Arab-Israeli Politics POSC 377
This course explores the politics of the Middle East with particular focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Identity and Politics in the region, the role of Islam and the U.S. in the region's politics. Fall 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
About Me
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
- Location: United States
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
36 Comments:
This article further magnifies the religous controversy in the Arab Israeli territory. I personally found it amusing how Robertson believed that handing a sector of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be an act of challenging The Almighty and "risking the wrath of God" simply because he makes it sound like the land, only part of that is, is being handed to the most sinful, non-believing group of individuals in existance. Funny how the two faiths, Islam and Judaism, share an incredible amount in common including an emphasis on the sacredness of Jerusalem. When Israel came originally and invaded the territory, was it not sacred then? Were they not "risking God's wrath" like the U.S. will supposedly be doing according to Robertson? "He that touches Jerusalem, touches the apple of God's eye," can also be applied to the group of individuals who originally came in to take over the Muslim-dominated land of Jerusalem. Or is it that this threat only applies when Robertson is furious to find that there are notions and movements in the U.S to propose a solution where the Isrealis might have to compromise? The truth is that it is incredible that there are notions being made in a positive direction where the U.S is involved, and both parties on both sides are willing to compromise to finally provide justice to the Palestinians. For Ehud Olmert to even claim that he is willing to share control of Jerusalem is a great step forward. For Robertson to suggest the stroke of the former Prime Minister was due to a punishment from God is a tactic, in my eyes, to deterr future actions favoring the Palestinians. Robertson's religious preaching is empty, and it is to be hoped that majority do not hold the same level of ignorance and unwillingness to compromise.
Narrow minded religious fanatics like Pat Robertson is what gives the United States a bad name. In what part of the Bible does Robertson find that by Israel conceding neighborhoods to Palestine, that God will bring his wrath down on the United States? Last time I checked (although admittedly not an expert on any part of the Bible), there was nothing in the Bible proscribing such an action nor prescribing such a result. In my humble opinion, this is simply Robertson huffing and bluffing and dangerously using his religious authority to make blanket, racially tinged, biased responses to ongoing events. Robertson and his Christian Coalition quite frankly, scare me to death. We are so quick to point out the radical Islam in the world - we point such fingers at suicide bombers. "Them, not us, are the crazy ones" is what we want to achieve by this finger pointing. are quick to forget the very same radical Christianity that exists and permeates throughout America. I leave you with this quote
"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson
(http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7027/quotes.html)
Allison Schwier
I think people like Pat Robertson keep the world from being boring. The outrages comments he made in the article are hysterical. I find it amazing that people believe in what he is saying, even a little scary; however, I do not believe he or his followers could have a significant affect on U.S. foreign policy.
This article is a very good example of religious fanatics in the United States and it reminds us that the U.S. is not a country without extremists.
It will be interesting to see if his statements have any affect on the Christian Right in congress. I doubt it will. I think Robertson personally is afraid that if the Palestinians regain territory in Jerusalem it will signify to him that the second coming of Christ could be further away than he anticipated. Although with his attitude, I would not be too excited for the second coming because he might not be of the chosen to leave the earth, calling for assassinations and claiming strokes on foreign leaders are acts of God.
This post has been removed by the author.
“The United States will risk God’s wrath if it forces Israel to surrender part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians.” Pat Robertson made his point very bluntly. The comment has no substance and especially considering the man once suggested the US assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. People in this country see certain Muslims as these religious fanatics who despise everything about the West and want to destroy it by any means necessary. This is not the case. Comments like this do the exact same thing for Muslim countries. It shows that the US has some religious fanatics of its own. The article epitomizes a lot of the Arab-Israeli conflict, an unwillingness to understand and compromise.
Mike Kirby
This post has been removed by the author.
I think we need to put aside the idea of “God’s wrath” for a second and look at the bigger picture. We need to work towards peace, and if dividing Jerusalem is a step in that direction than I think God’s wrath is just something we are going to have to risk. Peace is what is important; we can’t be worrying about what God we may or may not be upsetting while thousands of people are suffering, it just does not make sense. If we are going to dwell on this opinion, I personally think the argument should be made in the opposite way. Shouldn’t “God” be angrier that the US is letting this problem occur when we, to some extent, have the power fix it? It is difficult for me to really understand this because I am not a very religious person. Personally I do not think that any “danger” from God will result from dividing Israel, and I think this argument is missing the point. I can’t grasp why any step towards peace can’t be as a good thing. Obviously no individual is going to agree with every step taken towards ending the conflict, but when he or she sits down and looks at the overall picture don’t people just want this to end? However, I do understand how important religion is and I don't mean for my lack of understanding to be offensive, but I think attitudes like this should really try to be compromised for peace.
