Are we moving to an amazing replay of first century Israel history?

Are we moving to an amazing replay of first century Israel history?

It is commonly taught that we are seeing a lineup of nations against Israel, a setup that seems like a replay of the first century but with one amazing difference. Instead of Jerusalem’s destruction, the last days’ final war against Jerusalem will lead to Israel’s full victory with the return of Yeshua. Zechariah 12 and 14 make this very clear.

One aspect for those who do not live in Israel might seem quite amazing. It is that the divisions in Israel seem in some ways quite analogous to the first century. We have Jewish secularists who still desire to be Israeli Jews but are like those who were very Hellenized in the first century. They like the Sadducees do not believe in angels, demons, or the inspiration of the prophets. The Ultra-Orthodox are like the strict Shammai Pharisees who believed that living strictly in accord with myriads of multiplied laws would make us so holy that the Messiah would come and bring us victory. We also have the Zealots of our day who want to take the whole Land now and push the Arabs out of the Land. Recently, in response to a terrorist attack, some of these modern Zealots have rioted against the nearby Palestinian village, burning cars and houses and shooting at civilian innocents. These folks and their leaders are not democratic libertarians. The Prime Minister spoke out against this anarchy, but two of the party leaders in his coalition support the reactive violence and are frustrated at him. Yeshua warned that the Zealots would gain ascendancy and Jerusalem would be destroyed. As in the first century, there are also religious Jews of a more open and tolerant stream like the Hillel Pharisees of old. Will the nations unjustly invade, maybe in some kind of U. N. action in response to zealot policies? Maybe. Or will it be a Muslim invasion of the surrounding nations supported by the rest of the nations (writers W. Shobat and J. Richardson)? We don’t know.

However, as in the first century, there is a growing Messianic Jewish community. In the first century, the destruction of Jerusalem did not lead to repentance and the embrace of Yeshua, though the prophecies He gave were clear and fulfilled. However, this time, the witness of the Messianic Jews with the whole Body of Believers will lead to the embrace of Yeshua before Jerusalem is destroyed. He will return to rule and reign forever.

Democratic Tyranny

My followers are usually very interested in Israel and know there is quite a controversy about judicial reform in Israel. The divide is intense. To put this in a better perspective, it is worthwhile to review the system in the United States.

The United States is not technically a democracy but a democratic republic. This means that the popular vote is not the all-powerful final say on everything, but there are checks and balances. The Founders had great concern with the corruption of power. They recognized that a demagogic leader could gain the popular vote and lead the nation to tyranny. Therefore, they incorporated many checks to power; the executive power, the President, the power of the Congress, the power of the Court and the power of the electorate.

They established the Constitution, which is hard to amend. Thus, the democratic electorate, the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts must function within the boundaries of the Constitution and its famous Bill of Rights. Secondly, they established a bi-cameral legislature with the most democratic institution, the House of Representatives, and the more limited democratic Senate whose senators were elected by the state legislatures and then later by the people of the states. This protected the less populous states from being controlled by the more urban populous states. Democrats today speak against this since these senators from more rural states sometimes frustrate their agenda, but this was as the Founders desired. Thirdly, the President was limited in his function according to the Constitution to carry out the rule of laws and the legislation of the Congress. He could not make laws. He was given greater freedom with regard to foreign policy, but Congress alone could declare war. He was elected, not by the popular vote, but by electors chosen by the States. In so many ways, there were limits to power. The Courts and the Supreme Court were to apply the laws and could review laws as contrary to the Constitution, as well as noting regulations contrary to the Law. The huge issue today is the recent history of the Supreme Court, which has legislated through a broad view of interpretation contrary to the intent of the Constitution. The biggest example was Roe vs. Wade on abortion, but there are many more examples.

In Israel there is no constitution. The reasons were several. Some thought Israel would be like England with a common law tradition rooted in western democracies. Many Orthodox Jews did not want a constitution but only the Law of Moses. Instead of a Constitution, Israel passed Basic Laws that were not to be changed. Other laws could only be accepted, if they were in line with Basic Laws. These Basic Laws became a quasi-constitution. The Supreme Court of Israel was to judge laws on the basis of Basic Law, and if found to be not consistent to Basic Law, they could declare those laws unconstitutional. However, they also decided that they could judge laws by the standard of accepted general understandings of rights and laws in the consensus of Western societies. They also judged on the criteria of reasonability. The right-wing leaders in Israel really push back on this idea since what is and isn’t reasonable could be subjective. Unlike the United States, judges are not appointed by the Executive with confirmation of a Senate. In recent years we have seen the weakness of the U. S. system since Democrats and Republicans will not vote for qualified people due to their judicial philosophy. In Israel, new appointees are made by a selection committee and not politicians, but heavily dominated by other judges and lawyers. In this way, many on the right think that the Court has too much power.

