Did you know that the eye is not the final determiner of what you see? As complex as the eye is, with its cornea, lens, pupil, iris, macula, retina and vitreous humor (not an exhaustive inventory), the final regulator of what you see is your brain. In fact, the left side of the brain captures your right-side field of vision and the right side of the brain captures your left-side field of vision. And yet, with all this complexity and wonder, there is yet another arbiter even more sophisticated and determined than the brain. This determining mechanism is called the will.
Let’s say you’re a 40 year old man, married to an attractive professional woman, with three children in late elementary grades. You live in a middle-class gated community in your four bedroom Dutch Colonial home on the 9th fairway from where you commute 30 minutes each way to a respectable office job, and supervise six junior executives, an office assistant, and a pretty young intern anxious to make good. The intern seems to violate your sense of personal space, brushes against you at the coffee urn, refers to your self-conscious irks about your paunch and thinning pate as “mature” attributes, and would like to devote some extracurricular time with you to cultivate a leadership style she much admires in you. Every image your eyes see, every signal your brain interprets as the neurotransmitters perform their designated chemical functions, and every message your mind receives tells you that what you’re contemplating is putting at risk your marriage, your home, your reputation, and your children’s esteem . . . yet you choose jeopardy. The eyes were functional . . . the brain did its job . . . what happened?
There was an angel. He was described by God as “the model of perfection” (Ezekiel 28:12) but somehow made a determination to commit rebellion because holding the highest post in creation was somehow insufficient. Notwithstanding his own beauty, intelligence, position and gifts (unsurpassed), he determined to strike out at his own benefactor in revolt. We know it wasn’t design or destiny, impulse or improvisation, mistake or malfunction. The record of his determined decision is recorded in Isaiah 14:13-14; “I will,” “I will,” “I will,” “I will,” “I will.” Not to be confused with “I want,” or “I wonder.” Five times he exercised dominion over his decision process, against all the data to which his surroundings testified.
Mankind, like Lucifer, is equipped with this apparatus of self-determination wherein we are capable of ignoring every signal in the flow of one direction and choose the opposite. Now, it’s not an easy path to live out Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs (Survival, Safety & Security, Belonging, Esteem, Full Potential) if one chooses rebellion as a life script. So, we (humans) have discovered that, like wearing sun glasses to mitigate the harshness of light, or like wearing corrective lenses to compensate for what we actually see (due to faulty optical parts), we can wear an adapter (called “world view”) to help us make decisions that seem to “not be so contrary.” For example, in order to justify and excuse the behavior of a chief executive who committed adultery, lied, violated his oath of office and betrayed his national constituency in an “in-your-face” fashion and without remorse, I can wear my cynical “everybody-does-it” hedonist world view prism apparatus and be very at ease with my decision. This is why those who take what’s not theirs, commit violence and murder, abuse and mistreat children, cheat on their tax responsibilities, or bear false witness without regret or shame can do so with a clear conscience. Therefore, “I will” endeavor to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33) in order to navigate through this vale of tears, and when I stumble “I will” avoid the corrective lenses designed to assuage my shame and instead seek forgiveness and accept restoration. (1 John 1:9)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Ann Coulter, How Do I Love Thee?