I found this quote to be one of the worst parts of the articles. “Robertson triggered outrage last year by suggesting that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for ordering Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.” This, to me, is absolutely ridiculous. I just do not understand why this makes sense. Why shouldn’t Israeli’s Prime Minister have been punished for staying in Gaza? It’s like saying God will punish you for one thing but is going to turn his head while you do hundreds of other bad things. Why is a God prompting his people to make thousands of other people suffer?
It’s actually quite a coincidence that this article comes up right before our controversy. Ironically, my part in the controversy is that of Christian Zionism, the belief held by Pat Robertson. In the research that I’ve conducted so far, Pat Robertson is frequently mentioned, specifically his comments regarding Sharon’s health being a result of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.
Christian Zionists are very strict in their belief that Israel, ALL of Israel, must be controlled by the Jews. This is due to their belief in a prophecy that once the Jews are in control of Israel, an Armageddon will occur, and the result will be the end of the world as we know it; 2/3 of the Jews will survive, in addition to those righteous Gentile Christians, and Jesus will return to rule for 1000 years.
Clearly Jews controlling Israel is essential for the prophecy to be fulfilled, so many times Christian Zionists will be even more conservative and strict than Jews in matters regarding Israel. Christian Zionists also play a big role in funding Israel. In fact, between 2000-2003 when tourism in Israel drastically slowed due to the violence in the region, Christian Zionists traveled to Israel to get tourism going again. Pat Robertson was among this group, and many like him used their broadcasting to tell the world that it is safe to travel in the Middle East.
Additionally, while Robertson might seem like a crazy religious fanatic with his talks of “the wrath of G-d,” he is no less devoted to his religion than Hamas to Islam. He might not get the same sympathy because he leaves free in the US rather than oppressed in the Middle East, but the level of devotion and the extent of his faith is easily comparable.
Basically, this article sheds light on another religious movement that is trying to take part in shaping Israel, as if Jews and Palestinians aren’t having a hard enough time coming up with a compromise.
Steven Gold:
When I first read the article, I felt Pat Robinson was jealous of Ann Coulter (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=2b20b9d6-77e9-4117-a501-0bfd90c71e3d), since she too has just come under fire for what she has said. But is it surprising on what he said? No, not really. What he said about Ariel Sharon was just plain sad. No respect for the ill.
Pat Robinson seems so concerned about the 2nd coming, that he does not look into one of the basic tenements of religion: Love thy neighbor. And when Pat Robertson said that 'one day' when asked if Chavez should be 'taken out' (hinted at assassination), that violates one of the Ten Commandments! (http://mediamatters.org/items/200602030003?offset=20&show=1 click on video for Robinson on Chavez), (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/11/story_1137_1.html for Ten Commandments) How can he say these things, but then quote the Bible elsewhere? Is he saying that one Testament is better than the other? His contradictions using the Bible as his guide, hurts his cause.
Granted he is a Christian Zionist. I do not mean that in a bad way, or any way to be more precise. Just that a main belief to Christian Zionists is that all of Israel (or Palestine) should belong to the Jews. What worries me is what encompasses this territory. Would Israel need to go to 'another' war for this to happen . Does Israel need to fight Jordan, Lebanon, or another country to gain this land for the 2nd Coming? We know that Christian Zionists want the West Bank too, which is why I put another in quotation marks. This will create a huge international incident, that will have less support than the Iraq war is now in the US. Here is the video Dr. Khan mentioned in class about Christian Zionism (http://youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig&mode=related&search=), granted their is a TON of bias in it (and I am a Jew).
I, like many posters before me, wonder what he would say about the Crusades? The persecution of Jews (on the way to Islamic controlled Palestine), wanting Jerusalem for Christians, seems to go against what he is saying. Does he have a problem with this point in history?
I also find it funny that when people overseas say something to the similar degree like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we call them crazy and should be stopped. We do nothing here in America, except saying ‘let’s ignore this person.’ In essence, they are saying the same thing, that one people should be destroyed, while the other should rule over the land, which just shows another example of American bigotry dealing with politics.
