What Role To Play In The Current Crisis?
Over two weeks ago violence exploded in the Middle East, turning our attention from Iraq to the escalating war between Lebanon and Israel. Though it wasn’t planned in this way, the timing of a recent trip of 3,400 evangelical Christians to lobby lawmakers in Washington corresponded to this upsurge, and says more about the role of US Christians in Middle East policy than they could have imagined. A week into one of the most severe crises seen in this region in many years, the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel brought delegates from all 50 states for 280 meetings on Capitol Hill. The group was organized by Pastor John Hagee of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, who believes Christians have a Biblical duty to support the Jewish people’s claim to land that was given to them by God. Hagee sees a causal connection between this mandate and the end of the world and also claims that 40 million US citizens share this view. The popularity of the Left Behind series, a fictionalized interpretation of the Book of Revelation, seems to indicate that this may be so. The series has made its authors millionaires and has sold over 70 million copies. One thing is clear, however, whether based on fiction or something more substantial, evangelical support for the state of Israel has alarming consequences.
Conservative estimates of total US aid to Israel start at a total of $88 billion over the life of the relationship. This makes Israel the largest recipient of US foreign aid, having received $3 billion per year for many years. In 2003, $2.04 billion was in military assistance, and $720 million was for economic aid. And Christian Zionists, a.k.a. Christians who unwaveringly support Israel, are responsible for some measure of the ferocity of America’s lay-out to our most significant partner in the Middle East.
Before going any further I will say that the situation in the Middle East is extremely complicated, and the important details are far beyond my ability to understand. Also, the terrorization of the Israeli population by suicide bombers is reprehensible. However, there is also something extremely disturbing about the way that we go about “supporting democracy” in the Middle East, and if nothing else, it should be questioned. There may be other roles America can play than that which it currently finds itself in, such as a broker of peace. Especially during these turbulent times, these things are worth considering.
*******
There are many reasons why I find the particular kind of support that America gives to Israel disturbing; I will discuss two. First, on a yearly basis billions of American taxpayers’ of dollars are going to buy weapons that are used to terrorize a refugee population (half of whom are children) that is already marginalized and living in extreme poverty. Second, the effect of our attempt to “build democracy” seems to be having the opposite effect - increasing violence and producing more “terrorists” and suicide-bombers. The hatred of America around the world has never been more acute, and I’m no expert, but I don’t think this makes us safer.
To begin discussing Issue #1 let us return briefly to the words of Pastor John Hagee and the Christians United for Israel. According to Hagee, though the conference was not planned to respond to the current violence between Israel and Lebanon, the group will “urge the government not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah.” Though it is unlikely that the administration is responding directly to Hagee’s group, they are certainly acting as desired by refusing to condemn what so many others are calling Israel’s “disproportionate” response. Let me be clear, our first response to the recent upsurge in violence in the Middle East should be to affirm Israel’s right to live in peace and security, and to condemn the initial kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and attacks on civilians. There is no question that Hezbollah prompted this war, and their actions should be condemned. However, there is no question that we should equally condemn the disproportionate response by Israel for the indiscriminate killing of civilians through the use of cluster bombs and targeting of civilian infrastructure and areas.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than one week ago nearly 400 Lebanese have been killed and more than 1,000 injured. During the same period an estimated 34 Israelis have been killed and 200 wounded. WHO also estimates that there are some 600,000 displaced people in Lebanon. Israeli strikes have also devastated the civilian infrastructure that has taken over 15 years to rebuild since the end of the civil war. Civilians in parts of southern Lebanon are cut off due to strikes on the water and power installations, roads, bridges, factories, seaports and the international airport, and the UN has been unable to move relief supplies into and within southern Lebanon due to the destruction and security concerns. Severe shortages have also been reported in hospital services and supplies, fuel, food security, water resources and sanitation services. Additionally, 10,000 gallons of oil have flowed into the Lebanese sea after Israeli bombs targeted the Jiyye power station. And what is the American response to all of this destruction? Currently, we are rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, according to The New York Times. Thankfully, it looks like we are also going to be sending humanitarian aid. But, seriously….might we be working at cross purposes?
The response by the desperate Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, is telling. “The country has been torn to shreds,” he said at a meeting he had called of foreign diplomats, including the American ambassador. “Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions?” he asked in a bitter and emotional speech. “Can the international community stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted on us?”
This is what is happening to a democratic country that was formerly applauded by the Bush administration, all for the sake of our unwavering support of Israel. I personally believe allies should use their clout to find a diplomatic solution to a crisis, not fan the flames of war in an already raging region.
I am not at all surprised by Israel’s disproportionate reaction, or by America’s unwillingness to call for a more tempered response. All you have to do is look at the relationship between Israel and Palestine to see the types of tactics they are used to employing when it comes their Arab neighbors.
Currently, 70% of Palestinians in Gaza (half whom are children) live in poverty. Since the most recent resurgence, conditions in Gaza are serious and deteriorating. Continuing Israeli Defense Force (IDF) missile strikes in Gaza have destroyed vital infrastructure and led to massive electricity, fuel, and medicine shortages. The recent bombing of the Gaza power station has left nearly 900,000 people without electricity, and the destruction of Gaza’s main pipeline has left large areas without running water. In what is these days almost a weekly occurrence, one family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell. Children and families in Gaza are living in an environment of violence, insecurity, and fear.
