Pastor Howard Gardner
Bel Air Assembly of God
Friends, please understand from the start that I Have no
background in either law, political science, business or economics.
Please keep that in mind as you review this article and anticipate
that there may be points that I make which will be highly naive and
in need of correction. Still I think I may be able to present some
points that may be significant. My main strengths are in the area
of theology with some background in historical studies and sports
medicine and, since religion plays a highly significant role in the
Middle East, I think I might be able to make some valid points.
To begin with, I am supportive of Kamal Nawash's assertion that
a two state plan in the Mideast has been tried and failed often
enough to justify trying another approach. When I expounded upon
this in an article for Charisma Magazine in 2010, a Jewish lady
lacerated me over her blog site; claiming that I was "attempting to
destroy Israel." Her logic was that any sort of plan that did not
completely segregate Israelis from Palestinians would ultimately
result in Israel's destruction since they would immediately become
a minority. Her logic failed to take into account (and perhaps I
did not adequately state) that Kamal's "Two-State-One-Nation plan"
is based on the same concept seen in the United States Senate by
which smaller states are given the same number of representatives
as larger states. Such a structure has worked well here in the U.
S. I am not aware of situations in which citizens of smaller states
have made accusations of discrimination against them on this basis.
In fact our present and former Vice-Presidents Joe Biden and Dick
Cheney are from small states (Delaware and Wyoming) and former
President Clinton was from the smaller state of Arkansas.
Nonetheless, one cannot overlook the fact that the woman has a
legitimate concern. Hebrew history is littered with examples of
their being the subject of abuse by those in greater number. They
have endured slavery in Egypt, forced breeding under Assyria, exile
under Babylon, humiliation and forced apostasy under Greece,
captivity under Rome and near extinction under Nazi Germany. When
the number of Hebrews grew, Egypt attempted to kill off all the
firstborn males and the Nazi's plotted their annihilation. To any
reader questioning the validity of the Holocaust, all I can say is
that, after the battle of Normandy, my father was sent into the
Auschwitz prison camp and exposed to the thousands of Jewish
corpses burned alive in Hitler's ovens. Dad would never go into
detail about the horrors he saw but did often speak with despair
about the cruelty that human beings have committed against one
another.
It was after speaking with this lady that I began to lay greater
emphasis on this aspect in Kamal's concept of
"Two-State-One-Nation." Again, bear in mind that my qualifications
do not lend to total certainty in this area but I feel it is the
most logical plan I have yet seen as far as relieving the concern
of minority status.
HOW CAN WE ALL JUST GET ALONG ???
Some years back one of our Church planting teams began
investigating the inner city of Baltimore to establish the
prospects for planting a Church in that area. One of the first
revelations that would eventually stall such a project was the
realization that the people on 51st Street had a tremendous
animosity and dislike for the people on 61st Street just ten blocks
away. Both consisted of basically white families with similar
incomes but the fact that human beings rarely associate with other
human beings unless they are brought together had caused a great
divide between both groups. One lived in row homes with the front
steps right out in front. The other had an alley way separating
every third home and a front porch but no steps. Other than this,
the only major distinction between them seemed to be a favoritism
toward one political party over another. Getting both groups to
come together proved to be quite a task and this is likely to be
the case in combining Israel and Palestine into one nation. In the
case of Baltimore, the most workable solution seemed to be to get
the children to come together for fun times.
