[Creva4k]

Hello, I am interested in the Palestine/Israel situation and wondered what the Manchos community make of the following extract?
Thank you, Annalise


Who Is The New Israel
Again
Magazine Volume 12 Number 4 December 1989 Page 25-28
WHO IS
THE NEW ISRAELBy
John W. Morris, PH.DOn
May 14, 1948, thirty-eight people gathered in Tel Aviv to establish the modern
state of Israel. The establishment of this state provided a cause of great
rejoicing for the Jews who had waited and prayed for an opportunity to return to
a land they believed rightfully belonged to them. For the Palestinian residents
already living in this land as they had for centuries, the news was the
beginning of yet a new chapter in a history filled with tragedy, oppression, and
struggle. Even before that fateful day, war and bloodshed had already begun to
curse the Middle East as two peoples fought for control of the same land.


Both the Jews
and the Palestinians claim the Holy Land as their ancient ancestral home. As a
result, Israel has fought a series of wars with its Arab neighbors, invaded
Lebanon, and carried on raids against Palestinians throughout the Middle East.
The Palestinians have responded with terrorist attacks against Israeli targets
both within and outside of Israel. More recently, the native Palestinian
population of the East Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza, occupied by the Jewish
State following the war of 1967, has revolted against their conquerors,
unleashing yet another series of clashes as the Israelis frequently use brutal
tactics to halt the uprising.


Throughout the
bloody recent history of the Middle East, the United States has been a steadfast
ally of the Jewish State, sending billions of dollars in military and other
assistance. Much of this unconditional support has come from a surprising sector
of middle class America: conservative and evangelical Christians. The reason for
this support has been the adamant conviction among these Christians that the
establishment of modern Israel is the direct fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.


Is such unconditional support warranted? Do the
Scriptures in fact teach that the establishment of modern Israel constitutes a
direct fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Is the only appropriate Christian
response to the violent events of the Middle East one of unconditional
support for the Jewish cause and unilateral resistance to the plight of the
homeless Palestinians?


A TIME FOR REFLECTION


Never
in the recent history of the violent Middle Eastern powder keg has there been
more reason for neutrality and objectivity on the part of the United States. The
events of the past few years have revealed to many that the Palestinians on the
West Bank and the Gaza have legitimate claims to land and self-government. At
the same time, moderate Arab leaders like Hosni Mubarek of Egypt, and even
Yassir Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, have realized that the
Palestinian people will never regain complete control of all of Palestine. Thus,
they have expressed a willingness to recognize Israel in return for Jewish
recognition of a Palestinian State in those areas with a Palestinian majority.


Many Israelis, including
Shimon Peres and Yitshak Rabin of the Labor Party, are now realizing the
futility of continued struggle with the Palestinians and have expressed a
willingness to trade land for peace. Thus, after over 40 years of bloody
fighting, a real possibility for peace in the Middle East exists on the basis of
a compromise between the warring parties, provided that the moderate voices in
Israel are able to win the support of the majority or persuade the members of
the hard-liners to moderate their position.


It might
seem that such occurrences would and should persuade most Christians to abandon
unconditional support for Zionist [see inset] expansion and to enter
wholeheartedly into the process of reconciliation. However, a group of largely
conservative Protestant leaders continue to steadfastly support the Zionist
cause in its most extreme form. The Rev. Jerry Fallwell, a leading
Fundamentalist, once wrote: “If this nation wants her fields to remain white
with grain, her scientific achievements to remain notable, and her freedom to
remain intact, America must continue to stand with Israel”
(Listen America; New York, 1980, p. 98).


A CHART FOR ALL SEASONS


Fallwell and the
others who demand unconditional support for Israel consider the modern Jewish
State a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. They are heavily influenced by
dispensationalism, a method of Bible interpretation which became popular through
the writings of John Nelson Darby (died 1882). Darby, a one time cleric of the
Church of England, joined the Plymouth Brethren in 1831 and developed a
complicated system of Biblical interpretation that divides God’s saving action
into individual eras or dispensations. This scheme influenced thousands of
American Protestants through the Niagara Bible Conference of 1895 and the
publication of the Scofield Reference Bible by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield the next
year.

Dispensationalism
makes a strong distinction between the promises made to the Jews before Christ
and the reality of the Church after Pentecost. Thus dispensationalists teach
that God’s promises to the Jews were not fulfilled through the Church but
remained unfulfilled during the Church age. They consider the Church a new and
separate creation by God with its own separate agenda, not the heir to the
promises made by God to ancient Israel. Therefore, it is natural that the
dispensationalists should see the founding of the modern state of Israel as a
fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.


NOT MY TYPE


Dispensationalists
interpret the words, phrases, and sentences of the Bible in a very literalistic
manner. Thus they reject or fail to see the importance of an ancient and almost
universal principle of Biblical interpretation known as typology. Typology is
the method of Biblical understanding which seeks the spiritual meaning of the
historical events described in the Old Testament.

