Revising the Narrative

On May 31, 2010, Israeli military forces attacked a convoy of humanitarian ships in international waters. Bound for the Gaza Strip, the ships were loaded with food, wheelchairs, books, toys, electric generators, medicines, and building materials prohibited under the Israeli blockade of Gaza, such as cement. Prior to the voyage, the convoy’s organizers had taken extraordinary steps to demonstrate utter transparency regarding the cargo and passengers on board the ships. Great lengths were taken to ensure that not a single weapon or offensive device was present – absolutely nothing that would offer Israel the pretext it most certainly desired to justify a large-scale confrontation. Predictably, however, these precautionary measures were completely ignored.

The circumstances of the Israeli attack are well documented. At 4:30 in the morning, under the cover of night, military forces surrounded the lead ship in the convoy using helicopters and small boats. Automatic weapons opened fire from above as soldiers rappelled from helicopters onto the top deck. In the following minutes, nine of the passengers aboard were shot and killed, some of them at point blank range. Many more were injured. Every one of the 600+ members of the convoy was detained, in some cases beaten, stripped of all belongings and recording equipment, and eventually deported back to their home countries. A small percentage of the aid originally destined for Gaza was later delivered, with most of it destroyed, lost, or gone to waste (as in the case of cases of expired medicines).

What most stands out about this remarkable incident is the fact that it has been so readily accepted and endorsed by western populations. Canadian and American media outlets were quick to put their spin on the story, following the ridiculous line that the Israeli attack was somehow defensive. One need only imagine the roles in this account reversed, however, to see the utter hypocrisy of the verdict. Imagine, for a moment, that an Israeli passenger or cargo ship was attacked from the air by Turkish, Palestinian, or Iranian military forces in international waters. Imagine further that nine Jews were killed in the aftermath, some of them in apparent execution style. Not only would the incident be utterly condemned by all corners of society, it would almost certainly be considered a provocation worthy of a military response. Headlines would scream for blood. Turkey – or Gaza – or Iran – or whoever the perpetrator might be - would be roundly condemned as a rogue state that must be punished.

Yet in the actual narrative, Israel is not the victim but the aggressor. The nine individuals who lost their lives were Turkish. The hundreds of others who were abused, detained, interrogated, and deported were from a host of other nations. And the real loser in this story, the Gazan citizens and communities that make up the largest refugee population on earth, were deprived of much needed humanitarian aid.

Sadly, the flotilla attack was not the first incident of its kind to occur in recent memory. Just the year before, in January of 2009, the Israeli military initiated what can only be properly described as a massacre. Over a period of weeks, Israel destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Gazan infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, police stations, flour mills, universities, power stations, roads, and other critical fixtures were levelled to the ground by hundreds of bombing sorties. Even worse, 1,400 Palestinians were killed - including over 400 children. Young Israeli soldiers later complained about the lack of actual engagement with anything resembling an armed enemy, comparing the bombardment of Gaza to the work of a child using a magnifying glass to burn up ants.

These incidents, and others like them, can only occur (and will continue to occur) with the approval of Canada and the United States. With Canada’s unquestioning diplomatic support and American financial contributions, Israel has the wherewithal to withstand criticism from much of the rest of the world. It can continue to act with impunity, smug in the knowledge that angry responses provoked by its bullying will only reinforce the false image of Israel as victim, justifying further military aggression.

Clearly, the time has come for the Canadian public to re-examine its popular understanding of Israel. Stereotypes and narratives aside, it is time for this nation to be judged by its actions like any other. Few countries in the world would be allowed to abuse its neighbours as badly as Israel has and go unchallenged. Few countries in the world would be allowed to assault humanitarian ships in international waters, carpet bomb captive communities, and collectively punish 1.5 million people through economic strangulation. With the world’s fourth most powerful military and the only country in the Middle East to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Israel is not the region’s victim but its bully.

Blissfully content in their ignorance, the North American public has played along with a romantic but inaccurate narrative for far too long. If the modern state of Israel could ever be called a victim, it certainly can be no longer. It is time for courageous men and women to stand up and call Israel to account. The narrative requires revision.

Telling Half the Story

[from julieroys.blogspot.com]

by Julie Roys
SENIOR PRODUCER, MOODY RADIO CHICAGO

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

I HAD A SPIRITUAL CONVERSATION WITH A STRANGER THIS WEEK LIKE NONE I’VE EVER HAD BEFORE.

The setting wasn’t unusual. I was sitting beside a gentleman on a plane flight. And, we struck up a conversation as passengers sometimes do.

Neither was the man’s spiritual journey all that unusual. Apparently, he had grown up in a family that had religiously attended a mainline Protestant church. When he had become an adult, the man had drifted away from the church. But, in past three years, though, he had begun attending an evangelical mega-church near his Florida home. And now, he had a renewed interest in his childhood faith. That’s pretty common: I know dozens of people with similar stories.

What differed from the norm, however, was my response to this man. You see, I discovered that though this man considered himself a Christian, he actually espoused New Age and humanist beliefs. Yet, because he didn’t really understand Christianity, he didn’t even realize that these beliefs are incompatible with Scripture.
When I asked him what he believed to be the essence of Christianity, he referred to its moral code—not the salvation of lost humanity. When I asked why Jesus died, he said Jesus died simply to provide an example of how to respond to pain and suffering. And, when I asked if he believed in a literal heaven and hell, he said, “No, not at all. Heaven and hell are just states of mind.”