I’m so in love with Ann Coulter. She does her homework and makes her case without political correct caution. Her arguments are forceful and clinical and obliterate the opposition because all her foes have to hang their argument on is ad hominem attacks and volume. Her facts are indisputable, which is why her enemies continue to try to silence her. In reading her newest book, “Demonic,” I have determined that she has discovered the fundamental reason why the left is so incapable of interpreting the facts as reality. It’s not because they’re mean and despicable (they simply appear that way), it’s because they are handicapped with a Progressive Jamming Device (PJR) called ignorance. Ignorance is not stupidity. The dictionary defines stupidity as “mental dullness” or “lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind.” These people are not stupid; they are simply afflicted with PJD that keeps them from integrating actual facts in a healthy, normal manner. It is self-imposed to be sure but nevertheless definite. Jesus said “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mk. 4:9) He wasn’t “implying” anything – he was saying straight out . . . it’s a choice. Weather spiritual or political it ought to be sensible to cut out all the extraneous blather (these two words together constitute a redundancy but in this case it seems to apply) and speak forthrightly. In the case of the Gospel narrative Jesus apparently determined that assuaging the hurt feelings of some who might be offended at his frankness was much less important than getting the message across. Those who are going to be offended will take offense anyway. They want to be offended. They want the facts to be as they see and hear them, not as they are. Therefore, much like an electrical short circuit that causes machinery to malfunction, PJR scrambles the data and . . . presto! . . . ignorance. Many on the left are champions of compromise, that peaceful, cooperating, lets-all-get-along-together attitude of a negotiated settlement. It sounds so right. It seems so proper. (“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Prov. 14:12) Daniel and his companions were legitimate servants to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar who had the right of conquest to do as he wished with them. When told they had to violate their laws of kosher and eat foods that would defile them, Daniel could have compromised and his decision would have been understood. Yet he insisted on faithfulness, understanding that there can be no compromise to fidelity. The champions of compromise want to muddy the water and then ask you to drink from a polluted source, trying to convince you that there’s no such thing as perfection . . . or purity. Jesus was encouraged to turn stones into bread. After all, he had fasted for 40 days, was undoubtedly very hungry, and no one would know the difference. But truth minus anything in the direction of compromise is less than truth. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Poor Old Jeremiah
Poor old Jeremiah, he just couldn’t seem to get out of the way of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. He had to call it like he saw it and that offended just about the entire country. It’s difficult to swim against the current and the consequences of his determination cost him a lot . . . he was beaten and put into stocks; he was imprisoned by the king; he was threatened with death; he was thrown into a cistern (a big vat); and he was condescendingly opposed in public by the local good-guy prophet, Hananiah. Even his own family turned on him. In the end, when it turned out that he was seeing clearly and everyone else was wrong, he received no apologies or acknowledgements. But that seems to be the way it is with the human condition. The Apostle Paul said, “. . . they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3). It’s not meanness and ugliness; it’s a sincere desire to want things to be fair and kind. But, we are poor judges of what is true. “There is a way that seems right to man but in the end it leads to death." (Prov. 14:12). Our ability to see and hear properly depends on whether we have “eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” (Mark 4:9)
The Gospel, of course, is simple. All that other theologian stuff can get fairly complicated: Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology, Eschatology, etc. Yet, if we could just stumble on the simple prospect that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) we could realize that it’s not about us but all about Him and rest in the peace that transcends all understanding (Phil. 4:7). But the world is full of other stuff too, like politics, economics, history, science, relationships and family. Even when we ask God to weigh in on these matters it seems we’ve already made up our minds about what he will say . . . or should say . . . to be fair. In his 2001 historical dissertation titled “While God is Marching On,” Steven Woodworth illustrates how both sides in the great American War Between the States were convinced that God was on their side. Yet, we have a peculiar and fervent gift for interpreting things through a prism of self-centeredness. We simply will not tolerate hearing the truth if it doesn’t pass the muster of our prideful world view. Following WWI, wherein the British lost about a million (dead) and another 1.5 million wounded out of a population of less than 30 million men, they were in no mood for another fight. By the 1930s they were already determined not to listen to even one as eloquent as Winston Churchill who warned of the need to oppose Hitler and the Nazi movement as early as October 1930. Yet he was booed and hissed in Parliament, ridiculed in the press, and suffered tepid support even in his own political party. As late as May 1940, King George VI did not want him to be his prime minister and he was dumped less than a month after VE Day.
Today, there are voices of prophecy in the political/economic arena, warning of impending disaster. Will we call on God to ratify our beliefs and strategies, or will we get serious about jettisoning all unnecessary philosophical baggage and turn to Him for our deliverance? Our first destination ought not to be the voting booth but a place where our knees can find surface. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” (2 Chr. 7:14)
The Gospel, of course, is simple. All that other theologian stuff can get fairly complicated: Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology, Eschatology, etc. Yet, if we could just stumble on the simple prospect that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) we could realize that it’s not about us but all about Him and rest in the peace that transcends all understanding (Phil. 4:7). But the world is full of other stuff too, like politics, economics, history, science, relationships and family. Even when we ask God to weigh in on these matters it seems we’ve already made up our minds about what he will say . . . or should say . . . to be fair. In his 2001 historical dissertation titled “While God is Marching On,” Steven Woodworth illustrates how both sides in the great American War Between the States were convinced that God was on their side. Yet, we have a peculiar and fervent gift for interpreting things through a prism of self-centeredness. We simply will not tolerate hearing the truth if it doesn’t pass the muster of our prideful world view. Following WWI, wherein the British lost about a million (dead) and another 1.5 million wounded out of a population of less than 30 million men, they were in no mood for another fight. By the 1930s they were already determined not to listen to even one as eloquent as Winston Churchill who warned of the need to oppose Hitler and the Nazi movement as early as October 1930. Yet he was booed and hissed in Parliament, ridiculed in the press, and suffered tepid support even in his own political party. As late as May 1940, King George VI did not want him to be his prime minister and he was dumped less than a month after VE Day.
