Posted on 06/04/2003 5:59:18 AM PDT by SJackson
Last month I received an e-mail from one of the many grassroots, pro-Israel evangelical Christian organizations which have sprung up in recent years, asking if the Post could report on a recent visit to the US by Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky that it had sponsored.
After politely explaining we could not cover every solidarity visit to America by an Israeli politician, I received this response: "Calev, I understand! Resources are hard to come by in Israel. That is why our organization raised the money to bring the Knesset members here to the US... I am sure you are aware of the newfound friendships between the evangelical Christians and Jews around the world. This organization was birthed with that in mind... We desire to be a blessing to Israelis, to bring encouragement to your citizens through your leaders. We believe that by removing the leaders from Israel to give them a time of 'rest' and 'refreshing' in the US, it will strengthen their resolve to stand firm for the good of all of Israel upon their return. Israelis need to know that there are Americans working actively within our government to defend them. Your people need hope and we desire to bring that to all of you who are suffering in the land. We want so much to do something!
"May the Almighty continue to bless all that you put your hand to! Regards, Laurie Moore, Co-Chairman, The Association for Israeli and American Interaction."
Whew! Cynical, hardbitten Israeli that I am, I admit to being a little overwhelmed by the apparent sincerity and depth of the almost naive goodwill expressed in that reply. (Never mind the fact that many Israelis would feel a little "refreshed" and "rested" if more of our Knesset members were removed from here on a permanent basis.) In these dark days for Israel on the international stage, it's practically disconcerting to be the recipient of the unabashed support expressed by Ms. Moore and her coreligionists toward the citizens of this small, embattled state.
Still, many Jews, especially those with liberal values like myself, have been almost instinctively suspicions of the warm embrace Israel has received in recent years from the evangelical Christian community. And not without reason(s): There is the evangelical emphasis on missionizing; the problematic theological role the Nation of Israel occupies in the Revelations-based apocalyptic scenario that is a tenet of Christian millenarianism; the suggestion that maintaining this relationship requires the traditionally liberal American-Jewish community to adopt stances on issues like abortion and church-state separation more amenable to Israel's newfound fundamentalist Christian supporters; and especially the growing links between right-wing American-Christian and Israeli leaders which make the former's support appear politically partisan.
BEYOND THOSE substantive issues, there is also a cultural divide at play here. Like the majority of Jews both in Israel and in the US, I've never had much personal contact with evangelical Christians. As a native New Yorker I am at ease among even the most religious Roman Catholics, but fundamentalist Protestants still feel to me as if they belong to a different universe, socially as well as religiously.
Despite all this, on the whole I've viewed the growing evangelical embrace of Israel as a positive phenomenon. True, I'm not thrilled by a vision of the future that sees the Nation of Israel reduced one day to a decimated remnant that accepts Jesus but I'll worry about that when it happens.
A comparison of sorts could be made with singer Whitney Houston's recent visit to Israel. I doubt many Israelis would feel comfortable delving into the theological beliefs of the Black Hebrew community that arranged her trip. But at a time when almost no celebrities are coming here especially Jewish ones it's no wonder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took time out of his schedule to personally welcome Houston.
As for missionizing, this is a basic tenet of Christianity, and one the Jewish world must come to terms with. Obviously, there are limits: Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, one of the most fervent supporters of the "Zionist Christian" movement, rightly broke with Southern Baptist Convention leader Bailey Smith when the latter made his infamous 1997 declaration that "God Almighty does not hear the prayers of Jews." But Judaism, no longer a persecuted religion in most places where it is practiced, must now counter proselytizing by competing as best it can in the open marketplace of religious ideas, not by automatically condemning those who missionize.
As for finding common ground between liberal Jews and conservative Christians over Israel, it should be made clear to both sides that such Zionist support must remain unconditional; abortion, school prayer, etc., are separate issues and should remain so. It's also worth noting that until now it is has been more a tendency among right-wing Republican Jewish pundits, not their Christian counterparts, to suggest that the Jewish community must now trim its liberal sails to court Christian support for Israel.
The most problematic aspect of evangelical Zionism is the impression that it is politically partisan, that fervently supports an Israel headed by a right-wing government fighting any compromise over the territories, but will be far less enthusiastic about if not actively oppose an Israel that decides to make (as Sharon puts it) "painful concessions."
That outlook is only reinforced when someone like Pat Robertson takes to the airwaves, as he did this week, to condemn the road map and President Bush for "imperiling the nation of Israel" and going against "the clear mandate of the Bible."
