KIRSTEN POWERS ON THE MIDDLE EAST By R. Baruch, PhD
Why Didn't She Check the Facts First? Recently I was sent an article by Kirsten Powers entitled, "What Evangelicals Get Wrong about Israel and the Palestinians". After reading the article I was struck with how often today journalists report about a matter, having done very little research or personal investigation of that issue. Peter Wehner wrote an excellent response to Ms. Powers' article which captures many of the points that she overlooked or chose to ignore. In my response, I would like to deal with her primary premise that Evangelicals are guilty of blindly supporting Israel while at the same time denying the "Palestinians" human dignity or sympathizing with their so-called "plight". Since Ms. Powers' article was aimed at Evangelicals, I would like to speak from this perspective. The first point which must be noted is that the Evangelical community is much more diverse that many individuals may realize. There is a growing percentage of Evangelicals who embrace a theology which teaches that G-d has replaced Israel with the Church and Israel has lost her claim to the Land. When Ms. Powers singles out only a few of the most notable Evangelical leaders like Pastor John Hagee and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, she distorts the reality of the situation. It is quite easy to name other Evangelical leaders who speak on behalf of the "Palestinian" side. For instance, Rev. John Piper, Dr. Gary Burge of Wheaton College, and Evangelical activist Tony Campolo, are all considered to be Evangelicals yet they have all strongly criticized Israel and they are in favor of the creation of a Palestinian State. Furthermore, each of them has commented extensively about "injustices" to the "Palestinian" people. In fact, it is safe to say that when considering the overall Evangelical community, there is significantly greater support for the "Palestinian" position today than for Israel. However, the reality is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not at the forefront of the Evangelical movement at all. Ms. Powers cited that during the GOP primary many Evangelicals supported Newt Gingrich. She inferred that the fact that Mr. Gingrich called the "Palestinians" an invented people was the reason why Evangelicals supported him. Once again, Evangelicals by and large do not place as much significance on this issue as the media reports. Considering that a large percentage of the African American Christianity community is Evangelical; then if Ms. Powers' premise is correct, a significant percent of them should be Pro Israel, when this is certainly not the case. In returning to Mr. Gingrich, the question that I would like to set forth is why Mr. Gingrich would make such a statement? The answer is that Mr. Gingrich tends to be highly informed on the issues to which he comments. He understands that not until the late 1960's were the people who now are referred to as the "Palestinians" were known by this designation. The term "Palestine" is rooted in the word which appears in the Old Testament which referred to the Philistines. After the destruction the Second Temple and the Roman Empire scattering most of the Jewish population outside its homeland, what once was called Israel, became increasingly known as Palestine. This term came into use for several different reasons. One reason is that the area to which was being referred encompassed more land than ancient Israel. Therefore, the phrase referring to a larger area, Provincia Syria Palestina was adapted and it became increasingly common to speak of Palestine. This term referred to a large geographical area and several different people groups. In fact, prior to the establishment of the Modern State of Israel, the "Palestinians" were not those who are referred to today, rather the term often referred to Jewish individuals. What today is called the Jerusalem Post was once known as the Palestinian Post. The Jerusalem Symphony was called the Palestinian Symphony. So how did those who now claim the name,
Page 1 of 8
"the Palestinians" become "the Palestinians"? It was only after the Jewish community in Israel stopped using this term and replaced it with Israel, that those having ties with the Muslim Brotherhood began associating this term with certain individuals who lived primarily in Jordan. As Mr. Wehner states in his article, these individuals were problematic for the newly formed Jordanian government and King Hussein killed tens of thousands of them. Certainly I am not defending or excusing King Hussein, nor am I unsympathetic to those who lost their lives or suffered because of his actions. I am not inferring that those who call themselves "Palestinian" today are not a people, nor was Mr. Gingrich. The point is that these individuals being somehow tied in a unique way to the Land in question, more than the so-called Jewish "occupiers" who have purportedly robbed these individuals of their homeland, is false. One needs to remember that there were 700,000 Jewish individuals living in this Land in 1947 and the establishment of the Israeli State only represented a change in administration from British to Jewish. Ms. Powers is disingenuous when she links statements like that of Mr. Gingrich, challenging the commonly held opinion that because these individuals are called "Palestinian" they must