I wouldn’t find this nearly so horrible if I wasn’t aware of the following information. A Palestinian group called Free Palestine has documented the following information about the relationship between Israeli armed forces and Palestinian refugees. They state that every human rights group that has examined Israel’s practices have documented systematic and deliberate use of violence targeted at unarmed Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces. Physicians for Human Rights USA which investigated the high number of Palestinian deaths and injuries in the first months of the Intifada, concluded that:
“…the pattern of injuries seen in many victims did not reflect IDF [Israel Defense Forces] use of firearms in life-threatening situations but rather indicated targeting solely for the purpose of wounding or killing.”
[Source: PHR USA, 22 November 2000]
This finding was based on “the totality of the evidence” the investigators collected about: “the high number of gunshots to the head; the volume of serious, disabling thigh injuries; the inappropriate firing of rubber bullets and rubber-coated steel bullets at close range; and the high proportion of Palestinian injuries and deaths.”
The findings of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm this pattern. Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has documented and condemned the targeted use of violence against Palestinian civilians and thousands of Palestinian detainees, including children.
What has been confirmed by human rights groups has also been observed directly by journalists. In October 2001, Harper’s published the “Gaza Diary” of journalist Chris Hedges. Hedges’ entry for June 17, 2001 provides even more shocking evidence of the wanton and deliberate killing of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers at Gaza’s Khan Yunis refugee camp. Hedges writes:
(Editor’s Note: The following passage contains violent imagery and profanity. We will not edit the words to make it more palatable)
“I sit in the shade of a palm-roofed hut on the edge of the dunes, momentarily defeated by the heat, the grit, the jostling crowds, the stench of the open sewers and rotting garbage. A friend of Azmi’s brings me, on a tray, a cold glass of tart, red carcade juice.”
“Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias — homespun robes — smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels.”
“It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker.” “‘Come on, dogs,” the voice booms in Arabic. “Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!’”
“I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: ‘Son of a bitch!’ ‘Son of a whore!’ ‘Your mother’s cunt!’”
“The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come.”
“A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children’s slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.”
“Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered — death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo — but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
****
It is hard to believe that our tax dollars are being used for this type of attack. When I read stories like these all I can think is that Jesus has a special concern for the poor, the orphaned, and the widowed, and I fear that Americans are part of the reason why so many exist. As Christians, we should be caring for the marginalized, the frightened, the maimed - not creating more of them. All this information, and particularly the escalating violence in the Middle East, leads me to believe our uncritical support of Israel needs to be re-examined.
As I said before, I think Israel has a right to a nation-state (as does Palestine), but it does not have a right to perpetrate state-sponsored terrorism, especially not with my tax dollars. I can’t help but think that the more women and children they kill, the more boys and men (and even girls) will take up the call to blow themselves up for the sake of a different future. I hardly think this is what so many evangelical Christians are hoping for. If this does indeed portend the Armageddon, at what cost does it come? And more importantly, are we really the ones who decide when or how it should come? Jesus says he will return like a thief in the night, and no one will know the time of his coming. What role, then, should we be playing as people who follow the Prince of Peace? As you know, I believe making Israel secure, and the world safe for democracy, looks very different from the massive military support that is now being used to kill scores of innocent men, women, and children.
Though complicated, and filled with emotion, these are important issues that deserve our thoughtful consideration. They should lead us to consider our unconscious beliefs and allegiances, question our assumptions, challenge what people like me, and others, have to say, send us searching for more information, and hopefully, in the end, lead to some kind of action.
Posted on August 1, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments
Children in peril always capture my attention. In the media coverage of events in the Middle East, specifics about precious little ones captures my eye like no other topic. The descriptions of the their living conditions and the images flashed on the television screen leaves my heart aching in sorrow.
The mental picture, however, of watching soldiers "entice children like mice..to murder them for sport" was almost more than I could bear. Hedges' journaling provides a clear picture of the depravity being demonstrated on a daily basis in this on-going conflict.
To be quite honest, something in my heart kept saying, "Irael's 'offense' seems excessive." It never occured to me to publicly question their actions, though. Mentally, I feel like a little girl cringing in Sunday School as I think of those countries who dared to fight God's chosen people (when they were obeying). To "take the side" of anyone else feels tantamount to heresy.
Thank you, Ms. Carothers, for helping me put words to my discomfort with Irael's response to Hezbollah. I feel led to seek God's wisdom as I personally evaluate my perspective on this escalating crisis.
While I still feel scared and tiny in the big scheme of things, I am spurred as an indivdual to always demonstrate Jesus Christ's greatest command - to love others. Especially our enemies.
Posted by: Julie | August 1, 2006 12:07 PM
Julie,
I share your frustration.
I'm so proud of Penny for writing this piece. American Christianity, to it's benefit, is very in tune with Israel's role as God's chosen people. We support Israel because of this, and the Bible is littered with nations that opposed the Israelites.
That being said, the point here is that the nation of Israel is still obviously human, and the American church has turned Israel into a rabbit foot to rub when we're compared to the Roman Empire.
To profess that we understand our role Biblically is arrogant, short-sighted and heresy.
