The Way Out of Religious War

AN EQUITABLE TWO-STATE SOLUTION

Editorial by Harry Hunter

The Flags of Israel and the Palestinian State, c/o Crossed-flag-pins.com

(Jan. 15, 2010)  —  Once on a different website, I got myself pretty much consigned to hell by different-minded patriots because of my views on Israel and Palestine. I beg your leave to perhaps differ with you, too, Gentle Reader, without invoking similar condemnation. My preference is to live and let live, preferably in peace.

But today the United States is at war with Islam at multiple levels, from hot missiles and roadside bombs to a cold cultural conflict of deeply-held beliefs. I was teaching a class on the terror-ridden morning of 9-11-2001, and I told my students that morning, “We are now in a religious war.” I never believed former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he said that our subsequent military actions had nothing to do with Islam. I believed then and believe now that both the actions of Islamic terrorists and our own military actions had everything to do with Islam—and Israel.

Statements made by Osama bin Laden indicate that an important reason why al-Qaeda declared holy war (jihad) on America was that U.S. support of Israel enabled Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian land and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people: “We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation.” – Osama bin Laden – to CNN in March 1997, as quoted here .

If you doubt the religious nature of the war in which we are embroiled, consider these further statements by bin Laden:

“We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam.”

“Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

“We–with God’s help–call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.” Feb. 1998 – Bin Laden edict

“We are seeking to incite the (Islamic) nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad (holy war) for the sake of God.” — al-Jazeera, June 1999.

“I’m fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans.” — Osama bin Laden, quoted by Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper

[The above quotes are found here].

After 9-11 I recall hearing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak say that 90% of terrorism would stop if there were an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But long before 9-11 Mubarak was warning the West that terror and Israel were inextricably linked. In July of 1996—more than five years before the hellish attack of 9-11—Charlayne Hunter-Gault interviewed Mubarak on PBS’s NewsHour, and Mubarak made this stark statement: “Believe me, terrorist actions . . . will never stop unless we reach a comprehensive settlement.” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july96/mubarak_7-30.html) Mubarak was talking about the kind of peace agreement that would return Golan to Syria (perhaps as a demilitarized zone), withdraw all Israeli occupation forces, close down illegal Israeli settlements, share Jerusalem among Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.

To anyone tempted to evade the issue here by an ad hominem attack on Mubarak, please note that I am not holding him up as a model of virtue but as a knowledgeable source. Let us consider the substance of what he said instead of attacking the man. Does President Mubarak’s July 1996 statement on PBS comport with the history that has played out before us since then? Yes, it most certainly does. Does his July 1996 statement make sense given the known facts of the Mideast conflict? Yes, I believe so. Has the U.S. suffered more or less from terrorism in the 13 ½ years since Mubarak starkly told us what had to happen to stop terrorism?

Well, then, might it not be in the best interest of the United States to do everything possible—and I mean EVERYTHING—to bring about an equitable comprehensive Middle-East solution ASAP? I say it would be, and that is why on this one issue I support Barack Hussein Obama’s pressure on Israel to come to reasonable terms. Demanding that a disarmed Palestinian state be perpetually subject to oversight, inspection, and approval by Israel, which is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has done, is not reasonable. Demanding all of Jerusalem for Israel is not reasonable. Occupying the Golan Heights forever is not reasonable. Continuing to build Jewish settlements on Palestinian land is so outrageous that virtually all other nations in the world oppose it.

I carry no brief for Islam. As I have written rather freely, I consider Islam a criminal religion. Neither do I subscribe to Zionist delusions about holding God to ancient scriptural promises about territory. I believe in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, and I believe the Creator is more interested in the condition of human souls than in deeds to real estate. Both Islamists and Zionists, including the Christian Zionists who can be even more aggressive, belligerent and land-hungry than Jewish Zionists, must tone down their respective Grand Visions so as to permit peace in the Middle East.

And please, don’t talk to me about Armageddon, the Global Caliphate or the New Jerusalem. Let us leave all that to God. If we are that close to The Foreordained End, nothing we mere mortals can do will stop your preferred prophecy from fulfilling itself, but I vote for doing EVERYTHING we can to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from becoming a great cataclysm for humanity. We didn’t have atomic/hydrogen/thermonuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction all those centuries and millennia ago when religious wars were a favorite form of entertainment. Nowadays, we cannot allow such warfare to develop to its logical conclusion of mutual destruction. The hostile parties must be brought to terms, even if they have to be literally dragged kicking and screaming to the conference table.

