Often we hear the expression that Israel is our only "democratic" ally in the Middle-East. It is said that as a result, a special relationship exists between the United States and Israel. I believe that a special relationship exists between these two countries, however, I believe that such a relationship exists because of the shared Biblical values and prophetic hope for the future which is held common between the Jews of Israel and Bible believing Christians in America. This relationship will hold without regard for the political process that Israel adopts.
Most attribute the democratic process to the early Greek civilization. Yet, for almost a millennia before the emergence of the Greek form of democracy, a process exhibiting similar patterns had already been
established in Israel. As we study the period of the Judges, we see many attributes of what would later be called democracy implemented. During this era, there was a centralized system of state worship centered about the "Tabernacle" but there was no "secular" central government. A nationwide system of government was only established in times of national crises. God would choose a Judge, anoint him supernaturally, and use him to bring deliverance to His people. The Judge exercised a centralized rule during his lifetime but when he died the government died with him. There was no extension of central government until another national crises developed. Government
reverted to the local level of tribe, city and individual home. In this
manner, God, Himself, ruled directly over His people.
Eventually, during the Judgeship of Samuel, the people of Israel rejected
God's direct rule and demanded a king. This represented a reversion to the practices common in nations during this era. God declared to Samuel that the people had not rejected Samuel but had rejected God.
For the process implemented by God during the period of the Judges to work effectively, the people had to (1) fear (show deep respect for) God, and (2) willingly assume responsibility for their individual and group behavior. This started with the individual in the home and extended outward to the local city and tribe. As long as this pattern of behavior was followed, there was little need for additional government.
The democratic process, as we know it today, extends beyond the local level to national level and to some degree, the international level. As a result the direct accountability between politician and individual governed is largely lost. This direct accountability is typically replaced by a public relations campaign initiated by the politician to convince the person governed that the politician is truly acting on his behalf. With the advent of television these public relations campaigns degenerate into brief 30 seconds commercials aimed at convincing the individual that the politician embraces the needs and aspirations of the person governed. The process soon becomes dominated by the politician who looks best on TV and can lie most readily in promising whatever the polls seem to indicate that people want in government. This process of public relations and lying takes the place of accountability. To insure that the system continues to operate, politician promise an array of programs designed to entice the individual governed into more and more dependence on the government, and, hence, less and less personal responsibility. National political parties embrace the same techniques and the political system which originally functioned because of the fear of God and personal responsibility and accountability degenerates into a national scam based on dependency and irresponsibility and is maintained by lying public relations campaigns. This is true both in America and Israel today.
The political maneuvering of Prime Minister Sharon during this past summer is an example of this process. Israelis were weary of compromise policy of the former Barak government and elected Mr. Sharon on the position of opposing terrorism and rejecting compromise with terrorists. In the campaign he ridiculed the position of his opponent, Mr. Amran Mitzne, who advocated a policy of weakness and compromise. After being elected, Mr. Sharon totally reversed his position and embraced that very position which he had formerly ridiculed. The position that the electorate clearly rejected was implemented by Mr. Sharon. As a result, Israel retreated from Gaza and left the area in the hands of the Palestinians. The border with Egypt in the Sinai is wide open. Weapon stores are being rapidly built up. Gaza is becoming a haven for international terrorist. It is reported that Al Queda (spelling) is exercising a growing influence in Gaza. As a result, Gaza is a growing threat to Israel and to the West in general. No one seems to be able to explain why Mr. Sharon did what he did. However, the ultimate impact of his policy if not reversed threatens the existence of Israel.
America may be able to survive a decaying political process longer that Israel can. Israel is surrounded by a host of Moslem nations who are determined to utterly eradicate the state. Recently, the newly elected president of Iran boldly declared that Israel should be wiped off the map. This reflects the sentiments of many if not most in the Moslem world. With the development of more powerful and sophisticated weapons, the Moslem nations will
certainly attempt to destroy Israel again.
I believe that Israel will soon stand in the position of either rejecting the democratic process that is controlled by unprincipled politicians or risk annihilation at the hand of the surrounding Moslem nations. Compromise only emboldens the aggressors.
Should Israel forsake the “democratic” political process, what
do you suppose the U.S. policy will be toward this change? How
will such a change be reported in your favorite newspaper and
TV news service? Are you prepared to think for yourself, stand
on Biblical principles and oppose the position of your government
and media concerning this question? I believe you may soon
have the opportunity to answer this question.