Posted by: Jordan Green | August 1, 2006 12:15 PM
of course this situation is gruesome. war is gruesome. this world can be that way. i know that soldiers targeting unarmed children is wrong. so did those soldiers that perpetrated this crime. i dont know what to say....people go around saying the word "peace" like its a magic word and all of a sudden peace falls on the middle east. not in this world....did it ever occur to people that there are others out there that just dont want peace? at least not without victory. "there can be no peace without victory" i think that is the stance from both sides in this conflict. hell, in most any conflict. Israel is surrounded on all sides. if i were an Israeli, i would value every dollar that was sent to cover my ass from the countries that flanked my own on all sides. Israel has had to beat back its attackers since it announced its statehood in 1948. think about it. thats a culture of war that we dont know a thing about as Americans. the last time another countries army set foot on the U.S. mainland was when? the war of 1812? the spanish/american war? i want very much for Israel to live in peace. i would like very much for my own country to live in peace. until Christ returns this world and myself will continue to thirst for it.
Posted by: matthew flores | August 2, 2006 1:06 AM
You are right Penny, that these issues deserve thoughtful consideration, and I just wanted to say thank you, for helping me to think on a different level about this situation...
War is always hard, and I'm never sure that I agree with it. I think that Biblically it is good to support Israel, but to truly support someone or something in a Biblical way, means to hold it up and make it better, not to hold it up to do whatever they choose. We do not need to be supportive of these kinds of tactics, I don't think Jesus would be, I think He would be taking a stand against these actions.
And while I do agree with the comment before mine that we will always thirst for peace, I don't think that means we should stop striving for it, just because it won't happen totally in a fallen world.
God wants our prayers, there are specific instances in the Bible where people were ABSOLUTELY required to pray for things, even things that God wanted to see happen, but if there was no one willing to pray, God did nothing. I think it is critical to remember the true role of prayer in a Christian life, and that prayer can change the world.
Thanks for a thought provoking article.
Posted by: Angela | August 2, 2006 4:32 AM
Can we really hear?
Israel may very well be over reacting in this crisis, I will not deny that. What is unfair, however, is judging the entire military and government of Israel, and, ultimately, America's support by the actions of a few.
Those who commit unjust violent acts as described in the article above are clearly wrong, despicable, and surely condemned by those who are actually fighting a just war for their freedom in Israel. One more thing should be clarified, Israel is not indiscriminately killing civilians (save your few savage murderers). Have you ever imagined how difficult it is to target a terrorist organization that intentionally fires rockets from orphanages and hospitals because it knows that its pursuer has compassion for the innocent? The most controversial attack by Israel thus far, the bombing of a building that resulted in over 50 civilian deaths prompted an immediate public apology from Israel and an investigation into the incident. But people will hear what they want to hear.
Or how about Hezbollah? For an organization who's leader has publicly declared that the it will not settle for anything less than virtual genocide on the Jews, we all seem awfully quick to run to their rescue. For years Hezbollah has been terrorizing Israel with every available tactic that will not result in the retaliation they are now receiving: kidnappings, murders, suicide bombings, and let's not forget the twenty two years of brainwashing Lebanon's citizens that the earth will not be habitable if there are still Jews alive.
And what still amazes me, is the fact that the media has done a better job of keeping America updated on actor Mel Gibson's "anti-semetic" remarks he made while drunk (and then apologized for - repeatedly) than of any of the views and motives of Hezbollah. I'm glad they were able to decide what was really valuable information.
War sucks. Violence sucks. I hate them both. I'm not even sure I agree with Isreal on their actions against Lebanon. But, man, can a few loud news channels screw with our perception.
I would like to remind John Hagee, a pastor who I have trouble supporting sometimes at all, that God's promise for Israel has been extended to all mankind, including those in Lebanon. Blind support of any cause really just pisses me off.
But so does blind condemnation.
Israel is justified in this war on Hezbollah and terror and, I think, worthy of our support. If this ruffles feathers yet than what you really are opposed to is war itself, which is in an entirely different echelon of discussion. One that, personally, I am still trying to figure out myself - believe it or not.
Tell me, is it really peace if we let organizations like Hezbollah continue to terrorize instil fear?
Zach Binsfeld
Posted by: zach binsfeld | August 2, 2006 1:11 PM
At last we have agreement in the need to "challenge what people like me have to say." To start with you say democracy "seems to be having the opposite effect." This is a statement of perception and not reality. It may be helpful to actually deal in facts. To review history for the left wing crowd which was sleeping through the 90s. Feb. 93 - World Trade Center is bombed. June 93 - Saddam hires assassins to kill Papa Bush. Nov. 93 - bin Laden trained forces shoot down Black Hawk helicopters. June 96 - Iran orders Hezbollah to bomb the Khobar Towers and kill US troops. August 98 - al Qaeda blows up 2 US embassies in Africa. Oct 2000 - USS Cole is attacked. Along with the Luxor bombing and a disrupted millennium bombing, the Clinton administration presided over the training of 10,000 al Qaeda terrorists and attacks every 6 months. Maybe we should move out of "seems" and back to reality. Terrorists were on the move during the entire 90s culminating in the 9/11 attacks.