Barry Soetero/Steve Dunham/Barack Obama is an illegal POTUS. He is not a natural born citizen (cf. this link for more info.) as required by the Constitution, and he should resign or be removed immediately. Since there is little chance of that happening immediately, why not support Obama on the one initiative of his that would actually serve the best interests of our nation—an equitable two-state solution in Palestine? If Obama can midwife an equitable Middle East peace, his otherwise sorry legacy will include at least one worthwhile accomplishment. He needs to move fast, though, for his White House days are numbered.

26 Responses to "The Way Out of Religious War"

  1. John Galt   Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 12:35 PM

    Speaking of Feiglin’s faction in Likud, Levin said: “The target is not to get to the Knesset, but to the government.” In fact most speakers referred to Feiglin as the next prime minister,

    And of course, as per any Manhigut event, there were secular, religious, Haredi, all chatting,

    We watched a video called “Awakening,” a film featuring several Manhigut supporters from different backgrounds from Haredi to secular to former radical leftist.

    http://manhigutyehudit.blogspot.com/2010/01/manhigut-yehudit-in-high-society-column.html

  2. susan h   Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM

    Dear John, thanks for allowing an honest discussion with many points of view regarding a very complicated issue. If only Al-Queda could be trusted, but they are like Hitler, all they want today is Czechoslavakia, all they want tomorrow is France, then Hungary. They will stop when they get Poland. And on and on. That is what Al-Queda is like. Today they want the middle east, tomorrow the United States. They don’t just hate us because they believe there is some pro-Israel policy, they hate anyone who does not follow Allah. That includes almost all the east, west and anyone in between. Of course, bringing about a peaceful solution to the mid-east crisis would be wonderful. But I do not believe it would stop the blood thirsty extremists who call themselves Al-Queda. I fear nothing will do that.

  3. PD Blum   Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM

    Dear Mr. Hunter,

    I appreciate your opinion, however, it lacks real objectivity of research. You should read From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine by Joan Peters. Interestingly enough she had full access to many Arab countries private records to write this book which was to be pro-Palestinian at the outset. By the time she was finished with her research she went pro-Israel based on all the misinformation out there.

    She ultimately had a fatwa(assassination/death contract) put on her head by extreme Muslim groups who felt she betrayed them after getting access to the records. The Palestinians were displaced by many Arab countries who were going to war with Israel; to get out of the way and leave or fight; that’s in the book and history too.

    Israel only gained land after it was attacked by Arab Nations not prior…that is a fact. Israel has wished to give Gaza back to Egypt and Egypt has refused it.The Obama administration had tried to cut a deal with Iran based on concluding an agreement with the Palestinians and Israel. The Iranian Regime basically said they could care less about it. Why? This is a power grabbing political/religious war with Sunni’s and Shiites; look at the 5 nation Arab war going on Yemen and rarely mentioned.

    Saudi Arabia, Jordan,Yemen, Morocco, Al Qaeda, and Houthi Rebels backed by Iran a are slugging it out. See below from Aljazeera News
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/2009111675649700628.html

    Believe me this has nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian peace talks. Mubarak is more interested with Iran which than the Palestinians and told Obama so. He was almost assassinated by Iranian backed organizations which Israel helped foil. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are now what I call “soft Allies” to Israel. Let’s face it if G-d forbid Israel was not around the Muslims would be killing each other in a much larger scale than today…see Iraq today with attacks…remember the Iran-Iraq war. The present factions of Hama, PLO and Hezbollah fighting each other in Gaza and the West Bank.

    So please do your homework prior to writing an article that Islamic terrorism and malcontent against the USA would end if there was a two state solution. That is just Islamic nations excuses to get what they want politically for money and power.

    Remember Yassar Arafat was a KGB agent along with Abbas during the cold war. This was a large part of this conflict too.
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/1782

    So, please read the facts and then come to a better conclusion. Thank you very much.

    Best regards,
    PDB

  4. Benaiah   Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 2:27 PM

    Obama gets ‘F’ for Mideast policy
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147922134&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    On the eve of a four-day visit to the United States, hawkish Likud MK Danny Danon on Monday launched a blistering assault on President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies, declaring that he would give Obama “a failing grade” for his first year in office.

    “I would give Obama an ‘F’ for serious lack of knowledge or understanding on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” said Danon, speaking to The Jerusalem Post ahead of his US trip.