In July of 2011, I was invited down to Orlando, Florida to meet
with Imam Muhammad Musri; head of the Islamic Society of Central
Florida (ICSF). The invitation had come about mostly because of the
enthusiasm of his secretary Dianah who insisted "The two of you
just have to meet!" Imam Musri and I discussed the distinctions
between Islam and Christianity and I was impressed by his humility
and openness. Still what impressed me the most were two things I
learned about ISCF and their school:
(1) On the day prior to our meeting, a rather hot day, Randall
Terry and individuals from his "Operation Rescue" movement had
camped outside their Mosque carrying anti-Muslim signs. "Killer
Cult", "Religion of Death", "God hates Muslims" and "All Muslims Go
to Hell" were phrases seen in the parking lot of the ISCF. Inside,
Imam Musri's staff asked him "what should we do?" and he responded
"Well, if I were out carrying a sign on a hot day, the one thing I
would want most would be something cold to drink. Let's make some
lemonade." So they did. They brought a large jug of ice cold
lemonade out into the parking, sampled it themselves to show that
it was not poison, and then began passing it out among the hot
thirsty demonstrators. Most accepted and ultimately went away in
embarrassment. I applauded this action greatly, comparing their
actions to Jesus telling His followers to carry the Roman soldier's
bag a second mile and ultimately turn their enemy into a
friend.
(2) The other thing that so greatly impressed me about Imam
Musri and his operation was their school "The Leader's Preparatory
School" in Orlando. The school is jointly operated by Imam Musri
together with a local Pastor and Rabbi. Students and faculty are
made up of one third Muslim, one third Christian and one third
Jewish children and adults. At the suggestion of the Rabbi, on the
first day of second grade, students are divided into groups of
three - one from each faith - and given the assignment of planting
a tree. The thinking is that, if later on in life, they hear
someone make the statement "You just can't work together with those
people", then they will remark "Oh yes you can. I planted a tree
with two of them back in elementary school."
With this in mind, consider the following analogy:
Some years back a stray cat took up residence on our back porch.
It had apparently been abused as it was the most vicious animal I
have ever encountered. The cat would snarl and claw at you if you
just got within ten feet of it. So I left food on the porch which
it accepted only after I had left. Then winter came and the
temperature dropped well below freezing. The cat came up to me and
began to shout "meow meow meow!" Now I do not speak a fluent cat
but I know enough to understand that this meant "Help me, I',
freezing!" So I let it come in the house. I gave it some milk which
it accepted only after I was a safe distance away. Shortly
afterwards I realized that the cat I had invited in was a pregnant
mother-to-be. When the kittens came, I cared for them under the
suspicious eye of the mother. And the kittens warmed up to me.
Children never have the hatred and suspicion ground into them that
are far too frequent in adults. Then one evening I was sitting on
the sofa reading with one of the kittens curled up on my lap
asleep. The mother sat at a distance away observing us. Finally she
began to creep slowly toward us. She put her head on my knee and
looked up. The she hopped up on the sofa beside me. Now I do not
know if it is physically possible for a cat to smile but I honestly
thought I saw her smile. Next she laid down on my lap beside the
kitten. I stroked her fur and she began to purr. Finally she went
to sleep on my lap. - - - This is how I feel we can win the war on
terror. We will win the children over first. Some but not all of
the adults will follow but what is most important is that we win
over the children since they are the next generation.
It was these two events that helped inspire a recent children's
video which we have put out in the hope of reaching the next
generation. We will begin a mass promotion of it beginning May
20th. It is entitled "Bob and Larry Solve the Mideast Crisis" and
centers around the misadventures of Veggie Tale characters Bob the
Tomato, Larry the Cucumber, Junior Asparagus and Laura the Carrot.
A draft of it can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9dnJ2HC-U . We are
hopeful that the video will be translated into Arabic, Hebrew,
French and other languages and that other companies will produce
similar spin-offs. We hope to persuade Al Jazeer Television, Music
24, Israeli Plus International and other stations to carry it as
well. Since it is focused on children, the video is full of
slapstick humor to hold their attention. Super hero Larry Boy (a
take-off on Batman) sets out to unscramble an egg and to put the
tooth paste back in the tube but is distracted by arch villains;
the Pigeon, the Broker and the Fiddler. Meanwhile Junior and Laura
are students at Imam Musri's school and given the tree-planting
assignment. These events are interwoven with subtle inference about
the importance of living together in peace and valuing all persons.
