God's Politics

God's Politics


Philip Rizk: Waking to Hamas in Gaza

posted by God's Politics

On Friday people in the Gaza Strip awoke to a new reality.
Over the previous few days, the Islamic party Hamas had routed the opposition secular-nationalist Fatah forces and taken full control of the Gaza Strip. What led to these sudden events?
In February 2006, Hamas was elected through a process that was largely imposed by the U.S. and its policy of democratic reform in the Middle East. Yet the unexpected outcome seems to have thrown a monkey wrench in the reform plans. By March of this year, the “international community” (largely a pseudonym for the U.S.), still had not recognized the Palestinian unity government containing representatives of both Fatah, which recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and Hamas, which does not. Sanctions stifled not only the government but collectively punished the entire people. This economic stranglehold was felt especially in the Gaza Strip, where Israel, in one form or another, controls all borders.
With U.S. funding strengthening Fatah, the election loser, Hamas got impatient and decided to take control of the territory that they had been elected to rule. The ensuing military takeover of Gaza took 80 lives in the five days before all opposition headquarters were fully in Hamas hands.
After the fighting ended, I made a trip to the Gaza Baptist Church building with my hosts, Elias and Isa Al-Najjar, and pastor Hanna Massad. Some damage had been done to the building structure and some equipment, including a laptop used for Sunday worship, had been stolen. They suspected it was the Fatah police across the street that had broken into the building.
The conversation at the lunch table with Elias, his wife Rana, and Isa and his wife May, was just about two things: emigrating, and a discussion of the most vital shopping items for their home.
News has spread through Gaza that in light of the economic embargo on the Gaza Strip we will run out of gasoline by tomorrow. This means electricity will also cut out, because the main power station in Gaza is run on petrol.
“People are thinking of how to spend the summer vacation,” said Elias’ wife Rana, as we made a trip to the shops to buy what was still available. “We are thinking of how to stockpile food.”
I also visited my friend Ghada’s brother, Sa’ed, who was shot in his right leg twice on Friday. When he first arrived at the hospital they had placed him on a wooden board waiting for space to be freed for him. His operation lasted many hours and ended with 33 stitches in his leg. Ghada told me that he had screamed a lot the previous night. When I saw him he was still writhing in pain. Sa’ed is 22 and had just started working for the Fatah secret police two months ago. He is unmarried and jumped at this opportunity to take a job in order to prepare for his future. The events of the past days were not what he had reckoned for. Whatever grudges Hamas held against the Fatah security apparatus, he was not one with blood on his hands.
Palestinian president and Fatah member Mahmoud Abbas has declined a meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, citing his unwillingness to meet with “murderers.” Furthermore, an internationally backed and recognized emergency government was sworn in on Sunday, June 17, after the president had officially dissolved the Hamas-dominated unity government.
Hamas may have been democratically elected, but their takeover does not bode well for the people here, with many fears of this turning into a social and humanitarian crisis. The statements of the Hamas leadership are at times double-faced—in Sa’ed’s case, Hamas announced they would not harm any Fatah security force members that handed themselves over. Sa’ed did and was shot at by a sniper, then tortured and shot in the legs. These actions, combined with a priority of their own members over the general public and their seeming lack of realpolitik are revealed in the few signs of a strategy or plan for the future. The consequences of this are felt by the people, not those in power.
Meanwhile, temporary Hamas policemen took to the streets today wearing brand new Hamas vests; traffic in the streets has never been so organized and disciplined. Finally, the Gaza Strip has just one government and just one police force governing it. A sense of order and security are the upsides that come along with the fear of a very uncertain future.
Yet because of a hypocritical promise of “freedom” through “democratic reform,” Sa’ed is suffering in an open air hospital bed in Gaza City, while Rana, Elias, Isa, and May are scrounging to stockpile food for an uncertain future. The entire Gaza Strip is punished on behalf of the duplicitous ideology and wishful thinking of a few powerful leaders.