Today, there are voices of prophecy in the political/economic arena, warning of impending disaster. Will we call on God to ratify our beliefs and strategies, or will we get serious about jettisoning all unnecessary philosophical baggage and turn to Him for our deliverance? Our first destination ought not to be the voting booth but a place where our knees can find surface. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” (2 Chr. 7:14)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
National and Individual Character
Character trumps all else, which is why there is ample reason to be pessimistic about our national survival. We have decayed to the point in our national character to reach the condition of communal hubris. The barometer of this assessment was made obvious in the recent New York special election for its 26th congressional district. The results are in and the analysis is clear . . . the Democrat won on the strength of her position on the Medicare issue . . . that it should be “left alone.” The people have spoken. The opposing position in NY’s 26th district, as it is all across the country, is that Medicare (as well as Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) must undergo radical change or collapse under its own weight anyhow . . . and soon. Yet the “Hands Off Our Medicare” signs had their effect in this special election and are likely to render the same influence on the larger stage. What it ultimately means is that we probably are so deficient in the national character it takes to care enough about our children and grandchildren to protect their future that we are ready to doom them for our own current comfort and self-aggrandizement. I suppose it’s convenient to blame the politicians who pander to our basest appetites for not having the courage to herald truth and trust in the consequences of nobility. Yet, in the end, “we the people,” are the decision makers in a democratic republic and we have a way of insisting on what we want to hear and we have demonstrated that we don’t want to hear the truth.
A recent Time Magazine front page story was the controversy regarding Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” which proposes the theological argument that everyone ultimately winds up in heaven --- no eternal hell for bad people. The blogs and OpEd pieces and “Letters to the Editor” since the Time Magazine story was published have been voluminous. What is interesting to note, other than the expected tit-for-tat repartee, is the profusion of those taking the side of Rob Bell and the almost singular argument for holding this view . . . “A loving God would not condemn anyone to a permanent hell.” Never is there a suggestion that “a just God would never . . .” or “an almighty God wouldn’t . . .” or “an omniscient God could not . . .” make such a decision. And mostly absent from these sentiments, so absent that it’s obvious beyond astounding, is the notion of what a “Holy God” might determine. For understandable reasons we want our God to be loving and He is. In fact, 1st John 4:8 tells us that “God is love.” Yet, our naïve miscalculation is in not realizing that that’s not “all” He is. In fact, it’s not His central attribute. As great as His love is for us, that “He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16), God’s most principal and defining characteristic is His holiness. But we would rather God be held hostage to His great love for us that He would infringe upon His holiness to make the sacrifice of His Son of no purpose or effect. Great new for us who have sought out the escape clauses in the contract. Much like our hope with Medicare, we will insist on having our cake and eating it too . . . then avoiding the consequences of our decisions. The sad truth is we somehow expect that since we sincerely believe our own preferred doctrine we shall inherit what we desire rather than what we deserve. We are sincerely wrong.