Should we really have "proportionate" responses to terrorism. When the US cut and run from Somalia, this only encouraged bin Laden. Read his Declaration of War on America and you will see that "Black Hawk Down" was his inspiration. Calling America the Paper Tiger and Weak Horse. What about the tit for tat response to the embassy bombings. That was proportional, 2 strikes against us, so Clinton blows up an Afghan tent and the el Shifa plant. That really showed him. Did he stop planning Cole and WTC bombings for even a second? On 9/11 when 3,000 Americans died, should we have gone and killed 3,000 trained al Qaeda terrorists and left the other 7,000 plot the destruction of more American cities? I guess since bin Laden doesn't have any ships, that is why Clinton did absolutely nothing after the Cole bombing. Nothing was proportional. What do we gain from appeasement? Israel pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza. This gave Iran and Syria the green light to start arming Hezbollah at a faster rate.
You go on and on about poverty. But what does poverty have to do with terrorism? Surely you don't suggest giving aid to bin Laden. Doesn't he have enough millions as it is? What about the cannon fodder. But Mohamed Atta was college educated and well to do. The WTC masterminds Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohamed were college grads in England and a conservative Christian college in North Carolina respectively. Why would it be Israel's duty to give aid to Palestinians? They do any way by the billions for paving roads and infrastructure. What accounts for their plight? How about Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism, embezzling around $1 billion so that his wife Suha could live with the French elite in Paris. The talk of poverty makes it sound as if the solution is some socialist health care program. As if we are not dealing with people who subscribe to a blinding ideology of Islamic fascism to bring about the destruction of the Jewish race.
For the moral equivalence of Israel attacks. Let's take the Qana attack this week. It is horrible that the children died. Shouldn't we place the blame where it belongs. Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention states:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Israel went above and beyond the rules of war to distribute leaflets telling civilians to leave this town. Are they to blame or would it be the terrorists who violate every rule in the Geneva convention by not wearing uniforms, taking cover in civilian areas, preventing civilians from leaving with the express purpose of increasing the death toll. It is not good to encourage the violators and discourage the compliant. You may want to consider getting information from a second source like someone who is not trying to commit genocide against the Jews. It doesn't look good to talk about the family of seven at the beach being killed when this has been debunked. At least you didn't fall for the Jenin massacre nonsense.
In Blue like Jazz, Don said he didn't want to become a Christian and sound like Pat Buchanan. But I can't see a hairs difference between his anti-semitic racist ranting and this article by the beloved Penny.
Posted by: Jonathan Mercer | August 2, 2006 6:40 PM
"It doesn't look good to talk about the family of seven at the beach being killed when this has been debunked."
Debunked by whom? Can you provide links? What family are you talking about?
Also, I'm getting tired of folks attributing the articles of Penny or myself or any other contributor to Don. An article from Penny is no more Don's word than the piece by Akitomo Sugawara, which was critical of Don's writing and appeared on this site a few months ago.
What anti-semitic, racist comments are you talking about?
I see nothing here as anti-Semitic, just as much as I can't see criticism Bill Clinton or Kim Jong Il as racism directed at Americans or Koreans.
Otherwise, this has been an outstanding conversation. Let's keep it going!
Posted by: Jordan Green | August 2, 2006 6:54 PM
thank you jonathan mercer. sometimes i wonder where all the sane people in this world are. penny and donald are so afraid of being labelled christian fundamentalists or part of the christian right that they will purposefully attach themselves to any cause that sets them a part from those movements.
i am quite impressed with israel's restraint so far in the conflict. i am suprised at how few civillian casualties there have been. i hope that penny and donald will consider some alternate sources for getting there news besides getting spoon fed democracy now, move on, and the mainstream media.
Posted by: jonny c | August 2, 2006 11:13 PM
Yeah!
I'll bet Jesus would've been leading the charge, huh?
Let's see...2 kidnapped Israeli soldiers has resulted in:
The deaths of:
55 Israelis
8 Canadians
750 Lebanese
4 UN officials
Not to mention the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure. Keep in mind that this is a country that is 42% Christian.
This is based on BBC reports. I ask you, Jonny C, what number WOULD surprise you?
Here's what's awful with this conversation...we're never stopping to wonder if ALL of it is wrong, from the 2 kidnapped soldiers on down. We are so in the world that we have to crunch numbers to make ourselves feel better.
"55 Israelis=750 Lebanese...Okay, I can live with that."
If this is "sanity", thank God for grace.
Posted by: Andrew Wallace | August 3, 2006 12:20 AM
I appreciate all of the comments people have added here. I can't respond to everyone but I wanted to say a few things:
Whenever you receive information about this (and any 'charged') conflict, the authors are writing from a particular point of view, usually on behalf of one side or another. It is the reader's task to check the evidence that is being used to make the argument, and to try to come to a conclusion based on this information and whatever else they have access to.
In this article I was pulling mostly from human rights and development groups, Lebanese sources, and traditional media. My perspective was to try to tell a story that is very rarely told in the American media - the side of the 'enemies' of the Jewish state.
I was also trying to step back and offer the perspective that we don't get in the media - that of Jesus. A few points on that one:
It's not my opinion that Jesus could have cared less about the fact that the Jews' territory was taken over by the Romans, it's what he said. He wasn't there to "redeem Israel" (Luke 24:21), which is what most Jews wanted and was the reason they gave amnesty to Barrabus rather than Jesus (and some scholars say, perhaps why Judas betrayed him).
Rather, Jesus came for a very different purpose than to establish a state or secure a claim for one people. He came that all might know His name and His character and His love for ALL humanity. And that means "the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." (Jesus response to John the Baptist in John 11:4-6 that Yes, he is the Messiah.) This is incredibly joyful, miraculous news for us TODAY. Jesus did not say, "we killed 200 terrorists, and 300 children, and we bulldozed 50 houses so that the Jewish people could settle in this land. Rejoice and be glad!"
