Posted on 12/10/2017 9:54:21 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer translates Psalm 122 more elegantly even than the King James Bible. “Jerusalem is built as a city that is at unity in itself.” Hubert Parry set those words to music in 1902 for the investiture of King Edward VII, and his gorgeous anthem has been sung at every subsequent British Coronation.
But Jerusalem has rarely been “at unity in itself,” and it certainly is not today. Neither the dazzling Anglican hymn, nor Thomas Cranmer’s baroque translation, nor, indeed, the original Hebrew words bear much relation to contemporary reality.
The status of Jerusalem isn’t part of the Israel-Palestine dispute. It is the Israel-Palestine dispute. Everything else might be resolved by negotiation. A border could be agreed that took account of demographic reality, probably involving land swaps. A compromise could be reached on the right of return, perhaps offering compensation to those whose theoretical right was not a practical reality. Steps could be taken to ensure the security of both sides. But the City of David, Al Quds to Muslims, remains the nub of the quarrel.
Hence the rage over President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy there. When we consider the frequency with which the region is cursed by terrorism and war, the movement of a few dozen diplomatic personnel to a piece of land in West Jerusalem which will, in any conceivable final deal, remain Israeli, seems disproportionate.
After all, it is normal diplomatic practice to allow states to designate their own capitals, and to situate foreign legations in those designated capitals. Israelis have considered Jerusalem their capital since 1949, and, like the Psalmist, have declared it indivisible. That position was also taken by the U.S. Congress in 1995. Barack Obama told an AIPAC meeting in 2008: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”.
So, what has Trump done that is such a radical departure? True, he has isolated the U.S. from most of the rest of the world; but, frankly, on the issue of Israel, that was already the case.
The more serious charge against him is that he has made a peace settlement harder to achieve. Jerusalem was always going to be the final piece in the jigsaw. If agreement could be reached on all the other issues, and confidence between the two sides increased, maybe some imaginative way out of the most intractable real estate dispute on the planet might present itself. By anticipating the territorial outcome, the argument runs, Trump has made life tougher for the negotiators.
There is some truth in this, but we should keep a sense of perspective. Lining up behind the Israeli position on Jerusalem hardly precludes a two-state solution. Three times in recent years, Israel has offered Palestinians an independent territory which included a share of Jerusalem: in 2000 (to Yasser Arafat) and in 2001 and 2008 (to Mahmoud Abbas).
Jerusalem is not the city it was in the time Jesus, let alone that of Solomon. Those earlier Jerusalems have been (as Jesus sadly prophesied) razed to the ground. The heart of the dispute these days concerns one walled enclave within a noisy modern metropolis. Even within that enclave, there are already imaginative ways in which the claims of different religions coexist. It is the status of the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the ancient Temple, considered in Medieval times to be the center of the world, that remains the center of the conflict.
That dispute remains as far from resolution as ever. But no one has proposed moving the U.S. embassy to the Old City. West Jerusalem’s status as a seat of government, containing the Knesset and the government ministries, is not in dispute. Shifting foreign representation to where that government operates hardly makes a deal impossible.
The more subtle criticism of Trump’s decision is that the supposedly great deal maker has offered this big symbolic gesture in return for nothing. A card like moving the embassy, which can be played only once, should not be tossed onto the table cheaply. It should certainly not be used simply because domestic headlines are unhelpful, and a distraction is timely.
Perhaps secret undertakings were made by the Netanyahu government which will come to light later, but it seems unlikely. An opportunity to use the embassy move to push the peace process along appears to have been squandered — which really is a pity.
“O pray for the peace of Jerusalem: They shall prosper that love thee.”
Daniel Hannan, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a British member of the European Parliament.
Coming from a professional politician, I could see why Dan would be puzzled at this. Trump isn't a politician. He believes in integrity and keeping your promises. That's why he keeps winning against weasly slimebags like members of the European Parliament.
The status of Jerusalem isn’t part of the Israel-Palestine dispute. It is the Israel-Palestine dispute. Everything else might be resolved by negotiation. …The slogan “from the river to the sea” is unambiguous. Ever since the so-called “nakba”, the Arabs’ goal was to make the entire land of Israel Judenrein. And that is still the goal. Not just “Al-Quds”. All of it.
Jerusalem was Jewish before Mohamed was born. It was the religion of our God 3500 years ago. The Muslim faith is only about 1400 years old and Christianity a bit over 2000 years. Jerusalem belongs to the holy faith of the Jew. I am not Jew, but I do know history.
One must ask why can a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew pray in Jerusalem at their holy temples in safety and peace, but this can not be done in Medina, Riyadh, Mecca, Tehran, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan, Baghdad, parts of India, and much of sub Sahara Africa etc?
The answer is quite simple. One of the three faiths tenets is expansion of their faith by the sword. It is really that simple and nothing else!!!!
Whom brings the violence to these temples? Is it the Jew? Is it the Christian? Is it the Muslim?
The Jew and the Muslim fight over territory, and as usual the Christian, whose fights generally are over principle (with some exceptions like the Crusades) is caught in the middle.