    A longtime fierce critic of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s more conciliatory policies toward the Palestinian Authority, the Likud freshman turned his rhetoric on Obama, and promised to use his US visit to urge Obama to ease the pressure on Israel.

    “His serious error during his Fox News interview in China, in which he called to freeze construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, unified the Israeli public around Netanyahu’s leadership while weakening Obama’s position in Israeli public opinion,” Danon asserted. “Even [Kadima opposition Leader] Tzipi Livni was forced to defend our rights to Gilo.”

    Israeli public opinion, said Danon, should matter to Obama.

    “Anyone who wants to be a fair moderator must enjoy the trust of both sides. In the past, the Arab side argued that the Americans are prejudiced in favor of Israel, but now we see that Israelis do not believe that Obama is a fair negotiator, and yet he still has not garnered the faith of the Arabs either. As a result, we see the difficulties in even initiating negotiations between the sides.”

    The president had also proved wanting on Iran, Danon continued.

    “He promised that by the end of the year, he would publish his opinion on Iran. The year is over and the only threats that have been heard are regarding Israel.”

    Without action, including “significant sanctions,” Danon warned, Obama’s statements would be rendered “insignificant.”

    Danon said he would spending most of his time in New York, meeting with Jewish organizational leaders as well as with Democratic donors and candidates in the upcoming congressional elections. He said that “the goal of the meetings is to pass on messages that the guilt for the failure of peace doesn’t lie in the hands of the Israeli government and that the pressure placed by Washington on the government and especially on the PM is not the right direction.”

    The Americans should internalize that Israel “has no real partner,” Danon said. But “instead of recognizing the reality, the government in Washington is making the Israeli government give in on significant topics, when it is clear that the government doesn’t get anything from the other side.”

    Danon said he would encourage Democratic candidates to express their stance on Israel “even if they are members of Obama’s party.”

    He said he hoped that pressure from donors and members of Congress could help enable “decision makers to understand that as long as there is no real partner, American pressure just strengthens Hamas and other supporters of terror.”

    The freshman Likud MK, who has already spoken out against his party chairman’s recognition of “two states for two peoples” and against the 10-month settlement building freeze, emphasized that he was not going to the United States to deliver official messages from Jerusalem.

    “I am passing along what I think, and it’s not necessarily in coordination with the prime minister.”

    Nevertheless, he said, “I think that the prime minister also understands the importance of expressing these positions, which represent large parts of the population, if not the majority of the Israeli public.”

    Danon emphasized that his stance on the Obama administration was not a reflection of anti-American sentiment, but rather a response to American policy.

    “I think that if the president of the United States tells Jews not to build in Jerusalem, and his representatives send threatening messages, the message that we need to be very clear in our response. We love the American people. We have a brave and longstanding alliance, but when there is a policy that is not correct, and that could harm our security interests, we must say so clearly.”

  5. Harry Hunter   Monday, January 18, 2010 at 3:09 PM

    The comments on my editorial have been most interesting and instructive, and the largely theological nature of the comments supports my original contention that the United States is in a religious war. It is not just a conflict between Israel and Arabs. It is our war, too. Thousands of Americans have died in this continuing conflict, so this nation has already paid an enormous price in blood and treasure for the right to sit at the negotiating table to deal with the source of this ongoing war: Israel’s relations with its neighbors. We have earned the right to set up the peace-conference table and to bring other involved parties to the table, and we should do so without delay.

    It is the best interest of my nation that primarily concerns me here. I seek an equitable two-state solution as a means to a greater degree of peace and security for me, my children, and my grandchildren. A more-just-than-unjust resolution of the Mideast Conflict, which has been brewing for more than sixty years now, would be good for many others besides Americans, but it is Americans whose blood and treasure I mainly seek to preserve and protect. That may be optimistic of me, but a one-state solution would mean no solution at all; such total Israeli domination would be an engraved invitation to the final, end-time cataclysm which some seem to desire but which I prefer to defer to a future millennium.

  6. John Charlton   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM

    Just for the record, I don’t think Obama should be supported in anything; let alone foreign policy; but even an illegitimate dictator as a foreign influence can, theoretically, move foreign countries to do something good. Not likely, but theoretically its possible. Harry evidently is very optimistic; more so than I. He is entitled to his opinion. As are you Benaiah, regarding the impossibility of this.