A recent Time Magazine front page story was the controversy regarding Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, “Love Wins,” which proposes the theological argument that everyone ultimately winds up in heaven --- no eternal hell for bad people. The blogs and OpEd pieces and “Letters to the Editor” since the Time Magazine story was published have been voluminous. What is interesting to note, other than the expected tit-for-tat repartee, is the profusion of those taking the side of Rob Bell and the almost singular argument for holding this view . . . “A loving God would not condemn anyone to a permanent hell.” Never is there a suggestion that “a just God would never . . .” or “an almighty God wouldn’t . . .” or “an omniscient God could not . . .” make such a decision. And mostly absent from these sentiments, so absent that it’s obvious beyond astounding, is the notion of what a “Holy God” might determine. For understandable reasons we want our God to be loving and He is. In fact, 1st John 4:8 tells us that “God is love.” Yet, our naïve miscalculation is in not realizing that that’s not “all” He is. In fact, it’s not His central attribute. As great as His love is for us, that “He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16), God’s most principal and defining characteristic is His holiness. But we would rather God be held hostage to His great love for us that He would infringe upon His holiness to make the sacrifice of His Son of no purpose or effect. Great new for us who have sought out the escape clauses in the contract. Much like our hope with Medicare, we will insist on having our cake and eating it too . . . then avoiding the consequences of our decisions. The sad truth is we somehow expect that since we sincerely believe our own preferred doctrine we shall inherit what we desire rather than what we deserve. We are sincerely wrong.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Archeological Evidence
The archeological record bears out the stubbornness of the children of Jacob in resisting the first of the commands given to Moses at Sinai: “I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other gods.” Whenever archeologists have excavated ancient Israeli sites that date from their earliest antiquity until the Babylonian captivity, they invariably discover small statues and carvings of a variety of household gods as well as engravings that indicate that many Israelites accepted the proposition that their chief God, Yahweh, had a consort, an Asherah . . . in Semitic mythology, a mother goddess. This finding, though astonishing to some people, actually reinforces the Biblical narrative. From Exodus onward throughout the Old Testament it is plain that God forever has to discipline His people for their spiritual infidelity. In fact, at the very beginning before Moses could make it down to the bottom of the mount with the tablets in hand, the people who had miraculously witnessed their deliverance just weeks before, had already lost confidence and began hedging their bets with the golden calf. This, of course, was what was familiar to them for 400 years until Moses showed up and introduced them to “I Am that I AM” and asked them to forsake their vacillations between monotheism and polytheism and worship Yahweh alone. Even after 40 years of miracles God knew they would have fidelity problems and warned them about the company they keep (Joshua 23:7). Consequently, every now and then, God would visit on His people, adjustment and chastisement. This was the drill for about 700 years. After the Babylonian captivity, the archeological record confirms the narrative in Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi . . . the Hebrews needed encouragement to keep their priorities in order as they suffered from a general spiritual malaise due to corruption in the priesthood and mechanical insensitivity in their worship observances. This was often the failure that Jesus would notice in them, though they had finally managed to nail down adherence to the 1st commandment, even if it was at the expense of the other nine.
It must be difficult keeping all ten of the major commandments at the same time rather than just focusing on one at a time, particularly when one gets older and multi-tasking becomes a serious undertaking. Then again, it was never a design that could be met. (Gal. 3:24) For if you insist on being a law-abider you are obligated to obey them all . . . all the time . . . at the same time . . . and it can’t be done. Besides, there are only two commandments (Luke 10:27) and even those two are impossible to manage without the in-filling of His Spirit (Acts 1:8). So, it really begs the question, “what was God up to with laying on the Israelites a burden they could not possibly carry?” Just as the cross has two beams, the vertical one to represent our relationship with Him, and the horizontal one to illustrate our relationship with one another, I believe He was teaching us two very important lessons. First, it should not have escaped our notice (Old Testament period) that there was absolutely no one who could keep the law . . . not even close, and therefore it was His initiative, not ours, that made the vertical relationship work. Second, “attitude is everything” . . . meaning, He sees and judges the heart. When He said through Samuel “. . . to obey is better than sacrifice . . .” (1 Samuel 15:22), that’s precisely what He was trying to make known to the stubborn-headed and disobedient Saul. We could use a little reminding today as we devote much of our time on vain and selfish endeavors while nailing down that 1st commandment by making certain we meet our Sunday obligation. (Luke 16:15) I wouldn’t want future generations to discover our archeological evidence of failure. Jesus said there will be those who show up for evaluation on that great day of judgment who sincerely believe they’ve made the cut only to hear these solemn words: “I never knew you.” (Matthew 7:23)
