Today is 7 October 2024, the anniversary of the attack on Israeli citizens (and other citizens of other countries) by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023. Terrible things happened that day and understandably, Israel retaliated against Gaza.
Harder to understand is why Israel's retaliation has involved killing, wounding and maiming so many Palestinians, including children. Similarly, since it was Hamas terrorists from Gaza who cruelly killed, wounded and raped people on 7 October 2023, it is difficult to comprehend why the West Bank has also suffered excursions and exploitations by Israel.
Now, Gaza is almost lost from the news as the conflict in the Middle East embroils southern Lebanon as the IDF engages with Hezbollah. Again, while this conflict is understandable (Hezbollah has rained down many rockets on northern Israel for a long time), innocent Lebanese people are suffering.
Somewhere in all the events, before, on and after 7 October 2024, Iran is a "great power" behind the attempts to obliterate Israel from the map, and Israeli Jews from existence. Can Iran be held to account?
What are we to say today? And, when we live far from the conflict zones and/or we as individuals feel literally powerless in the face of the real powers involved (e.g. nations supplying weapons), is there anything we can say which amounts to more than handwringing in the face of horrible, terrible, tragic human suffering?
Via a friend I have received the following talking points, provided by Palestinian Anglicans - the full set can be found here. There first three are:
I do not ask readers here to agree or disagree with these talking points in all their nuances and emphases: for example, on 7 October itself, we might put more emphasis on Israel's suffering a year ago, and on the continuing holding of hostages from that day.
Nevertheless, I am sure we all as Christians are concerned to stand with all people suffering in the Middle East (each is a person made in God's image) and to pray for peace which is lasting and genuine and thus can only be a peace which involves justice. (Our own "peace with God" always rests on God's just resolution of our conflict with God due to our sin, and resolved through Jesus' death on the cross. There is no peace which is actual peace without justice.)
Something often said is apt: there are causes in the world worth dying for, there are no causes worth killing for.
Can any of us say that true peace with justice in the Middle East is nearer because of the death and suffering these past 366 days have involved?
14 comments:
I agree that true peace with justice in the Middle East is not nearer because of the death and suffering these past 366 days have involved. It is unlikely that any of the readers contributed to the situation as it appeared October 5 and on from that day.
In trying to understand those who have contributed to this year of violence in the Middle East, I consider that something that Israelis and Palestinians share. Both groups know in the very depths of their hearts, and can point to evidence supporting this belief, that they are the tangata whenua of the Holy Land. And therefore, the other group is the usurper. This is not the whole story in this complex and long-lasting discord, but I suggest it is the heart of the problem.
The more I learn about NZ history, the more I understand the passion, the essence of identity tied a person to their land, and the screaming distress and tearing fury one must feel at having the usurper attempt to steal it out from under you. No wonder neither Palestinians nor Israelis are embracing the two state solution, the being forced to share with the usurper.
This leads me to two deductions. First the only realistic solution will come from God impacting each of these communities, bringing a critical mass of people into his kingdom. When enough people are truly listening to God then gracious and heartfelt sharing becomes possible. (How often does God move this profoundly in a society? How often in two societies at once?)
Second deduction is that we must thank God and live in an attitude of appreciation that the tangata whenua of this country have been far more gracious than those in the Middle East.
I appreciate your contribution, Chris. But do both "peoples" reject the other's claim? We have various leadership groups - in and out of power - waging brutal war on each other, and millions of people suffering. In some ways, Hamas further strengthens the politics of Netanyahu further strengthens the politics of repressive Iran etc. It's taking it too far to equate these groups and politics with a whole people/peoples IMHO.
It risks sounding sanctimonious to also say all these (non-Christian) people need to truly listen to God. We trust that all those Palestinian doctors and nurses, Israeli mothers and brothers, sons lining up for sacks of grain are listening to God currently, in the best way that they can.
The trouble is Chris, the people of the Holy Land are listening to the monotheistic God and he is telling them all different stories. Regards Thomas.
It is not particularly useful to say that because people are caring, or doing a caring job, they are listening to God. I know many doctors and nurses who have no relationship with God at all. I do not suppose it is any different elsewhere. What you say Mark 'listening as best they can' for most workers in caring professions means listening not at all just like with other professions.
Most Muslims I have met call New Zealand a Christian country. Yet how many New Zealanders are actually actively listening to God? Even many church-goers do not even expect to hear from God or be led by him.
I also believe that Jews and Muslims who are genuinely seeking God can hear and obey him. This is not about a religious label. It is about genuine relationship with God, which is surprisingly rare. I also point out that some Israelis and some Palestinians are Christians. I am not saying there are no people listening to God. But I do say Thomas that most people are not listening to God. They are listening to their culture, their history, their traditions, their religious teachers, their own desires, ... There are many people with many different motivations, just like anywhere. I am saying that things will not change until a critical mass of people are listening to God - truly listening to the actual God - enough to outweigh the cynical manipulators, the power hungry, the apathetic hedonists and so on that are found in any culture.
Hi Chris,
1. Many people in these countries do claim they are listening to God. Because that doesn't agree with how you see listening to God, that doesn't invalidate their experience. I would suggest that many of these people, perhaps a majority, though I don't really know, are not wanting the sort of Netanyahu- Hamas-Iranian fundamentalist versions of listening.
2. What is listening to God? Or where do we find God present, speaking? Is God not speaking to us in someone presenting to hospital, prison? (Matt. 25:36). Are atheists not listening to God - *at some level* - when they stitch up a gunshot wound to someone's leg? Is God immanent in our world, present in all our yearnings towards goodness, truth, and beauty (in other religions and in none), or only present in "special revelation"?