Fundamental to the
typological method of Biblical interpretation as practiced by the early and
later Fathers is the belief that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and completion
of the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. For example, the near
sacrifice of Isaac points towards the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The ark
that saved Noah and his family from the Flood is a type of the Church which
saves the faithful from sin and death. The burning bush is seen as a type of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, who bore God in the flesh, yet was not consumed by the
presence of the divinity within her womb.


The typological method is not
just the invention of the Fathers, but is based firmly on the New Testament. Our
Lord Himself used the example of Jonah as a type of the three days that He would
spend in the tomb (Matthew 12:40). He also compared the lifting up of the
serpent by Moses to his own ascent of the cross (John 3:14). Saint Paul
considered the passing through the Red Sea as a type for baptism (I Corinthians
10:1-2). Saint Peter even uses the term “antitype” to compare the ark with
baptism (I Peter 3:20-21). Thus the typological method of interpretation is
firmly grounded in the Holy Scriptures.


TYPOLOGY AND THE NEW ISRAEL


According to the typological
method, God’s promises to Abraham and his descendents were fulfilled through
Christ and His Church. One Orthodox scholar has written: “In Christ, then, the
covenant with Israel was fulfilled, transformed, and transcended. After the
coming of the Messiah—the Incarnation of God the Son—only those who are
‘built into Christ’ are counted among the people of God. In Christ, the old
Israel is superseded by the Christian Church, the new Israel, the body of
Christ; the old covenant is completed in the new covenant in and through Jesus
Christ” (George Cronk, The Message of the Bible; St. Vladimir Seminary
Press; 1982, p. 80).


This interpretation
of the covenant with Abraham and his descendents as fulfilled through Christ and
His Church is firmly grounded in the witness of the New Testament. In the
parable of the Vineyard Owner, our Lord uses the unfaithful tenants of a
vineyard to illustrate this point. The owner, representing God, sent his
servants, representing the prophets, and finally his son and heir, representing
Christ, to collect his rent. The tenants, who represent the Jews, ignored the
request for the rent and killed both the servants and the son of the owner of
the vineyard. At the end of the parable our Lord said, “Therefore what will
the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and
give the vineyard to others” (Mark 12:1-9). In other words, those who
faithfully believe in Him will inherit the status that Israel had before it
rejected the Messiah.


Saint Paul wrote, “Therefore
know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham . . . if you are
Christ’s then you are of Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the
promise” (Galatians 3:7-9). Indeed, Saint Paul called the body of believers
“the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Saint Peter illustrated this point by
applying terms used to describe Israel in the Old Testament when he wrote,
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own
special people” (I Peter 2:9).

Thus, according to the New
Testament, the standard against which all doctrine and Biblical interpretations
must be tested, God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents has been
fulfilled through Christ and His followers, not through a secular state, for
Christ said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).


It is true that there are some
Old Testament prophecies that speak of a restoration of Israel following the
destruction of Israel by Assyria and of Judah by Babylon. For example, Isaiah
wrote, “It shall come to pass that the Lord shall set His hand again the
second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left” (Isaiah 11:11).
Jeremiah prophesied, “For I will bring them back into their land which I gave
to their fathers” (Jeremiah 16:15). Micah said, “I will surely gather
the remnant of Israel” (Micah 12:12).


Indeed, God did restore Israel. The book of Ezra tells
how Cyrus, the King of Persia who had conquered Babylon, allowed the Jews to
return from exile and to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Significantly the
beginning of Ezra states that the events recorded are in fulfillment of the
prophecy of Jeremiah (Ezra 1:1). Thus the Old Testament prophecies cited in
support of the modern state of Israel were fulfilled long ago when the Jews
returned from the Babylonian captivity.

SONS OF ABRAHAM


The time has come for Christians
tocarefully reevaluate an attitude towards modern Israel which is based
on faulty premises. Both Church history and the Holy Scriptures teach clearly
that Christ and His Church are the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Saint Paul tells us that those who follow Christ in faith are the true children
of Abraham and heirs to the promises made by God to the Old Testament patriarch.
The prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel have already been fulfilled
and should not be applied carte-blanche to the modern state of Israel.

The Zionist State
was born in conflict between the claims of Jews to a homeland and the rights of
the native Palestinian inhabitants of the Holy Land. Christians should,
therefore, judge Israel on the same basis as other nations, and not accord to
the Jewish State a special status above reproach. Indeed, it is clear that while
both sides have committed atrocities, the Zionists have disregarded the rights
of the Palestinian people to national self-determination. Christians owe no
special allegiance to Israel, but should expect the Jewish State to adhere to
the same principles of justice and decency demanded of other nations. Indeed,
Christians should call the people of Israel to recognize the legitimate right of
all people to the same national self*determination that they claim for
themselves.