I feel Pat Robinson is once again shooting himself in the foot. Granted we (him and myself) have very different view points. For starters, I am Jewish, and he is not. I believe that peace needs to be made in the Middle East above all else, while it seems that he is looking forward to the 2nd coming. I do have to question Robinson’s motives. Is he looking for ratings, fame, and fortune, or does he truly want what he says to happen?
--Steven Gold
After finishing the article, part of me said, “thank goodness for men like Pat Robertson.” Without him and the other Christian Zionists, it might be possible to lose sight of the fact that religion and religious views should have absolutely no place whatsoever in debates over the Arab Israeli conflict. We balk today at notions like “manifest destiny” because it is nonsensical to believe that God would want a specific group of people to savagely remove another from a plot of land in His name. CBN, Pat Robertson's network, states that its goals are to provide “spiritual counseling, financial help, and other humanitarian aid to those in need.” Ignoring the plight of the Palestinians is out of line with their own belief system. It seems to me that all religions, whether they be monotheistic, polytheistic, or any other variety, are meant simply as a way to help people codify what it means to be a “good person.” I agree with the above bloggers that with statements like these, it is very hard to accept someone like Pat Robertson a serious religious leader. He is one more wonderful reason to not follow organized religion.
However, not everyone sees it this way. The 700 club has an incredibly successful 40 year history with dedicated viewers willing to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars each year to causes backed by Pat Robertson and CBN. In response to Wwilson saying that he doesn't believe Pat or his followers could have a significant effect on foreign policy, I ask, where do you think these people come from? That's right- here in the United States, helping to elect presidents, senators, and other officials.
http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=540678752
Isn't this the same man that claims that the September 11th attacks were God's punishment for the activites of gays and feminists? Why is this blowhard given the time of day?
I believe that this sort of talk simply inflames the religious issues already at hand.
I agree with Saman. Why was this not a problem when Israel conquered and divided Jerusalem before? This comment is simply an extension of the "Israel-through-thick-and-thin" line that the U.S. has been pushing since the '50's and '60's.
If there is an all-knowing, all-seeing, good God in existence, would this deity not prefer to see an END to bloodshed?
I take issue with the comment that Pat Robertson keeps things interesting in politics. He is very dangerous. He is not a satirist like Jon Stewart or Stephan Colbert. We're talking about a religious leader who has thousands upon thousands of adherents and faithful, whom has the ear of the shamelessly pandering Republican party candidates who know they have no chance unless they can get the religious right on their side.
What fires up the most severe of religious conservatives in the U.S.? Apparently Muslim blood.
Pat Robertson is a great reminder that the United States has just as many crazy people as any other country, if not more. As the involved states move further into this round of negations regarding the creation of Palestine we can only hope that extremist do not take a center role. This story is an example of how freedom of speech doesn’t necessarily produce the greatest view points, but it does seem to get a full spectrum.
As much as it is unfortunate that some religious people in the US overtly challenge the settlement of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it is however to be expected. What the US government should do is to insure that its politics toward settlement of the conflict is not based on radical right wing Christian rhetoric, and that the US government is acting on principles which are as closely guided as possible to peaceful, just and fair outcome for both sides in the conflict. If Christian Zionism is troubling and at times painfully creepy, the focus of the US politics should be elsewhere: and that is at Israel; that is ensuring that Israel will proceed with its decision to divide Jerusalem, a decision that will show the Palestinians that Israel is willing to commit to compromises which is a step closer to peace settlement. It is troubling however that Israeli government is so torn apart on this matter. Recently the UK Independent published an on-line article in it which pointed out the rift between parties in the Israeli government. Likud led by Netanyahu, is vehemently opposed to the proposed plan for division, and even goes as far as to insist that the issue should not be even discussed. What transpires, however, in the situation as pointed out by an on-line article on the BBC web-cite, is that most of the Palestinians (as interviewed) support the idea of division, while almost all of the Israeli interviewed opposed it. So what is the US to do? Its role as mediator in the conflict has long been tarnished due to the entanglement between US government and Israeli interests. It has been even more stained by the current administration impossibility to look good in any foreign affair that involves the Middle East. Which brings me back to the Christian Zionism point. Pat Robertson is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong, ridiculous, and even un-Christian it might be. What Pat Robertson, however, should not be able to do is to influence in any ways the policies of US towards the Middle East. The government should stay away from any radical rhetoric and should strive for a policy that will ensure long term solution to the conflict. If the US wants to ever see peace between Israel and Palestine it should leave aside any matter that concerns God (no matter whose) and religion. It has been proven that this tactic does not work. Instead it should focus on real tangible things such people and more precisely bringing justice back to the people on both sides.
