It's interesting that there can be radically divergent perspectives on the major issues of our time. Abortion is a good example. Social Security is another. Taxes, religion, drugs, the death penalty, and Israel add to the list. In every case there are two completely divergent perspectives, each unwilling and thus incapable of articulating the opposing perspective. In most of these cases, the opinions of the general public are not represented by the advocates of the extremes. Public opinion generally tries to moderate the debate, not polarize it. The public tends to want peace. Extremists have another agenda completely.
One prime example of this divergence is the debate about Israel. On March 26
of this year I wrote about a book I had been reading, America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role, written by John W. Mulhall, Deshon Press, 1995. That book certainly painted one perspective about the morality (or lack thereof) of Zionism. Today I read an April 23, 2002 article by Joseph Farah titled "The Jews took no one's land
." Nowhere in that article is Zionism even mentioned.
In fact, that article claims that the land which is now Israel was "practically deserted" at the end of the 19th Century. It wasn't until Jews began emigrating to the land in the early 20th Century (bringing with them, one would assume, their wealth, diligence, and intelligence) that Muslim Arabs began moving in to work for these Jews.
From that, one would most likely conclude that the land these Arabs farmed didn't belong to them. It belonged to the wealthy Jews who had "drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom" and therefore had every right to evict Muslim Arabs from their land. Yet eviction wasn't what happened at all. Farah goes on to say that the Jews "accepted... gratefully" the UN's 1948 "great partition" but the Arabs "rejected it with a vengeance and declared war" and then "urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire." In other words, the Arab people (who didn't have any real claim to the land in the first place) willingly abandoned their homes in what is now Israel in order to stay out of "the crossfire" while Arab fighters "crushed" Israel and "destroyed" the Jews.
Farah goes on to say that the refugee problem "could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states" but is being maintained by the Arabs for political purposes.
Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily.com
where this article was published, seems to think of himself as a Christian. Wikipedia
seems to confirm that notion.
But how can the author of this article be a respectable Christian if Christianity has anything at all to do with the truth? It's one thing to be pro-Israel and pro-Zionist
. The world is stuffed full of propagandists who fit this mold. It's a different thing entirely to be a Christian. That is, it used to be different. It doesn't appear to be that way any more.