Did I “eternally” give up on Israel?

I wrote a few days ago that I agreed with Joseph Farah about giving up on Israel. In response, Steve K. writes:

You’ve somehow left out American pressure. Remember, only days after the September 11,2001 atrocities, President Bush unveiled his vision for a Palestinian terrorist state in Israel’s Biblical homeland. Mr. Bush had since then devoted enormous political and diplomatic energy to seeing it through. As a Christian then, do you give up on Israel eternally? What would your savior think of you? Perhaps, “I never knew you”?

LA replies:

I never said I gave up on Israel eternally! My gosh. I said that as long as the Israelis themselves are going along with their suicidal course, why should I invest energy in worrying about her? If the Israelis showed some life again, if an Israeli politics appeared aimed at survival, I’d be rooting for that again. But as of now, there’s no one there (at least no major players, and not the large majority of the populace) to root for.

Also, I protest your use against me of the parable of the Final Judgment in Matthew 25, which under liberal misinterpretation has had more harmful effects than any other passage in the Bible, being turned into a mandate for the suicidal self-sacrifice of the West for the entire world.

Steve K. replies:

Thanks for your reply. Why should you invest energy in worrying about her? Because the Almighty commands us to worry about her; to pray for the peace of Jerusalem; to comfort His people…. because she has received of the Lord’s hand double for all of her sins. Can you imagine God saying, “I give up on Israel,” (as Mr. Farah has done—who, by the way, endorsed George W. Bush in October 2004 though he indicated he’d never do such a thing) or any of the ancient prophets?

Israel has had her collaborators and traitorous leaders from the Jewish Hellenists to the priestly class that collaborated with Rome, to the Jewish Agency that collaborated with Mandatory Britain, though England’s 1939 White Paper consigned millions to Hitler’s gas chambers.

Now we have in this Republican Christian president—I’m a thirty-five year registered conservative Republican by the way—one who has made it official U.S. policy that there will be a Palestinian terrorist state in the Holy Land, prophetic warnings in our Bible notwithstanding; he’s going to divide the God’s land, with the help of his prime minister- marionette in Jerusalem, by hook or by crook. I did not vote for Mr. Bush yet again in 2004—I turned the page—because I wanted to send terrorists a message.

Israelis trust America and they trust this president. They are confused, disillusioned and war-weary. There are strong people of faith in Israel—many living in faith and obedience in the territories—yet power is in the hands of the collaborators at the moment.

So what do we do as people of faith, conservatives, Americans? Give up on Israel? Is this what you really believe God would have us do?

LA replies:

I disagree with the picture of Israel as a mere puppet in the hands of the U.S. Bush’s policies have been extremely blameworthy, but the Israelis have chosen their own policies; Bush has not forced Israel’s policies on her. For example the Gaza pullout was Sharon’s idea all the way.

Paul N. writes:

“I did not vote for Mr. Bush yet again in 2004—I turned the page—because I wanted to send terrorists a message.”

The correspondent repeats the thoughtless cliche that flicking a lever in a voting booth sends some message to someone. There are so many issues that can go into the decision about which candidate to choose that the vote winds up being the bluntest, least-precise indicator of opinion imaginable. That’s one vote, by itself. And then any one person’s vote gets submerged in the huge amalgam of votes.

Steve replies:

I am sorry you take this position Paul. If a candidate is in league with those who have a knife at your throat, how many issues go into your decision about which candidate to choose? Were you a Jew in pre-war Germany, how many issues would you consider? After all, Adolf Hitler improved Germany’s economy. That’s an important issue isn’t it? The economy? The Muslim Arabs have a proverbial knife at our collective throats. How many issues are there for me, given this fact?

I think Steve misconstrues Paul’s point. Paul was not addressing the importance of the issue of terrorism and of Bush’s support for terrorists in relation to other issues; he was merely saying that a refusal by a voter to vote for Bush does not send a message to anyone, because how is anyone to know the exact reason why that voter voted the way he did?

I should add that Steve has argued in another e-mail that the policy of surrendering to the Palestinians did indeed come from Bush, not from Sharon, and that Sharon followed Bush. He says that in 2001 Bush came out for a Palestinian state, and that Sharon then made a very strong statement protesting that, but then did such a dramatic turnaround that everyone had the impression that Sharon had initiated the policy.

He writes:

From all outward appearances, it would seem you are correct, the Gaza pullout was all Sharon’s idea; all the way. Immediately following the president announcing his vision for a Palestinian terrorist state, Prime Minister Sharon (October 4, 2001) protested:

“I call on the Western democracies and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism.”

A few weeks later, Sharon got with the White House plan to the point that most people believe President Bush only reluctantly accepted Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal plan.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 20, 2006 08:47 AM | Send