"And if we decide we're going to wrest East Jerusalem away from the Jews and give it over to the Palestinians, we're risking the wrath of God on this nation, and I think it's very dangerous,"
-Pat Robinson
Robinson, who said this after hearing about the United States' involvement in forging some sort of peace between Israel and Palestine, is exhibiting the behavior that continually keeps the peace process from actually happening. If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, acting as a spokesperson for the Israeli people can concede East Jerusalem why should Robinson, who is so far removed from the actual issues have any say in the process? Religious fanatics like Robinson should be ignored and instead the United States should focus on fascillitating the peace process (as it has been doing). The creation of Palestine being a vital interest to the United States is a step in the right direction.
While I share the disgust of my fellow bloggers with Pat Robertson’s extremist comments, I am surprised by the quick dismissal of religious considerations by some when it comes to the division of Jerusalem. There is no doubt that the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict is primarily about land and statehood, rather than religion. Both peoples desire sovereignty, freedom, and security. The demonstrated ability of Jews and Muslims to live in peace, side by side for centuries is evidence enough that the conflict’s primary source is not religion. Negotiations over the division of Jerusalem, however, are understandably and rightfully complicated by religious issues. It is unrealistic and frankly naïve to expect either the Israelis or the Palestinians to dispassionately negotiate over only “land and people” with no discussion of religion. It is impossible to achieve a just and lasting peace unless both Muslims and Jews are eventually guaranteed safe access to the holy sites within East Jerusalem.
I do not pretend to have a solution to this difficult issue. Perhaps an international force should play a role in order to ensure the security of religious observers. My goal, however, is not to offer a solution to the question of East Jerusalem. I seek only to illustrate that it is neither unreasonable nor extremist for policymakers on either the Palestinian or the Israeli side to consider religious issues during negotiations. It is religious extremists such as Pat Robertson, radical Israeli settlers who claim a divine mandate, and unyielding Palestinians who demand nothing but the total destruction of the Jewish state, that we should condemn—not those moderates who take religious reality into consideration when seeking to achieve a lasting peace.
I encourage those troubled by the role and influence of religious fundamentalists in the United States, Israel, and Palestine, to resist the initial impulse to remove all considerations of religion from discussions of policy and peace. As demonstrated by Ehud Olmert’s recent offer to negotiate the division of East Jerusalem, it is the moderates on both sides who will ultimately determine the terms of any peace. While religious extremists can be attractive for a time, Israelis and Palestinians will eventually grow tired of occupation and violence. I am convinced they largely already have. Whenever the long awaited day of peace finally does come, and I believe it will, it will be the fruit of the labors of brave Israeli and Palestinian moderates who are willing to take risks and make concessions for peace. Extremists on all sides such as Pat Robertson will be judged harshly by history, and worse, by God.
Robertson has an incredibly unfounded point of view. First off, as a Christian extremist, why is he so upset over the Jews giving up part of Jerusalem? He should be more upset with the extinction of Christians from the area. Around the 1930's, the population of Palestine was roughly 20% Christian. Right now, it is about 2-4 percent. Shouldn't that make him angrier? And because this is partly a religious debate, it should be pointed out that Robertson's beliefs about God's wrath are not consistent with Mari-time Christianity. Rather, he is just a extreme Christian who has broken away from the main body of the church and formed his own religious truths. He has no historical, biblical, theological or religious tradition to back his claims.
Overall, I think it is great that their is now open conversations about a split of Jerusalem. I do agree, however, that the conflict is a lot more about land then it is about religion. However, Jerusalem is an important place for all religions involved, so it must be discussed.
- Greg Hakim
I agree with Wwilson. If there weren't nuts like Pat Robertson in the world, there'd be no reason to turn on the news. Its interesting that Robertson would don Jerusalem "the apple of God's eye," and suggests that it would be not only outrageous, but sacrilige to allow the Palestinians any control. Does this mean that pre-1948 Palestinians (if you would call them that, since they didn't really have any establishment at that point) were getting struck by lightning daily and suffering celestial plagues? Robertson doesnt just believe that God has something against the Palestinians, he thinks that each and every one is inherently evil and stupid, incapable of reaching a peace or developing a government. I found this quote from Pat Robertson, in "The New World Order," that i think clearly explains Robertson's opinion of non-Christians:
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.
