Is Israel to blame?

Leaders around the world are blaming Israel for the breakdown of the most recent peace talks. Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian legislative council, voiced the opinion of most European and Arab leaders when he told Al Jazeera, "If the US, being the only country that is monopolising control of the talks, is failing to pressure Israel to abide by what was written in the road map and what the international community demands - which a complete freeze to settlement activities - then there is no peace process and the reason for this is Israel."

So is Israel really to blame?

Let's look at the facts.

On November 25, 2009, Israel imposed a 10-month moratorium on all West Bank settlement construction to help move the peace talks forward. The moratorium did not include Jerusalem. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said at the time, "Regarding Jerusalem, our sovereign capital, our position is well known. We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital."

After delaying for nine months, the Palestinian Authority finally agreed to begin direct negotiations. But 30 days later Israel's moratorium expired, and settlement construction resumed. The Palestinians walked away from the negotiations, and the U.S. began feverishly looking for ways to bring them back to the table.

The U.S. offered incentives to both Israel and the Palestinians if they would return to the talks. In exchange for a 90-day extension to the settlement moratorium Israel would receive U.S. assurances that they would not be pressured for any additional extensions and would be protected against any adverse actions against them by the U.N. Initial reports also hinted the U.S. would give Israel additional advanced fighter jets, but those reports turned out to be somewhat inaccurate. (Israel would need to pay for the airplanes.)

Netanyahu indicated his willingness to impose the additional 90-day moratorium if Obama's guarantees were put in writing. But the Palestinians chose to changed their conditions for resuming talks. A resumption of the previous moratorium was no longer sufficient. Now the moratorium on building needed to be extended to include Jerusalem. Israel refused, the "peace talks" totally collapsed...and nearly everyone is blaming Israel.

Was Israel to blame for wasting the first nine months of the initial 10-month moratorium? No, it was the Palestinians who didn't come to the negotiating table. Did Israel change the understanding regarding the extent of a second moratorium once a deal was almost complete? No, it was the Palestinians who demanded additional restrictions.

It seems to me the Palestinians are the ones who are doing everything possible to scuttle the negotiations. Perhaps we need to ask if they were ever really serious about reaching a deal in the first place.

Increased provcation from Gaza

A dangerous situation is developing between Israel and Iran's proxies in the Gaza Strip. Iran suspects that Israel and/or other countries in the West are behind the Stuxnet virus and the recent assassination attempts against their nuclear scientists. And as a result, Iran could be encouraging Hamas to ratchet up its harassment against Israel. Over the past few days the number of rocket and mortar attacks has increased, and Wednesday night one Israeli was wounded by an exploding mortar shell. Israel encouraged all residents of the area to stay in protected areas in their homes.

Israel will respond to the increased attacks, and it's possibility the violence could ratchet up dramatically. Israel's Chief of General Staff has already warned that the situation is "very fragile and may deteriorate rapidly."

Israel can't allow terrorists from Gaza to continue launching attacks against its citizens. At the same time, an attack against Gaza could result in retaliation from Hezbollah in Lebanon. The situation is tense.

And that makes it a critical time for us to pray.

• Pray for wisdom on the part of Israel's leadership to know how best to respond.
• Pray for the physical protection of those who live under the threat of these terrorist attacks.
• Pray for the followers of Christ in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon. Help them to be bold in their witness for Him.

Turkey's involvement in Iraq

A report in today's online edition of Hürriyet, Turkey's English-language newspaper, focuses on WikiLeaks documents showing Turkey's attempts to influence the most recent elections in Iraq. These leaks are a source of embarrassment to Turkey because they paint a picture of Turkey and Iran working against each another to influence the outcome of the elections. And in the end, Iran came out on top.

Turkey unsuccessfully sought to replace al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated administration with a Sunni-backed one. But why was Turkey so interested in ousting an administration they had earlier supported? I believe there are two reasons, one religious and one political. Religiously, Turkey's population is 80% Sunni Muslim. So it makes sense for the Turkish government to push for a Sunni-influenced government rather than one dominated by Shiite parties.

