Eric's Beijing Diary

Well, it's getting worse. This evening on Dialogue, Yang Rui had Nadav Eschar, press officer from the Israeli embassy on again. The other side was represented by an Egyptian journalist, whom I have seen before. In between them was a research fellow from the Chinese Academy of International Studies. He didn't have much to say. He started out by saying that the whole thing got started because Israel was occupying Lebanese territory. That lame argument fell apart when Eshcar pointed out that the government of Israel actually allowed an Israeli village to be partitioned in order to comply with UN border determinations. I think Israel won that point without much trouble. But the spokesman also insisted that the Israeli army is "extremely careful" to avoid hurting civilians. Here I am not convinced. My strongest criticism of Israel is and has been that they have not shown proper regard to Palestinian (and now Lebanese) women and children. Mind you, boys throwing stones do not qualify as "women and children" in my opinion. But many of the civilians being killed now have no connection whatsoever with the terrorists, and no power to stop them.

Nevertheless, Hezbollah is an evil organization, and this action was clearly initiated by them. I think Israel has no choice but to take them out. If I were making the decisions, I would be tempted to declare war on Iran, because that is where Hezbollah gets their money. But that is probably out of reach, especially since Israel is fighting on two fronts this time. Yang Rui (the moderator) was fair, I think, because he confronted the Egyptian journalist with the frustration China feels about a situation where Ehud Olmert is clearly trying to work for peace by pulling out of occupied areas. The whole process was sabotaged when Hamas captured an Israeli soldier. The Egyptian journalist protested, but not very effectively.

China has a keen interest in seeing peace in the Middle East, and they do not tend to be sympathetic with Islamic terrorists--they have their own fears about such people. But I do not think China will emerge as the new mediator between the Arabs and the Jews. If the Americans can't pull it off, I don't know who else will be able to. There are several reasons why America has been "cast" in this role. First of all, America is actually a very Jewish society. There are as many Jews in the United States as there are in Israel. Furthermore, many of the Jews currently in Israel are Americans by upbringing and culture.

But I think the more important reason is the Christian heritage of many Americans. To understand this, you really have to know something about the history of the people groups concerned. Basically, the Arabs are descended from Ishmael, the illegitimate son of Abraham, who was born before Isaac, but was not entitled status, because he was not the legal and legitimate heir. That, of course, is a theme as old as human history. The Jews are descended from Isaac the legitimate son. (The term "Jew" comes from the name for the tribe of Judah, but generally refers to all of the twelve tribes, which are the sons of Jacob, whose name was changed to "Israel.") The Christians are the "adopted son" of the family. Christians come from a gentile background. They have no ethnic, cultural, or familial connection to Abraham, but are very closely connected spiritually. Remember that the early Christians never called themselves "Christians." They saw themselves as proselytes to Judaism. Historically then, Christianity was a Jewish sect that accepted Gentiles as proselytes on the basis of their faith rather than on the basis of conformity to Jewish ceremonial law.

Put simply, the Arabs are sons of Abraham by blood, the Jews are sons of Abraham by promise (Romans 9:7), and the Christians are sons of Abraham by faith. The Arab feels aggrieved, because he has been left out of the covenant. The Jew is vigilant (and rightfully so) in defense of his position as the legitimate heir, but because the Jew has rejected the promised Redeemer, God cannot fully bless the Jews' possession of the promise. The Christian, as the adopted son, has a natural desire to see both of his older brothers come together. He has no need to defend his position, because he is an object of mercy. The Christian recognizes his Jewish brother's right to the promise, but also perhaps feels compassion for his Arab brother as a son of Abraham. America, as a "Christian" nation, has had a unique role to play in mediating between the Arabs and the Jews. But America, a country that is turning from God, is, sadly, going to be less and less able to bring healing to this troubled situation. And China, a country that has little appreciation for these matters, is in a very limited position to offer help.

What would happen if the Chinese as a people began to turn to God in large numbers? Would there then be a possibility that China could become the peacemaker? Chinese Christians certainly support Israel, and the Chinese people have great admiration for the Jews. But there are conflicting factors. Yassir Arafat was welcomed in China as a fellow "revolutionary," and his death was big news here. I believe that it would be fundamentally impossible for any nation to mediate between the Arabs and the Jews unless there was a substantial understanding among the people of that nation that the promised land is precisely that. A promise. And the promises of God are yea and amen. The Arabs do not accept this. That is why they are always fighting. The Jews accept it, but they do not accept their Messiah. That is why they do not understand redemption, and are not kind to the Arabs. Who, then will be the next peacemaker? Whichever nation fills this role will certainly be blessed, because God's Word says, "Blessed are the peace makers," and there is a special blessing for those who pray for the peace of Jerusalem.