Field observers near Gaza (young women) observed and reported the preparations Hamas made. They saw them practicing. Israel's military refused to listen. Israeli leaders vastly under-estimated Hamas capability. Tragically, field observers were among the first to be killed and kidnapped. Gender/cultural divides are terrible for national security; listening isn't Israel's strong point (and these days a faith in technology is preferred).
"But a year after the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack, these young women say Israel is still not doing enough to reckon with the kind of threats that exploded across its southern frontier on that awful morning, when gunmen streamed across the border from the Gaza Strip. Field observers near Gaza were among the first to sound the alarm about Hamas’s preparations for a large-scale attack, and among the first to be killed and kidnapped during what turned out to be the deadliest day — and largest intelligence failure — in Israel’s history."
Peace? Justice?
"But field observers and their families — echoing the pain across this angry, grieving nation — have lost faith, threatening the social contract that is at the heart of Israel’s national identity."
quotes: Washington Post article, 04 Oct 2024
Israel, Palestine, "the holy land"....subject to so many cycles of violence. Endless!
"Christian" nations have been centrally involved: in present times, with the USA armouring Israel, the British earlier in the 20th century, and of course European nations, including England, in the bloody crusades.
When I have asked this question ...here, in newspapers, in public...ministers never comment. Other Christians hardly ever comment. A few local rugby supporters respond ...
Why, on earth, in light of Christianity's bloody history in the region, in light of the mosque shootings and present day massacres in Palestine, Israel, and now Lebanon, do church leaders in Canterbury not protest against the name "Crusaders" for our local rugby team?
Interesting question Mark - I do remember reading Twitter discussion about the name and then hadn't read anything further for ages. But if the Muslim community in Christchurch are not in favour of pursuing a name change (many of whom take an interest in the team) it's perhaps not surprising if we don't hear from other religious leaders in the the city? This Guardian article from 2020 provides background...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/feb/02/new-brand-same-name-but-crusaders-have-backing-of-islamic-community
If I omitted the Guardian link at the end of my last comment(?)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/feb/02/new-brand-same-name-but-crusaders-have-backing-of-islamic-community
Thanks Liz, a very useful article.
I can certainly understand Muslims in Christchurch not wanting to get embroiled in this discussion!
Let us not put this issue on the Muslim community to 'decide'.
Christians should make up our own minds: in our present context, is it right to keep using this name and symbolism for the local rugby franchise?
The fact that I hear no other Christian voice protesting this leads me to believe that Christians, and Christian leadership, think it is fine to use the name and symbolism of the "crusaders", or are afraid of being unpopular (it would be unpopular to question the golden calf, so to speak, of Canterbury; but if it's wrong it's wrong). Or perhaps Christians and Christian leadership believe that the names and symbols we use, including those drawn from Christian history, aren't that important.
I think there's a more charitable possibility here Mark, that Christians may have chosen to participate in activities that build and strengthen relationship with the Muslim community in preference to activity that would polarize the larger community (and perhaps even polarize the Muslim community itself, as per the article). Polarization on this issue would inevitably lead to a backlash on the Muslim community - from more extreme activists who are angry at the very idea of changing the name. It doesn't matter how much Muslims distance themselves from the contention, there'd be some who'd pin the blame on them anyway. If Christians were invited to join with Muslims on this matter it'd be different, but I'm not aware of such an invitation? To take protest action without (at least) their consent.. I mean, that would surely be unwise?
You might be right, Liz. Politics are delicate and there are many unintended consequences that might ensue.
Any "protest" would need to be carefully worded and expressed.
But not acting for fear of inflaming things further would still mean allowing, tolerating, one of the most offensive names and symbols of Christian relationship with Israel and Palestine (many Jews were massacred in the crusades, as well) to continue to be used and celebrated, uncritically, unthoughtfully. I just can't see how status quo is a better option.
I do agree re the gravity of the name Mark; I wonder if Christian leaders could initially address the issue in a manner other than protest. It'd be helpful I think to encourage discussion in churches so that people become informed. Would an ecumenical effort be possible to produce information materials and a format for discussion?
A note about what I mean by "gravity". I'm referring to white supremacy and specifically Great Replacement Theory - anxiety about low white birth rate compared to perceived high birth rate and immigration numbers of non-whites; and also, desire to provoke "civil war".
"For example, the manifesto of the Christchurch, New Zealand, mass murderer explicitly sought “to incite violence in the US… with the ultimate aim of civil war, balkanization and the destruction of the ‘melting pot’-ideal.”" [I can provide the ref if asked]
Soon after the Christchurch mosque massacres, NZ Herald did an excellent article extensively quoting Massey University professor of sociology Paul Spoonley (article link below).
"The white supremacists and the extreme right certainly refer back on occasion to the crusades. That's part of the history that they want to call upon in order to remind people that there is a global struggle against Islam."
The article's worth reading (not pay-walled).. he also spoke about NZ naivety - which prompted my idea of churches discussing/learning about these issues. He "believes the Crusaders' name and its imagery is an example of the country's "naivety". True! In another article I read that the real history of the term wasn't researched (oddly, they thought of it as "English", which appealed).
The article finishes by referencing two examples of sports teams (UK, US) who considered changing their "Crusaders" name (one did). BTW, I note the Crusaders here changed their logo.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/super-rugby-crusaders-name-and-imagery-feeds-into-white-supremacy-says-far-right-expert/AKLBBCQKRYJ37KYQOEUP4LLIT4/
Thanks for taking this seriously and responding, and further thickening the discussion Liz.
"In another article I read that the real history of the term wasn't researched (oddly, they thought of it as "English", which appealed)."
- Emoticon of man with head in his hands!
Post a Comment