It must be difficult keeping all ten of the major commandments at the same time rather than just focusing on one at a time, particularly when one gets older and multi-tasking becomes a serious undertaking. Then again, it was never a design that could be met. (Gal. 3:24) For if you insist on being a law-abider you are obligated to obey them all . . . all the time . . . at the same time . . . and it can’t be done. Besides, there are only two commandments (Luke 10:27) and even those two are impossible to manage without the in-filling of His Spirit (Acts 1:8). So, it really begs the question, “what was God up to with laying on the Israelites a burden they could not possibly carry?” Just as the cross has two beams, the vertical one to represent our relationship with Him, and the horizontal one to illustrate our relationship with one another, I believe He was teaching us two very important lessons. First, it should not have escaped our notice (Old Testament period) that there was absolutely no one who could keep the law . . . not even close, and therefore it was His initiative, not ours, that made the vertical relationship work. Second, “attitude is everything” . . . meaning, He sees and judges the heart. When He said through Samuel “. . . to obey is better than sacrifice . . .” (1 Samuel 15:22), that’s precisely what He was trying to make known to the stubborn-headed and disobedient Saul. We could use a little reminding today as we devote much of our time on vain and selfish endeavors while nailing down that 1st commandment by making certain we meet our Sunday obligation. (Luke 16:15) I wouldn’t want future generations to discover our archeological evidence of failure. Jesus said there will be those who show up for evaluation on that great day of judgment who sincerely believe they’ve made the cut only to hear these solemn words: “I never knew you.” (Matthew 7:23)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
It's an Axiom
The definition of “axiom” is a self-evident truth. It requires no proof because the logic is clear that the proposition needs no argument. Like Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am), there are things that shouldn’t require a PhD to fathom. We can and do certainly disagree on many things but axioms ought to invite unity of acceptance. Ought, but not necessarily do they. In the news of late are stories that highlight our national debt. Anecdotally attributed to Everett Dirksen is the phrase, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." However, weather he said it or not the topic of debt discussion today is not billions but trillions --- that’s a number with 12 zeros, a billion times 1000. There comes a time when the use of numbers loses its effective perspective. It’s like saying “the mysterious Ring Galaxy is 600 million light-years distant” from earth. Let’s see, light travels at approximately 186, 282 miles per second; 600,000 times 186,282 = . . . . good grief! It’s simply not comprehensible. I think that must be the way it is when considering our national debt. It’s simply not comprehensible. Yet, just because I cannot comprehend it doesn’t invalidate the truth of it. The Ring Galaxy is still there . . . and so is the debt. This is an axiom.
Some years ago when I was still in the Air Force I came upon what may be called “a teachable moment.” Because of some foolish spending, unforeseen financial reversals, personal setbacks and self-imposed ignorance, I found myself in serious debt. The teachable moment came when my commander called me in for counseling and made it clear that the Air Force would not tolerate personal indebtedness that interfered with my duty to meet all obligations, personal and professional. If I wanted to continue my career I would have to ensure no further letters of indebtedness made their way to my commander’s desk. So, in addition to restructuring my combined debt and organizing my payment schedule to acceptable proportions, the most important and most effective means of transforming my debt status from “high risk” to “competent and reliable” was to radically alter my spending habit – read: spend much less than my income. I had to not only cut spending so as not to incur additional debt, I was forced to cut spending radically so as to reduce the debt already incurred. I notice in the news there are those who believe we can cut spending by a couple of billion on our “trillions-of-dollars” debt. Cutting $60 billion dollars of a 14 trillion debt is a reduction of 2/5th of 1%. If that had been my decision 36 years ago, I would not only still be in debt . . . I’d be worse off by a magnitude of exponential proportions.
The question is why are people willing to visit such a burden on our children, our grandchildren and beyond? Do they not care? Can they not see? Are they not parents who love their children? For me it’s like the Ring Galaxy . . . it’s an attitude beyond my comprehension. History shows in time of severe famine people have been known to eat their young. Is this too harsh an appraisal? Are we sacrificing our children’s future out of fear of our own survival? Does this seem hyperbolic to you? Or will we wake up as a culture and see our obligation? I don’t know. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking about self-destruction. That’s an axiom.
Some years ago when I was still in the Air Force I came upon what may be called “a teachable moment.” Because of some foolish spending, unforeseen financial reversals, personal setbacks and self-imposed ignorance, I found myself in serious debt. The teachable moment came when my commander called me in for counseling and made it clear that the Air Force would not tolerate personal indebtedness that interfered with my duty to meet all obligations, personal and professional. If I wanted to continue my career I would have to ensure no further letters of indebtedness made their way to my commander’s desk. So, in addition to restructuring my combined debt and organizing my payment schedule to acceptable proportions, the most important and most effective means of transforming my debt status from “high risk” to “competent and reliable” was to radically alter my spending habit – read: spend much less than my income. I had to not only cut spending so as not to incur additional debt, I was forced to cut spending radically so as to reduce the debt already incurred. I notice in the news there are those who believe we can cut spending by a couple of billion on our “trillions-of-dollars” debt. Cutting $60 billion dollars of a 14 trillion debt is a reduction of 2/5th of 1%. If that had been my decision 36 years ago, I would not only still be in debt . . . I’d be worse off by a magnitude of exponential proportions.