I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but I am trying to point out that our priorities may not be in line with Jesus' priorities when our main concern is to wipe the "terrorists" off the planet and win the "war on terror." Notice how the discussion becomes about politics and who is right and who was wrong - we're all wrong if that is our primary concern. Our role as bearers of God's message and His hope is not to make all of the right political and military decisions, as if God's future depends on U.S. We are to love our enemies, sacrifice for those around us, and bear witness to the coming Kingdom of God, where every tear will be wiped dry.
What I am NOT doing is trying to say that I have all the right answers about this conflict, or that my perspective is the only one that's right. But I am trying to ask some questions. And a huge question for me is whether bombing a democratic, partly Christian nation back to the dark ages is really part of God's story.
Instead, let me share with you what He IS doing in Lebanon, in the midst of this. This is what is happening at the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary, where Lebanese Christians are reaching out their neighbors:
"Last Sunday the sounds of worship and praise were the only sounds heard in the village of Riyac (Bekaa Valley) other than that of nearby shelling," Said Rev. Milad Haddad, Pastor of the Evangelical Baptist Church of Riyac. "This is the only place where we can find true safety and peace."
Effective yesterday, the now-displaced DeirMeimas church residing at ABTS has taken it upon itself to visit with and reach out to fellow villagers who have sought refuge in the area. Perhaps those who did not come to know Christ whilst at home may come to know Him now. Please keep this ministry in your prayers.
Also in Mansourieh, ABTS has committed to provide hygiene packs to around 150 displaced families residing in the vicinity of the Seminary. Programs are being put in place for the initiation of children's activities in at least 4 of these displacement centers.
"Jesus Christ transformed the world with 12 disciples. Can you imagine what God can do through 10 Christians that are fully surrendered to Him at this very time in Lebanon?" A challenge shared by Elie Haddad, ABTS Provost during yesterday's prayer meeting.
____
A few last things: I think it's ludicrous that anyone would make the connection that the words/conviction of Penny = Don Miller. Don't give me that much credit, alright? I'm just one solitary person trying to figure out what it means to follow Christ with the knowledge and voice that has been given to me. I can tell you right now that Don and I are not fully on board on a lot of my "radical ideas."
Also, I really appreciate the different perspectives, and especially those that put my interpretation in question. Please, keep them coming. But leave your sarcasm and mean-spirited talk at the door. If that's what this comes down to, the point is completely lost.
Again, I appreciate all of you and your perspectives. Please keep teaching me, I am here and willing to listen and learn. And please, keep praying for Lebanon and Israel and Palestine.
Oh, and I'll be posting some of my sources soon. One more thing, there is an incredibly deep link between poverty, conflict, and terrorism. I'll put that up, too. I'm not surprised that we can't imagine that, living as we do in the most affluent nation the world has ever known.
Posted by: Penny Carothers | August 3, 2006 11:35 AM
The information presented here gives us a lot of food for thought.
Something tells me though if the US were taking a bold stand or being some sort of "big daddy" in the desert, Penny might be saying why does the U.S. think we can solve the world's problems? or What gives us the right to police the world? or We're doing the wrong thing because of X, Y & Z....
Power and politics is slippery and complicated. While I appreciate bringing useful information to light about the crisis, and divulging opinioins on world events....I wonder if many of us have grown too fond of hearing our own critique and sidelines bull horn.
The middle east is a hot bed of violence and always will be. It's still sad, but it's not very surprising. Not supporting Isreal is a big mistake - supporting them in total though does make you feel a bit dirty inside.
I'm just curious to know if Penny wants Isreal to be taken by its enemies...
I think our position is to let them deal with it, offer solutions for peace talks and peaceful resolution at every trun, (knowing they will only work in the short term for people who hate each other,) and be ready with all the medical aid and food we can, because the carnage will be horrible. There are no easy answers.
Your commentary leaves me wanting. Maybe that is your point.
Since one death is too many, I realize it's important to reveal the whole lot of it, but will all the harranging really do anything?
Thanks for trying - keep writing, we'll keep reading.
Posted by: Lisa DeLay | August 3, 2006 12:07 PM
"It doesn't look good to talk about the family of seven at the beach being killed when this has been debunked. At least you didn't fall for the Jenin massacre nonsense."
I wasn't sure what Mr. Mercer was talking about, so I did some research.
Here's what I found:
Chris Hedges is a well-known and well-respected war journalist. No one has refuted the account we posted in our story.
The deaths of a Palestinian family of seven on a beach in Gaza from an errant Israeli shell story was broadcast on Fox News and Guardian Unlimited, among others. It is being refuted by the folks at honestreporting.com, a self-described pro-Israel site. Check it out for yourself.
As for the Jenin Massacre, which we didn't mention, it was discovered that there was no evidence of a massacre at all.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2006 9:14 AM
For those of you who are interested in learning about this crisis, here is a good place to start:
If you can't watch the whole thing, here's one extremely important factoid:Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (after war of 1967) is illegal under international law (UN Security Council Resolution 242). The violence by Palestinians is largely a response to the violent occupation of their land.
View Google Video hereh
Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land
Description:
Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported. Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one. The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel's PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.