  7. John Charlton   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 1:45 PM

    Your application of these passages to the Modern Secular State of Israel has nothing to do with traditional Christianity or Judaism. The Modern State is secularist, 90% of the Jews there do not even believe Moses parted the Red Sea or receive tablets from God on Mt. Horeb! To say that these passages refer to the modern state is neither historically accurate, nor theologically consistent. But many American protestants believe this, even though it has no biblical support other than a mere assertion of association.

    Just because there is a political state in the Holy Land after the Ascension of Christ does not necessitate in any way that such a state pleases or displeases God, according to Christian theology. In Christianity, a state pleases God because it confesses Christ and promotes His doctrines regarding faith and morals. That is the traditional notion of Christianity.

  8. John Charlton   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    Mifouf,

    I do not think you have read the comments or editorial too carefully.

    First let me clarify. The Post & Email has no editorial policy regarding the resolution of the Israel – Palestinian conflict. I consider any opinion about it, which advocates a just resolution, acceptable. But I admit that as many as are there readers, there are as many opinions.

    Harry, above, is speaking about his hope that some resolution can be made, and clearly is hoping for the best, that’s his opinion, not The Post & Email’s policy; I have stated quite openly that I believe a one state solution is the best, and that is my opinion, not The Post & Email’s policy; both of us are expressing our personal views, as obviously we take a Christian point of view of these issues, which Jews and Muslims might take great offense at. I have posted Winston’s article on Obama, and Winston clearly takes the pro-Israel stance. This is principally a political question, and we all want peace; some of us are more critical or informed that others; some more optimistic. None of these opinions will result in anything; we are just sharing our personal views.

    In sum; when reading The Post & Email you might find comments and editorials you do not agree with. We never censor such material to please any one viewer or groups of viewers, since obviously, we are a news site read by individuals who have their own personal views, which are varied; even if many of us come here for news on the Eligibility question.

    Read what you like and don’t read what you don’t. But you cannot demand that others not express opinions which differ from your own on other issues.

    You can see from our news categories, that while we cover the Eligiblity question extensively, that is not the whole of the news we cover; in principal The Post & Email is to cover all news, as citizens show interest in it, without any control over what we discuss.

    As an Editorial policy, this is a Child friendly site; and we uphold biblical morality; I and my staff are Christians; so you can expect we will act accordingly in our editorial policy.

    Accordingly, if opinions do not attack Christianity, Christian morals, or constitutional principles; then The Post & Email is going to let them be expressed.

  9. mifouf   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 11:28 AM

    I have contributed to the support of Postnemail, and am very appreciative of these efforts to extract information about who is inhabiting the White House. However, it is extremely disappointing to see this site wading into the “two-state” issue. There are already two Palestinian states (Jordan and Gaza), and I am having trouble wraping my head around the idea that the world owes them a third failed state. They refused multiple offers, and make no secret of the fact that the destruction of Israel (all versions of Israel) is their driving long-term objective. This subject is completely aside from the issue of who resides in the White House, and suggests that there is an agenda at Postnemail that I was unaware of. This is a great pity, and I really do regret the conflict. I urge Postnemail to focus on the issue that has given you traction. The “Middle East Solution” is sucking you into a swamp.

  10. John Galt   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM

    An Alternative to a ‘Palestinian’ State

    By Moshe Feiglin

    21 Tevet, 5770 (Jan. 7, ’10)

    At a recent lecture in Los Angeles, I was asked about my alternative to a ‘Palestinian State’. The solution that I propose, promotion of Arab emigration, is predicated on the following points:

    A. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish Nation.
    B. There is no “Palestinian nation” and aspirations for a “Palestinian State” are strictly for Arab propaganda purposes. The Arabs of Israel and their terror organizations are being offered a state on a silver platter – something that has never happened to any other group in history. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly rejected this gift. The reason that they reject this more-than-generous offer is because their real and exclusive goal is not Arab sovereignty, but the destruction of Jewish sovereignty. Thus, any plan that relies on a third side, and particularly on the good will and cooperation of the Arab countries, is unrealistic.
    C. The solution for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be based on the facts on the ground and not on the fantasies of Oslo.