[INSET]

Although the current leaders of
Israel claim Palestine as their homeland, it was not their home for a period of
almost 2000 years. In 63 B.C. Pompey conquered Israel and placed the Hebrew
people under Roman rule, After two abortive Jewish revolts in A.D. 70 and 130,
the Romans expelled all but a handful of the Hebrew people from Palestine. Thus
the Jewish people lived for centuries in Europe and other parts of the world as
an often persecuted minority in countries dominated by others.

Even before the horrifying
murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis in this century, many Jews had begun
looking toward the possibility of re-establishing a nation of their own. In
1895, Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian Jew, published an influential case for a Jewish
homeland. In The Jewish State, Herzl called for the Jews to leave Tsarist
Russia and the other countries where they lived to organize a Jewish State.
Herzl’s arguments persuaded Jews from all over Europe to gather in Basil,
Switzerland, for the First Zionist Congress in August, 1897. This Congress
launched the campaign for the establishment of a Hebrew State in Palestine.


Zionism, the movement for the
foundation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, received a new stimulus with the
outbreak of the First World War. Hoping to win the sympathy of Jews living in
the lands of their enemies, the British issued the Balfour Declaration on
November 2, 1917. In this declaration, the English government pledged to
“favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people.”


At the end of the war, Palestine
was placed under a British mandate, giving Britain the opportunity to fulfill
her earlier commitment. As a result, Jews began moving to Palestine in large
numbers. By 1939 the Jewish population of Palestine had risen from about 85,000
before the war to 445,000. Palestine, the proposed Jewish homeland, was not,
however, an uninhabited land open to foreign colonization. Instead it was
occupied by about 650,000 Arabs, many of whom could trace their ancestry back to
Biblical times. After centuries of domination by the Ottoman Turks, these
Palestinian people now hoped for national self-determination as a part of Syria
or as an independent state following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at
the end of the First World War.


Instead of respecting the wishes
of the Palestinians, the victors placed them under another foreign government by
establishing the British mandate. The Palestinians had no desire totrade
British domination for Jewish domination through the establishment of a Jewish
State in their homeland. Thus the Palestinians, who numbered 1,056,000 at the
beginning of the Second World War, resisted the efforts of the Zionists through
a series of riots, attacks on Jewish settlements, general strikes, and refusal
to pay taxes to the English.

The Zionists, however, were
better organized and financed than the native Palestinians, who were mostly poor
tenant farmers on land owned by Lebanese or Syrian landlords. As a result, the
Jews were able to buy large tracks of land and to dispossess the Palestinian
tenant farmers. They also organized a secret army, the Haganah, in 1919. The
Haganah fought both the Arabs and the British, who attempted to find a
compromise between the conflicting sides. In 1937 an even more militant group of
Zionists formed the Irgun to fight the British and Palestinians. The result was
a series of bloody clashes between the various parties in the dispute.


The Nazi tyranny and the Second
World War created a large number of Jewish refugees and radically intensified
the struggle. In an effort to prevent further conflict between Jew and Arab, the
British attempted to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Zionists
responded with a campaign of terror against both the Arabs and the British
authorities. Jewish terrorists assassinated Lord Moyne, the British minister in
the Middle East in 1944, and carried on other attacks against the English. In
1946, Zionist extremists blew up the British headquarters at the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem killing almost 100 people.


Finally, the British grew tired
of trying to find a solution that would pacify both the Palestinians and the
Zionists and turned the matter over to the newly formed United Nations. After
much discussion, the United Nations voted on November 29, 1947, to partition
Palestine into two states, a Jewish State and a Palestinian State. The
Palestinians rejected the plan because it would place an Arab minority of 45% in
the proposed Jewish State. Thus the Palestinians resorted to violence to oppose
the partitioning of their homeland with the support of neighboring Arab States.

The Jews, however, accepted the
UN resolution and gathered forces to respond to the Palestinian attacks. The
violence reached a climax on April 9, 1948, when extremists massacred the entire
population of Dier Yassin, an Arab village near Jerusalem. Although the Haganah
and the Jewish Agency condemned the murder of 250 men, women, and children, many
Palestinians panicked lest they too fall victim to Zionist atrocities. As a
result thousands of Arabs fled to neighboring countries, vacating most of the
Arab villages in the proposed Jewish State, and creating the Palestinian refugee
problem. By the end of 1949, there were almost 750,000 Palestinian refugees in
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip.


Meanwhile the Zionists accepted
the UN partition and proclaimed the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, the day the
British left Palestine. The next day, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq came to the aid of
the Palestinians. However, the Jews were victorious and the war ended in a truce
in early 1949. The new Zionist State was even larger than the Jewish State
proposed by the UN resolution. This only intensified the Palestinian refugee
problem and resulted in the destruction of 374 Arab villages. Throughout the
next twenty years, Israel successfully defended its territory during a series of
wars with its Arab neighbors. Finally, the Jewish State conquered the West Bank
and Gaza in 1967, bringing over 1,000,000 Palestinians under Zionist domination.