The question is why are people willing to visit such a burden on our children, our grandchildren and beyond? Do they not care? Can they not see? Are they not parents who love their children? For me it’s like the Ring Galaxy . . . it’s an attitude beyond my comprehension. History shows in time of severe famine people have been known to eat their young. Is this too harsh an appraisal? Are we sacrificing our children’s future out of fear of our own survival? Does this seem hyperbolic to you? Or will we wake up as a culture and see our obligation? I don’t know. A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we’re talking about self-destruction. That’s an axiom.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Middle East -- An Opinion
Take a look at a map of the Middle East. You will notice that Israel sits squarely in the middle of a Muslim world. Yet, sorting through the news from network television, the major print media outlets, and popular magazines you might conclude that Israel is the Goliath and her neighbors are the little David characters in this contemporary drama. My stepson has a sober way of bringing clarity to issues at times . . . he says, “. . . do the math.” So, let’s do some figuring. The number of Jews in the world comes to about 14 million, with 5.5 million residing in Israel. The world Muslim population is approximately 1.7 billion, nearly 475 million living in Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Syria Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon alone. Thus, the ratio of Muslims to Jews in the Middle East (not counting Somalia, Yemen, Oman, Libya, etc.) is 86:1 and in the world about 120:1. Nevertheless, the world press would have us believe that this little sovereign state, roughly the size of New Jersey, is perpetually poking its finger in the eye of leviathan . . . because?
The popular propaganda is that Israel is some kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to the Middle East neighborhood, invading the Muslim homeland and confiscating what did not belong to them in 1948 with the help of Christian western civilization. Nevertheless, the history of the Middle East is traceable . . . from the Babylonians to the Persians, the Romans, the Islamic Caliphate, the Turks, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the European colonials, to the present. While it’s true that Jews left their homeland in great numbers following the Roman destruction of the Herodian temple in the 1st century AD as the center of worship shifted from the temple to Rabbinic Judaism, at no time in the past 4000 years had Jews not lived in the land except for the 400 years of captivity described in Genesis. For a long time there was no Jewish nation-state. But, neither was there a Jordon or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or a Turkey. The boundaries of the modern Middle Eastern nation-states are post Ottoman Empire divisions.
Our American diplomatic objective in the Middle East is to facilitate the addition of another Middle Eastern nation-state to be carved out of the Israeli security zone --- the West Bank. To establish a “homeland” for these Palestinians in neighboring Syria or Jordon is evidently out of the question. In fact, they were expelled from Jordon in 1970 by order of King Hussein, but there are no rockets fired into Amman today as an expression of holy hostility to that country. Still, somehow, our American diplomatic philosophy rests on the belief that if we could just birth this new nation that swears eternal enmity against the Jewish people, there could be peace in the Middle East. Let me attempt to draw an analogy. The continental United States is a resident for crocodiles and alligators with the exception of the small reserve of Rhode Island which is home to the wildebeest. But now the gators and crocs think it fair to lay claim to the Providence-Pawtucket metropolitan area as well. If you think that all the reptiles really want is just 30% of the little reserve, you’re likely to find a lot of companionship in the Flat Earth Society.
The popular propaganda is that Israel is some kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to the Middle East neighborhood, invading the Muslim homeland and confiscating what did not belong to them in 1948 with the help of Christian western civilization. Nevertheless, the history of the Middle East is traceable . . . from the Babylonians to the Persians, the Romans, the Islamic Caliphate, the Turks, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the European colonials, to the present. While it’s true that Jews left their homeland in great numbers following the Roman destruction of the Herodian temple in the 1st century AD as the center of worship shifted from the temple to Rabbinic Judaism, at no time in the past 4000 years had Jews not lived in the land except for the 400 years of captivity described in Genesis. For a long time there was no Jewish nation-state. But, neither was there a Jordon or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or a Turkey. The boundaries of the modern Middle Eastern nation-states are post Ottoman Empire divisions.
Our American diplomatic objective in the Middle East is to facilitate the addition of another Middle Eastern nation-state to be carved out of the Israeli security zone --- the West Bank. To establish a “homeland” for these Palestinians in neighboring Syria or Jordon is evidently out of the question. In fact, they were expelled from Jordon in 1970 by order of King Hussein, but there are no rockets fired into Amman today as an expression of holy hostility to that country. Still, somehow, our American diplomatic philosophy rests on the belief that if we could just birth this new nation that swears eternal enmity against the Jewish people, there could be peace in the Middle East. Let me attempt to draw an analogy. The continental United States is a resident for crocodiles and alligators with the exception of the small reserve of Rhode Island which is home to the wildebeest. But now the gators and crocs think it fair to lay claim to the Providence-Pawtucket metropolitan area as well. If you think that all the reptiles really want is just 30% of the little reserve, you’re likely to find a lot of companionship in the Flat Earth Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)