have an inherent right to the Land, as providing a basis for not caring what happens to them. Should not one be able to point out that the use of the term Palestinians is incorrectly applied these individuals, without then being slandered as one who is dehumanizing another? It is not surprising that Ms. Powers chose to use the term "dehumanizing". For this phrase is right out of the Pro-Palestinian talking points. In an unsuccessful attempt to appear to be balanced, she states, "On the other side, a smaller number of American Christians have sized Israel up as an apartheid state and support boycotts, divestment campaigns, and other measures aimed at threatening the legitimacy of Israel. They engage in maddening moral equivalency, falsely equating the Israeli government with terrorist organizations." The problem I have with her statement is that she says "a smaller number of American Christians‌" This view is far removed from the facts of the matter. When looking at Christianity as a whole, it tends to be much more Pro-Palestinian than Pro-Israel in regard to this conflict. In fact, overwhelmingly most Evangelicals would agree that both people have legitimate connections to the Land. Therefore what Todd Deatherage asserts below is simply a misrepresentation, "What a lot of Christians don't understand is the importance of realizing both people have legitimate connections to the Land." I would strongly argue that the vast majority of Christians and even the vast majority of Evangelical Christians would accept this statement. Similarly, most would whole heartily agree with his statement, "‌I support the Palestinian claims to their own state. I support the right of both peoples" (Israelis and Palestinians)." Mr. Deatherage continues and states while Evangelicals know Israel has rights to defend itself what is problematic is that,
Page 2 of 8
"They just don't acknowledge that the Palestinians also have rights." Here we go again! The perception is that the majority of the American Evangelical community does not acknowledge human rights for the Palestinians is a smear against them and based in an attempt to coerce Christians to support the "Palestinians". It is rooted in the same strategy of the left to accuse someone who disagrees with President Obama, as being racist. I ask Mr. Deatherage and Ms. Powers, cannot one be opposed to the creation of a Palestinian State, without being accused of dehumanizing the "Palestinian" people? The answer is sadly no, if one wants be considered politically correct today. I assume that because Ms. Powers quotes Mr. Deatherage so much in her article that she is in agreement with his basic premises. One such premise is that there is indeed a basis for peace and the creation of a Palestinian State will go a long away in achieving such peace in the region. Many place a call for such a State along side of a statement concerning Israel's security. The real problem is that there is a failure among those who believe in a two State solution to acknowledge the reality that a Palestinian State makes Israel indefensible and strips the State of secured borders. Just imagine the same amount of rockets that Hezbollah and Hamas have, being also in the high ground of Judea and Samaria. Can Israel be expected to rely on the broken promises that caused them to withdraw from Southern Lebanon and Gaza, now in regard to a hostile enemy that will shrink Israel in some of her most populated places to less than ten miles in width? Considering that the Palestinian Authority still has not removed from its charter its stated goal to destroy the State of Israel, can any reasonable minded person really believe that there is a basis for a peace agreement? Putting such issues aside, let's return to a primary argument of Ms. Powers, namely that those Evangelicals who support Israel are both uninformed and acting against the tenets of Scripture for behaving in such a manner. In fact, her article asserts that there is a need for a "new paradigm" in regard to Evangelicals' understanding of this conflict, and that one should possess a hopefulness that peace can be reached because "basic Christian theology says there is no space in this world that can't be redeemed by God." This last statement begins to identify the reason for such a different perspective regarding this issue. Ms. Powers speaks of redemption, from a Christian context. The problem is a failure to realize that redemption is only possible when one acts in accordance to the Biblical parameters related to it. She scolds Christians for the inclination to see the conflict as a battle between good and evil, because it is easier than trying to navigate the reality of the conflict. She agrees with Mr. Deatherage and urges American Evangelicals to understand the Palestinian perspective. They both see this perspective as a just desire for dignity and respect. In what way do Evangelicals disrespect and withhold dignity from the "Palestinians" because some do not believe that the creation of a Palestinian State will achieve peace nor what the Scriptures would want the followers of Messiah to support? Why do those who disagree with these Evangelicals feel the need to imply that they are heartless, Godless, and uninformed? Ms. Powers states that, "Many evangelicals will be shocked to learn there are Palestinian Christians living under Israeli occupation."