The Rev. Fr. John Morris is pastor of Saint John
Chrysostom Orthodox Church in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

[9mm_fan]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Church constitutes the continuing community of the worshipping people of God. The modern secular state of Israel is just another repressive government, founded by terrorists (Zionists). We would do well not to be so involved but between the Christian Millenialists trying to force the Second Coming and Jewish lobby, I don't see big changes happening any time soon.

[immoceefe]

Apart from recognizing the state of Israel, the U.S. was not an ally or supporter of Israel until President Johnson rushed to supply it during the war in 1967. Nixon saw Israel as a kind of buffer against Soviet influence in the region. The quasi apocalyptic American protestant view of Israel is a later phenomenon, and a striking one, considering that most American protestants were pretty strongly anti-Jewish up to that point. The extent to which it actually influences our foreign policy, however, is questionable, since such people don't have a whole lot of influence in Washington.

The article by the priest is, all in all, a diatribe. There is plenty of sin to go around and to just list modern Israel's sins suggest a fixation with Jews. He takes a convenient starting point, and does not mention the fact that the grand mufti of Jerusalem was a member of the SS and his goal was to kill every Jew in Palestine. Had the Nazis been successful in taking over Palestine during the war, the half a million plus Jews living there would have all been killed.

Some people just need to get over past humiliations. The Arabs in particular.

[finnmontserrat]

I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything Fr. John says. Naturally, it is not the complete picture - something you're unlikely to find anywhere - but it's a good summary and I welcome the his words regarding Christian involvement with the Zionist state.

[DF9sLGSU]

Is the only appropriate Christian response to the violent events of the Middle East one of unconditional support for the Jewish cause and unilateral resistance to the plight of the homeless Palestinians? No. What he, like so many in the west forget is that there are Palestinian Christians, many of whom are Orthodox, and most of whom are as persecuted by the Israelis as they are by their Muslim Palestinian fellows. A prayer or two for them would be a more appropriate response.

It may be, as Owen suggests, that US support for Israel dates mainly from post 1967, but at the risk of introducing history into the discussion, the US was rather a late-comer on the scene. As early as 1840 Palmerston was bombarded with petitions from British Christians asking him to ensure that the British Government returned the Holy Land to the Jews so that the conditions necessary for the Second Coming would be realised. Similar thinking lay behind the Balfour declaration of 1917. The modern American Christian Zionists simply come at the end of a long line of such Protestant thinking.

To say that:
Finally, the British grew tired of trying to find a solution that would pacify both the Palestinians and the Zionists and turned the matter over to the newly formed United Nations is far too kind on the duplicity and cowardice of the Attlee Government.

The most appropriate Orthodox response is to pray - especially for the unfortunate Palestinian Christians.

John

[Ltftujkg]

Apart from recognizing the state of Israel, the U.S. was not an ally or supporter of Israel until President Johnson rushed to supply it during the war in 1967. .

I am not commenting on the article that was posted but on the above statement. Owen, I suggest you read just how Israel was recognized as a State and what methods were used by the US to ensure this happened.

Effie

[Creva4k]

Thanks for all the comments. I must say that several of my countrymen (Black and White) have been to Israel/Palestine and have commented that it is as bad as apartheid was and that the Palestinian territories are like the Bantustans of the former South Africa. As Christians surely it is imperative for us always to stand on the side of true justice? Yes, the situation is complex, as was our situation in South Africa but by emphasising the truth and embracing our common humanity this situation can and must be overcome.

Annalise
(Please see Metropolitan Philip Saliba's writings for more)

[immoceefe]

The notion that there is a group of people called Palestinians and a group of people who are Jews but not Palestinians, seems to be behind a general misconception. There were several hundred thousand jews living in the Holy Land, prior to WWII who go way back to before there were ever any Muslims or Christians there. To recognize that fact does not make one a zionist.

The situation there is a mess, but as long as the Arabs see themselves as victims who will never rest until they satisfy their blood lust against the jews, I don't see a solution.

I live in the American South. The Confederacy was badly beaten by the North during the Civil War. The South was laid waste. 20% of the adult males were killed. Many counties in the South went from prosperity to extreme poverty that lasted over a hundred years. Many in the South were resentful, and took out their resentment on the indigenous black populations. The South did not begin to recover until a hundred years later, when Yankee capital and retirees began to move south (due, in part, to the invention of air conditioning).

Whites in the South have basically now accepted the Yankee creed of capitalism and are doing quite well. Many of not most blacks still harbor a victimology, not unlike that of the Arab Palestinians, and I suspect it will take another 100 years for that attitude of victimology to dissipate. Perhaps it will happen more quickly in the Holy Land, but I doubt it. Meanwhile, there are no saints in the picture. The Isrealis are hardly unified in what course to take, and their politics are chaotic, to say the least. Israel was founded on the principles of European agragrian socialism of the 19th century, and almost nobody believes in that anymore. It certainly was not founded on a religious definition of Judaism. Today, Israelis are searching for some identity, and many claim to have found that only in a return to Orthodox Judaism, although it is still an extreme minority in numbers it has increasing influence politically. Then there are the secretive faction of Kabbalists who I believe hold a certain influence in Jerusalem.

