Rev. Voight recently wrote an opinion column in the Denver Post. He refers to Israel as an "occupier" of Palestinian land. I'm sure he does just fine with Theology but, he may want to reconsider his foray into geopolitical thought. His characterization of Israel built upon ignorance. It is incendiary and obfuscates the real issue.
Calling Israel an "occupier" is incendiary because the term confers an illegitimacy upon Israel that does not stand the test of history. My first question is...which occupation? The current one? The occupation that began under Joshua 3400 years ago? The occupation of Abraham generations before that? And, to be fair, doesn't this characterization make us Europeans in America occupiers as well? How about the English? For Rev. Voight, I suppose, the year 1066 simply marks the beginning of the Norman occupation. He may actually take that position but the rest of the reasoning world is a bit more nuanced. I don't know anybody who seriously suggests the Normans return to France...or the American-Europeans return to their homes of origin. So...what makes Israel different, that we should hold her to a different standard? Oh, I remember. Israel is the only one of the three nations whose founding was sanctioned by the international community.
"Occupier" also obfuscates the real issue. It implies the only real solution is for Israel to "get the hell out" as Helen Thomas so graciously articulated. Say what he will...that really is the implication of his position. This position defies every notion of political history. First, what do we do with Israel? Second, who takes Israel's place on that real estate? Really, we can't turn the land over to the Palestinians. They must go as well. Isn't it ironic that the term "Palestinian" derives from the Hebrew word "Philistine" which means "occupier"? Do we trade one occupier for another? I suppose we can round up some remaining Hittites or Amalekites and give it to them.
Which reminds me. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim to worship the God of Abraham. What this boils down to is a family squabble. The Palestinians are basically upset that their father Abraham chose Israel's brother Isaac over their own brother Ishmael. Why on earth would we jump into the middle of a family squabble? That has never been a good strategy. Inevitably, both brothers will turn against us. The Palestinians already have. Actually, I think our government has it about right. We should somehow hope that a two state solution can work. They need to learn how to live side by side. We need to set aside all the "he said...she said" justifications for violence. After all, if we accept the notion that reactionary violence is permissible, I guess we'll go all the way back to Cain and Abel.
Also, I have to reconsider my first statement that Rev. Voight may do just fine with Theology. I don't think that's the case. As a Christian minister he is familiar with the Davidic Covenant that promises the land to David and his descendants forever. It's found within the pages of his own sacred book. In order to call Israel an "occupier" he has to either discount his own sacred writings or he must claim that God has no authority to give away land that He himself created. Either case is not a strong foundation for theological thought.
Scripture tells us not to call anything unclean that God has called clean.To paraphrase that command I'd suggest we not call somebody an "occupier" who God has already called a "owner."
Calling Israel an "occupier" is incendiary because the term confers an illegitimacy upon Israel that does not stand the test of history. My first question is...which occupation? The current one? The occupation that began under Joshua 3400 years ago? The occupation of Abraham generations before that? And, to be fair, doesn't this characterization make us Europeans in America occupiers as well? How about the English? For Rev. Voight, I suppose, the year 1066 simply marks the beginning of the Norman occupation. He may actually take that position but the rest of the reasoning world is a bit more nuanced. I don't know anybody who seriously suggests the Normans return to France...or the American-Europeans return to their homes of origin. So...what makes Israel different, that we should hold her to a different standard? Oh, I remember. Israel is the only one of the three nations whose founding was sanctioned by the international community.
"Occupier" also obfuscates the real issue. It implies the only real solution is for Israel to "get the hell out" as Helen Thomas so graciously articulated. Say what he will...that really is the implication of his position. This position defies every notion of political history. First, what do we do with Israel? Second, who takes Israel's place on that real estate? Really, we can't turn the land over to the Palestinians. They must go as well. Isn't it ironic that the term "Palestinian" derives from the Hebrew word "Philistine" which means "occupier"? Do we trade one occupier for another? I suppose we can round up some remaining Hittites or Amalekites and give it to them.
Which reminds me. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim to worship the God of Abraham. What this boils down to is a family squabble. The Palestinians are basically upset that their father Abraham chose Israel's brother Isaac over their own brother Ishmael. Why on earth would we jump into the middle of a family squabble? That has never been a good strategy. Inevitably, both brothers will turn against us. The Palestinians already have. Actually, I think our government has it about right. We should somehow hope that a two state solution can work. They need to learn how to live side by side. We need to set aside all the "he said...she said" justifications for violence. After all, if we accept the notion that reactionary violence is permissible, I guess we'll go all the way back to Cain and Abel.
Also, I have to reconsider my first statement that Rev. Voight may do just fine with Theology. I don't think that's the case. As a Christian minister he is familiar with the Davidic Covenant that promises the land to David and his descendants forever. It's found within the pages of his own sacred book. In order to call Israel an "occupier" he has to either discount his own sacred writings or he must claim that God has no authority to give away land that He himself created. Either case is not a strong foundation for theological thought.
Scripture tells us not to call anything unclean that God has called clean.To paraphrase that command I'd suggest we not call somebody an "occupier" who God has already called a "owner."
No comments:
Post a Comment