We’d be fools not to realize that Christian support is a huge factor in the existence of modern Israel, and that due to relatively recent trends in evangelical theology. Darby’s dispensational view of scripture probably did more than anything else to bring support of Israel back into vogue in Christendom. For now Christians could see a resolution to the historical disagreements between Jews and Christians.
The spiritual Big Mo[mentum] is also with Donald here.
In Christian thought (with various differences in nuance between denominational followings), Jerusalem represents a special heavenly destination for all the saints (saved humans) of all time — and the Jewish psalms often look forward to that even while themselves thinking about an earthly city.
Spirituality is the glue that would make Jerusalem “a unity.” Specifically, spirituality towards the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Jesus. Strangers could also live there in its earthly version, but they would continue to be strangers until they joined in that same spirituality.
Well, strictly speaking, it was Islam’s goal. Until Islam came on the scene, there wasn’t any motive for Arabs to oppose Zionist ideas any more than anyone else to do so.
The Allah of Islam is a bully god. He is a spiritual dog in the manger. What he conquers, he also makes barren. Only hefty subsidies from Christianized countries, like the historically recent oil fortunes of many Middle East countries, counter that tendency. Before big oil business, Islam was a “manageable menace.” Conventional armies and navies could and did whip it. Now the west and Islamic countries are in a dangerous embrace.
Islam is neither a faith or a religion. It’s a plan for war.
I respectfully say both-and.
It’s a faith and a religion with a peculiarly focused malevolent deity. Judaism and Christianity both make him see red.
If religion were truly the opiate of mankind then Islam is heroin. In actuality if Islam is any kind of a ‘’religion’’ it’s a crude religion for barbaric people.
Or maybe it’s the crack cocaine of religions.
My greater point here is that Islam never arose in a vacuum. Satan found a willing puppet and God granted permission to Satan to move his plan forward.
We tend to think of religions as spiritual movements that arise in vacuums. But from the getgo, Islam’s Allah had the God of the Jews and Jesus in his crosshairs, and Satan’s most evil missiles in his armament.
And as for barbaric people... I’d sure say that Islam’s Allah deserves the “salute” for making a people INTO barbarians. Well, ultimately that’s going to turn into heaven’s raspberry at him. “Why should the nations rage?” At some point, even Islam’s Allah will melt before Jesus. Maybe the reason there has never been a heavily concerted evangelism thrust towards Islam, is because nobody was ready for the massive Satanic kickback that would result. Onesy-twosy conversions have occurred, but whoever would envision going up against entire countries full of Islamic people had better line up the most solid spiritual support possible first.
Yeah. More to the point.
But why would God allow Satan to do such a thing and prosper?
It’s a part of a complex scene.
In classic Christian theological understanding, the problems began with the fall of mankind. Humanity as a whole, in some manner whose details go unexplained (I can only propose as theory that it was like some kind of universal ESP possible to unfallen souls) united in agreement to join Satan’s rebellion against God.
At this point, the only possibility for humanity not to be lost to everlasting damnation was salvation. And salvation is a complicated story. It entails learning how to rebel again, but this time to rebel against Satan, while uniting around God.
And so a nip-and-tuck battle ensues. We never came up with this world. This world resulted as a consequence of the clash between the wills of God, Satan, and mankind.
Who says a religion has to be either moral or redeeming?
Because of the prevalence of Christian thought, people have become biased to the idea that a religion has to have these aspects, to somehow mirror Christianity in some fashion. We might talk about Buddhism that way, for example. It at least seems to have elevated lives on earth, whatever their eternal destination might still be.
But Buddhism (and its predecessor, Hinduism) may have had a mysterious touch from the God of Abraham, having managed to syncretize it after having heard about it. And so we see the concept of a benevolent supreme deity, called Brahman.
Islam’s Allah most definitely is malevolent. He allows just enough room for his subjects to live a bit of a tolerable existence (or else they’d rebel and bolt on him) but otherwise encloses those subjects in spiritual chains. Little sins in the Islamic view require big-time penance.
Put it this way HiTech, Jesus said “I say unto you that he who would lead a child into sin better that he tie a millstone around his neck and drown himself in the sea’’. Mad Mo said , in effect, “Find the kids and bugger them’’.
Oh, most certainly we don’t have to look very deep to see such ironies. They oppose homosexuality in one breath, then find ways to call it something else and encourage it in the next breath. It’s a little, nay make that a big, hell on earth.
Anyhow, only Christianity could ultimately stand up against Islam. And I would encourage those with spiritual farsightedness to consider what evangelism aimed at Islamic societies might look like (high power shortwave radio programs?) and also what kind of spiritual support it will need (as Satan will most definitely kick back).
And US troops in Afghanistan are now faced with ethical and moral dilemmas at such issues. It seems the locals have this cute little practice they call (in translation) “boy play.” It’s as sick as it sounds. They don’t mean get out a bat, a ball, and a baseball glove and find a diamond. Servicemen have been dishonorably discharged for sussing out such situations and defending the boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.