It's ALL Crackpot Theology When It Comes To Modern Israel

Crackpot Theology Makes Bad Foreign Policy by Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Washington needs to develop a Mideast policy that advances the interests of America, not one that advances a peculiar interpretation of Christian theology.

Georgia's Republican state chairman, Ralph Reed, recently wrote: "There is an undeniable and powerful spiritual connection between Israel and the Christian faith. It is where Jesus was born and where he conducted his ministry."

So? This has nothing to do with the formulation of foreign policy... [for modern day America. Sure most Americans may consider themselves atleast nominally Christian and thus feel some nostalgia for the places mentioned in the New Testament but that was 2000 years ago! The modern Israeli state is no way shape or form, not even spiritually or Theologically the same place it was in ancient times nor the first century. -comment in brackets added by Paul Kersey]

Onetime Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer goes further: "The Bible is pretty clear that the land is what is called covenant land, that God made a covenant with the Jews that that would be their land forever."

Yet the premise of Christianity is that that covenant was voided by disobedience, and thus now runs to the body of Christian believers. [Exactly! Moreover, the covenant was made with Israelites which consisted of 12 tribes not just the one tribe of Judah which Jews claim to be the descendants of. Jesus called them imposters and liars and of their father the devil not Abraham. By the time of Christ Judea had already absorbed so much Edomite blood [the blood of Essau who lost the birth right to Jacob/Israel that most Judeans were no longer genuine Israelites. Old Testament Law clearly states that a mamzer or mongrel can not inherit the promise, birthright of Israel nor even enter heaven or the Kingdom of God! ~ Paul Kersey]

Moreover, why assume that nonreligious Jews who established a secular state in the Mideast are entitled to the same land once held by religious Jews following in the line of Moses? As Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine, notes, "A biblical case can certainly be made that Israelis who are atheists have tossed away their inheritance just as Esau did."

And if the land was to belong to Jews forever, why did they lose control of it? Surely God does not require America's assistance to give it back.

[It wasn't about land it was about a racial nation. That is why Israelites were commanded to drive out , or "ethnically cleanse" to use the modern PC phraseology, the new nation. The word "holy" is a poor english translation of the original Greek word which should have been translated separate or separated. God's command is not to be pious or "holier than thou" but to be a separate people, nation, race.

The Jews are trying to separate themselves in their attempt to gain the dominion promised to pure descendants of Adam but God will allow no rest for the wicked. They will never have peace and will never be able to create anything other than Babylon style mongrel empires.

God says they will keep building and He will keep tearing down what they build as He did with the Tower of Babel. When they try to unite different cultures and races under their rule while they themselves attempt to remain a separate people [the untouchable elite who is above the law] God will send them strong delusions to confuse them and throw them into a cycle of bitterly divisive and self-destructive in-fighting and anarchy.]

Finally, to how much are Jews entitled? A generous reading of Genesis suggests ownership of Jordan and chunks of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Another group of Christians, primarily Protestants, cite their dispensationalist eschatology, or end times theology. Never mind the complicated details of this minority interpretation. Backing whoever happens to be Israel's Prime Minister is supposed to accelerate Christ's return.

Of course, there is no way to prove what God actually intends. But the dispensationalist case is particularly strained. For instance, candidates for the Antichrist include the Pope, European Union President Roman Prodi and England's Prince Charles.

[no people has ever fit the definition of anti-Christs better than the modern Talmudic and atheist Zionist Jewish people themselves! They are the true anti-spiritual and material inheritors of Cain, Essau, and the Pharisees whom Jesus called a den of vipers - i.e. compare to what God said in Genesis would be at enmity [war] with the seed of Adamkind, the seed of the serpent!]

In fact, the book of Revelation is best understood in the context of the Roman Empire, when it was written. It foreshadows an apocalyptic end of mankind; it does not provide an exact time line of events.

[No it does not literally nor figuratively have anything at all to do with "an apocalyptic end of mankind." The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ predicted the end of the Old Testament Hebraist/Yahweyist religion centered around the Temple of Jerusalem and the sacrificial covenant and all it's associated culture, rituals, and way of life. The world as the Israelites had known it for so many centuries was coming to a close and a new and everlasting covenant was beginning which kept what was pure and discarded what was corrupt and barren.]

This argument also arrogantly assumes that the God who reconciled mankind through the sacrifice of his son requires Washington's help to get the end right. Interestingly, some Orthodox Jews are hostile to Zionism precisely because they view it as hubris for man to try to supplant God's timing. [Note that these anti-Zionist Jews are still very much Zionists in the theological sense. They only differ in that they believe God will miraculously save the Jews - those who are not atheist anyway - and give them all the power and glory the modern militant atheist Zionists have been trying to gain by force. So really they are no different as far as Christ is concerned. They merely differ in their methods to the same end. To Christ there are only two kinds of people in the world. Those who are with Him and those against Him.]

Another argument is that only by supporting Israel will America prosper. For example, activist Ed McAteer cites the promise that "I will bless them who bless you and curse them who curse you." Two decades ago, the Rev. Jerry Falwell declared that God had been kind to America only because "America has been kind to the Jews."

[What God is referring to here is not modern Talmudic Jewry but rather His chosen race descended from Adam. But Adam fell and many of his descendants corrupted their seedline and did not preserve the original racial identity and associated genetically determined inheritance [upon which spiritual things in this world must be based - just as faith without works is dead so is there no spirit without a body and light cannot have anything to do with darkness and noone can serve two masters or have the mixed inheritance of two opposing physical or spiritual natures. They can try to but God did not create a world conducive or friendly to such unnatural and unprovidential experiments they will never be sustainable "alternative lifestyles"]

Curiously, there's no verse explaining that to bless the Jewish people or to be kind to them means doing whatever the secular government of a largely nonreligious people wants several thousand years later. This is junk theology at its worst. Or almost worst. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a speech last March: "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."

Wow. God is punishing the American people because their government, which has long supported Israel more firmly than any other, is insufficiently pro-Israel.

Speaking for the creator of the universe is a dicey proposition and I won't try. But presuming that a biblical injunction to "bless" the Jewish people requires a secular state run by nominal Christians to offer a blank check to a secular state run by ethnic Jews is simply bizarre.

There are lots of sensible policy arguments for supporting Israel. But conflicting interests must still be balanced. Crackpot theology is no substitute for intelligent analysis.

[Name one sensible argument for supporting Israel. Professing to be wise you become a fool. No argument for the support of Israel can make any sense, when it the modern Jewish Identity is subjected to the scrutiny of intelligent analysis - we see that it's all crackpot theology.