Posted by: Penny Carothers | August 4, 2006 9:49 AM
i watched that video "peace, propaganda, and the promised land". it was very hard to witness what these people have to go through. some things i noticed though....the video criticizes Israeli and U.S. media for only showing half of the story,that of Israeli suffering. this video is the same, except from the Palestinian point of view. there are short clips of soldiers doing violence to the people...Israelis bulldozing homes...all of which is horrible...but this video lacks one thing....where is the Israeli suffering? or even their side of the story for that matter? it would be so refreshing for once if there was a presentation that covered both sides objectively. because on both sides there is human life. BOTH sides. therefore, the makers of this video have cut the branch on which they sit on by doing the very thing they condemn Israel for .... building sympathy for thier own side. also, this video seems to be grasping for a solution by way of secular humanism, or through reason and internantional law. it opens with the fact that Israel is breaking UN Security Council Resolution 242. ok. Hezbollah did not comply with the U.N. resolution to vacate the Lebanese/ Israeli border. and if you go even further back you will see that the Palestinians dont even acknowledge Israel as a nation. so what does this solve? pulling up international law? it seems to me the U.N. is a paper tiger and will only work if nations are willing to comply. North Korea has shown little regard for the U.N. and i doubt Iran will either. the point is, all sides have transgressed U.N. resolutions. if there is to be healing in the lives of these people who have been wracked with violence, it will take forgiveness. no amount of education, or U.N. laws, or secular humanism is going to bring people to forgiveness. now its easy for me to say that both sides should forgive because has i stated in a previous comment, i do not know what its like to live in this culture of war or violence. my biggest worry as an american is how am i going to be entertained today. not really, but whatever i go through here in the states is nothing like what anyone in the middle east has to deal with. the cultures are different. that is why for anyone over there to forgive, it would have to be nothing short of miraculous. it would have to involve God taking hold of someones heart and showing them how to forgive. the answer to all of this pain is Jesus. God, who knows fully what it is to be human, and who is "acquainted with bitterest grief." in the book "whats so amazing about grace?" by Philip Yancey, Gorden Wilson (this is a true story by the way) forgives the IRA for an act of terrorism that results in the death of his daughter. only Christ could cause such a shift in human nature. in the book, "the problem of pain" by C.S. Lewis, the book begins with a quote by George Macdonald, "The Son of God suffered unto the death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be like His." The Gospel needs to be heard in this part of the world. i can think of no other solution to this conflict. indeed, there is no other solution. Penny, our tax dollars help fund the Israeli military....i know they need a strong military in the face of such opposition, they really dont have a friendly neighbor in the region. but i can think of nothing better than to fund an organization that brings the Gospel to the people in the Gaza Strip and Israel. God is what they need more than anything. do you know of any foundations or oraganizations that works for this cause? if so please post it.
Posted by: matthew flores | August 6, 2006 1:15 AM
I really think there is some great discussion going on here, and I want to thank Penny for the thought provoking piece. I know that personally, I sometimes feel like trying to keep everything in perspective about a war that is going on half way around the world can be overwhelming to say the least, so I appreciate the discussion.
I think it is important that we keep the discussion in perspective as well. I know after reading a few readers more "hostile" responses my first inclination was to fire back with another loaded paragraph or two, myself. Ultimately, however, I think the only room we have for discussion is in the pursuit of the "right" or Christ like action for us to take as Americans (and much more importantly as Christians). But as soon as this discussion becomes about WHO is right, I think it completely loses the ability to bear any fruitful outcome. Like I said, there have been some great things said here, but let?s just be careful not to muddy it up with personal interests.
That being said, there is one thing in particular that I have found myself getting caught up in from time to time that I am afraid can be very dangerous. This is the idea that we (or Israel...) can be justified through retribution. We get upset that someone criticizes Israel for an unbalanced response against the civilians even though the group they are fighting is so despicable that they would hide out in orphanages and hospitals. Or the idea that America is criticized for unfair treatment of terrorists being detained as outlined by the Geneva Convention while few raise a finger to publicly denounce the ?illegal? actions of terrorists.
However, as soon as we measure ourselves against these enemies we have set ourselves up for disaster. I mean ultimately we like to believe that we have the moral high ground here, right? Otherwise, we wouldn?t be the least bit upset with bin Laden for bombing the twin towers or we wouldn?t keep sinking more money into Israel. But if we are in fact in the right, shouldn?t we hold ourselves to higher standards even if our enemies do not? And saying that the Geneva Convention doesn?t apply to terrorists based on some technicality involving nationality or lack there of? We?re supposed to be setting the example here, but sometimes it?s very disheartening to realize how justified we can feel through vengeance.
Israel has been attacked and may very well need to retaliate in self defense. But I think it is of the utmost importance that we not gauge the validity of their means against the terrorists that they are fighting. It would do us very little good to measure everything in life against the lowest common denominator, in this case, terrorists that hide in hospitals or orphanages and bomb civilians on a daily basis.