-David Schwartz
First it should be known that because the man is a christian, he holds many of the same beliefs that are linked with Judaism, which include teachings in the old testament that say that God has a chosen land for his chosen people. So it would make sense that he would have something to say on their position.
I must agree with what Jonathan said. As long as religion exists, there will be zealots who make grand declarations about what they feel is the truth. It is obviously easy to dismiss them for this, but we should be careful what we throw out in the process. The existence of fanaticism doesn't take away from the truth of the matter at hand. God's role in these negotiations is significant, whether he exists or not.
Personally I find it hard to take someone like Robertson seriously. My dad's a pastor, and I hear people in his church say similar things all the time, and they rarely have any significant effect. Even within their own community, someone who tries to determine God's emotion towards a particular action that results from a whole series of circumstances, is rarely contemplated. People now are often more motivated by social and political notions than religious ones, despite their role.
James makes a good point that religion is present in this debate. And while the individuals that make extremist comments may be largely ignored it is possible even likely that they pull more centrist elements to the fringes, because the representatives are political leaders that must be responsive to their people. Extremists have a loud voice that is easy to hear over a crowd, like the coverage of Robertson's statement.
Though the religious aspect of the conflict is sometimes difficult for me to understand, I think that Jonathan’s blog made a really good point. When I first read the article, I was quick to take that opinion that the severity of the Arab/Israeli conflict did not have any room for religious hindrance. However, after reading Jon’s post and thinking about it more, it probably is naïve to think that it would be possible to exclude religion in working towards peace. It is just too potent of an issue to disregard and too important for individuals to concede. However, I do feel that extremist beliefs such as the one presented in this article should absolutely be ignored. I agree with Jon, that peace (including religious aspect) will likely only be made by the more moderate Israeli’s and Palestinians willing to make some concessions. I think these are the only religious views that should hold weight in the conflict. It is these individuals who can hopefully still preserve their religion while working towards a resolution; this resolution will never come with extremism. Listening to or giving any attention to such extreme beliefs is only going to get in the way of progress.
Pat Robertson will love this blog. He thrives on the controversy, and will say or do anything to get better ratings and more money. His comments border on insanity, and in some countries, treason. He has stated that Sharon's stroke was wrath of God, called feminists witches, said that God's will was being rejected when a school board of intelligent design supporters were voted out, as well as a plethora of other controversies. My favorite would have to be his staunch support of Liberian President Charles Taylor, as he was indicted for war crimes, although it came out publicly that Robertson had an eight million dollar investment in Liberian mines.
It seems that at every chance Robertson invokes the name of God to silence his opponents, because any rational opponent cannot defend themselves from what Robertson claims he heard from God. These inflammatory remarks have made him a very rich man, as he owns a television network, is a published author, and is worth over one hundred million dollars. These remarks may come from his heart, but they definately benefit his wallet. I see this no more than what it is, a televangelist who will add a few million dollars to his fortune from the religious right by staying that God's wrath will come upon those who defy Israel.
Finally, I cannot agree with his theology. While I am by no means a Biblical scholar or even a practicing Christian (anymore), I believe the Bible offers multiple viewpoints about the conflict. It seems to me that the Beatitudes state that the meek, hungry and poor will find comfort in heaven. And while both sides are clearly not the peacemakers, the occupation and dominance by Israel appears to be similar to the plight of the the Old Testament.
Wow! You know I am consistently surprised by religious extremists who cite the "Wrath of God" whenever politics take a turn that doesn't agree with them. Narrow minded is the perfect word to describe them. And you don't only find them in Christianity, but in Judaism and Islam as well. What is really scary is that there are people out there who listen to them. Those are the people who propogate religious violence. These speakers are most scary because of their ability to incite other religious fanatics.
Religious fanatics present a ridiculously antiquated view of life by stating that the state of someone's health is directly related to their actions or the actions of their state, such as Robertson did when speaking of Ariel Sharon's deteriorating health.
However I mirror Paige's comment when she said "thank god for men like Pat Robertson. Without him and the other Christian Zionists, it might be possible to lose sight of the fact that religion and religious views should have absolutely no place whatsoever in debates over the Arab Israeli conflict." On a further note I would like to add that this religious extremism should be teaching our public within the US that these extremist views are being held by the few, a lesson that should be transposed on to the Middle East. Just because the most vocal people are extremist does not make it a majority opinion. I can only hope that this would enlighten Americans to not pigeonhole Muslims as a bunch of extremists.
