---

Home | Books | Covenant | Guestbook | History | Links | MennoLetters | Sermons | Church Life

~MY VOICE ...
By Glenn Edward Witmer
“If It Doesn’t Bleed, It Doesn’t Lead”

Israeli TV showed an interview with the Prime Minister soon after the war started—he was speaking in English so we knew he was addressing it to a foreign audience. He told how terrible things are, how terrorists made life hell for Israelis and was destroying cities like Haifa and Nahariya. “All those rockets on Haifa created such destruction…you would not recognize our city,” he said. “And in Nahariya [near the Lebanese border] they have sent in so many rockets, you would not recognize that city.” He clearly needed to justify the issue of “disproportionate use of force,” which hurt the Israeli government image badly.

Well, Mr. Prime Minister, I’ve caught you! I was in Haifa myself two nights before that interview, having dinner on the sidewalk downtown, overlooking the famous Baha’i shrine in one direction and the Mediterranean waterfront in the other. After dinner I drove around town, wanting to see the war ruins for myself—but not sure where to find them. I knew from reports that there had been rockets fired near the oil storage areas, etc. But in all of my driving around, I was not able to find any damage. Now, I’m sure that wherever the rockets did land there is a destroyed building which I didn’t see. And large potholes which haven’t been filled in yet on the streets where incoming rockets landed would have shown me real war damage. Yes, people were killed and property was destroyed. It was dreadful. But Sir, to paint a scene so completely false, so exaggerated, does not do you any honour!

He is not guilty alone. TV coverage, newspaper and magazine stories—and even the newsletters from NGOs and church-based organizations—have fallen into the trap: how to get the attention of their audience? An old story says that TV producers planning their lead story for the evening news remind each other, “If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead!”

Far too much reporting—accurate though it may be for what is actually being covered—remains distorted for the whole view. If the rest of the story were told, it would be less interesting. Who really needed to know that the largest part of Israel was not affected militarily at all, and that people went about their normal routines, including watching TV news coverage that focused exclusively on the narrow version of what was happening?

No wonder most tour and study groups panicked and cancelled their trips. Those who came couldn’t believe that it wasn’t the way they expected. Let me be very clear: terrible things happened to many people, houses and businesses were destroyed, and lives were lost. But my point is that, by telling ONLY that part of the story, the rest of the world was painted a scene that was false by its incompleteness.

Once again, truth was a victim of a war. —GEW

 

---

The Madness of War: Hezbollah and Israel

The pain! I can’t bear the pain!
My heart! My heart is beating wildly!

I can’t keep quiet; I hear the trumpets and the shouts of battle.
One disaster follows another; the whole country is left in ruins.

Suddenly our tents are destroyed; their curtains are torn to pieces.
How long must I see the battle raging and hear the blasts of trumpets?

The LORD says, “My people are stupid; they don’t know me.
They are like foolish children; they have no understanding.
They are experts at doing what is evil, but failures at doing what is good.”

—Jeremiah 4:19-23 TEV

---

~OTHER VOICES . . .

By Michael Elliot
Why Do They Fight?
“Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity—
and certainly they have failed to secure their objective of nationhood.”

What is it about the Middle East that makes its conflicts so intractable, such that one summer’s guns ineluctably conjure up so many earlier spasms of violence? Why the hate, and where’s the healing? A British Royal Commission on Palestine had it right nearly 70 years ago: “An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country.

There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible.” But why has there been no movement between these incompatibles in seven decades? Why has the two-state solution that every fair-minded observer has long endorsed been so difficult to establish?

The mystery deepens because Israel is not unique. Its creation is rooted in the decay of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires at the end of the 19th century and in the desire of persecuted people for homelands. The Jews of Eastern Europe were not the only ones who dreamed such dreams; so did the Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Croats, and others. As the empires were carved up at the end of two world wars, new nations took shape.

The state of Israel, to be sure, was created on someone else’s land (whose is a matter of debate), but it was hardly alone in that. Today’s Polish towns of Wroclaw and Bydgoszcz, for example, went by their German names of Breslau and Bromberg not long ago. Israel’s case differs from that of other new nations mainly because many have never reconciled themselves to its existence.

It has been said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity—and certainly they have failed to secure their objective of nationhood. But Israel’s strategic position too is less strong than it might seem. By holding on to the West Bank and Gaza after the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel sacrificed international goodwill. Political leadership in the Islamic world, meanwhile, has shifted to religious radicals, including the founders of Hamas and Hezbollah. And new forms of warfare challenge Israeli capabilities.

In 1948, 1967, and 1973, Israel defeated all comers in traditional battle. But it is now fighting an asymmetrical war against small cells who hide among civilians in Gaza and southern Lebanon. It is hard to wage such a war without alienating those you want on your side. Insurgents commit an atrocity—and wait for the ruling power to overreact, kill civilians, and give the cycle of hatred another twist.

Can things change? Here’s an Israeli view on what overwhelming displays of force can bring: “A living people makes enormous concessions…only when there is no hope left. Only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions.” That could have been written last week. In fact, it is from a 1923 pamphlet by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, whose ideology inspired the Likud Party.

