The Dongola Times

(Anachronistic) Dispatches from the Kingdom of Makuria.
25th of July, 2014

On Missing Opportunities for Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism

You know how they say that to be anti-Zionist is not necessarily to be anti-Semitic. Yet if I were anti-Semitic, I would never be ashamed of it, or seek to hide it under the wraps of anti-Zionism. Believe it or not, anti-Semitism is far easier to defend before the modern World than anti-Zionism is. After all, Zionism is a perfectly-secular (even vaguely-anti-religious) ideology. It is not only a good fit in modern state ideology, it is also an evident necessity, lest we find a much-hated nation without a state.

It is defensible in the modern World to hate a people-group. (Modern standards, unlike the divine law, do not forbid hate in general.) It is, however, indefensible to deny a people-group a state; this argument for Israel is actually what the Falastin use in their arguments for their own state. However, unlike the Falastin, the Jews can actually locate their ancestral land. It is seldom-noted that Hamas, for example, never actually claims that as “ancestral land” for the “Palestinians”, and that is why this line is conspicuously-absent from all such showdowns; Hamas claims it as Islamic “waqf”, a trust held in time for all generations of Muslims. Again, it need not be said that if Islam can claim any land, then Christianity and the Jews even more-so! But in the modern World, ancestry and descent weigh heavily in land claims, but historical religious conquest doesn’t. Therefore not only is the case of Hamas and other Falastin in fact pretty weak by modern standards, the one of the Jews is basically unassailable, and Hamas confesses as much in its founding charter.

(The exclusively-religious nature of the only worthwihle challenge to the Jewish state is also under-reported. The TV tells you the Falastin want the land of their ancestors, but both sides know that this is not the case, because even Hamas confesses that “our project is Islam”, and it makes no single reference to ancestry and descent. Hamas is essentially a resistance faction of a long-defeated occupying Islamic empire, not a displaced Arab nation. Israel, on the other hand, is the returned nation-state of the Jews. The effect of Ottoman policies was to depopulate the land, such that even today its population is well below what it could have been—or, for that matter, what it would have been, had the Falastin actually been there the whole time. Imagine, in less than 50 years, the Falastin refugees in Jordan have become the majority. Had they actually lived in Israel all that time, breeding as successfully they evidently do, would we have so little of their history in the land? Even the previous Islamic empires—and surrounding contemporary Islamic states—rightly fail to recognise the Falastin as a historical people, leave alone their claim to borders that were actually drawn up by the Europeans well after the defeat of the last Islamic empire.)

This era of nation-states would be incomplete without a state for so ancient, distinct, important, and preserved a nation as the Jews, especially when nearly every other nation legitimately claims a state, even those that are barely true ethnies (Iran, Pakistan, Jordanians, and so on). Many Jew-haters secretly wish that it were their nation of which I say these things (“ancient, distinct, important, preserved”), and this is a major root of anti-Semitism, because they do not understand the working of this phenomenon by which the Jews are “ancient, distinct, important, preserved”. Because they think it is due to some innate virtues in the people—despite copious evidence to the contrary, and indeed the weighty testimony of the Bible—they end up being jealous and hating. But those who understand that being “ancient, distinct, important, preserved” is actually in spite of the Jews, in spite of their rebellion and unfaith, and due entirely to God’s sovereign grace, the realisation of the continuing preservation of the Jews is merely yet another (and comparatively-minor) case of God keeping His promise made by grace to a Gentile of faith—Abraham, their fore-father in the flesh—just as He keeps His promise made by grace to us, Gentiles of faith, who are justified and preserved exactly as uncircumcised Abraham was.

“So Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

This era where every vaguely-recognisable ethny has had a nation-state, it was unbecoming that the Jews not have one (even if it be an apo’state), especially in a land that is historically Judæa—the land of the Jews. After we turned on them and murdered them for centuries, I think they have even more of a claim to their nation-state than the highly-deserving Kurds.
So you see, Zionism is eminently defensible, and the leaders of Israel know this. Pro-Semitism, on the other hand, is a grace that is bestowed only some people, both Jews and Gentiles, and it is inaccessible to those to whom this grace has not been given, both Jew and Gentile.

(Now, if you know anything about Reformed theology, you know that graces such as this are given to those on whom God has mercy—hence the tendency for Reformed Christians to be pro-Semitic, and Muslims to be anti-Semitic—so that He may, in this way, spare them the curse reserved for all who are anti-Semitic. Similar to one’s faith or unfaith in Christ, one’s position on Jews is based on whether God wants to bless him in this regard or curse him. He told Abraham, “Whoever blesses you, I will bless. Whover curses you, I will curse.” The non-Prot now thinks that he can get blessed by blessing Abraham. The Prot, however, knows that the grace of God is already fixed in his favour, such that his blessing of Abraham, and his bias in favour of the Jews, does not affect the grace of God toward him, but is in fact a result of it. Many pro-Israel people know how hard it is to live on the Internet and in the office as evidently-pro-Israeli. But we cannot help it, because God gave us this grace of His own will; pro-Semitism is just one side-effect.)

Now, of late, anti-Semitism is coming out as anti-Zionism. The fact of the matter is that to support the state of any nation—even the Kurds—is even less-urgent than to support the state of the Sabras. To oppose their state now is to express not even a solidarity with the “land rights” of the Falastin, which even the Falastin themselves would never recognise (and which, historically, have never actually been recognised, even by the Islamic empires of old, or by neighbouring Arab countries), but rather to express a desire that the Jews be once again stateless and open to assault by whoever wants.
I don’t support that; neither in the case of the Sabras—and the Jews in general—or in the case of the Christians.

Also, this is an interesting video.