However, if the Court is to be a check on power, and one of the keys to separation of power, then the present proposals of M. K. Levine go way too far. He will open Israel to democratic tyranny since he proposes a simple one vote majority of the Knesset to overturn any Supreme Court decision. Basic Law is as well in flux. Why? Because only a majority was needed to pass Basic Laws, and a majority can cancel it. It would be far different if Basic Law was passed by a 2/3 majority and could only be changed by a 2/3 majority. Alas, that is not the situation. The present proposals also give the Knesset the appointment power and the overturning power for Court decisions. This could lead to democratic tyranny. The pendulum is swinging too far. Would that we could resurrect Jefferson, Madison and Adams to give wisdom to our leaders here.

We need to pray for Israel that they will embrace good judicial reform. First, to embrace a new foundational law that only 2/3 can establish or reverse Basic Law. This would require a special legislative semi-constitutional body that could establish this one principle for stability. Secondly, that the Court would be restrained on the reasonable standard, and that the Court could be overruled by 2/3s. Maybe it could be 2/3 on its Basic Law foundation for rulings and 60% for overturning the reasonable clause. Then judges could be appointed by some expert judges and by the Knesset together where there would have to be agreement by two bodies for appointment. Reform is needed, but minority rights and stability require that we avoid the democratic tyranny of the Levine plan. Can you imagine that every new parliament could, by majority, just reverse all that was passed as Basic Law by the previous parliament and could also reverse the reversals of the pervious government?

The Political Dilemma in Israel

It is very hard not to be very ambivalent about politics in Israel. There is no party that has representation in the Knesset that represents me. My Facebook friends may or may not have an understanding of this. Here is a bit of the challenge. Note that the right in Israel does necessarily mean social conservative.

On the Right:
1. Likud: Bibi Netanyahu I agree with free enterprise, strong defense, and peace with Palestinians that does not jeopardize Israel’s security. I disagree with support for the LGBTQ agenda and its weak policies re: help to raise the quality of life for Arab Israeli citizens. Pro-abortion. I think they have been weak in policies to build enough housing to lower costs.

2. Otzmah Yehudit. Ben G’vir. Agree with not supporting the public fostering of the LGBTQ agenda. But wants to eliminate the historic 75-year-old grandfather clause so non-halakhaic Jews can not make Aliyah if they have a Jewish grandparent and want to identify with their Jewish parentage. This would be a terrible direction and for Russian Jews, very bad. They only want to have Orthodox conversions. Wants to annex the West Bank in ways that may be very dangerous. He also wants to gut the Supreme Court so a majority of the parliament can overturn any decision, ending the independence of the court.

3. Religous Zionist Party: Bazelel Smotrich. This is not your grandfather’s National Religious Party of yesteryear which was moderate. Most of the same position as above.

4. Shas Party, Aryeh Deri, Sephardic Orthodox Party. A convicted felon. Wants as well to up-end the Supreme Court. Was the leader who had the interior department adopt a policy to resist Jewish believers in Yeshua no matter what their qualifications. Is anti-LGBTQ agenda but not as strong as the first two.

5. United Torah Judaism Party. The Ultra-Orthodox. Wants to gain back total control over Kashrut and Conversions even if the conversions are from other Orthodox Rabbis Wants to have a monopoly over Kashrut. Wants all its men to be exempt from the army, education that prepares them for work, and to have them forever supported by welfare to study Talmud all day. This means most ultra-Orthodox live near poverty.

Centrist
National Unity: Benny Gantz. The former general was good on defense and went after terror strongly. Most policies seemed good but then supported a pro-LGBTQ agenda, including in the Army.

Left of Center
Yesh Atid, (There is a future) Yair Lapid. He is the present Prime Minister until Bibi forms his government about ten days from now. Has governed as a moderate and not bad. Pro-LGBTQ agenda for all levels of society. Pro-Abortion.