To blame America or Americans for the situation there is slanderous and stupid. America has been helpful by and large to the peace process, and has shown a willingness to deal with terrorists on both sides, i.e. Sharon on the one side and Arafat on the other.

Instead of self-righteous posturing, the Orthodox faithful ought to be doing more to materially assist Christian Arabs in the region, and try to stay out of the politics as much as possible, perhaps trying to serve some intermediary functions. There is plenty of blame to go around.

As for the recognition of Israel by Harry Truman, this is hardly the cause of the problems there.

[Ltftujkg]

As for the recognition of Israel by Harry Truman, this is hardly the cause of the problems there.

I don't think anyone said that. I was replying to a specific sentence in your first post. In 1948 the US was definitely supporting Israel, perhaps not economically, something I do not know, but certainly, without the help of the US, the state of Israel would not have come into existence.

[Creva4k]

To blame America or Americans for the situation there is slanderous and stupid. America has been helpful by and large to the peace process, and has shown a willingness to deal with terrorists on both sides, i.e. Sharon on the one side and Arafat on the other. Owen, please see the list of those United Nations resolutions regarding the Middle Eastern situation that were vetoed by America below: this surely does not indicate a position "helpful" to the peace process?

July 1973, S/10974

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

January 1976, S/11940

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

March 1976, S/12022

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

June 1976, S/12119

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US) 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

April 1980, S/13911

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

April 1982, S/14943

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

April 1982, S/14985
Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.
June 1982, S/15185

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1

Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.

The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

August 1983, S/15895

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance

September 1985, S/17459
Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

January 1986, S/17769

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

January 1988, S/19466

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

April 1988, S/19780

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

February 1989, S/20463

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

June 1989, S/20677

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

May 1990, S/21326

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

May 1995, S/1995/394

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

March 1997, S/1997/199

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)

The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

March 1997, S/1997/241

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US)], 1 abstention.

The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

March 2001, S/2001/270

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

December 2001, S/2001/1199

Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.

In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.

[Ltftujkg]

A sorry record.


Everyone knows that Israel gets the lions share of all US aid and that it gets even more if we take into consideration other methods used by the US government to provide Israel with weapons etc.

This country has nuclear weapons which are not inspected by any international organization because Israel has not signed the necessary agreement for arms control.



"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." Ariel Sharon

[popsicesHoupe]

Owen, please see the list of those United Nations resolutions regarding the Middle Eastern situation that were vetoed by America below: this surely does not indicate a position "helpful" to the peace process?

Many of the U.N. resolutions were totally one-sided in their condemnation of Israel, while ignoring atrocities committed by Palestinian terror groups. The U.S. vetoes were usually a recognition of this one-sidedness, as well as a recognition that the oft-insisted-upon "right of return" would amount to demographic suicide for Israel. The resolutions were not really helpful to the "peace process" in the first place. Undoubtedly, there are exceptions - I don't see any obvious reason for the veto of the 2001 resolution (though it called for compliance with recommendations of other reports, and I haven't read them all) - but I think it's true in general.

One of the primary problems in dealing with the issues between Israel and the Palestinians is that we are not just dealing with two different perspectives. We might as well be dealing with two different realities. The famous Mitchell Report stated this well.

Divergent Perspectives: During the last seven months, these views have hardened into divergent realities. Each side views the other as having acted in bad faith; as having turned the optimism of Oslo into suffering and grief of victims and their loved ones. In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other.

The Palestinian Perspective: For the Palestinian side, “Madrid” and “Oslo” heralded the prospect of a State, and guaranteed an end to the occupation and a resolution of outstanding matters within an agreed time. Palestinians are genuinely angry at the continued growth of settlements and at their daily experiences of humiliation and disruption as a result of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories. Palestinians see settlers and settlements in their midst not only as violating the spirit of the Oslo process, but also as application of force in the form of Israel’s overwhelming military superiority.

The PLO also claims that the GOI has failed to comply with other commitments, such as the further withdrawal from the West Bank and the release of Palestinian prisoners. In addition, Palestinians expressed frustration with the impasse over refugees and the deteriorating economic circumstances in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Israeli Perspective: From the GOI perspective, the expansion of settlement activity and the taking of measures to facilitate the convenience and safety of settlers do not prejudice the outcome of permanent status negotiations…

Indeed, Israelis point out that at the Camp David summit and during subsequent talks, the GOI offered to make significant concessions with respect to the settlements in the context of an overall agreement.