Philip Rizk is an Egyptian-German Christian who has lived in Gaza since August 2004 where he works and writes. He blogs at: tabulagaza.com



Advertisement
Comments read comments(28)
post a comment
JimII

posted June 18, 2007 at 3:39 pm


In studying law, I often considered cases from two perspectives: process and substance. Right now we have a process problem in the Middle East.
In substance, it is surely good for the Palestine to be governed by people friendly to Israel. Hamas has carried out terrible acts of violence. While we often focus on the back and forth of violence in the Middle East like we can’t tell “who started it,” the truth is groups like Hamas usually started a particular cycle of violence. So their bad guys.
But from a procedural standpoint it does not work to interfere. Democracy only works if people believe in it. You have to accept occasional bad outcomes from a substance standpoint if you want you process to work.
Sometimes the statute of limitations runs, sometimes the argument was waived by not making it early enough, and sometimes democracies elect bad people. The question is: do our elected officials believe in Democracy or not?
my blog



report abuse
 

Ben Wheaton

posted June 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm


Democracy only works when it is a liberal democracy. If we had recognized Hamas, it would only have encouraged their extremism and weakened Israel. The ruination of Gaza by this terrorist group has only begun. Hopefully this will result in Palestinians choosing a non-terrorist government next election. Lots of opportunity was given to Hamas to recognize Israel: it did not, so it paid the price. The Palestinian people elected Hamas, so they pay the price. The palestinians have only themselves to blame.



report abuse
 

Ngchen

posted June 18, 2007 at 4:54 pm


In addition to the problems other posters have pointed out, a big thing is that in much of the middle east, people seem to be stuck with two unpalatable choices. Either (1) elect religious fanatics a la Hamas, who really believe in something (however twisted it may be), or (2) elect corrupt (a la graft heavy) self-serving people who really are felt to be able to accomplish little. Fanatical groups like Hamas and al Qaeda point to the (actual) corruption in groups like Fatah and the Saudi Royal Family to drum up support for their twisted agendas.
It seems like in the long run, the only way forward would be to somehow (magically?) do something that would give the people a sense of hope. Maybe if Fatah actually were able to deliver genuine benefits (I read unemployment in Gaza was 80%) to the people as a whole, with a lasting peace in sight would Hamas radicals lose their support. For any real peace to work though, it would have to involve Israel making certain painful concessions such as addressing
(1) the status of Jerusalem
(2) a Palestinian state with a decent amount of contiguous territory (earlier proposals tended to make any such proposed state look like Swiss cheese)
(3) the “right of return” controversy.
Of course, Palestinians would also have to make heavy concessions in these areas. With fanatics like Hamas thrown in, it’s difficult to envision the problem being solved anytime soon.



report abuse
 

Joey

posted June 18, 2007 at 6:33 pm


“Sanctions stifled not only the government but collectively punished the entire people.”
Aren’t these the people who, you know…elected Hamas?
You are probably right, Bush and others should stop trying to spready democracy to the Middle East—but the problem is the Middle East, not democracy.
God bless.



report abuse
 

Christopher Kolb

posted June 18, 2007 at 6:43 pm


While I agree that were the US to recognize Hamas the US would have been recognizing an organization that holds an unacceptable position in their non-recognition of Israel, not recognizing Hamas means that the US is not recognizing democracy.
Who is to say that the US has the final word on what exactly democracy should look like? If it looks like Hamas then the US does, to some extent, have to accept that. The way to do so would be to first recognize the legitimacy of Hamas rule, and then to make it plainly known that their position regarding Israel is unacceptable and will only be counterproductive to the welfare of the Palestinian people in the long-term.
However, not recognizing Hamas makes any pretention the US might have to representing the side of enlightened democratic modernity totally substanceless. It’s a sticky situation with no perfect way of dealing with it, but in these situations isn’t it most important to faithfully stick to the ideal (democracy) that you (supposedly) believe in above all else?



report abuse
 

JimII

posted June 18, 2007 at 7:54 pm


If find it obnoxious to demand that countries recognize Israel. If they conduct acts of violence against Israel, the United Nation or Interpol or the United States or the CIA or whoever is appropriate should respond. If they are about to conduct acts of violence, these groups should prevent it. But to refuse to recognize a democratic government because they don’t say the words you like bothers me.
I could do with less chest pounding from all of our world leaders.