Left
Labor Party: Similar to all the positions of Democrats in the U. S.

Arab Parties
Ra-am. Mansour Abbas has become moderate and seeks to accept Israel but desires development and a better life for Arabs. A good development that there is such a party.

Joint List: Anti-Israel Arab Party.

I really don’t fit in with any of the parties. We add all the issues up and just pick the best we can, but none have my wholehearted agreement. We pray to be led by the Spirit and then vote.

Who Dominates the Media

I was planning to write this post when Bill O’Reilly wrote a commentary that partly covered my concerns. He opined that the reason the Republicans did not do better in the election was that the dominant media magnified the talking points of the Democrats and did not do their job as news media to question these talking points. Non-stop we were told that a Republican victory was a victory for extremism, the end of Democracy, the extension of racism, a danger to Social Security and Medicare, a national ban on abortion (which would require a super majority of the Senate and the President’s signature and will not happen.) Of course, conservative media sought to refute such claims, but conservative media is still much less powerful than the dominant media.

The dominant media distorts and suppresses the truth. We see this with the doctors of the Great Barrington Declaration, top doctors who were canceled, who promoted a more reasonable response to Corona. We see it in the narrative on global warming or climate change. There is not sober quality of evaluation as in Bjorn Lomberg’s great book False Alarm, where he does say human caused global warming is a real problem but that the direction of world political leaders will make things worse and lead multitudes to death and poverty. The actual UN panel in charge of the science is being misrepresented by political and media leaders. We see it in the fostering of gender transitions for children that does not deal with trauma, abuse, and other factors that could solve the problem with proper treatment. Gender diaspora has now become trendy among teens. Why? The influence of social media and the domination of a corrupt elite in medicine, education and politics.

Sometime ago I wrote about the fact of leading philosophers and scientists, former atheists and still professing agnostics, concluding that the macro theory of evolution in all its present iterations is impossible. This is an astonishing and amazing story that cannot get any traction in media. Media also gives no traction to major bonified and proven miracles that are taking place world-wide. The media gives no attention to the persecution of Christians world-wide and the terrible atrocities of radical Islamists (Nigeria)

Add to all this the cancel culture and the vicious response toward those who do not hold to the received contemporary views, many of which are anti-biblical.

How can we break through? First, we need to see alternative media displace more and more of the dominant media, both news-media and social media. This is a tall order, but also a matter for much prayer. Conservative media is growing, and in my view, more objective. In education, it will take the failure of many present schools and colleges and building alternatives. Secondly, a true revival does have the power to breakthrough at levels such that media cannot ignore it. God has his own ability to break the media stranglehold that suppresses true information or at least does not connect to it. When there is a revival that leads to mass evangelistic growth in a nation, with real miracles, it cannot be ignored. It can grow by word of mouth and invitation such that it transcends the normal media but then breaks through in media. May we see this in our days.

Peace with the Palestinians, The Great Assumption, and the Israel Elections

Although Benjamin Netanyahu professed that he accepted a two-state solution for the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in 2009, it is quite clear that he and his Likud Party are really against a two-state solution as are most of the right-wing political parties which make up about 75 out of maybe 120 of the members of the Knesset (Parliament). Why it is so hard for Likud to form a government? The reason is that Bibi has betrayed several key past partners that will not form a government with him. So, they want to form a centrist unified government with those who advocate for a two-state solution though they don’t. However, this is not so important to them because the positions of the Palestinians make any such solution impossible. The overwhelming conclusion of Israelis since M. Abbas walked away from the too-generous agreement with Ehud Olmert is that the two-state solution is dead.

For the great majority of Israelis, a two-state solution will lead to a terrorist state on Israel’s border, just like what happened in Gaza. So they are not in favor, at least not for the near future. However, the international community of nations overwhelmingly favors a two-state solution. Why? One of the reasons is the assumption that every people or person deserves full citizenship in a recognized state that is a member of the U. N. Upon what basis in morals or history does this assumption rest? There are 22 Arab states and Jordan is the majority Palestinian in population. There are other situations in the world, of territories that are exceptions, like Puerto Rico, whose people prefer to not be a separate nation or a state of the U. S. Once this assumption is rejected one can see a long-term solution.

