Irresoluteness towards Israel doesn't help
I wish I had a better understanding of Israel's future in prophecy.
My understanding on this topic is limited to a perception that:
the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms promised the Kingdom;
that the suffering of Jesus on the cross before entering His glory was a central theme of the prophecies concerning the Messiah;
that Israelis by-and-large are falling short of entering the promised Kingdom because of unbelief;
that meanwhile the elect Jews plus the quota of Gentiles are receiving the Kingdom, as this Gospel of the Kingdom is being preached for a testimony among all nations;
and that one day Jesus shall come again in His Kingdom and gather together His elect from all over the world - that blessed hope - the subject which all Scripture seems to point towards.
But as for Israel's place in Prophecy as a current geo-political entity, I still need to grow in my understanding.
The history of Britain's Mandate of Palestine reads on one hand like a story of tremendous support for the re-establishment of a Jewish State - but on the other hand a story mixed with a lot of irresolute, indecisive, Arab-appeasing policy towards the Jews.
For example, Britain's response to one of the many Arab revolts was to restrict Jewish immigration into Palestine at a time when persecution against European Jews was hotting-up, leading to the Holocaust.
Britain finally resigned their Mandate over Palestine without having established a Jewish State; and furthermore, Britain abstained from voting in the UN Resolution to establish such a Jewish State.
But Britain has this in her favour: she liberated the land of Israel from hundreds of years Ottoman rule (with some help from the Australian lighthorse).
I can understand how difficult it would have been for Britain to make a decisive stand for a Jewish State, given the political climate of the time. They had enlisted Arab help against the Turks during World War I and may have been feeling somewhat conscious of their unfulfilled promises to the Arabs in return. And with a Second World War mounting, Britain was careful not to upset delicate international loyalties. I wonder however, how many Jewish lives could have been spared the Holocaust had Britain not moved to restrict Jewish immigration to Palestine around that time?
It leads me to the observation that then and now, all the irresoluteness of support towards Israel (by Britain, the UN or the international community) was a cause of more suffering for the Jews, and did nothing towards procuring peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Now there is international pressure on Israel regarding the establishment of another independent Palestinian State in the region.
John Howard this week stated that the two-state solution is the view of the Australian Government: that is, the whole Arab world must recognize Israel's right to exist; and an independent Palestinian State needs to be created. Most supporters of this solution I guess favour a return to the 1947 borders of UN Resolution 181.
But whenever the international community has pressured Israel in the past to hand-back land, to withdraw from territory or to abstain from annexing territory - far from procuring peace, many such treaties only resulted in deeper attacks into Israel by her enemies who now had more strategic vantage-points (as we are seeing today in Gaza and southern Lebanon).
Isn't there something to learn from the repercussions of past irresoluteness towards Israel? That's why I asked in my last email whether it would be inappropriate to take the view that a "Palestinian" State already exists - called Jordan (it occupies 75% of "Palestine"; three times more territory than Israel; while the whole Arab World has 600 times more land than Israel; and the Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs are said to be ethnically and historically identical).
I wish I could say that the following thought comes out of a view of Biblical Prophecy (but unfortunately my current understanding of Prophecy doesn't extend to the topic of modern Israel's place as a geo-political nation - I really need to hear and understand more on that subject). So this thought comes purely out of an observation of history and current affairs, but why wouldn't it be appropriate for the Australian Government (and the international community) to be resolute in the view that Israel be given-back all of its traditional, historical, Biblical territory? - finally and simply.
Some may think that's too drastic and that it would meet with too much opposition in the Arab world. But isn't there anything to learn from Britain, who thought it was too drastic to be seen to favour the Jews, given the international delicateness surrounding the two World Wars, during the term of their Mandate? Meanwhile their indecisiveness did nothing to help the Arab-Israeli conflict, but only prolonged and contributed to the conflict.
Making a courageous stand can save many lives in the future. Indecisive compromises, whilst they may temporarily delay conflict, ultimately result in an escalation of conflict.
Favouring a return to Israel's traditional borders would be a courageous stand on the part of the Australian Government, and although it would appear drastic in the eyes of many in the Arab world, it seems a better idea than to continually see Israel pressured into compromising its traditional territory in vain hopes of procuring peace with people who are not for peace.
And it's important to remember that such a proposal wouldn't disfavour the Arabs in any way. God also loves the Arab, and He has a right place for every nation to call home: a right place for the Jews, and a right place for the Arabs. Even with a return to Biblical borders, the Palestinian Arabs would still have 75% of "Palestine".
If we can learn anything from "Palestine's" history over the past century, it is that the appropriate stand to take regarding borders ought to be a question of what is RIGHT? Not, what pleases the international community? or, what compromise is most likely to produce peace? or, what suits our circumstances best as a third-party? but, what is RIGHT?
That may require a courageous stand. But compromise is really no solution at all. It's a question of motives.
I'd really like Australia to be one nation that makes a stand on this matter based on noble motivations of heart. The United States, Britain and Australia have possibly been the three strongest contributing nations to the well-being of modern Israel as a State.
I need to have a fuller understanding of what is in God's plan for Israel as a nation at this time because perhaps the Scriptures can re-inforce what is right for the Middle East at this time.