I am begining to believe that God is the biggest problem out there. "The wrath of God", I think we need to stop fearing an idea that does not hold water. I am not saying that God dosn't exist, all I am saying is that I do know what does exist. The suffering and problems that exists in the Middle East. I was under the impression that God promotes peace and fogiveness, and I can't think of anything that would help bring peace and forgiveness then a resolution in Israel. Robertson is an ass, I'm sorry to say it, but people that make comments like this have no idea of what really matters. The suffering on both sides of the problem totaly outweighs the potential wrath of god. I believe that individuals say things when the run out of ideas and cant make a statement that trully holds water of has meaning. I believe that if there is a god, then he would be extremly unhappy with people turning themselves into bombs and killing innocent people.
I do agree with wwilson that people like Pat Robertson keep the world entertaining, however I must disagree with the idea that Robertson and his followers do not have much clout when it comes to American Foreign Policy. Just look at the Christian Zionists, and the power they have in the lobby, it is truly scary. People take Robertson very seriously, his show the 700 Club, has millions of viewers, with the same right-wing ideas. To say that we will implore God's wrath for even thinking about giving the Palestinians part of Jerusalem is absolutly rediculous. This comes from the guy that wanted God to Strike down former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, when he didn't agree with certain ideals on abortion. Robertson's ultimate goal like many other right-wing christians is to expel all Palestinians from Israel in order to fulfill the "end of times" prophecy. People like Robertson are impossible to reason with. Pat Robertson promotes a tolerant view of Christianity, but at the same time pushes for the destruction of the Palestinians, and incurs the wrath of God if there is any talk of giving up land. In truth he and the Christian zionists are pushing forward their intolerant views. People like Robertson should be left behind with their antiquated views, if there is ever to be progress in the Middle East. We need a change of attitude in Christian America, and imposing the wrath of God for thinking of negotiating Jerusalem with the Palestinians, is pushing us back from the peace table.
-Dave Hanna
Before Mr. Robertson makes such comments I think he should evaluate how a peace between Israel and Palestine is of grave importance to the United States. Israel is the United States sole democratic ally in this Middle Eastern region. The United States has pledged its support to Israel, the target of many Middle Eastern attacks and many of who perceive the United States as their enemy. The Palestinians are moving closer towards getting weapons of mass destruction and if this happens the safety of the Middle East and America will be threatened. If the Palestinians were to use WMD’s on the Israeli’s the United States would support Israel and declare enemies of Israel are now the enemies of the United States. If this conflict continues to drag on the United States could be dragged into a nuclear war and this is why a peace agreement between the two is a top U.S interest.
Mr. Robertson needs to evaluate the religious, political and militaristic aspects of the conflict before he makes a comment like the following, “ And if we decide we're going to wrest East Jerusalem away from the Jews and give it over to the Palestinians, we're risking the wrath of God on this nation, and I think it's very dangerous." In both Jewish and Catholic religions it is considered a sin to kill and if this conflict continues thousands even millions of people could be killed. Wouldn’t his God approve of a peace and division of Jerusalem if it meant saving the lives of his/her faithful followers? Wouldn’t God appreciate the end of a 60 year conflict that has claimed the lives of faithful believers? I think he should look into these questions before he makes such ignorant comments.
Megan Lyons
What Robertson has to say shouldn't have any bearing on who eventually will have control of Jerusalem. He is more of an entertainer than anything else and I believe these comments were made to garner a reaction, which they did. Would God rather see peace in the area or continued struggle and strife? I would like to think peace. People like Robertson aren't concerned with peace, just power. When they feel threatened they act usually resulting in rediculous claims like god will punish america for helping to spread peace to the arabs and the israelis alike. I do believe that Robertson feels threatened. Peace is not good for his business. When peace is attained a lot of fears in the region and the world will go away. He preys on those fears to bolster his own position in the world. It's simply ludicrous.
I watched The 700 Club once, just for fun. There was a fifteen minute segment following a family which was in deep financial turmoil, but they kept giving their monthly donation to The 700 Club despite their hardships, and so God smiled down on them and showed them through their tribulations. The segment ended with instructions on how you can donate, an urged you to do so even if you don't think you can afford it.