Neither Israel nor Jordan want to give the Palestinians full citizenship. Jordan fears that they would upend their government. Israel cannot absorb so many. Indeed, they might not be able to maintain a Jewish majority (This is debated-see Carolyn Glick’s One State Solution). Israel, due to terrorism, cannot afford to give up security in Judea and Samaria. The answer is semi-autonomy and a special non-citizen status with Jordan that provides passports and services that are needed. The economy of the Palestinians can be tied to both Jordan and Israel. In this solution, the Palestinians do not get U. N. membership and state status. But they can get most everything else in autonomy, self-government, and territory. Israel settles the Israeli areas, and the Palestinians keep their areas. Jordan is the protector of Palestinians in their travels through their consulates.

Will this ever happen? Probably not. The world is too locked into the rigid assumption. The Palestinians are in an all-or-nothing mode. However, it is good to see that if we think outside of the box we can conceive a solution. One thing for sure, Israel must make a legal decision that no government can be chosen by Palestinians that are committed to Israel’s destruction.

Thoughts Given to a Friend on Israel and the Palestinians

Here are thoughts to help with your article.

1. It is very important to not conflate the three very different situations in Israel within the Green Line (an armistice line- never a defined border) and Gaza and the West Bank. Anti-Israel people, BDS, always conflate them, and I wonder if it is not intentional. I will explain.

2. It is crucial to note that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has a definition of anti-Semitism. It may not always be overt, but emphasizing Israel’s errors far out of proportion, much worse in occupation or oppression and persecution shows an anti-Semitic bent. Why more Israel than Turkey, Iran, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. The big crime regimes are death with so much less than Israel. It is amazing.

Now for the specifics

1. After the 48 War, the world did not resettle refugees as was normal. They could have settled in the West Bank or other Muslim nations but were kept in camps. This had never happened before. Israel settled an equal number of refugees from Arab and Muslim countries. So this became a big cause but it was purposely set up to fight Israel.

2. After the 67 war, there was dialogue with Jordan and Palestinians about autonomy or Jordan being responsible for the Palestinian areas. It never went anywhere It was a big and complicated time. The 73 war did not change matters. The 67 armistice line became known as the Green Line.

3. After the Oslo accords, Clinton and Arafat, and Abbas tried for a 2 state solution. Barak offered most of the West Bank except for the major Israel settlement blocks, or 95% with land swaps. E. Jerusalem would be the capital. Arafat walked away and stared at the intifada violent uprising. Clinton said to Arafat, “You made me a failure.” It began to appear to Israelis that they were being played by the Palestinians who had no intention to make peace. Barack let the last labor government and labor never recovered.

4 Though Israel elected the conservative Likud, their leader the famous Ariel Sharon, the war hero of the 73 war and a founding military leader since 1948 became the Prime Minister He concluded that Israel needed to separate from the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. With the support of Abbas, (Arafat had died) he released Gaza to independence. His view was that it this worked, he would do the same thing with the West Bank. However, instead of peace, Hamas overthrew the Palestinian Authority and then armed for attacking Israel. They even destroyed the agricultural greenhouses that Israel gave them. The settlements near Gaza were taken down and Israelis lost homes and agriculture. But they did it. Sharon died, and his plan seemed doomed due to violent rejection. Sharon left Likkud when he withdrew and formed the Kadima Party to support the withdrawal.

5. When Olmert succeeded the unconscious Sharon, He entered new negotiations. He was even more generous than Barak. He gave more land, E. Jerusalem would be the capital of the new state. Again, Abbas walked away. For Israel, this would be the end of the matter. For the majority of Israelis, the Palestinians proved they did not want peace but were playing the world so they could destroy Israel.

Where do we go from here? Apartheid. BDS

Apartheid was defined as a legal system that does not give full rights and citizenship to people of a particular ethnic or racial minority status So let’s apply this to Israel

1. Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel. They have full rights. They can go to universities, be appointed to various roles, and have and do serve on Supreme Court. For the 20% Israel Arabs, there is no apartheid. There is a disparity of state spending since governments favor the groups keeping them in power. Only now has an Arab party joined the government and large amounts are being spent in the Arab town. To speak about apartheid in Israel for Israel-Palestinian Arabs is absurd.

2 Gaza has been released. They could declare independence and be a state They won’t do so because they want to conquer all of Israel. They can be part of Egypt. But there’s no apartheid. There is a military blockade that would end the Hamas Party leaders would end their war against Israel.