Security, however, is the key GOI concern. The GOI maintains that the PLO has breached its solemn commitments by continuing the use of violence in the pursuit of political objectives…

According to the GOI, the Palestinian failure takes on several forms: Institutionalized anti-Israel, anti-Jewish incitement; the release from detention of terrorists; the failure to control illegal weapons; and the actual conduct of violent operations… The GOI maintains that the PLO has significantly violated its renunciation of terrorism and other acts of violence, thereby significantly eroding trust between the parties. (ellipses are present in the online text I referenced; I did no editing)

In Christ,
Mike

[Ltftujkg]

Israel is now cutting off the electricity to Gaza. As you know Israel controls it's borders and its sea.

"Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza in June prompted Israel to close the territory's borders to nearly everything except fuel, water, electricity and humanitarian relief. Last month the Cabinet declared Gaza a "hostile territory," clearing the way for a security panel to draft a plan for tighter sanctions. Defense Minister Ehud Barak's approval Thursday set the plan in motion.

"Because this is an entity that is hostile to us, there is no reason for us to supply them with electricity beyond the minimum required to prevent a crisis," Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio.

Israeli officials said they would not cut power to hospitals.

The sanctions plan also calls for cutbacks in Israeli supplies of fuel to Gaza as part of a long-term disengagement from the territory, but officials said they were focusing first on reducing the supply of electricity.

Israeli commentators said the government was moving gradually, testing how thoroughly it could isolate Gaza without widespread international protest. As an occupying power, Israel would be obligated under international law to provide essential services to Gaza and restricted in its use of sanctions.

"The measures Israel seeks to implement are based on the legal assumption that Gaza is no longer under occupation since the Israeli troop pullout," Yuval Shani, an international law expert, told Israel Radio. "That position is not shared by most countries or even most legal experts. Even if some of the measures will be legally defensible, there will be a diplomatic price."



"Legal and International Status - The West Bank and Gaza, with the exception of Jerusalem, were not annexed to Israel. Unlike the Golan Heights or Sinai, these areas did not belong to a sovereign nation whose sovereignty was recognized de jure (by law) after 1948. They were slated to be part of the Palestinian state to be created by the UN Partition plan of 1947, but that state never came into being. They were annexed by Jordan after the Israeli war and the annexation was given de facto recognition by most European states, but in the absence of a negotiated peace treaty, it was not recognized by law. Therefore, the Israeli government considers that the territories are not "occupied," land of a previous sovereign, and that the regulations of the Geneva Convention of 1949 do not apply to the West bank and Gaza Strip. These regulations prohibit confiscation of land for purposes other than security. In practice however, most of the world considers that the territories are occupied and that the settlements are illegal. The Israeli high court however, treats the West Bank and Gaza strip as if human rights provisions relating to occupied territories do apply. The United States considers that the settlements are an "obstacle to peace" but has never taken a stand on their legality. "

Hamas is the legally elected government of Palestine, but just where is Palestine? Looking at a map I can see the Gaza strip - a ghetto controlled by the Israelis - and I can see the West Bank - occupied by Israel and the Golan Heights.

I can't see "Palestine" anywhere.

It's hard to see how anyone can defend the Israelis. They have stolen Arab land, they have created ghettos, they have built their infamous apartheid wall, they have burnt most of the olive trees Arabs hold sacred and are an essential part of their life - ensuring they don't starve. They use tanks against civilians, and all this while claiming they are victims!! Enough is enough.

Look at maps of this area and see the real truth for Israel's aggression. They have been systematically squeezing the Arabs out of the area for years and have nearly finalized their plan. And, as I said before, all this while playing the victim.

[Creva4k]

Thank you for your interesting messages, Mike and Effie. Mike, I agree with what you are saying that there are 2 views; which seem to refleect 2 entirely different realities. The key will be to allow each side to have empathy with the other. However, there is just question I have: I am not sure that is is acceptable for Israel to argue that the right of return of refugees would be demographic suicide, implying that it would destroy Israel and its people? This was not the case in South Africa when black people (by far the majority) were allowed to return to the country after being exiled and forced to live in appalling conditions in black homelands (Bantustans) - by the way, they also resorted to using arms and violent protest to bring about change, after decades of oppression. Also in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Rwanda refugees had the right to return.

Palestinian refugees number in their millions (over 3 million, according to the UN) and consititute the largest and oldest refugee problem in the world at present. And since 1948, the U.N., with the backing of the international community, has agreed on the right of dispossessed Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. It has been affirmed over 100 times.

As noted in a letter by Rania Awwad:
"Demographic research has shown that, right now, 78% of Israelis are living on only 14% of the land, while the remaining 22% live on 86% of land from where many Palestinian refugees originate. In 86% of Israel, the population density is just 82 per square mile, compared with 4,400 persons per square mile in Gaza. Is there any logic whatsoever to having 2,400 refugees on one square kilometer in Gaza while any one of them can look over the barbed wire to see his land practically empty? The total number of Palestinian refugees in Gaza and Lebanon roughly equals the number of Russian immigrants who came to Israel in the 1990s to settle down. What right brings in Russians but deprives Palestinian refugees of the right to return home?"