In short, Pat Robertson is a con artist and a thief. He preys on the stupid and the desperate, and this is how he makes his living. The only reason he attacks the division of Jerusalem is because he knows that this is what his supporters and investors want him to do. The man practices simony in the worst degree, and if he's read enough of his own malarkey then he should know what happens to simoniacs when they get their comeuppance.
The man is nothing but a barrier to peace.
-Jeff Conrad
Lets face it, Pat Robertson is trying to increase ratings. No one wants to listen to a boring relgious speech, so he throws in phrases like the WRATH OF GOD, its exciting, its scary, its catchy and most of all its eyegrabbing. I don't doubt at all that Robertson believes this but as much as he is a religous fanatic, he is also a capitalist that knows what needs to be done to have listeners. It's kind of like the saying "There is no such thing as bad publicity." The more outlandish his claims the more people will listen.
Whats really sad is that he has reached the point where he is insulting Sharon who is currently in a coma, this shows a complete lack of tact. If he is so worried about the second coming of God maybe he should brush up on some morals.
Many Americans are scared by religious fanatics in other countries. They are terrified of the Muslim clerics who preach death to the United States and the need to put an end to our obscene culture. I think that people like Pat Robertson put those kind of people into perspective. Their viewpoints only coincide with a small minority of the people they claim to represent. It makes me sad that people like Pat Robertson are the face of Christianity in this country and it makes me angry that my dislike of him somehow signifies the persecution of Christianity to so many Americans. How is it possible that so many people consider this man to be a spiritual leader, a man of God, and therefore worthy of their respect when he says such outlandish things. This statement of his about Jerusalem is mild compared to some of the hateful things he has spewed in the past. Can a person do anything they want nowadays, claim Christianity, and be embraced by the religious community in our country?
I’m fascinated by the relativity of conservative religiosity in the United States. If it is a problem that comes down to Christians and Jews, the “Christian right” has no qualms vilifying Jews and calling for Christian solidarity against corrosive non-Christian values. However, when something involves Muslims and Jews, the “Christian right” suddenly becomes allied with Jews and calls for the preservation of Judeo-Christian values.
I wholeheartedly agree with Danny--Robertson is a capitalist. I too doubt the sincerity of his words. He is simply out to make as much money as possible by being provocative. But as long as people like him continue to put themselves in the spotlight and others legitimize them by talking about them and inviting their commentary, there will never be a televised religious leader of any real substance.
I think that religious fanaticism in the United States isn't something that people are necessarily scared by... I mean, it's something most of us have dealt with or been a part of our whole lives, being born from a very religious generation. The United States is the signature representation of secularist, capitalist thought in the world today, and our society focuses on that aspect, while marginalizing spirituality. Religion and spirituality, I'd dare say for the most part of our society, has become a supplement to our lives, if anything at all. We no longer live in a society where religion defines our moral standards and values, but what we've learned in school and along with an amalgamated set of streetwise ways to survive in todays man bites dog world(referring to our generation). While I'm not sure this is the case in this situation, this may be part of the motivation of the religious fanatic, one who feels as though he is becoming increasingly alone in a land where religion has relatively little significance anymore. I've seen it in my family, a group of Christian people who are truly of the world and not just in it.
See this is why nothing gets done. People blame Jews for a quite a bit and Israeli Jews clearly bare some blame but the idea that we "risk god's wrath" is ridiculous and spattering on Christian Zionism that appears to run rampant through the American government.
First, the idea that America will force Israel to do anything is a ridiculous claim. the US has shown no cause that suggests they force Israel to do anything. If, and I stress "IF", Israel relinquishes control to portions of Jersusalem it will not be by the power of the mighty US but of their own accord in their desire for peace. Robertson spouts off comments like these it appears daily with no precedent or proof to back anything he says up, and its view points like his that gain the ire of the Arab world that has led us to where we are today.
What scare me is not that he makes these comments or even that he has been given a forum to do so, it is that people believe him. Now I really am a pretty tolerant person when it comes to differing religious beliefs, but people like him really do scare the crap out of me.
I'll defend to the death his right to make outrageous comments but if enough people believe him and it hamper the possibilities in the Middle East then we are in a sad state of affairs and only will sink deeper.
This post has been removed by the author.
The main problem with Pat Robinson’s comments is that he completely ignorant to the other side of the story. His comment, “He that touches Jerusalem touches the apple of God's eye,” completely ignores the fact that Jerusalem has a Muslim significance as well. From a historical and anthropological viewpoint, his argument is not a valid argument or even a sound one. Nonetheless, despite his bias on the issue, Robinson is right in saying that the city of Jerusalem is a holy land and should not be touched by violence.