3. The West Bank (Judea-Samaria) Usually those who claim apartheid and foster BDS are referring to the West Bank. The West Bank is a disputed territory. But it is not a state so it can’t be. Are the Palestinians treated differently? Yes, they have their own government but are stateless. Israel’s settlements have citizens who are Israel citizens. They vote for the Knesset.

Palestinians vote for the Palestinian Legislature which has been suspended by Abbas to keep Hamas at bay. So they do not have citizenship in a nation-state. That is the center. They are relatively free but not always treated well. No one really knows what do to. Should the Palestinian areas be linked to Jordan for Statehood but semi-autonomy so Jordan’s government will not be overthrown? Jordan’s population is majority Palestinian but Jordan fears that more will overturn the government. Israel does not want to give them full citizenship but fears the loss of a Jewish-controlled state which is the whole purpose of Israel’s existence. Some have argued it could be done, but then the refugees? Barak and Olmert envisioned the refugees returning to the West Bank but not over the Green Line. So that leaves us with a mess. The nation has embraced the status quo. Someday it is hoped that the Palestinians will come to their senses and make real peace. But until then we are left with the status quo. Apartheid isn’t. But there is nothing in the Bible requiring all people to be in a nation-state, a modern invention. There is Puerto Rico!

I hope this helps.

God Bless,

Dan Juster

Definition of Love and Rejection of the Bible

One of the key foundations of the conflict between the Biblical World View and the prevailing culture is the clash of definitions. Love and justice are defined in profoundly different ways. We are watching the disintegration of the West due to profoundly false definitions. Biblical definition profoundly influenced the development of western thought and law. Of course, the definitions of the left often are left vague, but one can reflect and come to a valid conclusion as to what the definitions are. In the past, Marxists gave a clear definition of justice. “To each according to their need and from each according to their ability.” Thus, justice was defined by equality of income and living standards. In Lenin’s time, this led to the limitation of space where 25 meters per person would be allocated, and large houses would be divided. And love? The love of the Marxist was a sentiment that wanted the best for the greatest number in their age to come based on the equality motive. The end was the Marxist millennium, a world of equality and prosperity for all. It is an eschatological but atheist vision.

The secular definition of love is a sentiment that seeks to indulge others in their desires. As long as the fulfillment of desires does not destroy or hurt others, we should fully support all in what they want for themselves. Such indulgent love is not based on biblical Law in any way. The criterion of not hurting others is profoundly short-sighted. Yes, there may not be immediate violence to others, but the long-term destruction for people, for society, for children, and their future is deep and lasting. Lifestyles? LGBTQ including the polyamorous, we support and indulge. Abortion? We support and indulge and define the pre-born child as not a human person so we can indulge the desire of the pregnant mother to abort the child. We provide the marijuana through the long haul it gives a marshmallow brain. The humanistic definition is profoundly at war with the Bible because the Bible definition coheres with the Law of God. The humanistic definition especially rails against the Law of God and the doctrine of Hell. In their definition of love, if there is a God would never assign someone to Hell. How do they know that? Their subjective desire. The leftists will rail against their opponents, march for supposed rights and cancel all others who disagree as haters. They are committed to every aberrant lifestyle and will fight for it. Their definition of haters is all who do not support their indulgent love definition.

In the Bible, God loves every human being and thus provides a way to escape Hell. He desires that every person be saved and attain their God intended destinies in this life and in the Age to Come, eternal life. But God’s love and all true love is passionate identification with others that seeks their good guided by God’s Law. That good is defined by God’s destiny intention for them which is only within the parameters of God’s Law. God’s love in line with his Law defines his intention for our sexuality, for economic provision, for caring for the needy and so much more. But it is not humanistic indulgence. The refusal of Love with Law leads to Hell. That refusal is clear in the rejection of the Gospel that provides our atonement. “He that has the Son has everlasting life . . . but he that has not the Son shall not see life. . . the wrath of God remains on him.” (5:24) Yes, God’s love with Law is compatible with the doctrine of Hell and requires it. Our culture is in profound rebellion to the God-definition of Love.

Our culture is in profound rebellion against the biblical definition of justice. Justice is an order of righteousness where each person can fulfill their God-intended destiny. For each, God’s intended destiny is good and loving. However, empirical study as well as studying the Bible shows us that disparity of wealth distribution is necessary for the dynamic of wealth expansion that enables the most destiny fulfillment. Destiny prevention is injustice. Food, clothing, provision, friendships, and so much more is God’s intention for all, but not economic equality.