The reason I think this thread is so crucial to Christians is that the whole issue of Israel is so central to our faith: we need to find the truth in the whole situation. And then to tackle it honestly and justly and not allow the Bible to be used to defend the indefensible, as was done in apartheid South Africa.

With kind regards,
Annalise

[finnmontserrat]

Personally I'm interested in seeing what happens when the Orthodox Jews become the majority in Israel; an inevitability since they have much higher birthrates than the secular population.

Mainly because the state of Israel would finally become Jewish state in the religious sense, and not the secular state the founding fathers of Zionism - all godless atheists - had in mind.

Secondly it would create a major shake-up of the way Israel functions. Secular Jews often accuse the religious community of being scroungers since most are exempt from national service (which interferes with their religious education) and pay very little tax while receiving huge state hand-outs.

The Orthodox Jewish community also seems more anti-Palestinian than the secular community, yet Israel only has an upper hand because of military and economic superiority, which would certainly be eroded were the Orthodox Jews to become a majority (unless they change their way of life that is).

[popsicesHoupe]

However, there is just question I have: I am not sure that is is acceptable for Israel to argue that the right of return of refugees would be demographic suicide, implying that it would destroy Israel and its people? This was not the case in South Africa when black people (by far the majority) were allowed to return to the country after being exiled and forced to live in appalling conditions in black homelands (Bantustans) - by the way, they also resorted to using arms and violent protest to bring about change, after decades of oppression. Also in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Rwanda refugees had the right to return.

I see two primary differences in the situations.

First is the mindset. While I am not overly familiar with the history of South African black resistance to injustice and oppression, I believe that it does not prominently feature calls for the total extermination of their oppressors - something which features prominently in the history of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. I cannot blame Israeli Jews for fearing for their lives were they to become a minority in Israel.

Second is the difference in the definitions of "refugee". Normally "refugee" refers only to people who were forced to flee their homes due to conflict or persecution. In the UN resolutions regarding the Palestinians, that has been expanded to include any descendants of those individuals - drastically increasing the number of people who would be given a right to "return". It also includes not just those who were forced out, but those who voluntarily left before the wars of 1948 and 1967 at the urging of Arab governments, with the expectation that they could return after Israel was defeated.

There is a fairly balanced Wikipedia article on the Palestinian Right of Return that presents the major arguments on both sides.

The reason I think this thread is so crucial to Christians is that the whole issue of Israel is so central to our faith: we need to find the truth in the whole situation. (emphasis added)

That is the part that is so very difficult. Saying there are different realities does not just apply to the way Israeli Jews and Palestinians see the situation, but also to the way the situation is presented to the outside world.

Effie said it was hard to see how anyone could defend the Israelis. The answer is really quite simple - the "reality" that defenders of the Israelis see through their news sources bears almost no resemblance to the "reality" that defenders of the Palestinians see through their news sources. Indeed, from the "reality" they are presented with, defenders of the Israelis have a hard time seeing how anyone can defend the Palestinians.

The first reality sees a protective fence to guard against terrorist attacks; the second sees an "apartheid wall". The first sees tremendous Israeli restraint in the face of unthinkable hatred and intense provocations; the second sees callous Israeli aggression against an oppressed and impoverished people. And most who buy into one "reality" can't understand how those buying into the other can be so blind.

There is an old saying that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." When it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, however, everyone has their own facts. And figuring out which ones are really facts is a very difficult exercise.

In Christ,
Mike

[Creva4k]

Normally "refugee" refers only to people who were forced to flee their homes due to conflict or persecution. In the UN resolutions regarding the Palestinians, that has been expanded to include any descendants of those individuals - drastically increasing the number of people who would be given a right to "return". Mike, surely the same criteria have been applied to the Jews who "returned" and continue to "return" to Israel?

While I am not overly familiar with the history of South African black resistance to injustice and oppression, I believe that it does not prominently feature calls for the total extermination of their oppressors - something which features prominently in the history of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. I cannot blame Israeli Jews for fearing for their lives were they to become a minority in Israel. One thing: in South Africa a common call/slogan during the struggle for liberation was "One Boer (i.e. white Afrikaner), one bullet". By no means everyone subscribed to this slogan, but it stirred up a lot of fear (as did the bombs and violence prevalent at the time, as well as the supposed "communist threat" from South Africa's neighboring countries). The goal of the majority of Palestinians is not to "push the Jews into the ocean" as many people unfortunately believe; they simply want to be able to go from one side of a city to the next without having to pass through the checkpoints that serve as a daily reminder of occupation. The want to be able to raise their children in a free land that they can call Palestine. They want what everyone else in the world should have; their freedom and a country.

Also, I may be mistaken, but is Palestine not the only country in the world that in recent times actually has been wiped off the map?

Kind regards
Annalise

[TimEricsson]

Mat. 27,24-25
God bless
dimitri

[Ltftujkg]

I see two primary differences in the situations.