Posted by: Kyle Melin | August 7, 2006 11:18 AM
I offer this video in response to, Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys&search=pallywood
The occupation after the 1967, was not the cause of refugees. The U.N. Resolution 181 Partition Plan Nov. 29, 1947, which offered Palestinians a homeland was rejected by the Arab nations. When Israel's war of Independence started, Arab-Palestinians left the country, not because of fighting, but at the urging of the surrouding countires. They promised those who left more lands after purging the Jews. Is Israel responsible for abosorbing those who left on their own accord? The number of Palestinian refugees in 1948, liberal estimations say 700,000. When the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq were unable to deafeat Israel, 700,000 Arabs became perment refugees. These refugees were not absorbed by the sourrounding Arab nations. Jordan who took most of the UN delegated land gave a small number of Arab Palestinians citizenship, but the majority were kept in isolated refugee camps. Out of about 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has not been absorbed into their own peoples' lands.
Today there are an estimated 4 million Palestinians and thus it is a largely recognized problem on an international level.
Ralph Galloway, former head of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in Amman, Jordan, in August 1958, ?The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die"
Conversely there were 1,000,000 Jews who were forced to flee Arab countries in 1948. (This is a conservative estimate.) While we hear about the Palestinian refugee problem, there is little said about the Jewish refugees due to the fact that Israel absorbed them.
One more thing to keep in mind when looking at Lebanons 42% Christian population. One must understand the context of a Middle Eastern view of Christianity. You are considered a Christian if you parents were Christian. When you are born you get and ID card that states if you are Christian of Muslim ect. I am not the judge of the hearts of those who claim to be Christians, but this may influence the number of Christian's shown in a percentage. (Just as certain factors do in America, which claims to be overwhlemingly Christian.)
Posted by: Zach | August 8, 2006 11:11 AM
I am disturbed that we as Christians can buy into the idea that Israel protection for that matter Israel protecting it's self is a negative thing. Consider if you will the Idea of America being attacked by Canada (I know it wouldn't happen) Though I am no supporter of some of Bush's agenda (ie dividing Gaza), if Canada was the enemy of the U.S. then why would we want them to live next door. My point is this. If Canada were attacking us, because the felt America belong to them and God said it did not then what would we most likely do? Sit and wait for more attacks? No! We would resolve the situation. In like manner Israel has every right to defend herself. Titus speak well of this. One thing is clear: God said Israel is the apple of his eye..that he will bless those who bless her... Maybe I am going against conventional wisdom her, but I would rather be on the side I know God is supporting... Ezekiel also says much about this.
Posted by: Nate | August 9, 2006 4:41 PM
"What Role To Play In The Current Crisis?" is the title Penny chose, and I think a new perspective may need to enter this conversation in light of this title. So far, a majority of the conversation has covered what role our nation should play in this conflict, and i totally believe that is an important issue to think about and discuss. The missing element to this conversation is what we individually should play in this conflict. In all reality, right now, we have no control over what the government does with its money. We can protest and gather in large masses and cry out to our leaders, but in the end, they will do what they will do. I am in no way discouraging social action and protest, but I am simply asking what can we do right now, right here, this very day. typing up an argument online and posting it on a website does not help the suffering people we are called to by God (Mathew 25:31-46) to assist. We should be supporting humanitarian aid in the middle east through our churches and through whatever organization we can get a hold of. But for those of us with a very tight budget (i myself am getting ready for my freshman year of college) and very few resources, we have the greatest resource of all. Our Father in Heaven. Cry out to Him in prayer on behalf of ALL of those who are suffering!! Whether we believe Israel is just in its attacks or the US is just in its support or whatever you may think, God alone knows the true and righteous way for the situation, and we should be praying fiercely for peace and that God's mercy and grace might cover both nations and those suffering in them. After spending an hour reading the article and the comments, that is the only conclusion i personally can make, and i believe that is the one thing that we as christians should be doing first before all else as this conflict escalates.
Posted by: Mark Fenton | August 10, 2006 9:55 PM
Hi Penny,
I don't know if you'll actually read this, but I felt so convicted that I had to try something, and I don't know what else to do.
My name is Michael, and I'm a Believer. I'm 22 and I've been travelling to the Middle East (specifically Israel, Egypt, and Jordan) for the past 13 years. Currently, I work for a non-profit organization and lead college student tours to the area. We came back on July 8th, just as things were heating up over there.
You make a lot of good points. I agree with some, and I respect all of them.
As you mentioned, the situation in the Middle East is extremely complicated. You make a good analysis based on your sources, but in the end it's extremely unfair because your sources are terribly biased.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to find a balanced, objective source, and I feel like the only way I've been able to even come close to grasping the situation is through experiencing it on the ground and not through my TV or radio or computer. Few people want or care to travel there, and even fewer are able. So, in the end, most people *are* reliant on TVs and radios and computers and third party information, all of which has an agenda of some sort. Everything is so polarized, and stuff that doesn't seem biased either way ends up being so crazy one can't figure out where it fits, if anywhere. Hagee, the Ecumenical movement, and even replacement theologians all become involved, and the whole thing is a mess.
I don't know you, and you have no reason to give merit to what I say, but if you're really passionate about the situation, research more. Look and search and really dig. I could type for hours, and it would all be just as poor quality as this, so I'll cut myself off. I guess my point is that in the Middle East, things are always what they seem. Nothing should be taken for face value.
Posted by: Michael | August 11, 2006 6:21 AM
Michael: Thank you for your post. I am certainly interested in knowing more, for I admit, I am a novice at this. But please, tell me where to go! If you know of any quasi-neutral sites, or reputable ones, I would be ecstatic to find them.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I actually happen to think that the journalist I quoted was pretty reputable, as well as the human rights organizations, but I am very willing to get more information, so please help me to do so by sending me in the right direction.