If it speaks for Israeli policy today, the summer’s guns will not soon fall silent.
—reprinted from Time magazine

 

By Amira Hass, Ha’aretz
“The resistance fighters refused to acknowledge the authority of the court
to judge them, and asked to be recognized as prisoners of war.”
When the Occupier Defines Justice
—A Double Standard

On Jerusalem’s Jabotinsky Street, opposite the President’s Residence, a medium-sized plaque is fixed on a locked gate, enclosing a broad building and a lovely garden: it reads, “This building was the location of the British Mandate Government’s High Military Court, which held the trials of the Hebrew resistance fighters from the Haganah, Etzel, and Lehi.” The sign bears the emblems of the Jerusalem municipality and the three resistance organizations. Then it further notes: “The resistance fighters refused to acknowledge the authority of the court to judge them, and asked to be recognized as prisoners of war.”

The speaker of the Palestinian Authority’s parliament, who was arrested last month by the Israel Defense Forces, also refused to acknowledge the authority of the Israeli Military Court to judge him. Obviously the two latest detainees, whose arrest was deemed by Israel to be the appropriate solution to its shortcomings in releasing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, will make the same declaration.

The detainees join about 10,000 other Palestinian prisoners and detainees. As with the prisoners of the Hebrew resistance prior to 1948, who saw themselves as POWs regardless of their actions (killing British soldiers or Arab civilians), some Palestinians request that their prisoners be declared POWs. Others prefer the definition of political prisoners.

When a Palestinian kills an Israeli—soldier or civilian—his name, picture, and details of his indictment will be published. He will automatically be condemned to life in jail, and his prime minister or the leader of his organization will be considered responsible and hence a target for arrest or assassination. But the soldiers who kill Palestinian civilians are sheltering under the wide apron of the occupation army. Their names will not be known in public, and their prime minister and commanders will not be deemed accountable.

“The same military establishment that occupies and destroys and suppresses the civilian population…is the one to prosecute, and it is the one to judge. Its judges are loyal to the interest of defending the occupier and the settler.”

The Palestinian detainees are led to a military court: The same military establishment that occupies and destroys and suppresses the civilian population is the one that determines that to resist occupation—even by popular demonstrations and waving flags, not only by killing and bearing arms—is a crime. It is the one to prosecute, and it is the one to judge. Its judges are loyal to the interest of defending the occupier and the settler.

Allegedly every Palestinian is tried, convicted, and jailed as a private person who committed a criminal offense. But a sharp discrimination in the conditions of imprisonment proves that the Palestinian security prisoner is punished not as an individual, but as a representative of a group, as part of its overall suppression. Contrary to international law, the majority of Palestinian prisoners and detainees are not held in the occupied territory, but rather inside Israel. Contrary to popular myth, Israel does not respect the right to regular family visits.

The army does its best to disrupt the visitation schedule, using various security and technical excuses. Only relations of the first degree (parents, siblings, and children) are allowed to visit the prisoners, but hundreds of them have not had the privilege of any visits for several years. The right to make daily use of a telephone is given to the most dangerous of criminal Israeli prisoners, but is denied to Palestinian security prisoners, among them citizens and residents of Israel. The path of sentence reduction and clemency is open to a Jew (especially when he is a settler) but is almost hermetically shut to the Palestinian.

It is no wonder that the Palestinians support every action—as kidnapping soldiers—that tries to break the rules of this discrimination game. Every Palestinian prisoner’s personal history is an expression of the freedom Israel allows itself in the implanting of an extreme subculture of double standard, discriminating blood from blood, human being from human being, nation from nation.
—Amira Hass is an Israeli journalist who lives in, and reports from, Ramallah.

By Paul Sullivan
Do Not Pity the Peacemakers

In a region where one can be killed because he or she is Sunni, Shi‘a, Christian, or Jew; in a region where one’s village could be bombed because one is African or Arab; and in a region where a small child can suffocate in ruins because she happened to be in the sights of a “tactical operation,” should we pity the peacemakers?

In a region where one’s name could bring hatred, should we pity the peacemakers? In a world where ideologues and extremists control powerful means of violence, and spout hatred and bigotry toward those who are different, should we pity the peacemakers? In a region where the people are silent out of intimidation and fear, coming from many sides, should we pity the peacemakers?

In a world where so many are silent as they watch young girls and boys, and their moms and dads, get slaughtered in the name of some idea, should we pity the peacemakers? In a world where so many well-educated and well-fed remain silent in the face of poverty, bigotry and violence, should we pity the peacemakers? In a world where great religions are hijacked toward gaining power, wealth and who knows what else, should we pity the peacemakers?

In a world where faith is used to point guns and plant bombs, should we pity the peacemakers? In a world where if one tries to show the goodness of those who are different, one is considered to be a traitor by some, should we pity the peacemakers? In a world where God is a battle cry rather than part of a prayer, should we pity the peacemakers?