Ultimately the Veggies seek the advice of the always wise Grandpa
George who downplays the eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth concept
that so many follow today and briefly describes Kamal's
"Two-State-One-Nation plan.
We are hopeful that both Big Idea Productions and their parent
company Classic Media will consent to upgrading the computer
graphics and voice-overs. Currently Big Idea has expressed a
willingness to do so but we have received no response from Classic
Media.
Two songs come to mind in this regard: The first is Sandi
Patti's "Love in Any Language and the second is B. J. Thomas'
"Common Ground." The words to both are as follows:
LOVE IN ANY LANGUAGE: We teach the young our differences Yet
look how we're the same We love to laugh, to dream our dreams We
know the sting of pain .
From Leningrad to Lexington The farmer loves his land And
daddies all get misty-eyed To give their daughter's hand Oh, maybe
when we realize How much there is to share We'll find too much in
common To pretend it isn't there Though the rhetoric of government
May keep us worlds apart There's no misinterpreting The language of
the heart
Love in any language, straight from the heart pulls us all
together, never apart.
And once we learn to speak it, all the world will hear Love in
any language, fluently spoken here
COMMON GROUND:I live down in a valley. You live on that mountain
above. And although we live in different places, the common ground
we share is love. If we met as total strangers and if we came from
different lands and if we didn't speak the same language, Love's
one thing we both would understand. Because love is our common
ground
BUT RELIGION CAN SURELY DIVIDE US
It has been accurately claimed by atheist groups that religious
differences have led to many destructive actions between various
groups of people. Their solution is, I think, to basically throw
the baby out with the bath water. Or, if you are not acquainted
with that phrase, then how about the analogy of tearing down the
house because a light bulb burned out? Do you see the point here?
Religious faith can be either a great divider of the human race or
it can be the one thing that puts meaning into the life of an
individual and causes them to go out and do good for all people. So
we don't want to throw it out but rather to fix in such a way as
for it to accomplish the latter and not the former.
As I have already acknowledged, a purely theological (or
religious) solution to the Mideast Crisis can never be successful.
Such a plan would result in some sort of theocratic government; of
which there are some currently in the Middle East. They are for the
most part intolerant dictatorships and certainly are not the model
we would wish to follow. (After all, if your neighbor's house fell
down, would you hire the same contractor?). Past history certainly
demonstrates the insufficiency of Theocracy as well. The
Inquisition and the Crusades both arose from Papal Rome and are a
huge embarrassment in the history of Christianity. While every
theist (and I know that term does not apply to all people) will
agree that God can never be either wrong or unjust, it is never
wise to place an individual or individuals in the position of
speaking for or representing God. Such power corrupts and
ultimately results in the individual plagiarizing God and making
self-serving proclamations that misrepresent Him. I should also
note that certain Mideast nations have opted for the implementation
of Sharia Law in governing. This I believe is equally unwise. For a
more thorough evaluation of Sharia Law, see my article at http://openlettertoday.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/redda-and-sharia-law/
Nonetheless, religion (be it Judaism, Islam, Christianity,
Hinduism, etc.) plays a vital role in the lives of many or even
most of those involved in the Mideast situation. With that in mind,
let me make several points and suggestions concerning
characteristics and often misunderstandings of the three Abrahamic
religions which I think would better help arrive at a satisfactory
solution:
THE EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH CONCEPT
One of the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East has
been the reaction of militants who feel they are obeying the law of
God as set forth in Exodus 21, the so-called
"Eye-for-an-eye-tooth-for-a-tooth" law or the 'Law of Retaliation'
- that is, " you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for
wound, bruise for bruise." This principle has been the determining
factor in how one side will respond to the attacks of another. If
they blow up one of our aircraft carriers then we blow up on of
their aircraft carriers. The problem with this concept is
threefold: (1) it fails to present any sort of peace initiative.