    There are three facts on the ground that support this position:

    1. The Arabs want to leave. Time and again, polls of the Arab public – including polls carried out by Arab institutions – show that a large majority of the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is interested in finding a better future elsewhere

    read the rest here

    http://www.jewishisrael.org/eng_contents/articles/article7021.html

    There is a distinct connection between the biometric law, Kadimah and Netanyahu’s battle against Feiglin. The majority of Jews in Israel today are more Jewish, more traditional, more rightist and more nationalist than ever before.

    read more here
    http://www.jewishisrael.org/eng_contents/articles/article7019.html

  11. Benaiah   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 1:04 AM

    Replacement Theology: “on Pentecost when the new nation of Israel was born in one day (the Church)…”

    The Church is not the new nation of Israel.

    “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery…

    Romans 11:17-21, 25 NIV
    17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

    25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

    “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

    The new Jerusalem “…[has] a great, high wall with twelve gates… On the gates …[are] written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. …The wall of the city …[has] twelve foundations, and on them …[are] the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

    Revelation 21:10-12, 14 NIV
    10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.

    14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Beniah, when St. Paul says that the branches have been broken off, branches have been grafted in, he is certainly saying that the Jews who converted to Christ on Pentecost Day make the new nation of Israel, and that the Jews who refused to believe no longer partake of the nation of Israel. But Paul is not speaking of racial or ethinic categories, but of the fundamental Christian doctrine that with the Redemption a new basis of nationhood is established, one that is spiritual and heavenly; and that is why St. Paul starts to speak of the Heavenly Jerusalem; and why St. John the Evangelist says that this new nation city will descend from Heaven, not be built up by men; because it is a work of grace through faith and charity and in hope.

    But in the above critique of Replacement Theology, there is a misstatement of Augustine’s theology; certainly Augustine never said that every occurance of Israel is to be understood as refering the the Church; that would be a ridiculous reading of the historical passages of the Bible. No Augustine espoused the 4 fold reading of the biblical text, in which one was historical, others moral, spiritual, or apocalyptic. Thus in those passages which refer to Israel in the historical sense, certain Augustine would admit they refered to the Jewish Nation; but the same passages in a spiritual sense refered to the Church. That is the theology of the Catholic Church before and after Augustine, and of many other Apostolic churches for the next 1800 years.

    As for Millenarianism, while a few early writers expressed the view that the 1000 year reign of Christ was an earthly paradise, the greater majority held that this was a metaphor for the era in which the God of Israel would favor Christians as His people, and reject unbelievers, whether Gentiles or Jews. The Catholic Church still holds to this reading, and Augustine did not invent it. The actual rejection of the 1000 year earthly paradise, has not yet reached a definitive statement in Catholic Theology; but the common and authoritative statements are all against it. It is of itself very inchoerent with the reading of St. Paul and the NT in general, which makes great paints to point out the Christianity is a religion of the world to come, not of this world.

    —————-

    This is why Christians have long approached the so-called Mid-East conflict from an entirely different point of view than Jews or Arabs; while it is true that many protestants in the USA have reverted to the OT view that there is still an earthly homeland or kingdom promised to Jews, racially, even to unbelieving Jews (unbelieving in either the Jewish or Christian sense); that never was the historic view of Christian writers for the last 1800 years or so.

    St. Paul says it, The old had passed away…that is replacement or a substitution; that does not mean that the old does not convey to the present.

    Take the example of Zolli, the chief rabbi of Rome during WWII. He was a very devout believing Jew, renowed for his honesty and integrity. When he saw what Pius XII did to save 100,000s of Jews (giving them fake documents to hiden them as Catholics in churches, convents, monasteries; Vatican passports to enable them to fee Europe) he was profoundly struck at heart by the example of Christian charity. Then one Passover (I am not sure if this was ’48 or ’57) during the high cerimonies in the principal Synagoge in Rome, Jesus Christ appeared to him and to his Jewish family, and stretched out His hands and blessed him, saying, “This will be the last time you worship here.” Whereup he converted to Christ and became the most devout Catholic. He said ever after that the Jewish Faith did not lead him away from Christ, but to Christ, if only one heeded what was written by the Jewish Prophets and opened ones mind to consider the claims of Christ.

    In this way the Old Convenant continues, but it is no longer salvific in itself, but only inasmuch as one follows it to Christ; that has ever been the Christian view. And even if you are not a Christian or believe a form of Christianity which has a different view, that is the historical approach.

    …………

    All this shows how the New Testament and different theological traditions among Christians lead them to see the Israel-Palentinian conflict differently than Jews or Muslims do; and that should suprise no one. But as I said, its not our conflict; they have to solve it.

