Tough stance is seen as the best recipe for peace

In an age largely devoid of politicians of stature, Binyamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu stands head and shoulders above the rest as a steadying influence on the world scene.

Elected to lead Israel for the fifth time in the past 23 years, he clearly commands wide respect and is seen as a figure of stability in a volatile region.

No Pushover

Paradoxically, though perhaps not surprisingly, the Likud Party leader is no pushover either. I guess that’s part of his secret.

Focusing on the paramount need of security for a nation hemmed in on all sides by enemies, he is perceived as a strong man who refuses to compromise with those who do not have his people’s best interests at heart.

So, while it might seem he is being provocative with his apparent lack of commitment to a Palestinian state along with a determination never to see Jerusalem divided, these are in fact peaceful objectives.

For a Palestinian state on Israel’s doorstep is an open invitation for Hamas and Hezbollah to ‘walk all over’ the Jewish people with the explosive fury they are already expressing through rockets and other missiles on the Gaza border.

Bibi is perceived as a strong man who refuses to compromise with those who do not have his people’s best interests at heart.

But Bibi is no doormat. Jews may have been led to the Nazi ovens like lambs to the slaughter, but never again. Their enemies have repeatedly made clear that they do not want peace; they don’t even want a ‘piece’ of the territory over which they are fighting. They want it all – “from the river to the sea”, a mantra even heard at the British Labour Party conference and on the streets of London during an annual march from which Hezbollah is now thankfully banned.

Even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has shown sympathy for this slogan which effectively denies Israel’s right to exist.

Appeasement Not an Option

So giving in to the demands of terrorists is not an option, and Bibi is thus seen as holding the best hopes of peace. By contrast, former Generals Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin both signed up to ‘land for peace’ accords which have only led to further violence.

But like Winston Churchill, Bibi is in no mood to appease bullies and has correctly perceived that the Ayatollahs of Iran mean what they say about wiping the Jewish state off the map.

We do not want another Holocaust, and it is high time British Christians realised that sitting on the fence over Israel is both cowardly and deadly. The Jewish nation is under severe threat and God will call us to account over the deafening silence on the issue generally expressed by the Church at this time.

Shining Example of Democracy

It was just over a year ago that Hamas launched its ‘Great March of Return’ for the descendants of refugees claiming their land has been stolen, promising ‘peaceful’ protests which have instead sparked 2,000 violent incidents and 694 explosions, burnt up 9,000 acres of agricultural land and fired 1,323 rockets into Israel.¹

In the northern part of the country, meanwhile, the strategic Golan Heights is now the centre of fresh controversy following recognition of the region by US President Trump as sovereign Israeli territory.

It’s high time British Christians realised that sitting on the fence over Israel is both cowardly and deadly.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has condemned this move while at the same time acknowledging Israel as “a shining example of democracy in a part of the world where that is not common”.²

But as the Gatestone Institute put it, “Israel’s continuing control over the Golan Heights increases the chance for peace and decreases the chances that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah will be able to use this high ground as a launching pad against Israelis.” Besides, they add, “no country in history has ever given back to a sworn enemy, militarily essential territory that has been captured in a defensive war.”³

Right-wing Government

Meanwhile we await Donald Trump’s much-heralded ‘Deal of the Century’ with bated breath, though Bibi has already set out his ‘guidelines’ for the agreement on a visit to Washington - according to an interview with the Editor of conservative Israeli weekly Makor Rishon – namely, that he will not accept any plan that uproots “even a single settlement or settler”; that “governance west of the Jordan River will remain in our hands”; and that he will not divide Jerusalem.⁴

Another boost to Bibi’s position is the fact that the Saudis, along with other Sunni Arab leaders, are growing weary of Palestinian intransigence while at the same time strengthening their own ties with Israel.

Where Abraham and Lot parted company – looking out to the Dead Sea with the Jordanian mountains of Moab beyond. Picture: Charles Gardner

Bibi has committed himself to a nationalist, stable, right-wing government working for all its citizens. In this respect I was intrigued to read a Jewish explanation for the origin of the political terms ‘left’ and ‘right-wing’ that are now, of course, used globally.