Instead it simply provokes the other side to respond with similar
violence in an unending cycle. (2) The passage is simply a quote
from the ancient law code of the pagan king Hammurabi and has no
relation to scriptural instruction. (3) It is a total
misunderstanding of the passage in Exodus 21. In context the Hebrew
people were traveling through the wilderness in lands already
governed by secular law codes. What they are basically being told
here is that, while you are on the other guy's property, you will
be expected to abide by his laws. We still follow this principle
today. The reader may in fact recall that back in the 90's a young
American boy was arrested in Singapore for breaking car windows. He
was tried in court and sentenced to be cained six times with a
martial arts weapon. The young boy responded to the judge "Your
honor, you can't have me cained. You see, I am an American and in
America that is considered cruel and unusual punishment." In effect
the judge responded " "This ain't America boy." You see, that is
why the eye-for-an-eye rule was given to the Hebrew people. While
in Hammurabi's back yard, they would be subject to it. But the
moment they entered into the Promised Land, it became irrelevant.
And it should still be irrelevant today. .
BUT DON'T THE TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE CALL FOR VIOLENT ACTS?
Here is a great misunderstanding and the unfortunate reason why
so many people today adhere to no religion at all. Prominent
atheist groups are quick to point out that both the Bible and the
Quran call for attacks upon certain groups of people. In fact both
the ancient Hebrews and the followers of Muhammad were told to
completely annihilate specific groups of people. There is a
reasonable principle at stake here. It would be completely out of
character for a just and holy God to demand the killing of
"innocent" people. So let's focus on the particular problem
verses:
In the Bible, Numbers 31:7 & 8, Deuteronomy 7 and I Samuel 15:3
list occasions upon which the Hebrews are given instructions on how
to deal with certain corrupt tribes; namely the Midianites, the
Caananites and the Amalakites. These groups not only advocated the
extermination of the Jews themselves but also the murder of their
own first born child as a sacrifice to the pagan god Baal. That is
to say that Baal-worshippers sacrificed their own children. Indeed
ancient texts speak of the Caananites placing a new born baby on a
hot iron and watching it die as a form of worship to Baal. And
archaeological discoveries have confirmed these atrocities as
having happened. The solution that God gives to the Hebrews
concerning these tribes of people is to wipe them out - kill them -
remove them from the face of the earth before they can kill one
more innocent child.
Now let's look at the Quran. It is here that passages such as
Surah 2:193 & 216, 5:33 & 51, 8:39 & 65, 9:5 & 29 advocate attacks
upon infidels. And admittedly certain Islamic terrorist groups have
used these passages to justify their attacks upon Christians and
Jews. However both they and those accusing the Quran of being a
predominately violent book are ignorant of the historical setting
in which the passages were written. History tells of heretical
groups known as the Quraish and the Collyridians who existed in
Asia at the time. This latter group taught that three gods existed
in the heavens. In the beginning a father god was said to have
impregnated a goddess named Mary and their ensuing offspring was
named Jesus. Muhammad is almost certainly describing these people
in Surah 5:73, 75 and 116; passages often mistakenly seen as being
directed to the Christian concept of the Trinity. It is known that
the Quraish practiced human sacrifice in their worship and, because
the Collyridian practice of offering cakes to Mary in worship seems
to have evolved from the worship of Artemis and since the latter
religion was also characterized by human sacrifice, it seems likely
that the Collyridians sacrificed human beings as well. With this in
mind, it would have seemed quite reasonable for Muhammad to have
decreed war upon them. However, by contrast, he seems to have been
at peace with the Christian community.
For more detail on this, see my debate with Robert Spencer and
Frank Gaffney at http://openlettertoday.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/islam-according-to-robert-spencer-fact-or-fiction/
When the above facts are taken into account, does it not seem
likely that the devil himself has used confusion among both groups
to promote violence when we should instead be working together in
harmony?