  12. Benaiah   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 12:35 AM

    Replacement theology is the belief that the Church has replaced Israel, that the Israelites are no longer God’s chosen people, that the promises to Israel have been taken away from Israel and given to the Church, and that the term “Israel,” as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.

    The following is excerpted from:

    Israel: The Center of Divine History
    by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.
    http://www.levitt.com/essays/dh.html

    Israel: the Center of Divine History details the historical events of the last century that led up to the establishment of the modern nation of Israel.

    Augustine and Replacement Theology
    http://www.levitt.com/essays/dh.html#reptheology

    It was Augustine around A.D. 400 who ultimately articulated the idea, principally in his well-known work, The City of God. Augustine admitted that at one time he had espoused the doctrine of “Chiliasm,” the belief in a future millennium, in which the Church and redeemed Israel will be blessed by the personal return and reign of Christ on the earth. However, he had since come to the “more satisfactory” view [Replacement Theology] that the Church has replaced Israel forever. Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in fulfillment of prophecy, and the Jews were dispersed throughout the Roman empire. Judaism was branded in the New Testament as an imperfect religion that has been superseded by the Gospel of Christianity. Rome was in its ascendancy as the center of Christian thought and worship.

    Rather than looking to some political renewal on this present earth, Augustine taught that we should look to the New Jerusalem, the eternal city of God. In effect, he “leapfrogged” over the Millennium as a future event and saw the Millennial promises fulfilled in the Church age. He further envisioned the Second Coming of Christ as not ushering in the Millennium, but the Eternal State of the New Heaven, the New Earth, and the New Jerusalem.

    Christendom canonized Augustine as an official saint, and theologians throughout the Roman Empire accepted his doctrines. The Chiliasts were branded as holding aberrant views, if not heresy, and Augustinian Replacement Theology became the cornerstone of Roman Catholic concepts. In the later developments in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the European Reformation and the Anglican split, Replacement Theology continued essentially untouched. It was an important part of the standard Christian view of Israel, the world, and prophecy.

    The effect of all this [Replacement Theology] on Christian attitudes about Israel was devastating. In actuality, Replacement Theology disenfranchised Israel from having a continuing covenant relationship with God. Instead of looking at Jerusalem as the “City of the Great King,” in which Christ will reign for a thousand years upon His return, they saw Jerusalem’s perpetual desolation as much as a confirmation of Christianity as the destruction of Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea was a confirmation of Moses.

    Dominance of Replacement Theology in Church History

    This anti-Israel view continued as dominant in Christianity until the rise of Premillennial/Dispensationalism (along with Zionism) in the 19th century. Replacement Theology is still the majority view among professing Christian theologians, but Premillennialism is by and large considered a legitimate and vocal minority, at least in Evangelical Protestant circles.

    Thus, in relation to the rise of Zionism and Modern Israel, Christianity has brought a divided message. Some (the Premillennial/Dispensationalists) have applauded the rise of the new State of Israel as evidence of the near fulfillment of the Second Coming of Christ. However, many representatives of official Christianity (the Replacement Theologians) are either neutral or antagonistic.

    Christianity Both Pro- and Anti-Israel

    Such organizations as the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches have, for the last half-century, taken positions favoring the Arab and Moslem enemies of Israel. They have defended this bias partly by claiming representation in the various countries involved. But a vital part of this bias is based on the theological convictions that cannot abide the resurrection of Israel from the ashes of the Dispersion.

    It is with considerable reluctance that the Vatican has recognized Israel, and the Church’s primary interest is in asserting its influence in maintaining its Holy Places in Jerusalem. Similarly, the World Council of Churches has consistently pled the cause of Palestinians against the claims of Israel.

    Thus, Christianity has, because of its differing theological views about the future of Israel, had a divided attitude about Zionism and the revived State of Israel. Part of Christianity has expressed delight with the modern Israel, while part has been very negative toward Israel’s very existence.

  13. Durus   Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 12:09 AM

    Replacement theology would be any teaching that attempts to replace the children of Israel in God’s covenants with “the Church”.

  14. Durus   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 11:59 PM

    New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the Bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them are everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion of Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church’s relationship to Israel and her covenants as being “grafted in” (Rom. 11:17), “brought near” (Eph. 2:13), “Abraham’s offspring (by faith)” (Rom. 4:16), and “partakers” (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).

  15. Durus   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 11:42 PM

    Then why in Acts 9:15 did the Lord tell Ananias to seek out Saul of Tarsus because he was a chosen vessel unto God who was to share God’s name with the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel?