But Turkey's support for the Sunni-backed candidates involved more than religious preference. The Shiite-dominated government of al-Maliki is a coalition government composed of both Shiite and Kurdish parties. Turkey continues to battle the Kurds within their own country who are pressing for an independent country of Kurdistan. In supporting the Sunni candidates, Turkey was hoping to weaken the power of the Kurdish party within Iraq. And northern Iraq has been a base of operation--and a safe haven--for Kurdish rebels.

WikiLeaks has certainly harmed the prestige of the United States around the world. But the leaks are also proving to be an embarrassment to other countries, like Turkey, as revelations surface regarding their attempts to shape world events to their own national advantage.

Wikileaks and the Middle East, Part 2

As the WikiLeaks drama continues to unfold, it's starting to become yesterday's news. That is, much of the more recent material is similar to what has already been leaked. Once the shock value of the first documents wore off, these additional revelations are receiving less coverage. And perhaps that's a good thing.

However, I came across an analysis of WikiLeaks documents related to U.S. Middle East policy that I believe is worth reading. The article highlights the flawed assumptions behind the current U.S. policy of "engagement" in the Middle East--a policy that assumes it's in our long-term interest to engage former enemies like Iran and Syria and to pressure Israel to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian problem, which is supposedly the root cause for most turmoil in the Middle East.

The article, "Wikileaks reveal flaw in US Middle East policy," shows the fallacy behind our current policy. As the documents demonstrate, many of the countries in the Middle East believe the root problem is not the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, it's Iran and her commitment to export Islamic fundamentalism. I'll cite one example from the article to illustrate this point. The article quotes cable detailing a meeting between Saudi King Abdullah and White House adviser John Brennan. The cable quotes King Abdullah's response to a suggestion that a solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would help diffuse problems in the Middle East. “A solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would be a great achievement, but Iran would find other ways to cause trouble.”

King Abdullah sees Iran, not Israel, as the real source of trouble in the Middle East. The article also quotes other cables from leaders like Egyptian President Mubarak in which these leaders try to help the U.S. understand Middle East "facts of life." They believe the real "neighborhood bully" is Iran, not Israel. And they wish the local cop on the beat (the United States) would do something about the bully before it's too late.

Presbyterians Against Israel

Today's Wall Street Journal contains an excellent op/ed piece on the historical revisionism now taking place in liberal protestant churches as they seek to deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The article is titled Presbyterians against Israel, and I encourage you to click on the link and read the article.

And if you are a member of a denomination or group promoting divestiture from Israel, consider "divesting" yourself from that group. Don't support groups that, in the name of Christ, are actively seeking to harm the state of Israel.

The Wall: A Symbol of Exclusion...or Protection?

Drive around Jerusalem—or many other parts of Israel—and you will soon come face-to-face with one of the most visible symbols of the current Middle East crisis. In most areas the “wall” is really just a high-tech fence, while in others it is a massive concrete barrier that cuts across the countryside like a giant scar. (This picture, taken near Bethlehem, visualizes the imposing nature of the barrier in some places.)

But is this fence/wall a symbol of racial apartheid and exclusion . . . or is it a symbol of protection against an implacable foe? The fact that a fence/wall is being built is undisputed; but the purpose for the structure is hotly debated. The Palestinians call it the “racial segregation wall” or the “apartheid wall,” while most Israelis call it the “security fence” or “separation fence.”

So why is the fence/wall being built?

Some claim the barrier is being built as a way for Israeli settlers to gobble up additional portions of land that rightfully belong to the Palestinians. But this view clashes with the historical facts.

The concept of a barrier was first suggested by Yitzak Rabin, the Israeli leader who was assassinated for trying to make peace with Yasser Arafat. Rabin proposed the idea of a separation barrier in 1992 after an Israeli teenager was killed in Jerusalem. Two years later, after a series of violent incidents in Gaza and the West Bank, Rabin stated more clearly his intentions for a barrier. “This path must lead to a separation, though not according to the borders prior to 1967. We want to reach a separation between us and them. We do not want a majority of the Jewish residents of the state of Israel, 98% of whom live within the borders of sovereign Israel, including a united Jerusalem, to be subject to terrorism.“ The purpose for the barrier—as envisioned by Rabin—was for protection, not apartheid.