Page 3 of 8
Such a statement is evidence of the fact that Ms. Powers is not well acquainted with those Evangelicals who take seriously this issue, and support Israel. I do not think any Evangelical who has an opinion on this issue, based on even a minimal understanding of the situation, would be shocked to learn that there are "Palestinian Christians" living under Israeli sovereignty. In actuality, those "Palestinian Christians" who live in areas where the Israeli military provide security are protected from Islamic militants who persecute them. Most "Palestinian Christians" however live in areas where the government authority is Palestinian and Muslim, hence Ms. Powers' point is not well taken. As previously stated, the persecution that they receive is at the hands of fellow Arabs and not Israelis, yet media outlets simply show their suffering and blame Israel. In fact, when Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were under Israeli rule, the Israeli Army provided Christians in these areas religious freedom that has been greatly reduced by Palestinian leadership. The term "Israeli occupation" is another favorite phrase of the ProPalestinian propaganda. What does this term really mean? It means under the Modern State of Israel that Arabs enjoy greater rights than in the Arab world. I do not understand how an intelligent woman, who supports equal rights for women, could support a Palestinian State. When the Palestinian Authority gained control due to Israeli departure from most of Judea and Samaria, two things were most evident; persecution of true Christians in this area and a significant reduction of rights for women. I mention the phrase "true Christians" because the vast majority of "Palestinian Christians" are far removed from what Evangelicals would accept as Christianity. I would suggest that individuals examine the document called Kairos Palestine 2009. This document, which is signed by a most impressive list of "Christian" leaders in Israel, presents a very different brand of "Christianity". The tone is anything but reconciliatory, it accuses Israel of causing "oppression, displacement, suffering and clear apartheid for more than six decades". Please notice the phrase, "for more than six decades". This supports their perspective that it is not a return to just the 1967 borders that they are seeking, but they feel the very existence of the State of Israel is problematic. What about the fact that from 1947until 1967 it was Jordan who controlled the Land that is the basis for the Palestinian State? Did this fact keep Israel from being attacked? No, so why should giving them this land again secure peace? How is it that those who purport to be Christians, when speaking about the capital of the State they are hoping to establish, refer in this document to Al-Quds rather than by the Scriptural name Jerusalem? Why would so called "Christians" prefer to use a term which is Islamic in nature, than using the word which the Bible calls the city? Ms. Powers should have examined more closely the statements of those she claims "are the inheritors of the early church and the ones who have kept the flame of Christianity alive for the last 2,000 years and are descendants of the first Christians." The first Christians were Jews, who took the Gospel to the Gentiles. The ones who she is referring to came into Israel after the Roman Empire savagely exiled the majority of the Jewish people. It was missionary movements in the 19th and 20th centuries that brought Christianity to these individuals. For Ms. Powers to state that the "Palestinians" are the ones who kept the flames of Christianity alive for the past 2,000 years is a gross mischaracterization of the facts, but in line with the rhetoric of the "Palestinian Christians". It is extremely unfortunate when "journalists" become the mouth piece of a factually challenged Anti-Semitic organization that hides behind the cloak of Christianity.
Page 4 of 8
I strongly contest the use of the term Christian when referring to the vast majority of those who identify themselves as "Palestinian Christians". Why do I hold such a position? When one examines the Kairos Palestine 2009 document, he reads statements that are in conflict with basic Christian Theology and distort the facts on the ground. Do true Christians lie blatantly? After I have made remarks such as these it is incumbent upon me to back them up. First, "Palestinian Christians" believe, "We believe that the Word of God is a living Word, casting a particular light on each period of history, manifesting to Christian believers what God is saying to us here and now." In and of itself this statement sounds very acceptable. However, when one examines the context, the description of the Word of God as a "living Word" means that it must be reinterpreted based on current situations. The document states that literal interpretation of the Bible "brings death and destruction and makes the Scriptures to be petrified, and when transmitted in this manner from generation to generation the Word of God becomes as a dead letter. This dead letter is used as a weapon in our present history in order to deprive us of our rights in our own land." The point is that when one takes at face value what the Scriptures says concerning the Land in question he sees that the Word of God clearly presents the Land as an inheritance to the Jewish people. Therefore, the "Palestinian Christians" cannot accept the literal message of the Bible, but must reinterpret the Word of God in light of today's political circumstances in a hermeneutically flawed methodology. Notice that for the "Palestinians" the Land is "their land" and the Jewish presence within this Land is only the outcome of misguided acts as a result of the Holocaust. Listen to how "Palestinian Christians" understand the basis for the conflict. "It was an injustice when we were driven out. The West sought to make amends for what Jews had endured in the countries of Europe, but it made amends on our account and in our land. They tried to correct an injustice and the result was a new injustice." This statement ignores the 700,000 Jews who were living among the two million Arabs in the land in question. Yes, after WWII there were many Jews who immigrated to this land, but such immigration did not uproot Arabs nor did it create any injustices. The West did not throw one people off the land to settle another. Jewish communities expanded and the International community allowed for such immigration in limited areas. It was an unwillingness of the Arab community to tolerate those who had been displaced by the Holocaust to peacefully settle in areas that were internationally agreed upon which gave rise to the current conflict. Jewish people settling in this land did not in any way create an injustice to those Arabs who were also living there. Rather, it was when these Arabs attacked both newly settled Jews living in the land as well as those Jews who had lived there for centuries, and lost the wars which they (the Arabs) started, that these Arab aggressors fled in defeat. Since they could not defeat the Israelis militarily, they now want the diplomatic community to give them what they could not obtain on the battle field. What type of "Christians" would use the term "Nakba (catastrophe) to describe the formation of the Modern State of Israel? Yet in the Kairos document one reads,