report abuse
 

Brent

posted June 18, 2007 at 8:57 pm


Yeah, it’s all the U.S.’s fault. No matter what the U.S. does, the Palestinians will still be incapable of a peaceful existence. They’re hopeless.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted June 19, 2007 at 9:26 am


The Palestinians I believe are incapable of peace with anyone. During the Clinton Adm. with talks between Arafat and the PM of Israel – they came to terms on about 90 to 95 percent of the issues. Arafat backed out of the agreement because he knew that the Palestinians would never support him on this agreement with Israel and he would loose the power that he had. The Syrians do not want the Palestinians, the Jordanians do not want the Palestinians and neither do the Egyptians. Islam is at war with Islam and radical fractions of Islam is at war with the rest of the world. This is a religion of Peace??????
Have a great day-
.



report abuse
 

Trent

posted June 19, 2007 at 9:29 am


As an Australian, I’m really surprised by the anti-palestinian and pro-Israel nature of many of these posts. Most people internationally see that the situations Palestinians in Gaza (and elsewhere) are forced to live in are abhorrent. Most can perceive the link between these situations and the violence and terrorism that have taken root.
The palestinians are an oppressed people (regardless of their actions and behaviours this is true) and I was disappointed that sojo readers (or posters) are not more sympathetic to their cause.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted June 19, 2007 at 10:12 am


I’m certainly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, but sympathy can only take me so far.
The truth is, there was no such thing as a “Palestinian” until the UN stepped in to form the nation of Israel. Until then, these people were Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, etc. Israel gets thrown into the picture, the Arab nations go to war to eliminate the new nation, get beat, and so then there’s suddenly this new group of disenfranchised people.
Who disenfranchised them? Israel bears some responsibility, but the amount is arguable. The leaders of the aggressor nations that went to war against Israel in 1948 are at primary fault. Had they recognized Israel’s right to exist in the first place, the suffering would never have started. Fast forward 50 years or so, and what’s changed? Only the names.
As the old saying goes, “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.” The Palestinian people will need to take control of their own destiny by not supporting terrorism (was the PLO under Arafat really any better than Hamas?), by forcing their leaders to recognize Israel’s right to exist, by accepting the process of diplomacy and compromise, and so forth. They are suffering, yes, and we should help, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the cause of the suffering.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted June 19, 2007 at 10:21 am


“But to refuse to recognize a democratic government because they don’t say the words you like bothers me.”
Recognizing Israel means recognizing their right to exist. Those who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist perpetuate violence against Israel. This isn’t about saying what we want them to say at all.
“Most people internationally see that the situations Palestinians in Gaza (and elsewhere) are forced to live in are abhorrent.”
So do we.
“Most can perceive the link between these situations and the violence and terrorism that have taken root.”
So can we.
“The palestinians are an oppressed people”
This is largely true. We simply disagree as to who is doing the oppressing.
” (regardless of their actions and behaviours this is true)”
Actions and behaviors make a difference when we are talking about oppression. If you are going to say Israel is oppressing Palestine, then you must factor is the actions and behaviors of the people.
“and I was disappointed that sojo readers (or posters) are not more sympathetic to their cause.”
I am disappointed that Americans are the only people who seem interested in Israel’s plight. I think this is the product of an unhealthy level of anti-Semitism, which allows for a reflexive antipathy toward Israel. It is not a pro-Palestine position per se, but an anti-Israel position.
Do you have any doubt that if Israel ceased to be attacked that they would cease to attack? If not, then we are not discussing oppression.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 19, 2007 at 10:38 am


Posted by: Trent | June 19, 2007 9:29 AM
More sympathic?
Israel agreed to more than 90% of the Palestinians
demand/desires and Afafat backed out of the agreement. The Palestinians do not want to come to terms with its neighbors so that all can live in relative peace. How much more sympathic do we or the world have to be? NOW – there are thousands of other Palestinians that are living within the borders of Israel and are citizens – so why can’t the others? With Iran supporting the radicals to cause havoc all around the world – what is going to be the next step for US and the UN. (UN will most likely do nothing) Am I sympathic toward the plight of the Palestinians – yes – but they need to learn a little about deplomacy.
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