The Associated Press article which quotes Robinson on the issue mentions Condoleezza Rice's and Ehud Olmert’s willingness to move towards the creation of a Palestinian state, and to share control of the city of Jerusalem. Thus, taking one step forward and two steps back, Robinson erases the meaning behind this improvement in the process for peace. Robinson makes it sound strictly like the Arab-Israeli conflict is based in religion. While somewhat true, the claim has little to no face value today. Religion is an important aspect to the Jewish people and the Muslim people, but both sides desire a Palestinian state.
In his comments, Robinson continues to say, “And if we decide we're going to wrest East Jerusalem away from the Jews and give it over to the Palestinians, we're risking the wrath of God on this nation, and I think it's very dangerous.” However, forty years ago, the city of Jerusalem did not even belong to the Jewish people, it belonged to the Jordanians. Thus, did the Jews risk the wrath of God on their nation after they conquered the holy city? Furthermore, if the State of Israel were willing to share the city with the Palestinians, would they not be risking the wrath of God on their nation? The United States is not the only party involved in the conflict and is not even one of the two main players!
It seems to me that Robinson’s comments were purely for the shock value. Last year, he outraged many people by saying that Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for ordering Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. His new comments are just as outrageous, completely ignoring any historical or social aspect of the conflict. However, thought Robinson never says so in his comments, I believe that it is best that Jerusalem not be touched by violence throughout the conflict. This holy city has many landmarks for different religions (i.e. the Temple Mount and its Western Wall for Jews, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Christians, and the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims). In fact, some say that the actual name of Jerusalem means “legacy of peace.” Hopefully, peace is maintained in Israel, so that no Christian, Jew, or Muslim can make another ignorant comment like the ones made by Pat Robinson.
- Andrew Shine
I love listening to religious fanatics such as Pat Robertson and the things that they have to say. I truly hope that they are not serious and are trying to just be shock jockeys in order to get attention and publicity. Sadly I do not think this is the case with many though. Pat Robertson recently said that America is at risk if it helps in the creation of a Palestinian state and the division of Jerusalem. He was reacting to a statement by Condoleezza Rice saying that a Palestinian state was the number one priority for America, which was timed with a report the Olmert was considering dividing the city. Robertson has said that Jerusalem is the “apple of God’s eye” and he will be outraged if someone takes it from the Jews. I can understand that God could be angered by trouble in Jerusalem but I feel that He would be pleased with a division of the city that could result in the peace process and less violence in the Holy City.
Once again I love hearing statements by these people. Last year Robertson said that Sharon had a stroke because he was being punished by God for withdrawing from Gaza. I believe that he has also claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment on New Orleans for having a large homosexual gathering the week before. I do not respect this many very much by making these claims and I hope that he never actually believes what he says. It is amusing though.
Apple of one’s eye is a nice idiom that is based from an age when people thought that pupils were solid and called them apples because they were round like the fruit. Sight is very precious and so by calling something the apple of the eye is equating it to sight which is one of the most important things in the world so it is a very nice term of endearment.
It's people like Robertson that make me wish we didn't have freedom of speech. The man is an extremist. I'm sorry but anyone who defends the horid aggressions of Israel in the name of God, should be locked up. People use God as the scapegoat for responsibility. They used his name to defend slavery, wars of conquest, and exile of religious opponents. These people are no different to me then the women who claim that God tells them to kill their children. Catholic and Jewish communities and leaders need to make more public oppositions to statements like Robertson's. They have a responsibility to accurately live by the values of their religion. I just hope that the majority of Americans, and Israelis, who heard the statements, can classify them as ignorant and fanatical, especially in regards to his comment about Shuron.
Mike Decio
This article basically highlights the most controversial factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Religion is basically the reason this conflcit exists and the factor that continues to keep the conflict alive. Both Judaism and Islam religions tell their foloowers how to run their life. They give a pretty clear outlook on how things ought to be in in life. In Islam Muslims believe the Muslim world should be united. In Jewish culture they believe they should control the entirety of Jerusalem. Most of all religion has the ability to justify violence; every religion can justify violence in some way. Ultimately, it is the clash of these two religions that keep the conflict alive and it will not be until both sides can look past their repective religion to make specific concession that peace will be attainable.
Post a Comment
<< Home