BUT DIDN'T GOD GIVE THE LAND EXCLUSIVELY TO THE
HEBREW PEOPLE?
This is an interesting question because the passages of Isaiah
51 and Ezekiel 37 & 38 do seem to predict a time in which the
Jewish people will be allowed to return from captivity and become
the sole occupants of the Holy Land. "Therefore the redeemed of the
LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting
joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy;
and sorrow and mourning shall flee away." (Isaiah 51:11). These
passages however overlook four important points:
(1) The inherent Jewishness of the Palestinian people which we
will deal with directly
(2) The fact that both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 18 speak of
the covenant between Israel and God as being conditional upon
obedience; an obedience that obviously was not kept prior to the
exile under Babylon
(3) From a Christian Perspective, the fact that Jesus, in
Matthew 21:43, said that the Hebrews had again violated this
covenant and that the land was to be taken away from them and given
to those who will bear its fruit (note that fruit in the Bible
generally refers to the 'fruit of the Spirit' which is love and
produces joy, peace, patience kindness and temperance). This
prophecy came to pass in 70 A. D. when Titus and the Roman
legionaires overran Jerusalem and sent the Jews into exile once
again.
..
(4) Some time back Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu inferred that the 1948 approval of the Balfour
Declaration and the ensuing establishment of the present governing
system was actually a fulfillment of the prophecies of both Isaiah
51 and Ezekiel 37 & 38. While his words were certainly sincere and
well intended, Mr.Netanyahu was actually echoing the position of
pop-authors such as Hal Lindsey and John Hagee; neither of whom
represent the position of the more prominent theologians. Rather
the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel would seem to have been
fulfilled in 445 B. C. by the proclamation of the Persian king
Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 1 & 2) and have no relation to the present
situation.
ALLAH?
One of the most significant questions that comes up in the
Christian community is as to whether or not Islamic people worship
the same God as we do. Like Muslims, both Christians (with the
exception of cultic groups such as the Mormons) and Jews are
inherently monotheistic. However this simple point of agreement
does not adequately address the question. The name "Allah" which
Muslims frequently use in referencing God is often viewed as simply
the name of an alien or mythical god such as Zeus, Apollo or
Dionysius. Such is a false assumption as evidenced by the fact that
Arabic translations of the Bible use the word Allah to simply mean
"God." Genesis 1:1 begins "In the beginning Allah . . .", John 3:16
reads "For Allah so loved the world . . .", etc. Now it is true
that the ancient Quraish tribe acknowledged the existence of a
moon-god who was named Allah. This however was simply the result of
the religion devolving from monotheism to polytheism over
generations.
BARCLAY: "YOUR GOD IS MY DEVIL"
But this in itself does not fully answer the question. It can be
argued that the best way of identifying an individual is not by a
specific name but by a specific nature. For example the
aforementioned Mormon cult acknowledges Jesus Christ as a historic
individual but defines him as the brother of Lucifer and a spaceman
from the planet Kolob. The Christian is quick to respond "That's
not the Jesus of the Bible and not the One we serve" and they would
be quite correct. This is a problem that transcends individual
religions though. The famous theologian William Barclay once told a
deviant man "Your god is my devil." Subsequently when certain
individuals say something like "God told me to blow up a building
full of people", it can be argued that the individual is simply
using the term "God" to identify (and often justify) some evil
desire from within and that this is not the true God spoken of in
scripture.
It is here that I think we need a very basic description as to
the true attributes of God. And this is dangerous because we
approach the same errors made by the leaders of various Theocracies
who have attempted to speak for God. Nonetheless, and bear in mind
that I am speaking through the eyes of a Christian, I think we can
view the nature of God through basic qualities outlined jointly in
I John 4:8 and I Corinthians 13: The former tells us that "God is
Love"; that is to say that His very nature is one of Agape or
unconditional love. I Corinthians 13 then gives us a basic
definition of love:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not
boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not
self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of
wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always
perseveres."