    Ac 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
    Ac 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

    If God had broken his covenant with the children Israel, like you say, which is the tenant of the replacement theology you are teaching, then he would not have included the children of Israel in the list of people that he was going to use Saul of Tarsus to reach for him.

    Those who think that God will ever break his covenants, even one of them, with the children of Israel are going to be sorrowfully mistaken that they believed that lie.

    Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
    Zec 2:9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.

  16. Benaiah   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 10:04 PM

    John,

    Yeshua is the messiah. However, replacement theology is a false theology…

    Benaiah

    ——————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: Benaiah, what is “replacement theology”? you lost me…

  17. Durus   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 5:38 PM

    David Rushton states in his article today on Canada Free Press, Why We Must Support Israel? Online: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19014

    I know that the Israelis have not been perfect and certainly most of them do not follow the God of the Land. I also know that according to Bible prophecy they have been scattered throughout the Nations. But, they are still God’s People and they always will be. And no matter what they might have done to contradict God’s laws, God’s covenant with Moses is still as valid today as it was when God made it. God does not break His Covenants.

    ———————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: But it is clear from the OT that the people of Israel broke the Old convenant, and that therefore God gave a New Convenant in Christ Jesus. Yes, even some very textually authentic modern Jews, who believe the OT, recognize that the Modern State of Israel is a group of secularists attempting at once to claim the ancient religious promise to which they are not entitled and use it to support their claim of a modern nation state as a democracy, which claim is also not justified because it is based on racial categories. No the modern state of Israel is not that foretold by Isaiah, because Isaiah did not talk about a restoration on a national scale of a Ghetto mentality.

    You see in the Medieval Jewish Ghetto only Jews were allowed in and could own land; that has a lot more in common with the modern state of Israel than the USA or the Kingdom of David of old ever did.

  18. Benaiah   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    “And so all Israel will be saved… ‘when I take away their sins.’ “

    Romans 11:1-10, 17-21, 25-27 NIV
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:1-10,%2017-21,%2025-27&version=NIV

    1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

    7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

    “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.” 9 And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”

    17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

    25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

    “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

    ———————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: And it is clear who this delieverer will be: its Christ Jesus; on Pentecost when the new nation of Israel was born in one day (the Church) Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled, for then Jews of all nations entered into the new Kingdom, which is not of this world; and hence Christians are freed from the blindness and darkness of old, which consisted in seeking an earthly kingdom.

  19. Durus   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 3:03 PM

    As for the nation/state of Israel, it is nowhere justified by OT or NT theology, is that really so?

    You might want to go back and read Isaiah 66:8-9

    Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
    Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

    Because that is exactly what happened on 14 May 1948 when the Jewish people gathered together in Israel and declared themselves a nation/state in a single day. The United States recognized Israel as a nation on that same day.

    In a simple, solemn, emotional ceremony at a Tel Aviv art museum that began with the singing of Hatikvah,” the national anthem, the state of Israel was proclaimed by the new Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, at 4 p.m. on May 14, 1948.

    ——————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Durus, if you think the prophet Isaiah was talking about the birth of a secularist, Jewish State, known today as Israel, I suggest you go and reread the entire Book of Isaiah from verse 1; you will see that the Prophet has nothing to say about secularists, but was talking about the coming of the Messiah. Israel, the modern state, does not even claim to be the Messiah, let alone to be the fulfillment of that passage. Most Jews in Israel don’t even believe Isaiah’s prophecies are true. Now how can such a society be the fulfillment of his prophecies? To claim that it is, is a contradiction in terms.

  20. David Crockett   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 7:57 AM

    Well John at first I was somewhat angered by the article but you certainly are making a point in respect to grave theological errors.

    You are right pointing out that in the argumentation the NT virtually is being erased.

    However I must stress that the two state solution already has been implemented by consequence of the fact that the is a state called Jordan and a state called Israel. Furthermore the creation of a third state by the name of Palestine would serve no other purpose than handing the Muslims a launching pad for the destruction of the state of Israel.

    The solution for the Muslims in the area would consist of relocating to their own state namely Jordan, Of course they will not as the whole ” Palestinian” problem was created such to have an excuse for claiming Judea, Samaria and of course Jerusalem.