Robertson, of course, is entirely free to express his opinion over what he believes is best for Israel, just as I am over what I believe is best for my native America (not Pat Robertson, I assure you). But I no longer live in the US, and recognize there's a clear difference between how a situation may appear, and obligate, someone actually living in a particular country.
Evangelical Christians, especially given their strong religious feelings for the Land of Israel, are welcome to express their views in the international debate over this country's future. But at the end of the day, they (just like Diaspora Jews) will have to accept the judgment of the democratically elected government of Israel.
When that day does arrive, if it involves a division of "Biblically mandated" Israel, it may put the faith and enthusiasm of many evangelical Zionists to a real test. Personally, though, I hope and believe that with the help of the Almighty, real Christian friends like Laurie Moore will pass that test, and continue to be a "blessing to Israelis" for many years to come.
But not for that "decimated remnant." Something about every knee shall bow . . . .
I'm an Evangelical Christian who supports Israel. I have also studied centuries of military history. With this "road map" Israel will be putting herself in a very vulnerable tactical position against a very motivated regional enemy which history proves is treacherous and deceitful beyond the pale, and is backed uo by even those nations which model themselves our "allies." The military people, whether in the IDF or American military organizations know this.
"But at the end of the day, they (just like Diaspora Jews) will have to accept the judgment of the democratically elected government of Israel."
Yes, and hold the democratically elected government of Israel, and the elements within the U.S. spearheading this, accountable when this delusion hits the wall of hard reality and dead Israeli citizens start littering the streets.
The writer's generalizations are superficial to that.
The Israelis want all the land and the Palestinians want all the land and there is no possible way that both can have it all. Either the Palestinians drive the Israelis into the sea (which they want to do, but which is totally unacceptable), or the Israelis drive all the Palestinians across the Jordan (which some want to do, but which is also unacceptable), or there is some type of permanent partition of the land between the two groups. This last arrangement is the "least bad" alternative. (Yes, a case can be made that God has given all of the land to the Jewish people, but it can be debatable whether or not those Jews living in Israel now are the sole legitimate claimants, and whether or not that is a claim that can be made now. God can certainly intervene miraculouly to enforce this claim if He so chooses. Absent that, I'd suggest being a little more tentative in asserting that the theological should trump the logical.)
As for Israeli security, that is a separate issue. Israel does have legitimate security interests, which best can be addressed by turning all of the Palestinian entity into what is essentially a demilitarized zone. It will not be practical to exclude small arms, but the Israeli air force is certainly competent enough to insure that no large weaponry is transported into Palestine. It is not carbines and RPGs in the hands of the Palestinians that are the real security threat, but rather tanks, large guns, long-range missiles, jet fighters, etc.
They will also have to build what amounts to a Berlin wall separating the two countries. Having Palestinians come into Israel is incompatable with Israeli security interests. If the Israelis want to see an end to Palestinians blowing themselves up in their midst, then that is the price they are going to have to pay. Grabbing and holding Palestinian territory isn't going to do the job.
I'm surprised that this is that much of a stumbling block, to be honest. It's not like we premillennialists think that we're going to do the decimating--unlike the Muslims, who believe that they will follow either Isa (Jesus) or the Imam Mahdi in a grand slaughter of all the unbelievers.
Are there any Jews in FR who could explain to me why this becomes an issue? Is it just an emotional response (which I can understand, but we should move past emotional responses), or is there a logical component that I'm missing?
I like Avi Lipkin's (another religious Jew) take: "Evangelicals are not our best friends--they're our only friends . . . Do they want to see us convert? Yes, because that is a part of their faith and they love us."
I hope that Judaism takes this to heart: rather than demonizing Christian missionaries, they should do a better job at teaching their children what Judaism really is. As long as American Judaism is limited to liberal "tikkun olam", they will flee to Christianity because Christianity gives more purpose to like than abortion on demand and affirmative action.
Why is it unacceptable for Arabs (particularly Jordan)to put their money where their big mouths are and take in the Palestinians?!
As a student of history, I have come to understand that until the establishment of the State of Israel, there were no such thing as "Palestinians". During the period between 1948 and 1967, if you would have asked the average Arab resident of the "west bank" what their nationality was, they would have said "Jordanian". If the "Palestinians" were "Jordanians" in 1967, why all the sudden should we allow Jordan to abandon its responsibilities to take care of these people?
Your assertion that Israelis "want all the land" is nonsense when one considers that Israel voluntarily gave up significant pieces of territory that it had won in a war started by her enemies.
Wherever the "Palestinians" are located.
Which would make Jordan a "Palestinian" country, which is over 50% "palestinian" already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.