The anti-biblical quests for justice produce social disintegration. We have noted the Marxist definition, but there is a neo-Marxist idea of equity that has now permeated the culture, universities, the Democratic party, public schools, the military, and even the Army. The left speaks of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These are words that resonate, but the self-defeating program is to see the percentages of each definable group, ethnic group, and racial group, be represented in university faculty and students, in the corporate board room, in the professions, be in line with their percentages in the larger population. Dumbing down in schools enables more equal academic attainment! The African American disparity in attainment is the main frustration. Indeed we should all be frustrated, but racism, though the factor, is not the main factor.

So now we find that Asian Americans, Indians, Koreans, and Chinese, have to be diminished. Their percentages of attainment are too great. They must be admitted to elite colleges at lower percentages. Jews also have too much attainment. Whites as well do. Hispanics? Yes, they are included but was they naturally will attain greater parity, maybe they will need to be diminished. Then what do we do about basketball? I won’t go there. The Biblical answer to disparities is to recognize that people have varying desires for their lives and do not easily make way for percentages. The Gospel is the #1 key to success. Secondly, we restore the family and quality education for blacks and for all. For this we need choice.

Everything depends on defining love and justice rightly. When we do so we see that God’s love, justice, holiness, and Law require exclusion for the rebellious. We will see the wrong definition of Love as a profound rebellion against God.

What is my biggest burden? It is that Christians and Messianic Jews are swayed by the cultural nostrums and definitions and give up the Bible definitions of Love, Justice, and judgment. See my book Social Justice or more.

Pain at the Pump

The newscasts from America constantly speak about “Pain at the Pump.” We find similar stories in Israel as well. However, this is an unfortunate way to put the headlines. It should be “Pain in the Cost of Living due to high Energy Costs.” There are other factors driving inflation and high costs, but in America the central factor was the Biden Administration’s abandoning energy independence and cutting back production. No, the primary issue is not Russia, for if the U. S. was independent, it would not have been such an issue. Israel as well could be energy independent but the anti-carbon environmentalists have prevailed here as well. Climate Change/Global Warming is now so important that it takes the place of national security for which energy independence is crucial.

We should note that energy costs affect most product costs. Just about everything must be transported. Energy costs are a big part of the increases in food and other products. Farms use fuel for their farm machinery. Those who must fly for business find their costs are higher. The costs are passed on to the consumer for business travel. So also, we find higher costs for trains. All products are now more and more costly.

There are three responses to climate change.

The first sees this as a dire existential threat. All hands-on board! Damn the consequences. It is radical surgery time: shut down fossil fuel. These are the folks in control in America. They will lead many in the middle class to suffer and some to poverty. Russia, China, India, and Africa are not cooperating, so this direction is like tilting at windmills. China imports coal from Russia and builds new coal plants! The radical way will not work.

The second response is to deny the problem. The human-caused climate change idea is said to be based on bad science, a lie, or a conspiracy. I have read enough from a minority of credible scientists to have questions, but I am not a denier, just more skeptical. I think doing nothing is not the right response. What if there is some truth to it?

The third response is for more gradual progress. Go for the new safe nuclear option as Bill Gates is doing. Do solar where it is feasible. Wind farms are a limited help in the energy mix and are polluting in manufacture and disposal. Then use relatively clean natural gas as a transition fuel, hydrogen truck engines, and more. Continue to produce and use enough fossil fuel until alternatives are really feasible. Make energy independence a top priority in Israel and the U. S.

Taking over the Land

CONFUSED ABOUT ISRAEL POLITICS AND THE ISSUE OF TAKING OVER THE REST OF THE LAND IN ISRAEL? Well, it is a very confusing issue with deep political divides. Here are a few points to put it into perspective.

1. Right-wing religious national parties would probably take over the land come hell or high water, no matter what the nations think. However, they are not in this government, and when they were in previous governments they could not implement their vision. One sees that the radical right-wing religious seek to establish settlements that were not approved by the State of Israel. Sometimes this brings big violent clashes between the settlers and the police/army who have to dismantle these outposts again and again Sometimes the government will legalize them post facto. The attitude of these people is that if the government of Israel will not take the Land, we have a biblical mandate to do so that transcends the government. Note how they interpret the Bible as applying today.