    —————

    Mr. Charlton replies: David, the root of the problems also has to do with the history of the origin of the modern state of Israel. There is no reason for the modern State to be a theocracy (most of the Jews are atheists in Israel), nor to exclude Muslims per se; but when the Jewish state came into being it was engineered by Jewish secularists who basically staged a revolt. Their entrace into governance by force of arms was very much opposed politically by the Muslims, as can be understood, who did not want Jews in control of the state. You really cannot say to people who have been living for hundreds of years to forget that they lived there and tell them to go to Jordan. But the situation was exploited too, because the political leaders of the Palestian Muslims made it a point to urge them to go into exile as a way of fostering dissent. Could they not have remained in the new state.

    However there are other issues too: for example in Israel there is no equality before the law for Jews and non Jews. Jews get so much water, but non Jews are given less drinking water; when land is sold to a Jew, it cannever again be sold to a non Jew; when land is rented from a non Jew by a Jew, for 20 years or more, the Jew gets the right to buy it and force a sale. These laws of discrimination foster discontent and hatred.

    It is a bit easier for us as Americans to look at this with some detachment; we are mostly neither Jews nor Muslims, have a religious tradition of reconciliation (Christianity) and a political tradition of equality (US Constitution). But we must have the humility to realize that we cannot solve others’ political problems. They have to want peace and reconciliation, to achieve at least a civil concord, even if theologically there is no resolution for their diverse views.

  21. John Charlton   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 12:49 AM

    A one state solution would be better, but it would require that both sides live together in peace. Muslim’s have a religion which is political by nature and which seeks to bring war to non muslims; so a one state solution would have to require Musliims to reject that.

    So pratically a one state solution, wherein non Muslims have equal rights, and Muslims give up their religious politics, is just not possible.

    As for the state of Israel, it is nowhere justified by OT or NT theology; because even in the OT the Jewish prophets fortold that the kingdom would be taken away from them and they would be scattered to the ends of the earth for having rejected their Messaih; and this is was happened when the urged and procured the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; who HImself foretold exactly when the Temple would be thrown down and Jerusalem devastated.

    The ancient Christian view on this is that the Jews no longer enjoy the promise of the earthly kingdom, and only can get the heavenly one if they repent and believe in Jesus Christ; we Christians too only have a claim to the holy land, inasmuch as our religious sites are there; otherwise theologically speaking the region has no more importance than Syria or Greece.

    In the last hundred years or so, there has been a trend in Protestant theology in the USA to revert to an OT theology, in which the NT never happened.

    The Crucifixion of Christ is the most central point of human history, with His Sacrifice a new convenant opens the old one passes away (St. Paul).

    Grave theological errors on all sides only foster the division in the Holy Land today.

  22. Benaiah   Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 12:23 AM

    The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob supports a one-state solution called Israel.

    Simply put, the Palestinians are “aliens” living within the Jewish country of Israel. As aliens, they should have all the rights and privileges of citizenship.

    The Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades are simply organized criminals who are oppressing their own people. Israel needs to disarm them, and remove them from power. Then, Israel needs to do the following:

    Leviticus 19:18 NIV
    18 ” ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

    Numbers 15:15-16 NIV
    15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD: 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.’ ”

    Exodus 23:9 NIV
    9 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.

    Leviticus 19:33-34 NIV
    33 “ ‘When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Deuteronomy 10:17-19 NIV
    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 alien, giving him food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

    Deuteronomy 24:17 NIV
    17 Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.

    Leviticus 25:23-25 NIV
    23 “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. 24 Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. 25 If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold.”

  23. Benaiah   Friday, January 15, 2010 at 11:50 PM

    “…why not support Obama on the one initiative of his that would actually serve the best interests of our nation—an equitable two-state solution in Palestine?”

    Axe-wielding terrorist kills boy, 16, wounds 7-year-old
    http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2009_04_02.html

    Casualties of Failed 2 State Solution
    http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/

  24. Benaiah   Friday, January 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM

    “…why not support Obama on the one initiative of his that would actually serve the best interests of our nation—an equitable two-state solution in Palestine?”

    The Religion of Peace
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

  25. Benaiah   Friday, January 15, 2010 at 11:39 PM

    “…why not support Obama on the one initiative of his that would actually serve the best interests of our nation—an equitable two-state solution in Palestine?”

    …because it will be no more successful than Israel’s “unilateral disengagement” from the Gaza strip.

    Now then, why not support the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on the one initiative of his that would actually serve the best interests of our nation—an equitable one-state solution in the Land of Promise called Israel?

  26. Kathy   Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:56 PM

    We should be praying for Gods will to be done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.