Page 5 of 8
"One of the most important signs of hope is the steadfastness of the generations, the belief in the justice of their cause and the continuity of memory, which does not forget the Nakba (catastrophe) and its significance." It is vital that one understands the implications of this statement. Most individuals who follow the news in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict believe that if Israel were to stop "occupying" the lands known Biblically as Judea and Samaria (West Bank), then peace could be achieved; in other words, a return to the 1967 borders. This was the basis of President Obama's statement on May 19, 2011. Such a view, although frequently stated, is not what the "Palestinian Christians" want. The fore-mentioned quote bears witness to this. The term Nakba does not relate to the outcome of the Six Day War in 1967; rather it relates to the establishment of the Modern State of Israel in 1948. "Palestinian Christians" are clearly opposed to the existence of the Nation of Israel. In their document one reads, "The aggression against the Palestinian people which is the Israeli occupation is an evil that must be resisted. It is an evil and a sin that must be resisted and removed." "We also declare that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God. It distorts the image of God in the Israeli who has become an occupier just as it distorts the image in the Palestinian living under occupation. We declare that any theology, seemingly based on the Bible or on faith or on history, that legitimizes the occupation, is far from Christian teachings, because it calls for violence and holy war in the name of God Almighty, subordinating God to temporary human interests, and distorting the divine image in the human beings living under both political and theological injustice." It is most disingenuous that in one part of their document they write, "Therefore, we declare that any use of the Bible to legitimize or support political options and positions that are based upon injustice, imposed by one person on another, or by one people on another, transform religion into human ideology and strip the Word of God of its holiness, its universality and truth." while they in turn use the "Christian faith" and the Bible (faulty interpretations) to justify their call for a Palestinian State. In essence, when the "Palestinian Christians" call the end of the "Israeli occupation" what they actually mean is the end of the Modern State of Israel. Hence, the "Palestinian struggle" is an attempt to simply replace Israel with a Palestinian State which will not only include the lands that Jordan ruled west of the Jordan River, but also all the lands that comprised Israel in 1948. Hence, they support what could be understood as a "Palestinian occupation". In essence what becomes clear is that the rhetoric of two States for two Peoples is only a means to what they eventually want to be one Palestinian State. The true debate among the Palestinian factions is whether to accept a two State solution, and recognize Israel's right to exist, as merely a temporary step in route to destroying Israel altogether, or never recognizing Israel and continuing the struggle until Israel is no more. Either way, whether in a series of steps
Page 6 of 8
based in negotiations and diplomacy or through Jihad, the final objective is the same— the end of the Jewish State. Within the Kairos document which represents the "Palestinian Christians", the same language as Ms. Powers calls a "maddening moral equivalency and false" appears, "On the other side, a smaller number of American Christians have sized Israel up as an apartheid state and supports boycotts, divestment campaigns, and other measures aimed at threatening the legitimacy of Israel. They engage in maddening moral equivalency, falsely equating the Israeli government with terrorist organizations." I am very glad to hear these words from Ms. Powers. As earlier stated I think such views are much more common among Christians than Ms. Powers thinks. Regardless of how widespread these views are among American Christians, they are indeed the sentiments of the "Palestinian Christians". Within the document, one reads in the opening paragraph that they view Israel as a "clear apartheid" State since her establishment, "In this spirit the document requests the international community to stand by the Palestinian people who have faced oppression, displacement, suffering and clear apartheid for more than six decades. The suffering continues while the international community silently looks on at the occupying State, Israel." Furthermore there is a "call on individuals, companies and states to engage in a divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation." Hence the very things which Ms. Powers rightly understands as "maddening" and "false" are indeed the positions of the "Palestinian Christians" that she in turn lauds in her article. One might rightly contend that the Kairos document does not represent all Arab "Christians" in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This is true; however, this document was signed, endorsed and hailed by nearly all the major Christian leaders representing the major dominations located in Israel. The slim number of Palestinian Christians who would not embrace it are marginalized, slandered, and persecuted by the leading "Christian" organizations based in these areas. Finally, the so-called "dehumanizing" of the Palestinian people are the same measures that Jews too have to endure for security. As an Israeli citizen, there are areas that I would like to visit which are off limits for me. Still other areas that I, too, must pass through check points and endure questions and searches. Is it not interesting that in those areas where there is Palestinian autonomy, the Jewish residents must live in compounds surrounded by barbwire fences and hire private companies to provide security, because of Palestinian aggression? It is important to note that Jewish school children in these areas must be escorted to school by armed guards. If one wants to know what is truly dehumanizing, it is when Palestinians entered a Jewish home with axes and slaughtered a family. It is also reprehensible that such a barbaric act was applauded by a HIGH PERCENTAGE of the Palestinians. It is actions like these that make it necessary for the security procedures that they decry as robbing them of their dignity. When individuals support the Islamic leadership of the "Palestinian" people who praise terrorists and support them, then I refuse to see them as Christian. I can call myself anything, but that
Page 7 of 8
does not mean that I am that thing. I say, shame on Kirstin Powers and Todd Deatherage, who follow talking points, rather than checking out the facts on the ground.
Page 8 of 8