Since the beginning of construction in 2003, there have been several changes to the exact route of the security barrier. As originally conceived, the barrier roughly paralleled the “Green Line”—the 1949 armistice line that divided Israel from the West Bank of the Kingdom of Jordan. However the barrier did diverge in several places to incorporate key Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These variations originally included about 7% of the land that was on the Arab side of the Green Line.

In 2004 the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that a portion of the route violated the rights of Palestinians and mandated that those portions be rerouted. In 2006 a new route was approved that left fewer Palestinians, and less West Bank land, on the Israeli side of the barrier.

So what do we need to know?

First, we need to realize that the 1949 armistice line (the Green Line) was not intended to be the final boundary for Israel. It was to serve as an interim border until a final peace treaty was reached. Unfortunately, no such treaty was ever signed.

Second, we need to realize that Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the 1967 Six-Day War, which began when three countries (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) threatened to “push the Jews into the sea.” After the war Israel offered to exchange the land it had captured in exchange for peace with her Arab neighbors. That offer was rejected.

Third, we need to acknowledge that the fence/wall has imposed hardships on some Palestinians. Some private land was appropriated for the project. And the barrier has restricted access from the West Bank into Israel . . . and even between some villages in the West Bank.

Fourth, we also need to acknowledge that the barrier has resulted in a tremendous drop in terrorist attacks within Israel. Since the beginning of construction, terrorist incidents in Israel have almost been completely eliminated. This is Israel’s stated purpose for the barrier, and it seems to be working.

What’s the bottom line?

Simply put, the barrier is saving Israeli lives . . . but at the cost of making life more difficult for those living on the other side. So what can be done? Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who later emigrated to Israel and entered politics, expressed the dilemma for Israelis and Palestinians.

Our government understood that there were three options to maintain an acceptable level of security for our citizens. The first was to wage a total war against Palestinian terror using weapons that would claim many innocent Palestinian lives. The second was to keep our reserves constantly mobilized to defend the country. The third option was to build the security fence. Had the Palestinian Authority become a partner in fighting terror, as it was obliged to do under all the agreements that it signed, none of these options would have become necessary.

I believe Christians need to respond to the current situation in two specific ways. First, we need to become better informed about the history and purpose for this barrier. To that end I recommend you click on the following links. For a Jewish perspective, read Israel's Security Fence. For a relatively neutral perspective, read Israel's West Bank Barrier. And to view the issue from a Palestinian perspective, read Denying Palestinians Free Movement. Read each article and decide for yourself which one best presents all the relevant facts.

Second, I believe we need to pray for the people who live on both sides of the barrier. Ask God to continue thwarting terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. And ask Him to give those designing and building the barrier a full measure of wisdom and compassion to construct it in a way that gives Palestinians the greatest possible freedom and ease of access within the West Bank.

Finally, remember this. The barrier is not being built to fence in the Palestinian people; it’s being constructed to keep out terrorists. And it is working—but at a great cost to many Palestinians with no connection to terrorism. Like Natan Sharansky, I blame the Palestinian Authority. Israel was forced to build the barrier because the Palestinian Authority failed to fulfill its promises to fight terrorism. I don’t blame Israel. One key role for government is to protect its citizens—and that’s why Israel finally decided to build the barrier.

The Messiah in Tel Aviv?

This is the kind of headline you might expect to see in a magazine at a grocery store checkout line! But the story is from a legitimate online news source. A 31-year-old Russian immigrant to Israel is claiming to be the Messiah. How did he receive this revelation? "One year and two months ago I was an ordinary person and then a snake bit me in Bethlehem. And then I started to see God."

The story brought to mind Jesus' description of events leading up to His Second Coming. "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many....At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it" (Matt. 24:4-5, 23).

This is just one more link in a chain of false messiahs...with more to come!