According to the explanation, it began as a biblical concept reflecting the locations chosen by Abraham and Lot as they went their separate ways. Orientation in those days was not defined by one’s position in relation to the North Pole, but from facing East, where the sun rose and a new day began. So the Hebrew for west, for example, actually translates ‘behind’ while north and south stand for left and right. Thus Abraham went south (i.e. turned right towards Hebron) while Lot went north (i.e. turned left in the direction of Sodom).⁵

Bibi has committed himself to a nationalist, stable, right-wing government working for all its citizens.

Israel Today Senior Editor Aviel Schneider explains: “Lot chose [the well-watered Jordan plains] according to his senses and human understanding. Abraham trusted God, and was content with the south and with going ‘to the right’…Left-wing ideology is founded on logic, on what the eye can see, while right-wing ideology puts its trust in God. Left-wing politics are more likely to be humanistic, right-wing politics biblical.”⁶

The rabbis and many Likud voters subscribe to this theory, he adds.

Not a very flattering concept for left-wingers, for sure. But then they are the ones promoting sodomy, right?

Perhaps it’s also a useful pointer to Britain’s troubles over Brexit. Even the Tories, who were once regarded as the party of the family, have made a significant left-turn of late which has helped to sink the ship of state.

Postscript

As an interesting postscript, Israel’s democracy is based on proportional representation which many, including me, believe to be fairer than the ‘first-past-the-post’ system we have adopted, and citizens vote for a single political party rather than for individual candidates.

So please continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps 122:6), where the 120-seat Knesset (Parliament) is located.

References

1 United with Israel, 29 March 2019. 

2 Jerusalem News Network, 5 April 2019, quoting Arutz-7.

3 JNN, 5 April 2019.

4 JNN, 10 April 2019, quoting INN.

5 Israel Today magazine, March 2019.

6 Ibid.

Despite today's handshake between Abbas and Netanyahu, the Palestinians continue to make land claims that defy international law.

Amidst the ongoing conflict over land allegedly occupied by Israel, what is the truth and why is there so much confusion? The Bible is quite clear about it: the Jews were promised this land (significantly more than they presently occupy) thousands of years ago (Gen 17:8). But even on a political level, Israel has every right to this much fought-over real estate. It's just that politicians have agendas, along with short memories.

The Two-State 'Solution'

PA president Mahmoud Abbas, at the United Nations, has called for a Palestinian state based on the borders proposed in the 1947 UN Partition Plan¹ – borders the Arabs rejected outright at the time. So how likely is it to satisfy them now? Their real problem – then and now – is the existence of a Jewish state.

The 1947 UN plan recommended the land being divided to create independent Jewish and Arab states existing alongside one another. Even this was a betrayal of Jewish aspirations, for they had originally (through the 1920 Treaty of San Remo, which has never been superseded) been promised a much larger area including the land now known as Jordan.

The real problem the Palestinians have is not borders - but the very existence of a Jewish state.

But in a compromise designed to appease the wrath of dissenting Arabs, Britain imposed a 'two-state solution' by granting the region east of the Jordan River to the Arabs. It duly became known as Jordan. But memories are short, and there was soon talk of a further 'two-state solution'.

Nevertheless, the Jews accepted the UN offer despite the fact that it represented only a fraction of the territory originally promised them. Yet the Arabs rejected it, and are still seen by many as the victims.

Core Obstacles to Peace

Now Abbas calls on the UN to declare 2017 "the international year to end the Israeli occupation of our land and our people" [emphasis added]². But since when did it belong to the Palestinians, who did not exist as a people in 1947? In fact, Jews from the region were more likely to be known as Palestinians then.