But please don' t think that this same description of God's
nature is absent in either Judaism or Islam. Within Judaism,
Deuteronomy 7:7-13 speaks of God's love for the people of Israel.
Isaiah 63:9 speaks of God saving saving His people due to His love
for them. Often called the Hymnal of Judaism, the book of Psalms
speaks over and over about the love and mercy of God. See for
example Psalm 57:3, 59:10, 62:12, 86:13, 100:5 and 106:1.
Nor is it absent in Islam. Consider for example Surahs 2:195 &
222, 3:76, 134, 146. 148 & 159, 5:13, 42 & 195, 9:4, 7 & 108, 49:9,
60:8 and 61:4.
In fact human nature itself seems to have an unconditional law
written on its heart; that being that love always leads us to the
answers of life regardless of what the question is.
JUST WHO ARE THE JEWS?
Just who in fact the Jewish people are is quite an important
question to ask. Scriptures held sacred by all three faiths
emphasize that the Biblical Hebrews were descendants of the
Patriarch Abraham upon whom the promise was given that he would be
the father of many nations and that the Promised land would be
their property:
"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To
your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the
great river, the Euphrates- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites,
Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Girgashites and Jebusites." (Genesis 15:18-20)
Then Allah said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this
land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End
of Days] comes to be fulfilled, Allah shall assemble you all
together in the Land of Israel." (Surah 17:101)
Question has been asked though as to whether or not the people
comprising the current nation of Israel are in fact the Hebrews of
scripture.
It has been asserted that the modern day nation of Israel
consists not of descendants of the Biblical Hebrews but rather of
the ancient Turkish people known as the Khazars. While the vast
majority of Khazars did indeed opt for conversion to Judaism,
recent DNA testing indicates that no more than 12% of the
present-day
Israelis bear any genealogical relation to the Khazars. A 2005
study concluded that "if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do
indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then,
according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a
single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed
12% of the present-day Ashkenazim (Nebel, Filon, Brinkmann,
Majumber, Faerman & Oppenheim The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as part
of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East; "The American Journal
of Human Genetics 2001, volume 69, #5 pp. 1095-1112. See also
Nebel, Filon, Faerman, Soodyall & Oppenheim Y Chromosome For a
Founder Effect in Ashkenazi Jews "European Journal of Human
Genetics 2005 #13, pp. 388-391).
So, since it is quite hard to argue with DNA evidence (present
day crime labs assert that DNA evidence either pardoning or
implicating criminal suspects is of greater than 99.99 % accuracy),
it should be logical to presume that the vast majority of present
day Israelis are in fact descendants of Abraham; the very one to
whom the promise was given.
JUST WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?
This is an equally important question. Who are these people who
are called Palestinians? Are they themselves descendants of Abraham
or just opportunists who came into the land when it became
available? Well here again the science of DNA seems to provide us
with an answer and it is a shocking one to many people throughout
the Mideast; including many Palestinians and Israelis
themselves.
An Israeli scientist, Tzvi MiSinai, has examined the DNA
evidence and concluded that present day Palestinians are actually
Jewish themselves. Again, this is news that has not been readily
accepted by either side. Those maintaining that the land belongs
exclusively to Israel are quite repulsed by the implication that
the Palestinians might be their own blood relatives and thus
equally entitled to live in the land. And the Jerusalem Post has
printed an extensive number of editorials in opposition to Tzvi.
And in addition, many Palestinians find it objectionable and even a
bit scary that they might be of Jewish ancestry. The reason for
this is that, since the Oslo period, anti-Semitism has become very
widespread. Slurs like "Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys, are
colonialist invaders, or are trying to harm the Palestinians
through poisoned wells, specially-bred rats or aphrodisiacal
chewing gum" are regularly featured in public discourse. Calls for
genocide are distressingly common, as in a recent hadith entitled
the Hamas Charter which states "The Day of Judgment will not come
about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew
will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O
Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill
him."
