A Secular Israel Has No Future-Neither Republican or Democratic-Only a Biblical Future

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Oct 18, 2010 at 18:05

It seems inevitable that any discussion of the political circumstances of Israel's function in this modern world is going to take the tact that Israel does not have a right to her existence on the grounds of Biblical directives, but much has been discussed on the logical secular perspective in order to dismiss the religious reasons for Israel's existence. To be plain, a secular Israel does not have a snowball's chance in the Negev in the summer of survival, either as a democratic society now or whatever form of secular government that might be tried in the future (a split Jerusalem notwithstanding).

Lets us make a comparison. Over two hundred years ago the American Experiment was commenced upon the signatures of our founding countrymen with an eye towards providing liberties no longer enjoyed at the behest of the countries from which they departed, securing the provisions of the founding documents at great cost to themselves, and the successive generations which supplied men and women of dedication to offer sacrifice to keep the original premise alive for succeeding generations, like ours. The documents are a record of sacred trusts passed on to secure those rights for those who have the desire and will to live under those liberties, but only if that sacred trust is preserved. The trust is sacred, not because the founding agents intended to create a religious United States of America, for they did not; but they did honor the Almighty God they served in making His Providence an integral part of the founding papers, which honor is what is being dismissed today. So it is with Israel, to an even greater degree.

In this intersection of perspectives, it is easy to say one does not have to be a member of a church to support Israel, for that is of a truth when one looks at the varying attempts to govern in a secular mode, as many who are members of the Knesset do. Yet what is their success? They are constant alert, on instant response mode, attempting to be ready and quick to deal with most any contingency set upon them while they try, seemingly in vain, to secure a border that is defensible from enemies, from inside as well as abroad. In that vein, they need all the help they can get, but from where?

In America, remnant parts of the Diaspora make up a sizable part of the demographics of American society, Jewish by pedigree, but for some, not Judaic in their observances of things religious. In that sector, it has been heard the State of Israel needs to bargain whatever they can to maintain whatever they can keep. Israel gave up Gaza, yet it was not enough. There is clamoring for the ancient lands of Judea and Samaria by the 'Palestinians,' yet it has been said in Arabic, that will not be enough. Syria wants the Golan back, but Hizbollah in Lebanon says that will not be enough. Were we republican and democrats in America required to cede Alaska to Russia for a promise not to be in virtually constant conflict with the Russians, would that be worth it? Or what if the Mexicans require revocation of the Gadsden Purchase, what should be the decision there for a border that can be secured?

In the secular realm, Israel has no promise of security; it has been maintained that in spite of any political ministering, either republican or democrat from America, Israel has found no true solace or truly reliable support here to insure her security. This is from a mostly secular position, irrespective of the 'religious' undertones that are associated to the right or the left in American politics. When asked how he understood the Bible and how it governs in his life, the previous president indicated they were 'guidelines,' not the inerrant WORD of the LORD. Cast in that perspective, it is now easily understood how he continued in error to push for the 'two state' solution, one that is recognized by most parties as untenable in all except the most esoteric realms of reasoning, all against the Biblical directives.

So it is easy to see where many who have been advised by some who have had a great deal of time to see the universe in a secularist perspective to come to a conclusion that the world has a different view than that which is defined from a Biblical perspective. Yet it is here that we can make the observation that Einstein was wrong, that to merely honor the Bible from an uninformed point of view such as his was to be his undoing; time cannot be conquered in this reality: neither can the Truth of the Holy Bible be conquered.

But here lies a truth; time is on Israel's side. Were this not true, how is it that Israel, of all the ancient national entities we have to read about, is still here? It is waste of time to engage in the speculations; the answer is plain for those who have understanding to see. Israel exists, not because of religion, but in spite of it. If Judaism were the reigning religion, then there would be no Christianity, and Israel would exist along with the first or second temples as the center of the world. But that is yet to come.

Israel as a political center of the world is a still-to-be-seen reality, and it will be imbued with all the of the promises that the world dismisses in the Holy Bible, when that time is realized. Until then, the world will continue to comfort itself with the attempts at world peace that will always be elusive, and Israel, religious or not, finally returns to the truth of her existence. Then all the political posturing, republican and democrats here in America, and the other governments of the world clamoring for peace at Israel's espense, will be brought to nought by the realization that peace will be according to the promises of the Holy Bible; and arguments such as the need for the diminution of the Holy Bible will no longer be a reason for discussion, but Biblical life will be the only reality, for Israel especially, and for the world in practicality.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".