Effie said it was hard to see how anyone could defend the Israelis. The answer is really quite simple - the "reality" that defenders of the Israelis see through their news sources bears almost no resemblance to the "reality" that defenders of the Palestinians see through their news sources. Indeed, from the "reality" they are presented with, defenders of the Israelis have a hard time seeing how anyone can defend the Palestinians.

The first reality sees a protective fence to guard against terrorist attacks; the second sees an "apartheid wall". The first sees tremendous Israeli restraint in the face of unthinkable hatred and intense provocations; the second sees callous Israeli aggression against an oppressed and impoverished people. And most who buy into one "reality" can't understand how those buying into the other can be so blind.

There is an old saying that "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." When it comes to the Israelis and the Palestinians, however, everyone has their own facts. And figuring out which ones are really facts is a very difficult exercise.

In Christ,
Mike

Mike, putting aside opinions and feelings for the moment, look at the facts.

Look at the distribution of the land, look at the laws that have been passed against the Arabs, look at what the Jews had in the past and what they have now. I was once very sympathetic to the Jews and what they had suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany, but look at what they are doing now.
Put yourself in the place of a Palestinian - an ordinary palestinian who has no connection with any groups terrorist or otherwise - I should say here that the word "terrorist" is subject to many meanings, it all depends on who is using it - and then ask yourself how you would feel towards the Israelis.

Last night on the news, we heard that fuel would also now be rationed - you know of course that even in this area of the world winter is hard - it even snows. These measures against the Arabs remind me of similar measures taken against the Jews more than 50 years ago.

Emotion and feeling have nothing to do with the conclusions my mind has come to. I know no Arabs and although I met some Jews in the past, I was too young to have formed any opinion whatsoever. My opinions are based on "facts". Facts are facts. The first book I read that started to form my opinion about Israel and Palestine was "O Jerusalem" by two French reporters.
A good book. Very objective and full of "facts".

I realize that most of us get our information from TV stations. I don't. I read a lot and I try to research what I am interested in. No one side is ever entirely innocent in conflicts but injustice, no matter how people try to cover it up and supply us with disinformation, can usually be uncovered and seen for what it is.

Effie

[popsicesHoupe]

Mike, surely the same criteria have been applied to the Jews who "returned" and continue to "return" to Israel?

Not really. There are different dynamics at work for each.

The Palestinian "right of return" is derived from international law and human rights agreements. The basic principles are widely agreed upon, but the bounds have - as previously noted - been much expanded in this application, which is a major sticking point. The Israeli "law of return", on the other hand, is grounded in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (and the memorandum of 1922) establishing British Palestine (excluding Transjordan) as a Jewish national homeland.

One thing: in South Africa a common call/slogan during the struggle for liberation was "One Boer (i.e. white Afrikaner), one bullet". By no means everyone subscribed to this slogan, but it stirred up a lot of fear (as did the bombs and violence prevalent at the time, as well as the supposed "communist threat" from South Africa's neighboring countries).

That's one I hadn't heard (though, like I said, I'm not much up on what went on there). If that attitude had been widely taught to children in schools, it would be fairly parallel to the situation in the Palestinian territories.

The goal of the majority of Palestinians is not to "push the Jews into the ocean" as many people unfortunately believe; they simply want to be able to go from one side of a city to the next without having to pass through the checkpoints that serve as a daily reminder of occupation. The want to be able to raise their children in a free land that they can call Palestine. They want what everyone else in the world should have; their freedom and a country.

You can make a similar statement the other way. The majority of Jews have no desire to humiliate or oppress the Palestinians; they just want to be able to go to work or to the mall or to a friend's house without fear of being blown up.

Unfortunately, "normal" people don't make dramatic news, so the hotheads get the most airtime. The rest of us are left trying to puzzle out just how typical (or atypical) the Palestinian rock-throwers and Israeli firebrands really are. I worry more about the Palestinian side because anti-Semitism and the illegitimacy of Israel are taught in the schools, though whether that's because the sentiment really is widespread, or just because Fatah and then Hamas have been in charge, is an open question. It does seem that many who would love to live in peace with Israel are afraid to say so openly for fear of Hamas.

Also, I may be mistaken, but is Palestine not the only country in the world that in recent times actually has been wiped off the map?

Palestine was not really a "country" in recent times. It was part of the Ottoman Empire from the 1500s up through World War I, after which it became part of the British Mandate of Palestine (which actually included all of current Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan, though the latter was later excluded from the plan to create a Jewish homeland). The 1947 partition plan created by the UN would have created both a Jewish state and an Arab Palestine, but it was rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders (though, after looking at the map, I think the only reason the Jewish leaders accepted it was post-Holocaust desperation for a homeland - both territories looked like a set of Rorschach inkblots).

After the 1948 war, the armistice agreements partitioned out all land not held by Israel to Jordan (West Bank), Syria (part of the Golan Heights), and Egypt (Gaza). None of those lands were made independent between then and when Israel captured them in the 1967 war. So the current situation is really the closest Palestine has been in recent times to being an independant nation.

In Christ,
Mike