Now normally, I’d respond to this sort of answer by explaining Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” But, I’ve become increasingly aware that average Americans have a mostly pagan worldview. And, you can’t dismantle that worldview by just explaining one verse; you need to tell the story of redemption starting at the beginning. So, I asked him a question I’ve never asked a seeker before: “What, then, was the purpose of the sacrifices in the Old Testament?”

The man tilted his head to the side, rested his chin on his hand, and after a few seconds of silence replied, “I have no idea.” Here, this man had spent his entire childhood in the church. He’s been attending an evangelical church for the past three years. And, he knows nothing—absolutely NOTHING—of man’s separation from God and the need for a sin sacrifice!

So, as best I could in a very short time, I gave a survey of the Old Testament. I told how Adam and Eve’s rebellion infected mankind with sin and sentenced us to death; how God instituted sacrifices to show that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin; and how the Passover pointed to Jesus: just as the blood of an unblemished lamb caused the angel of death to pass over the homes of the Israelites, so the blood of Jesus—our Passover Lamb—covers our sin so we can escape eternal death.

“That’s fascinating,” my new acquaintance responded. And, he added that I had given him a lot to think about. But, this man had given me a lot to think about. How can it be that children graduate out of our children’s churches, finish confirmation, attend our youth groups and still fail to understand the story of redemption? Why do we explain the gospel in many evangelical churches beginning in the New Testament—midway through the story?

That’s not how Jesus did it. When he explained who He was to the men on the road to Emmaus, he started with Moses and the Prophets. He explained Himself in the context of the Old Testament. If we want to avoid the heresy and syncretism so prevalent in our society today, I suggest we do the same.

The Spa of the City

It's a warm and sunny August afternoon. I sit in a cafe on Vancouver's Granville Street. The windows are wide open, allowing the breeze to freely wander the tables and chairs inside. I lazily nurse a strawberry ice cream fruchillo while pedestrians meander up and down the sidewalk in front of me. Smells from nearby restaurants waft by enticingly while hot dogs in hot rods vie for the attention of their prey. Pigeons and drifters compete for handouts, while the sun gleams powerfully off the condo towers overhead. I savour this moment.

The June crush of lesson planning, marking, meetings, and report cards feels like ancient history. The physical demands and mental fatigue of the school year are distant memories. My mind and spirit recharge daily, and my imagination flickers with fresh vision for the year ahead.

I am almost ready to return.

In Defense of Independent Education

Independent education in British Columbia has had a hard time of it recently. The move by a local Catholic school to suspend Lisa Reimer, a lesbian teacher who made her sexual preferences public, has complicated matters immensely. Hard core advocates of public-only education have taken the opportunity to pile on independent education, calling for a complete rollback of public funding.

Polls and surveys playing off of these calls have popped up in various media outlets. Typically, the questions sound something like this: "Should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools?"

At first glance, the question seems reasonable. The query may even agitate casual observers who may have not otherwise given the matter any serious thought. Independent schools are wealthy enough, one might think. Why should they receive additional funds? Isn't that a drain on the public system?

In order to answer these questions, it is crucial to unwrap the subtle misconceptions loaded into the initial question: "Should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools?" I believe the following essential understandings about this issue not only clarify - but greatly strengthen - the case of independent schools.

1. Parents of students attending independent schools usually pay double the amount paid by their public school counterparts. It's important to note that independent school parents pay their property and provincial taxes, just like their neighbours. These tax streams form the basis of revenue for all public schools in the K-12 system. Independent school parents don't receive a benefit from one cent of these tax contributions directly, however, since their children don't attend local community schools. Instead, these parents make the sacrifice to pay additional tuition (in effect, they pay taxes twice or thrice) in order for their child to receive a different sort of education (often faith-based).
2. Independent schools save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs. The taxpayer dollars spent on each public school student must cover all capital expenses (buildings, facilities, and bus costs). By comparison, independent schools are an absolute bargain. Taxpayers contribute absolutely no separate funding for private school capital expenses of any sort; building campaigns and the like must be supported entirely from the private sector - often the same parent community that is already paying high tuition.
3. Independent schools only receive a portion of the per-student provincial funds made available to their public school counterparts. We've just established that independent schools receive no separate capital funds toward buildings or buses, but the disparity becomes even more apparent when one compares the ratio of funding per student. Most independent schools receive 50% of the per-student grant received by public schools; the more affluent independent schools only receeive 35%. Once again, this is not "extra" taxpayer money going toward a private system; instead, each independent school student represents a significant savings for the province.
4. In no way do independent schools siphon money from the public system. If it hasn't been made sufficiently obvious already, it's important to make this final statement. Independent schools do not threaten the public system in any way. Remember, parents of independent school students pay taxes just like any other citizen. Technically speaking, a portion of their tax dollars goes not only toward the education of their own child ... but also their neighbour's child; tuition payments are then paid in addition.

Parents of independent school students make enormous financial sacrifices. The result is a healthy, efficient, hybrid education system. It's one that penalizes no one, protects the public system, and allows all parents the freedome of choice in education. I'm thankful that we live in a society where such freedoms still exist.