So there is opposition coming from both sides. But again, DNA
evidence is quite difficult to argue with.
But how could Palestinians possibly be of Jewish ancestry? I
believe I know the answer. There is a specific portion of ancient
Israel that history seems to have lost track of; that being the
Jewish Christians described as being quite numerous in the Book of
Acts and the epistles of Paul. Whatever became of these converts?
Again, I believe I know the answer.
In the first century AD, there was a great anticipation in the
Jewish community regarding the promised Messiah of scripture Who it
was hoped would deliver them from Roman rule. However there was
also controversy among the Jewish community as to just what sort of
Messiah to expect . Many, particularly from within the Zionist
movement, wanted an all out war with Rome and an ultimate
declaration of independence. So they rallied behind would-be
messiahs such as Barabbas. Others felt that such a war could not be
won and the teachings of Jesus about turning an enemy into a friend
had great appeal. This latter group would eventually combine with
many from the Gentile community to comprise the Christian Church.
With Jesus now departed, they would select James, a disciple of
Jesus to head the new assembly. Herod Agrippa I, who had been given
authority to approve any new High priest of Judaism, responded by
having James beheaded. This gave added incentive to those seeking a
military messiah and the rift continued into the second century. By
135, an Emperor by the name of Hadrian had ascended to the Roman
throne. Seeing that he was a rather likeable sort of of fellow, the
Jews requested that Hadrian give them permission to reinhabit the
land. He responded favorably but insisted that they would have to
share the land with the Philistines; a giant warrior race that had
since inhabited the land. Hadrian even offered to have his own
priests of Jupiter rebuild the Temple and dedicate it. Having
pagans rebuild the temple was acceptable to none of the Jews and
sharing the land with the Philistines was repugnant to the Zionist
fraction of Israel. So Hadrian offered to build a duplicate of
Jerusalem in a portion of Ethiopia which he now controlled.
Apparently a small segment of Jews accepted this offer as DNA tests
indicate that a bedouin tribe in Ethiopia with Jewish cultural
practices is indeed of Jewish descent. But it was not acceptable to
the majority of those in Judea.
Finally in 135 AD, the Zionists felt they had located a messiah
who would be more to their liking. A leader by the name of bar
Khoba promised an all out war with Rome and eventual independence
from both Rome and the Philistines. However the Jewish Christians
still regarded Jesus as their Messiah and anticipated His ultimate
return. Not wanting to be a part of any movement declaring bar
Khoba as Messiah, they apparently departed to both Jordan and
Morocco. It was at this point that Hadrian became incensed. He
ordered an all out attack on the Zionists. As had been feared, the
Romans were too heavily armored and proved victorious. Bar Khoba
was killed as were his two sons. And Hadrian declared the land to
be the exclusive property of Philistia. He renamed the land
"Palestine"; which means "land of the Philistines." All stayed this
way until 1270 when the Mamluk Sultan Baybars lost patience with
the warrior race of Philistines and had them wiped out. They do not
exist as a people anymore (a fulfillment of Jeremiah 47:2-5 and
Zephaniah 2:5).
With the Philistines out of the way and the Zionists still
banned from the land, descendants of the Jewish Christians
apparently decided to migrate from Jordan and Morocco back into
Jerusalem. Since the land was still known as Palestine, these new
settlers became known not as Jewish Christians but a Palestinians.