In a world where more is spent on weapons than on making the poor better off, should we pity the peacemakers? In a world where justice, freedom, and Honour—yes, honour—have lost their way in so many places, should we pity the peacemakers?

No, we should not pity the peacemakers because they see something others do not. They can see the piling human costs. They can see where much of the hatred and bloodshed, the blood feuds and vendettas are going. They can see where the money is poured into shedding blood and shredding families, rather than creating jobs and giving hope.

They can be found in the fields of battle, even in uniform.
They can be found in the tiny clinics with bullet holes in them.

They are the ones carrying medicines and food across rapids, bombed-out roads, malarial forests, and through areas where at any time their lives could be cut short. They are the ones who are not silent in the face of evil. They are the ones who are not silent while their leaders herd populations into empty ‘victories,’ Pyrrhic ties, and devastating losses. And for what?

Surely countries and peoples should defend themselves. Sometimes war is the only way. Sometimes evil must be confronted, and defeated. But as the world devolves and dissolves, as our community of civilized nations heads more toward the brink of a clash of civilizations, which we will all lose, we should salute the peacemakers and the moderates, for they may be our only hope. They can be found in the fields of battle, even in uniform. They can be found in the tiny clinics with bullet holes in them.

Enough. That is the call of the peacemakers, and that takes great courage. Enough. That is the feeling deep in the souls of some great thinkers and great leaders. That is the sense, one can be sure, that Christians, Jews, Muslims and others must feel when they pray to their God, and when they see how dark the world has become, when there could be so much light.

That light will come from the peacemakers whatever their creed, whatever their clothing, whatever their language, and whatever their color. That light will come from those with the greatest of courage: those willing to speak out when so many others are silent, complacent, and silently cowering as others decide the world’s fate for them.

Don’t pity the peacemakers. Honour them.

—from the Middle East Times. Paul Sullivan is Professor at Georgetown University

---

New Statement Issued by the Heads of Churches
The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9).

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist program provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism, and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice, and reconciliation. We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption, and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermine the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way:

God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security, or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.

“What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). This is where we take our stand. We stand for justice. We can do no other. Justice alone guarantees a peace that will lead to reconciliation with a life of security and prosperity for all the peoples of our Land. By standing on the side of justice, we open ourselves to the work of peace—and working for peace makes us children of God.

“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:19).

Signed:

Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel’s expansionist policies is “a biblical imperative.” CUFI’s Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians, and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah. The White House instructed Brog not to reveal names of officials he met with, Brog said.

CUFI’s advice to the Bush Administration reflects the Armageddon-based foreign-policy views of its founder, John Hagee. Hagee is a fire-and-brimstone preacher from San Antonio who commands the nearly 18,000-member Cornerstone Church and hosts a major TV ministry where he explains to millions of viewers how the end times will unfold. He is also the author of numerous bestselling pulp-prophecy books, like his recent Jerusalem Countdown, in which he cites various unnamed Israeli intelligence sources to claim that Iran is producing nuclear “suitcase bombs.” The only way to defeat the Iranian evildoers, he says, is a full-scale military assault.

“The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty,” Hagee wrote this year in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. “Israel and America must confront Iran’s nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide.”

Despite his penchant for extreme rhetoric, or perhaps because of it, Hagee endeared himself to key members of the Israeli right. With the help of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who once spoke at a massive pro-Israel fundraiser at Cornerstone Church, Hagee has raised at least $8.5 million for Israeli social work projects. And as a result of Hagee’s influence in the Lone Star State, reflected by his enormous wealth—he reportedly takes in more than $1 million a year from his television ministry—and his close relationship with the previously omnipotent and now disgraced former House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Washington’s Republican leadership is just a phone call away.

“We share a love for Israel and a love for America.
And we share an understanding of the war on radical Islamic terror,
and that makes us brothers.”

Hagee recently united America’s largest Christian Zionist congregations and some of the movement’s most prominent figures—including the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer—under the banner of CUFI, creating the first and only nationwide evangelical political organization dedicated to supporting Israel. Hagee says he would like to see CUFI become “the Christian version of AIPAC,” referring to the vaunted pro-Israel group rated second only to the National Rifle Association as the most effective lobby in Washington.

But while Hagee is the public face of CUFI, he remains tethered to his ministry in the Texas plains, far from the wheeling and dealing of inside-the-Beltway culture. To advance his agenda on the Hill, Hagee has tapped David Brog, a seasoned and articulate lawyer who boasts myriad connections in Republican Washington. Besides Brog’s political acumen, there was another characteristic Hagee found appealing: he is Jewish.

“I think that while there are some differences between us as far as our religious views,” Brog told me about Hagee, “what matters more, and what is of much deeper significance, is everything that we share. We share a love for Israel and a love for America. And we share an understanding of the war on radical Islamic terror, and that makes us brothers.”
—This article continues on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/new_christian_zionism

---

Please assist us by announcing this publication with its email address and web location in your church bulletin or on your website.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, to praise or object, write to us at