Trent

posted June 19, 2007 at 11:07 am


Thanks for your response Kevin. It’s obvious e agree on a lot of issues here.
We agree that palestinians lie in abhorrent conditions and that these conditions contribute towards the growth of violence and terrorism.
We agree that the palestinians are oppressed people. But if not Israel oppressing palestinians, then I’m curious as to who might be. The only alternatives I can see are that palestinians are oppressing themselves or that palestinians are somehow the oppressors of Israel. (of course I’m not suggesting that other nations are not also culpable, surrounding arab nations have not helped the palestinians either, which is why so many have remained in refugee camps for decades).
Or perhaps you’re arguing that palestinians somehow deserve to be oppressed. That they deserve to be locked up en masse, detained without reason or trial, deprived of access to employment, curtailed in may aspects of elementary freedoms.
If we do reduce this to a simple dichotomy between Israel and Palestine, then it must be conceded that both have suffered, too much for too long. But it cannot be imagined that these are equal parties, when one enjoys such enormous strength and wealth and power in relation to the other. If there is an oppressed and an oppressor then there is only one rational interpretation of that.
We aso agree that it does seem that only Americans are interested in Israel’s plight. Given the aforementioned disparities between Israel and Palestine, I’d suggest that the views of the rest of the world might be understandable.
But to link criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is too much. Is there some mystical reason why Israel is the only nation whose policies and actions cannot be criticised without the critics being labelled as anti-semitics. I’m curious how the Israeli critics of Israel get labelled. If they wrote the same as I have (and nothing I’ve said is really new), then would they be anti-semitic too? It’s another concept that I suspect you won’t find echoed outside the US.
You ask “Do you have any doubt that if Israel ceased to be attacked that they would cease to attack?” and I’m afraid I do doubt that. Do not limit your view of the weapons of this war to be stones and guns and bombs and tanks. Israel as the powerful party in this conflict also possesses the weapons of oppression, the control over movement, over employment, over health, over water, the ability to raze homes, to detain indefintely and without shown cause, the ability to prevent palestinians from having control of their own lives. Even if the Palestinians stopped their fighting these weapons of oppression would still be assaulting them.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 19, 2007 at 11:37 am


The truth is, there was no such thing as a “Palestinian” until the UN stepped in to form the nation of Israel.
This is nonsense bordering on the delusional. The Palestinians were the lawful inhabitants of Palestine. The so-called “Israelis” were for the most part illegal immigrants until the UN created a country for them out of Palestine with no input from the Palestinians, no compensation, no rights at all. By the stroke of a pen they were made non-persons in their own land.
Kim M



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 19, 2007 at 12:11 pm


“But if not Israel oppressing palestinians, then I’m curious as to who might be. The only alternatives I can see are that palestinians are oppressing themselves or that palestinians are somehow the oppressors of Israel.”
The leadership of Palestine is oppressing the people. Surely you are aware that governments often oppress the people, and that innocent lives are lost when governments incur the wrath of other governments. That does not make the other government the oppressor.
“Or perhaps you’re arguing that palestinians somehow deserve to be oppressed.”
No.
“If we do reduce this to a simple dichotomy between Israel and Palestine, then it must be conceded that both have suffered, too much for too long. But it cannot be imagined that these are equal parties, when one enjoys such enormous strength and wealth and power in relation to the other.”
Neither can we pretend that there is equal culpability when Palestine has made the destruction of Israel their objective. Israel agreed to pease with Yassir Arafat (for which Arafat won the most ludicrous Nobel peace prize in history), but did that bring about peace? No.
“We aso agree that it does seem that only Americans are interested in Israel’s plight. Given the aforementioned disparities between Israel and Palestine, I’d suggest that the views of the rest of the world might be understandable.”
If utterly incorrect.
“But to link criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is too much.”
I don’t think it is. Now, I don’t think that any and all critcism of Israel is forged of hatred of Jewish people. However, there is an acceptance of anti-Semitism even in America. Harvard University professors released a study denouncing the influence of a dark cabal of neo-con Jews. There is an element of history repeating itself here.
Is there some mystical reason why Israel is the only nation whose policies and actions cannot be criticised without the critics being labelled as anti-semitics”
Well, the reason would be that it is the only Jewish nation.
“I’m curious how the Israeli critics of Israel get labelled.”
Again, not all criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. I just think the phenomena helps to explain why virtually every nation is unsypathetic to the Israeli cause. SUch a worldview does not gel with reality. That said, ever heard the term “self-loathing Jew”?
“Even if the Palestinians stopped their fighting these weapons of oppression would still be assaulting them.”
I disagree. Israel would be more than willing to leave them alone, and have demonstrated that willingness time and time again. However, they will not (and should not) tolerate a state that condones terrorist attack, and will use the tools at their disposal to mitigate against that threat.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted June 19, 2007 at 4:23 pm