However by now the horrors of the crusades, orchestrated by Papal
Rome and people like Godfrey and Raymond of Touslouse, had left
many of them convinced that the cross was a symbol of evil. This
same feeling was shared by the Muslim community as a whole (Raymond
had made a practice of apprehending Muslim families, having them
bound hands and feet and then burning their homes to the ground
with them trapped inside; all of this in the shadow of a large
crucifix.). If there was a crucifix in the sky, it meant ensuing
danger. And again, the cross became a symbol of evil. I would
personally maintain that it was at this point that Surah 4:157 in
the Quran was reinterpreted to imply that the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus had never occurred but rather had simply
appeared as such. The verse reads "And for claiming that they
killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In
fact, they never killed him - they were made to think that they did
. . . for certain they never killed him." Arabic linguists have
informed us that the verse is actually a paraphrase of Jesus'
statement "You would have no power over me if it were not given you
from above" (John 19:11) but was likely reinterpreted after the
horrors of the crusades. Regardless, apparently a large number of
these descendants of Jewish Christians converted to Islam as a
result.
Now, as noted, it seems highly unlikely that the present
generation of Palestinians or Israelis will accept the DNA findings
and accept the apparent Jewishness of the Palestinians. In the
United States, even after a Civil War and the signing of the
Emancipation Proclamation, it took a generation or two before the
black man was considered human. Efforts such as the Jim Crow Laws
were initiated in order to restrict blacks from voting. And "whites
only" signs were placed on restaurants and even restrooms. As late
as 1951, when Jackie Robinson became the first black to play major
league baseball, one of his own teammates remarked "I really don't
think negros should be considered human."
One thing that will help in speeding up this process would be
certain forms of job incentives being given to employers. At
present a great many Israeli companies opt to hire European workers
for positions which could easily be filled by Palestinians. Thus
the unemployment rate among Palestinians is unduly high. Job
incentives would not only relive this problem but also help to
lessen tensions between both parties. Having an occupation
ultimately results in an individual having a higher sense of
self-esteem and a more patriotic loyalty to the nation itself. Now
please do not confuse the term "self-esteem" with "pride."
Self-esteem says "I may make mistakes but am trying hard and doing
my best. Therefore I deserve your respect and support." Pride, on
the other hand, says "I am better than you are." Pride is always
self-serving and results in a "what's in it for me?" attitude.
Self-esteem results in one having enough confidence to support and
build up the other individual. The individual with self-esteem will
be far more likely to both support and defend a nation to which he
or she owes their livelihood and to demonstrate the aforementioned
fruit of the spirit in every day life..
One other aspect that we would recommend being initiated into
the new Israel/Palestinian government would be to avoid a mistake
in wording made by our forefathers here in the United States. That
being the phrase in our Constitution that "All MEN are created equal and endowed
with certain inalienable right; among them life liberty and the
pursuit of happiness." This statement echoed sentiments from the
former Magna Carta document. However the term "All men"; while it's
intended purpose was "ALL mankind" was later taken to infer some
sort of racial or gender inferiority among slaves, women and unborn
children. Indeed one court judge proclaimed that the black slave
Dred Scott was only 3/5 of a human being. Also as a result women
were initially denied voting rights and often found themselves in
the position of performing the same work task with identical tenure
to men while at the same time receiving lower wages. Further, an
unborn child was deemed "only a potential human being" with no such
right to even life itself. Thankfully our Constitution allows for
amendments to be made and people such as Abraham Lincoln and Susan
B. Anthony were able to make such strides as to insure equal rights
upon woman and to deem slavery illegal. Presently the unborn child
still has no legal status regarding life however informed consent
bills have been enacted in 22 states and women, upon viewing their
sonograms, are electing in mass numbers to forego an abortion.
In time, we would hope that things such as the "Bob & Larry"
project and Imam Musri's Leader's Preparatory School will change
all of that. But for the present, it would seem that the Nawash
plan of two states combined into one nation with all having
equality and equal representation regardless of population size
would seem to be the most and perhaps the only workable solution to
bring peace to the Mideast. Since we are far removed from the
present situation - Bel Air Assembly of God is two continents and
an ocean apart from Israel/Palestine - there are areas in our
proposal which are likely to be justifiably regarded as naive. From
our perspective though, the Nawash Plan would seem to be the best
way to proceed forward.