Following the War of Independence in 1948, Jordan (not the PA) illegally took control of Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem. But when threatened with annihilation by surrounding Arab countries in 1967, Israel won an astounding victory in just six days and duly re-captured this disputed territory, which was certainly never 'Palestinian'. Now Abbas is claiming that Jewish settlements in these territories are an obstacle to peace.³

But as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu put it, the conflict is not about settlements. "If the Arabs had said yes to a Jewish state in 1947, there would be no war, no refugees, no conflict. And when they finally say yes to a Jewish state, we'll be able to end this conflict once and for all."⁴ Or as he told the UN, the core of the conflict is the "persistent Palestinian refusal to recognize the Jewish state within any boundary"⁵ [emphasis added].

As to the PA's demand that a Palestinian state be free of Jews, Mr Netanyahu described that as "ethnic cleansing", adding that "the concept of ethnic cleansing for peace is absurd".⁶

Even US President Barak Obama has got himself in a muddle over this, referring to Israel's persistence in occupying "Palestinian land", which is patently not the case, even in international law.⁷

Netanyahu has described the PA's demand that a Palestinian state be free of Jews as "ethnic cleansing".

Taking on Western Bias

Meanwhile the Israeli leader invited his PA counterpart to address the Knesset, Israel's parliament, and told him: "You have a choice to make. You can continue to stoke hatred, as you did today [at the UN], or you can confront hatred and work with me today."⁸ However, Bibi was uncharacteristically upbeat about the future. Citing growing relationships with countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and even among Arab nations, he predicted that delegates would soon get calls from their leaders with a short message: "The war against Israel at the UN has ended."⁹

But he was scathing about the General Assembly bias displayed last year when they passed 20 resolutions against his democratic state versus just three for the rest of the world where human rights violations abound.¹⁰

Britain was also taken to task by the PA president in his address at the UN for issuing the so-called Balfour Declaration in 1917, which promised to do all it could to create a homeland in Palestine (as the region was then known) for the Jewish people.¹¹ In fact, Abbas has threatened to sue Britain over this declaration, which he claimed had reaped catastrophe, misery and injustice for his people.

But Mr Netanyahu countered that if he went ahead with such an action, "he should also sue Cyrus the Great for letting the Jews come back to Israel to rebuild the Temple, and organize a class action suit against Abraham for buying a parcel of land in Hebron".¹²

Lessons from Ruth

We must pray for greater understanding – amongst politicians, writers and clergy – of the principle that blessing the Jews is the key to individual and national prosperity (Gen 12:3). Palestinians and other enemies of Israel would save their beleaguered peoples so much heartache, poverty and strife if only they would buy into this principle – so well understood and practised by the biblical Ruth.

As a Moabite, Ruth was seen as a 'foreigner', yet she blessed her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi in staying by her side for her return to Judah (not Palestine) after losing her husband and sons. As Boaz put it, she had left her father, mother and homeland to come and live with a people she did not know. And his prayer for her was: "May you be richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge" (Ruth 1:11f).

Blessing the Jews is the key to individual and national prosperity.

As with Ruth, who came from present-day Jordan, most Palestinian leaders are also foreigners from various Arab lands in the region (for example, PLO founder Yasser Arafat was Egyptian). The idea of Palestinian nationality is a political invention of recent times to provide an excuse for driving out the Jews. But we praise God for the growing number of Arabs and Palestinians who are being reconciled with their Jewish brothers through the atoning death of Jesus on a cross just outside Jerusalem.

Pray that eyes will continue to be opened to the wondrous truth expounded by Paul in his letter to the Gentile Ephesians, reminding them that they were once "separated from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility..." (Eph 2:12-14).

References

1. Posselt, I. Abbas calls for Palestinian state based on 1947 borders. Bridges for Peace, 23 September 2016.
2. United with Israel, 23 September 2016.
3. JNN Newsletter, Arutz-7/Jerusalem News Network, 11 September 2016.
4. United with Israel, 25 September 2016.
5. United with Israel, 23 September 2016.
6. See note 3.
7. Obama told the UN: "Surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land." Arutz-7/JNN Newsletter, 27 September 2016.
8. See note 1.
9. Jerusalem Post/JNN Newsletter, 24 September 2016.
10. JNN Newsletter Newsletter, 24 September 2016.
11. See note 1.
12. See note 9.