2. The larger right-wing parties would like to take the whole Land but they bow to U. S. and international pressure to do so. This includes Yamina and included Likud when they were in power. Generally, they simply preserve the status quo with the Palestinians on the West Bank (Judea-Samaria)

3. The centrists want to preserve Israel and its majority of Jewish voters. They would like to see a two-state solution but do not see it as feasible now because of the situation of the Palestinians and the power of the radical Muslim Hamas group.

4. The left, represented by Labor and even more radically by Meritz, want a two-state solution, does not want to foster the status quo and wants to go all out for it.

The Israel public however is just as complex as the parties and includes the ultra-Orthodox who are anti-Zionist. Unlike the nationalist Orthodox, they see the state of Israel as an aberration that should not exist before the Messiah comes. Their biblical interpretation is the opposite of the first political group.

Most Israelis are right of center, and most are secular but moving toward keeping more traditions. They moved right after the Palestinians rejected Prime Minister Olmert’s peace offer which was beyond generous and more than any government could offer now. However, they are not in favor of illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Jewish settlements and new towns should be legal.

One thing, not enough discussed is how Israel has allowed multiple Palestinian settlements in Area C which is under their control in the Oslo accords, whereas A and B are fully under the Palestinians. Why does Israel allow this? Because Europeans like the facts on the ground for a future Palestinian state. They see area C as fully Palestinian. Israel has been foolish to allow such illegal buildings. I often pass such settlements as I drive past French Hill toward the highway that goes down to the Dead Sea.

I think one of the biggest issues is that the Israel Government simply is too wimpish to enforce the Law. This is not to say that settlements should not be approved or that Palestinians should not have more housing. They really do need it and have been treated poorly. But Israel really should enforce the Law always. There is a great need for permits for housing for both Jews and Palestinians. However about a lawless society.

Where do Messianic Jews stand? All over the map on these issues, but more would be on the right. However, there are Messianic Jews who support all the positions except anti-Zionism of some of the Ultra-Orthodox.

Afghanistan, Nation Building and Strategic Leadership

Watching the debacle in Afghanistan has been very depressing to say the least. As former British P. M. Tony Blair recently said, this was incredibly stupid decision. He used the term imbecilic. When Donald Trump came up with the idea of withdrawal, I was strongly against his position and spoke against it. When Joe Biden carried out the withdrawal, it was so poorly done that it left most of the world astonished. Really the brass that planned this should all resign. They at least could have stayed until after the evacuation. But no! The issue of Afghanistan was no longer for me the thought that we could build a western democratic nation (I never bought this), but the importance of maintaining a strategic base as a crucial bulwark against Islamic radicalism and terror. In addition, there was a contingent of people that partnered with the U. S. and NATO, and loyalty to them was crucial. Retired General Jack Keene summarized the view of most military leaders who begged both President Trump and Biden to not give up the strategic base in Afghanistan. Only 2,500 military personal were needed. They are not in direct combat and there were very few casualties. This base was a key to access to the whole Middle East and a key to intelligence on the ground to thwart terror. We will face new terror attacks and I fear the greater loss of life from this decision. Western democracies are decadent and without courage. They lack understanding of the larger issues of strategy in fighting radical Islamism, and are unable to inspire a conviction-less godless population. Indeed, Western nations are mostly drifting away from republican values into a semi socialistic technocracy (control by rich technocrats.) The illusion of democracy is maintained, but with the control of media by corporate/government collusion and then giving social benefits that quiet the socialists, the West is hardly a vibrant contingent of nations that can confront evil. The loss of faith in the God of the Bible is a huge part of the character deficit in the whole population.

However, the above is introduction. How should the United States and its allies comport themselves in the war against Islamic terror and what may be a war with China (a cold war, hopefully) as China moves to take over Taiwan and then control the whole Asian Pacific. I won’t speak to the Chinese threat now.

