The article was introduced this way:
A leading expert on Israel has given ASSIST News an interview in which he talks about the hot topics of the day that involve Israel, Christians in the West, and also his views on Christians being persecuted in that state.Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer, Dr. Paul Eidelberg is the founder and president of the political think tank, The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy with offices in Jerusalem and Washington, DC.
OK, so its obvious its going to be biased, in that the probability of a Jewish person making an unbiased appraisal of these questions is pretty unlikely. But, I hoped, since ANS is a Christian news service, the interviewer would challenge some of the assumptions of the interviewee. Not only was I wrong, but the unchallenged comments showed a total lack of understanding of Christian theology, returning us to the covenant of the Old Testament rather than the New. By that I mean Christianity appears to be seen as a Jewish sect rather accepting that Jesus death on the cross changed things irrevocably.
Paul Eidelberg starts by skewing the facts by missing some out:
In his interview with ANS, Eidelberg was asked how does Israel's government affect Christians?
Dr. Eidelberg said: "The failure of Israel's government to suppress Arab violence has resulted in the emigration of Christians from Bethlehem. Since the Arab Terrorist War erupted in September 2000, Israeli governments under prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert have pursued a policy of self-restraint toward Arab terrorists. Thousands of Jews, especially in Jerusalem, were murdered, wounded, and maimed for life. Suicide bombers reduced women and children to body parts. Even nurses and doctors in Jerusalem hospitals suffered trauma in dealing with these barbaric atrocities. Meanwhile, Arab terrorists deployed in Bethlehem and made life miserable for the Christians in that city.
What he omitted to say was that the methods currently employed by a small section of the Palestinian community which he labels as terrorism as identical to the methods employed by a small section of the Jewish community prior to the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948. The methods are not new to Semitic people [I use this phrase to be all Semitic people - both Jewish and Arabic] being taught and developed by TE Lawrence during the First World War. No doubt some people will pre-date it to earlier than that, but my perception is that Lawrence was the person who systemised what we either call guerrilla warfare or terrorism.
I would have liked ANS to challenge his proposition that Israel have pursued a policy of self-restraint. Consider for example the report by the UN entitled Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends:
Of those killed in the conflict, 4,228 have been Palestinians, 1,024 Israelis, and 63 foreign citizens. For every person killed, approximately seven were also injured.I personally wouldn't consider the 2007 figure of 25 Palestinians killed for every Israeli to be acting with restraint. I believe ANS as journalists should have put these figures to Eidelberg for his reaction. Eidelberg's proposition appears to me to be well skewed of the facts. However, he goes on:In contrast the total number of Palestinians, both civilians and combatants killed by the Israeli security forces or Israeli individuals, remains relatively high. In 2007, for example, for every one Israeli death there were 25 Palestinian deaths compared to 2002 when the ratio was 1:2.5.
The number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli security forces was lower during the years that coincided with a promise of peace: the Palestinian hudna or truce of June 2003, and the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
Given the power of the Israel Defense Forces, the government certainly had the power to eliminate the entire Arab terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This could have been done in one week immediately after 9/11.
The IDF has significantly less power I would have felt than the US Army, Navy and Air Force, yet they have been unable to catch Osama bin Laden post 9/11. Suppression of peoples who believe they have a legitimate greivance has been shown not to work over history. Indeed it tends to inflame. So a widespread attack by the IDF against what he descibes as an Arab terrorist network would likely as not backfired turning every moderate Arab into a 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter' depending on your preferred language.
But so far we have been on political ground, which may be open to debate. Now we move to theology, and this is where I nearly fell off my chair in shock:
ASSIST News asked Dr. Eidelberg "Why should Christians be concerned about Israel's government?"
"Israel's government wants to surrender eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Arabs. The Temple is intended for the redemption of all people, not only Jews. If the Arabs control eastern Jerusalem, Christians will be denied access to the Temple Mount. Going deeper, the Jewish Sages have said that the Temple Mount is of greater significance to the Gentile world than it is to Israel. Listen to the voice of the disparaged Pharisees regarding the sacrifices of seventy calves during the eight days of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, and note their humanitarianism:
"From Leviticus Rabbah: 'If the nations of the world had known how useful the Temple was to them, they would have surrounded it with fortified camps to protect it, for it was more useful to them than to Israel.' A Midrash in the Song of Songs (4:1) puts it this way: 'Your eyes are like doves' means that just as the dove (offered at the Temple) atones for everyone, so Israel atones for all peoples. For the seventy calves which were burned at the altar at the Feast of Tabernacles were offered on behalf of the nations, in order that their existence might be maintained in this world, which is why it is written in (Psalms 109:4), "In return for my love they laid obstacles in my path, yet I pray for them."
This is where ANS should have really challenged Eidelberg. Sacrifices for the Gentiles? This is gone. Jesus did away with those sacrifices once and for all. It is true that God commissioned the Jewish people to reach out with his love to all mankind. But it's also true that they failed and ignored that commission. Thus for me, Eidelberg has just shown the best possible reason for the Arabs having the Temple Mount - that all the sacrifices are no longer needed and that the Jewish people are no longer needed to reach the Gentiles.
That last sentence sounds harsh and taken out of context could be misinterpretted. If someone quoted me as saying 'the Jewis people are no longer needed' implying they could all be eliminated, that would be rubbish. But since Jesus as God incarnate came to earth they are no longer special. They need somewhere to live, just as the Palestinians need somewhere to live, but they are no longer part of God's plan to reach the world. That is 'been and gone'.
I still cannot get over ANS not challenging the whole animal sacrifice thing - this is so obviously pre-Christian and nothing to do with being a follower of Jesus that I cannot understand why they didn't challenge Eidelberg, especially when he went on to say:
Dr. Eidelberg said that in the treatise Sukkot in the Talmud, "we encounter a similar passage: Rabbi Jochanan says, 'Woe to the Gentiles for what they have lost (in losing the Temple). For when the Temple was standing, atonement was made for them on the altar … But now how will they atone?'
How will they atone? Simple - Jesus has done it once and for all! That's what makes followers of Jesus Christians and not Jews. Eidelberg continues:
What should concerned Christians who support the state of Israel be praying for?
"Christians should pray for an undivided Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty. By so doing, they will be praying for the ultimate redemption of all mankind as indicated above."
What should concerned Christians who are not political Zionists be praying for? They should pray that the Temple Mount comes under Arab control so that the Jews realise that the sacrifices of the old covenant are no longer valid and they should return to God and seek His son.
Eidelberg finishes with some 'facts'. One being this:
Maybe this is a clue to American support for Israel - they are supporting both sides of the war and thus making money from both sides in the conflict. He ends with this proposition:Unknown to many observers, U.S. military aid to Israel creates a demand for, and the purchase of, tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S. weaponry by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. U.S. grants to Israel -- far from imposing a burden on the American taxpayer --actually enriches the American economy.
In short, we must insist that Arab-Islamic regimes abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or be expelled from the United Nations.I'm pretty sure that if abiding by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were a measure of being a member of the UN, many countries including the USA and Israel would be expelled!
We need to see followers of Jesus exhibiting His walk of grace, even to death on a cross to show the world the walk of love, not the walk of hate. Animal sacrifices are no longer relevant Jesus was the 'lamb of God' sacrificed once and for all on the cross. That sacrifice was enough for all time. Any patch of land is no longer relevant.