Perhaps what we are seeing in Palestine and in Iraq among the Sunnis and Shiites is oppressed group behavior – a concept originally developed to describe inter-tribal conflict among colonized Africans, but is also hypothesized to be the major reason for horizontal (work place) hostility between nurses.
Individuals of an oppressed group, unable to attack the dominant group, begin to uncritically assimilate the oppressor’s values, and therefore, depreciate their own culture’s worth. The result is negative attitudes and hostility between those within the oppressed group (Freshwater, D., 2000, Crosscurrents: against cultural narration. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(2) 481-484).
In the case of the Palestinians, the dominant group is the Israelis, in Iraq; the dominant group is the occupying military.
Peace!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted June 19, 2007 at 5:07 pm


“This is nonsense bordering on the delusional.”
Ironic, given what follows, but okay.
“The Palestinians were the lawful inhabitants of Palestine.”
Palestine belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans aligned with the Germans in World War I. They lost. The UK then had control, and favored Jewish settlements in the region. The United Nations later declared two states, and the Arab Palestinians went to war.
Israel has won the war. That’s how nations start, like it or not, and if the Palestinian people want to keep fighting it, then Israel will as well. I’ll side with Israel.



report abuse
 

cheyenne bodie

posted June 20, 2007 at 12:46 pm


I would really like to hear from Palestinians and Israelis on this matter. If I wanted uninformed comments then I’d watch White House and State Department press conferences, plus read the editorial pages of American newspapers.
Has anyone who has commented thus far ever been to Israel or Palestine? Does anyone read Arabic or Hebrew? For that matter, have any of you ever read a book on the topic of Palestinian-Israeli relations?



report abuse
 

hildil

posted June 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm


I’m heading to Israel in one week and will let you know.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted June 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm


Palestine belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans aligned with the Germans in World War I. They lost. The UK then had control, and favored Jewish settlements in the region. The United Nations later declared two states, and the Arab Palestinians went to war.
Israel has won the war. That’s how nations start, like it or not, and if the Palestinian people want to keep fighting it, then Israel will as well. I’ll side with Israel.

No, that’s how unjust nations start, like the US who not coincidentally did the same to the Natives of thier land. You are so unChristlike and unBiblical as to reach the Pahrasiaic. Christians are to not take sides in any secular earthly war. Romans 12 & 13.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted June 20, 2007 at 3:29 pm


“No, that’s how unjust nations start, like the US who not coincidentally did the same to the Natives of thier land. You are so unChristlike and unBiblical as to reach the Pahrasiaic. Christians are to not take sides in any secular earthly war. Romans 12 & 13.”
This comment is nonsense. The scripture you cite does not forbid me from taking a side in this matter. The Arab world declared war on Israel. It did not win. Israel has a nation. You could argue that the entire world declared war on the Jews, in fact. The notion that, simply because Palestine does not want Israel to exist, this somehow calls Israel’s legitimacy into question, is ridiculous. The notion that I ought not have an opinion about it even moreso.
In accordance with your logic, there is no such thing as an American either, and we have no right to exist on this land? Do you live in America? If so, your own logic renders you a hypocrite.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted June 20, 2007 at 4:01 pm


“In accordance with your logic, there is no such thing as an American either, and we have no right to exist on this land?” kevin s.
That’s actually the same analogy I use as an example for people who argue that the Palestinians are in the wrong.
Suppose it was you. Suppose the U.N. or some other governing body decided that the piece of land upon which you have built your home rightfully belongs to the Native Americans. It doesn’t matter that your family has lived on that land for generations – it doesn’t belong to you and you have to move someplace else.
Even though the rest of the world thinks relocating you was justified, would you? Would you be willing to fight to retake your former home?
Peace!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted June 20, 2007 at 5:01 pm


