By Douglas V. Gibbs
I once had lunch with a “peaceful Muslim.” During the conversation she stated she heard I was an expert on the Constitution and asked if I could tell her something about the Constitution that she didn’t know. I responded, “In the Preamble the Constitution refers to the Blessings of Liberty, which is a nod to our Natural Rights, and by using the world ‘Blessings’ it is recognizing that our rights are given to us by God.” She immediately rebutted my statement. “No,” she said. “Rights are determined by government.” It was then that the conversation shifted to her Muslim faith, and that she was Palestinian. I have a strong opinion about Islam, seeing it as a counterfeit faith that is actually a political ideology that seeks global domination and has fooled its followers into blind faith by framing its authoritarian aims as being a religious destiny. She recoiled, claiming she did not adhere to radical Islamist teachings. She proclaimed herself to be a peaceful Muslim who simply wished to experience a peaceful coexistence with those who lived in America, and condemned terrorist activities by those who claimed to be participating in Islamic Jihad or Intifada. I then mentioned Israel. Immediately her face contorted from peaceful to raging hate. Her eyes narrowed, and she said, “Don’t you know that the Jews have control of all of the banking systems, and their Zionist imperialism seeks to control the entire world.” I smirked. Her response was pretty rich coming from a person who is a member of a religion that seeks a worldwide caliphate, and had just spent a few minutes trying to convince me she was peaceful. It was at that moment she got up and departed, not willing to continue the conversation with me.
Her term, “Zionist imperialism,” caught my attention. Anti-Zionist rhetoric conflates Zionism with racism, colonialism, and imperialism. All are distortions of what Zionism truly is, and these deceptions about what Zionism truly is first gained traction when a U.N. resolution equated Zionism with racism in 1975; a resolution that was later revoked. Critics of Israel and the Jewish people use “Zionist” as a slur, attempting to associate it with oppressive ideologies like Nazism. This is not only historically inaccurate, it’s morally corrosive.
Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It began as a movement to establish a Jewish state, and continues today as support for Israel’s continued existence and security. It has never been a term associated by its proponents with imperial ambition. The movement emerged in the late 19th century in response to rising anti-Semitism and the lack of Jewish sovereignty. The term was coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1890, and the movement was formalized by Theodor Herzl, who envisioned a Jewish state in his 1896 pamphlet Der Judenstaat.
The core aim was to establish a national homeland for Jews in the land of Israel, historically known as Zion. Nothing more.
During the early 20th century Jewish immigration to the region increased under the British Mandate, with Zionists working to build autonomous communities. After World War II, in 1948, the State of Israel was established, fulfilling the foundational goal of Zionism. Zionism evolved to include maintaining the continued existence of Israel, supporting Israel’s development, securing the future existence of the State of Israel, and protecting the right of Jews to live freely in their homeland.
Current Israeli President Isaac Herzog, son of Chaim Herzog (6th President of Israel who famously denounced the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism), said, “Zionism is nothing more – and nothing less – than the Jewish people’s sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name.”
As a Christian the rebirth of Israel was divinely ordained. Israel’s right to exist goes beyond being political. Israel has a right to exist also because of biblical and moral grounds. The rebirth of Israel fulfilled prophecy and is a matter of historical justice.
Some people in my circles have applied a replacement theology angle, arguing that the Israel of today is not the Israel of the Bible. Their disobedience, I have been told by some, and their rejection of the Messiah, transferred their birthright as God’s chosen people to the Christians. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Christians adopted into God’s Grace through the blood of Jesus Christ. And while the only way to the Father is through Jesus, that does not mean that Israel has lost her place in God’s love for his children. As a father myself I see it in this way: Imagine a father with a prodigal son that has rejected him and has gone away to seek his own path. The son is disobedient, and even went as far to say that “you are not my father. I reject you.” While the father accepts his son’s proclamation, and honors it by not trying to force him back into the house, he never stops loving him and never stops hoping that someday his son will come to his senses. After the son departs, a new son is adopted by the couple, making the man a father over two sons. One by blood, and one by adoption. The father, if he is a good man, loves both sons no differently from each other. He does not cease to be the father of the biological son, even though that son may reject his dad in every way other than the one way he cannot – by blood. The adopted son, being more loyal to the father will receive all of the attention at that point. The love that people see will be between the father and his adopted son. The father will wish all of his love and hopes on the adopted son and assist him as he makes his way into adulthood, and beyond. But at no point will the biological son cease to be his child. The father will still love his original child, and if that child humbles himself and proclaims he desires to return the father will welcome him back with open arms. And even if that epiphany never happens, if the father has the means to protect his birth son should he know it fits a script that could lead his son back to him, he would do so without hesitation. But if the son remains in self-imposed exile and continues to reject his father, no matter how much his father loves him, the father’s attention will be on the adopted son more than that of his original son.
In line with my analogy, God loves Israel, and will protect Israel despite its disobedience. We must also recognize that the entire Old Testament is a story about Israel bouncing back and forth between obedience and disobedience – which means, in a sense, the Israel of today is exactly like the Israel of the Bible. God’s chosen people, his original children, remains to be Israel, and God loves them no differently than He always has. But Christians as the adopted children into the family also receives His attention, as they should, and much of His Will flows through them. But, despite Israel rejecting Christ, Israel remains God’s chosen people, and as a result on Earth Israel’s greatest allies are Christians, for they see Jews as siblings in the Family of God.
And it is Christians who see the words Zionism and Zionist for what they really are – mere words which mean that Israel has a right to exist.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