Thank you.
And other than that, for the rest of you, I've been trying to get something posted for the past 3 days, but typekey hasn't been working well. Hopefully that'll go up soon.
Posted by: Penny Carothers | August 11, 2006 9:55 PM
Well, there's so much out there to discuss, but specifically, I wanted to say something about the links between poverty, oppression, and terrorism. I have often heard the point being made that Palestinian suicide bombings and other forms of terrorist attacks and violence are the result of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I find this highly unlikely as a source for a couple of reasons.
First, what about all of the groups of people throughout history that have been persecuted and yet responded much differently? The African-American civil rights movement and Ghandi's anti-British occupation movement were almost completely characterized by non-violence in reponse to terrible oppression. We can also look at the situation of the Sudeten Germans after WW2. They were a group of Germans who lived in the Sudetenland, and had for hundreds of years, and suddenly after WW2 they were forced off of their ancestral land so that a new country could be formed: Czechoslovakia, which of course later split in the Velvet Divorce. The Sudeten Germans, today, do not live in refugee camps and cary out terrorist attacks against the Czechs and Slovakians. The refugee camps, and the poverty, as well as the plight of the Palestinian civilian population, cannot be blamed solely on Israel. They are used as political pawns to be maneuvered about to serve the goals of many members of the elitist, wealthy Arab leadership.
What about Tibet? If poverty and oppression begets terrorism, there should be a Tibetan Liberation Organization organizing suicide bombings and military reprisals for Chinese brutality.
Second, from 1948 to 1967, for nearly two decades, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt. Conditions in both areas were at least the same as they are now, and by some reports much worse. Yet the PLO and the resistance movement, most historians agree, blossomed once Israel took over the territories from Egypt and Jordan. Interestingly enough, King Hussein of Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank into Jordan. He also carried out violent reprisals against Palestinians in Jordan. The point is: where was the Palestinian National movement under occupation from Egypt and Jordan for 20 years? Where were the suicide bombings against Egyptian and Jordanian civilians?
I had intended to write more, but this is already longer than I realized it would be. I apologize! As for sources, I would look at historical context for starters. Other than going to the area, the next best thing is to just read as much as you can and cross-reference materials from both sides.
In terms of theology, I think this conflict is closely related to replacement theology, and that's definitely something that also needs to be addressed whithin the Church.
Finally, in terms of harming civilians, especially children, this is a video produced by Hezbollah for children, that aired on al-manar (hezbollah TV): http://pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Manar4kids.asx
it doesn't seem, to me, like a way to encourage children to seek peace and stay safe and away from violent situations?
Posted by: Michael | August 11, 2006 11:16 PM
i want to thank penny for posting not only the article, but the follow-up comments, which i wholeheartedly agree with. jesus was and is not concerned with who 'owns' land, or any other properties for that matter. fighting to defend them is anti-christian.
michael mentions ghandi above, and his response to the oppressive rule of the british in india. who did ghandi base his method of non-violent non-cooperation on? jesus christ. yet america, the most 'christian' nation in the world, has chosen to create and support violence at every turn.
do we aim to rule the world? are we not trying to bend everyone else to our own will, to make allies of them all in one way or another?
we must not forget that all of the countries that we are fighting against, or may be in the future (and the list is growing longer by the minute), believe that they are right, just as we do. the only thing that can ever distinguish us, or set us apart from the "terrorists" is our love. and we are not exhibiting that at all. we should all be willing, as christians, to lay down our lives for these people; the iraqis, al quaida, hezbollah, before we would attack them, in the hopes that they would see the love of christ in our actions and turn and be saved. we are on the wrong path, and the lord will hold us to account, as he has given us much revelation and much responsibility.
Posted by: Asia Wall | August 13, 2006 4:17 PM
Penny,
I just finished a book by Gary Burge entitled 'Whose Land? Whose Promise?' Perhaps you've already heard of it... if not and you haven't read it, I think you'll find it quite helpful to thinking through the matter of Israel/Palestine.
Posted by: adam | August 16, 2006 6:27 PM
I am reading Miller's 'Blue Like Jazz' and have been perusing this site as of late, and I can't help but notice something: Why is it you guys and gals (the Burnside Writers Collective) never back anything up with scripture? Oh, you back it up with Chris Hedges, a guy who writes books about how horrible the Jesus movement was/is for America, but you refuse to adequately cite scripture. Aren't all your works interpretations and expositions of Jesus' teachings? Even Jesus quoted scripture! Now I haven't read EVERYTHING you dudes have written, but should I have to? I dunno. Call me "old school" or whatever, but I just think God's word ought to be more apparent in Christian writings. For example, you might want to point out that Paul calls us to support Israel in earthly matters in both Romans 11:28 and 15:27. We, Gentiles, owe the Jews a great debt, as they have been our spiritual benefactors.
Posted by: sean coyne | August 19, 2006 12:20 AM
Sean,
I'm not quite sure how you could read those verses and come to the conclusion that Israel should be supported militarily.
And your use of those verses from Matthew illustrate our standpoint in use of Scripture, it's much better for our readers to research the Bible on their own, rather than spoonfeeding them a line or two that could be taken out of context. Going to the Bible for background, context and guidance should be part of a believer's daily walk.
Jordan
Posted by: Jordan Green | August 20, 2006 10:46 AM