“Suppose it was you. Suppose the U.N. or some other governing body decided that the piece of land upon which you have built your home rightfully belongs to the Native Americans. It doesn’t matter that your family has lived on that land for generations – it doesn’t belong to you and you have to move someplace else.
But we have made an effort to give Native Americans their own space. WE have (if imperfectly and insufficiently) made an effort to mitigate the problem.
The analogy is difficult because we are not controlled by any empire. The fight for Independence was very much about having the autonomy such that our country could not be partitioned by an outside force.
At the time of the partitioning, however, Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine. Something had to be done, and the Arab people were not going to tolerate the presence of a Jewish state under any circumstances.
These are imperfect solutions, but to say at this point that Israel has no right to defend itself, on the grounds that there is no such thing as an Israeli doesn’t gel with reality.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted June 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm


Philip,
I think powerful nations like the French and British in the past and now the US just have not been very successful at responding to threats to their interests in the middle east, and that has been truly unfortunate.
May the US be more successful in the future, and respond in more constructive ways, and act in cooperation with middle eastern governments.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted June 20, 2007 at 7:17 pm


kevin s.,
I am not suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. Israel does not have the right to treat an entire nation as second-class citizens, if they are even treated as citizens at all.
The issue has two sides. Our media and our government have vilified Arabs and Muslims, and many people seem to have little sympathy or empathy for the Palestinians.
From my perspective, the government of Israel has an unjustifiable history of brutality towards the Palestinians, and I refuse to engage in victim-blaming.
Peace!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted June 21, 2007 at 12:08 am


“I am not suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. Israel does not have the right to treat an entire nation as second-class citizens, if they are even treated as citizens at all.”
Citizens of what? Israel agreed to give the Palestinians their own state. That didn’t work. Are they required to treat the people bombing them as citizens? Why?
“From my perspective, the government of Israel has an unjustifiable history of brutality towards the Palestinians, and I refuse to engage in victim-blaming.”
I refuse to engage in victim-blaming as well. I am convinced that, no matter what two-state solution is agreed upon, the Palestinians will not relent in their war. I will continue to support the right of Israel to defend itself, because I will not blame the victims.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted June 21, 2007 at 11:58 am


kevin s.
‘victim-blaming’ was another poor choice of words on my part – I don’t think that about you.
What can we agree on with regard to the Israel/Palestine problem?
One point that has been made recently regarding terrorism is that people who have comfortable lives and live in security generally do not engage in terrorism (the exception of Osama bin Laden noted).
A second ‘hypothesis’ of mine is that new governments go through ‘growing pains.’ I’m thinking in particular of Ethiopia (or any post-colonial African country for that matter). The Dergue was overthrown about ten or fifteen years ago, so are we to expect a mature government in that short of a time?
If I’m not mistaken, in our own country’s history congressmen carried firearms and shot other congressmen on the floor. (I recall hearing that, but I don’t have time to look it up right now).
Peace!



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted June 22, 2007 at 4:25 pm


In accordance with your logic, there is no such thing as an American either, and we have no right to exist on this land? Do you live in America? If so, your own logic renders you a hypocrite.

Actually, no- I could care less whether I live here or not or whether America existst. We should, as far as I’m concered, give it back to the Natives, and if there’s eve a move towards that I’ll be the 1st in line to support it! :)
And yes Romans12 & 13 tells you that even Godless secular Governments are to be respected by Christians and not opposed by them. So that futhermore renders your hypocrisy charge moot & irrelevant. I respect the USA as a foreign citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven and would do so if the Natives were in charge also.
However, that does not mean I can’t be a voice for the oppressed, as with Matthew 25 charge to do unto the Least of These.
Study your church history- you will find out 2 things: 1) The early church was pacifist in doctrine until roughly the time of Augustine and 2) the church as a whole agreed that WE ARE the Israel of God (Romans 9-11, Ephesians), until the time of Darby. That makes any other entity that would lay claim to the name a pretender, Biblically speaking.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.