point… it is new to this generation and generally precipated by acts of racist Middle Eastern terrorists themselves….not by the acts of Israel and Jews. In other words, it is the response out of fear by mostly middle and lower class white Americans.
Of course, Palestinians need Christ as does any other people group, but they are disposessed of any land largely by the political behavior of the British and other European governments in the post WWII era, not because of “Jewish agression” as they would have you believe. Do you think, along with the government of Iran, that all Jewish Israelis should go back to Europe? Where should the concentration camp survivors have been sent in 1946? Many of them came here, but there was a huge uproar about “Jewish Immigration” at that time. Sound familiar? There was a poor distribution of lands at that time, true, but I don’t see how we can deny Jews a homeland. I am in favor of a Palestinian state but not another Syria or Lebanon, that is basically a political cover for terrorists.
Scott, I like to see you getting a little controversial with your comments. You’re far too nice at times and it’s good to see you pull out a heated argument now and again. Now that I’ve dispensed with the niceties, your attempt at framing this issue in the context of “the humanity of the affair†is giving Israel’s enemies far too much credit. So, clearly, your initial caveat of the sheer complexity of the situation is a fact, but the lines aren’t a blurry as you would make them out to be. I’m not trying to look at this from as much as a Christian perspective as you are, mainly because while some evangelicals do use this as their reason for supporting Israel, I don’t think that is the major driving force in overall support in the US. I think that as complex as the situation is, Americans see a democracy that may have its faults, but in light of the situations that they deal with on a daily basis, are almost nothing compared to harm their neighbors would desire for them.
The citizens are not unwilling dupes in all of these counties. That’s not saying that some are not held hostage by the majority around them, but it is the majority that carries out these actions and passes on the beliefs that Jew are worse than animals. While we get the pictures of mothers crying over dead loved ones in a retaliation by Israel, the stories about mothers (I would bet the same ones) reveling in the joy of the martyrdom of their sons when killing a pizza parlor full of children aren’t as prominently portrayed. That would ruin the image that many like to foster of helpless innocents that are just a victim of Israeli aggression. The leaders of the Palestinian people, Hamas, represent the values that these people hold, just as Hizballah represents the views of many Lebanese, including the president, our ally. Not only Lebannon, but since Hizballah is a proxy for Syria and Iran, I think the views are a good cross section of the entire area. Jonah Goldberg has a simple but precise article today on the differences between the aggression and response and the worlds reaction to both. Israel’s entire existence is summed up nicely:
I don’t look at this from a Christian perspective as much as a freedom and democracy perspective. Syria and Iran have a vested interest in Hizballah succeeding since they are doing the dirty work that they can’t do themselves. Threatswatch describes the only way that Israel can win is to show Assad and the mullahs that if they want to keep this up, fighting by proxy, then they should know it doesn’t have to end there. As they put it:
A sustainable element of humanity is only an option when an entire region gives up its desire to annihilate one of its neighbors, not when more useless documents are signed with terrorists with no intention of ever holding to a word written in them.
BTW, is this the kind of Arab-American racism you were referring to above? From what I’ve seen and heard, that’s about the worst of it…much perceived, and little in actuality. My heart is heavy for them.
Here’s an observation about the blogosphere (and I doubt I’m the first to have made it): The ensuing dialogue (if you can call it that) often has little to do with the original post. I even let myself get sucked into a side discussion. And so I find myself dazed and confused as I try to navigate the currents of this thread. I know what I meant to say, and even upon re-reading the post I’m not sure I find what it is that prompted people to respond in such a way. Either you read into what I had to say, or you used it as a jumping off point to talk about ideas/issues that are not there. I would have posted this same topic five or ten years ago, so the current situation in Lebanon, Israel, Iran, etc. is really beside the point.
Then there’s a mental map, a thought structure that produces a statement such as: “I don’t look at this from a Christian perspective as much as a freedom and democracy perspective.” I find myself shaking my head to try to clear the fog; re-reading the sentence and thinking to myself: “What could someone possibly mean by ‘a Christian perspective’ such that this sentence would make sense?” Sorry Haze, but I am surprised that you would come near to using “Christian perspective” in such a way that it could be used as categorically comparable to “a freedom and democracy perspective;” as if the two were mutually exclusive. Your second comment surprised me as well. Sure, any story about Al Gore is funny, but it is flippant “my heart is heavy for them” attitudes that ignore (dare I say perpetuate?) the subtle racism that is part and parcel of our human existence.