The whole strategic battle is to win the war against Islamic terrorism. This could be a hundred years war, and the enemy has strategic patience which the West lacks. But if the West had such patience, what should be the goal? We must learn the lesson that the goal cannot be to build nations among peoples who do not share our values. When the United States invaded Iraq, I dearly hoped that the U. S. would quickly take out Saddam and then leave the Sunni Baathists in power and say to them, “Now cooperate with us or we will be back.” Iraq was a buffer against Iran. I could not see how an election in Iraq would solve anything since the majority Shiites would come to power and would ally with Iran. They would then turn on their former oppressors. This is what happened. This led to the reaction of ISIS. I hoped I was wrong. How could so many see that this would not work but not the leaders of the U. S.? How do leaders become so lacking in wisdom and think that other people deep down are democratic loving freedom seekers. They are not. These values took centuries of tradition and thought to develop and implement. Mao rightly said that the one who controls the gun rules. If the ones with the guns are ruthless enough, as Saddam was, they can control the population. As the Chinese Communists at Tiananmen Square, a ruthless response maintains power. Does that mean that a democratic society is impossible in other cultures? No, we see it in Korea and Japan, but there was a history that made this less a tenuous project. How would it happen? It would be that a strong ruthless leader or group of leaders begins to want to move their society toward these values and over the course of say 50 years, with education and gradual progress, someday it could happen. Too quick a change would lead to the fragmentation of the nation among warring factions. This was the project of the Shah of Iran but his ruthless part was too much for the West that could not understand the cultural limits he faced. The West abandoned him and traded him for the more ruthless and totally demonic evil tyrants.

So how does foreign policy get conducted? First, we find those authoritarian leaders who want cooperative relationships and will fight terrorism. It is up to them to move their society to greater freedom. The United States cannot succeed in doing this by occupation. We can encourage them with carrots to move their nation forward. Secondly, we should show fierce loyalty to those who are fighting on our side. Thirdly, we should maintain strategic beachheads that help us do this work, the air base in Saudi Arabia, and what should have been the base in Afghanistan. Yes, we should be loyal and not abandon those who stood with us. No we could not build a nation out of the tribalism of Afghanistan, but there was the attainment of a strategic position and a loyal group of allies in the Kabul region and beyond. It could have been maintained indefinitely. Just was we have troops in Europe and Korea (now for over 70 years) we could have maintained a presence that would have been a forward base to fight terrorism. It is the same in Iraq and Syria. American airpower should have been projected to protect the Kurds, but again the allies were abandoned. Despite the errors of Iraq under George W. Bush, we could have made it known that we would absolutely protect the Kurds, against Turkey or Assad of Syria and within Iraq. We would not permit them to be bombed or to become refuges from their villages, but would stand with our allies. “Do not test us on this” should have been the word. Why should anyone trust the United States now? Should Taiwan? I worry about this one.

Finally, it should be known that the full might of U. S. air power would be used against genocide wherever feasible. Rwanda’s genocide could have been stopped; so also the genocide in Syria. The rule should be that whenever we can use our air power to stop genocide at minimum risk to the United States, we will do so. Our air power should be used in Nigeria to fight the terrorists. We should fight and support all those who fight Islamic terror which now seeks to take over Nigeria, Chad, and really much of Africa. Islamic radicalism really does seek to conquer the world and will come from Africa to the United States!

If the U. S. would show that it was serious about this war, even if it takes a hundred years, then credibility would be restored. And of course, Muslims need the Gospel. Alas, I do not see courageous leaders who can inspire the population to follow long term. Even Reagan turned tail and fled Lebanon after the terrorist bombing instead of going after the terrorist full bore (1982). Israel as well abandoned its Christian allies in Southern Lebanon and turned the territory over to Hezbollah. Yes, there were a few casualties now and then and Israelis screamed. We were disloyal to our allies. The war that followed in 2006 produced many more casualties that staying in the loyalty would have prevented. What is it about political calculations, that saves lives ib the short term at the price of leading to a disaster of casualties in the future of unimaginable proportions. There will be a war with Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously at the time of Iran’s choosing. Then those short-term stupid decisions will be seen for the foolishness they were (see the editorial in the Times of Israel by David Horowitz, 8/22). Due to Israel’s lack of strategic courage, we allowed Hezbollah to arm and now have 150,000 rockets aimed at our major cities. The war will come. Then how will that decision to withdraw form our allies in Southern Lebanon look?

I am only a layman but follow these things closely. Policy is a lifetime interest. Why in the West do we constantly choose short term peace that will lead to a long term conflagration? With Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, the United States replays the same stupid short sighted decisions. It shows the lack of faith, courage and more in the West. It reveals our decadence. One writer said that the one that wins has the will to fight.