My intent with this post was to be provocative and challenge the thinking of my Fox News saturated family and friends. To that end I think that I have succeeded, even if your gut reaction is to brand me as a bleeding heart intellectual liberal. Consider the following question: Are you a “die hard conservative Christian,” or a “Christian die hard conservative?” Think in computer “search terms.” The first term modifies and limits the parameters of the following terms. For example, I consider myself a “Christian United States-ian” as opposed to, say, a “United States-ian Christian.” To put it in another perspective, a “Christian Democrat” and a “Christian Republican” have MUCH more in common than a “Blue State Christian” and a “Red State Christian.” We may be citizens of this country, but first and foremost we are citizens of the Kingdom of God. THAT has a HUGE bearing on how we view our Palestinian and Israeli neighbors.
In spite of the above, I still find myself getting terribly frustrated about this post, which is why it has taken me so long to respond. Perhaps DAM is the only one of you who knows what I am trying to get at with expressions like “the humanity of it;” yet, none of the comments are even engaging that theme or that level of the issue. Perhaps it is too emotional and too hot of an issue for people to actually think of it in terms of men and women made in the image of God destroying one another by a deep, generationally-perpetuated, burning hatred? Alas, we are as enslaved to deep, generationally-perpetuated, blinding sin as any youthful, would-be disciple of Osama Bin Laden; ah, Lord God, have mercy upon us!
Alright, maybe that’s a blog complaint in general but let’s look at a passage of the original post then part of the response, first paragraph:
So it appears that you’re claiming that United States’ policy is a result of Dispensationalism. Still with me? Seems clear to me. This belief then causes your Fox News saturated friends and family to not have the compassion for the Palestinians and Lebanese that they should have. So your whole post is based on the idea that this is the reason that the United States isn’t looking at this fairly, or should at least drop this blind, at all cost, support for Israel.
You then go on to say that since this colors our view, we need to realize that both sides are equally deserving of our compassion. Agreed. We are still working from the premise that our compassion is unequally awarded to Israel from the earlier stated reason. So it’s entirely a Christian perspective that you’re working from, cause for the support of Israel and effect of this misdirected loyalty is because of dispensationalism. I realize I’m repeating myself, but I want to make sure it’s clear that this is the foundation of your topic.
Now comes my response:
Well looks like I address your initial presupposition for the entire argument you lay out. I don’t think the support for Israel from The United States is based on that view. Since I don’t think you were right in your initial hypothesis, I clarify by saying that I’m looking at the support from a democracy and freedom perspective instead of a Christian perspective, because I think that’s were the support stems from. It doesn’t seem nearly as complicated as the fog in your head would have you believe.
So if you wanted to write a post about why Christians show undue compassion to Israel at the expense of its enemies, then you should have written that post….but you didn’t. That’s why I made a distinction, not because I’m less of a Christian and more of a conservative like you insinuate. Maybe you’re reading past your original argument with some emotion also. But that’s alright…it’s blogging, and none of this changes anyone’s views anyway. This is where I exit though…getting too theatrical for my taste. Policy is one thing, “perpetuating the subtle racism that is part and parcel of our human existence†is quite another.
Haze: I never stated that Dispensationalism, nor past persecution, is the only reason behind our policies in the Middle East. Certainly, as you have said, much of the motivation is based on freedom/justice, some on global security and some on U.S. interests. However, the post is written to a primarily Christian audience about how those two aforementioned issues affect our outlook. Perhaps I need to spend more time unpacking that hypothesis relative to certain formal U.S. policies, or removing it altogether, but I think that the point I made for regular-joe Christians is sufficiently stated.
When I read statements like the following (found here on Ryan’s blog)…
…then I go back to the original post in which I said, “By God’s grace, the work by people like Jonathan is the only real hope for a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East.” The “victory” is not simply annhilating the opposition — as necessary as it is to fight injustice — but it is also winning the hearts of a dying world to the Gospel.
Also, I apologize for making you feel the way I did. I hope it didn’t ruin your morning and take you away from your work or studies. It was not my intention to pass judgement on the level of your faith or political views. I know “it’s blogging,” but at the same time even communication in the blogosphere is affected by our fallenness. I am sorry and I ask for your forgiveness.
I’m also going to close the commenting and force us all to move on. BTW, Debbie and I have not “parted ways” in the traditional sense (we actually spoke outside of the blog that day). She and I are both quite the devil’s advocates.
[...] I do not want to sound like I am beating a dead horse, but I watched Munich last night. It was on sale at Target for ten dollars and I figured that it was too coincidental not to buy it. Besides, not only do I like to collect good movies, I am also very bad at returning rentals on time. While I would prefer not to comment at this time on the questions the movie raises, or whether or not Steven Spielberg is biased in his portrayal of the ‘72 Olympics massacre and aftermath (the primary focus of the film), I will step out on a limb and recommend the film. However, if you want to read up on it before renting or buying it yourself, check out Spielberg’s interview with Spiegel and Walter Reich’s Washington Post commentary for starters. Filed under: Aesthetic | Tags: movies, terrorism. [...]