Top 10 ways that Bibi is (really really) different than Jesus

You may have heard news that one of the world’s foremost Christian Zionist leaders, Rev. Mike Evans, published an anguished and angry op-ed excoriating Israeli Jews who are supporting the ouster of Netanyahu and the upcoming swearing in of a new coalition government to be headed by Naftali Bennett. Now I’m a rabbi, not a New Testament scholar, so I might be showing my ignorance here. But given that Evans specifically describes the anti-Bibi Jews as forming a chorus shouting “crucify him!” in their satanically-inspired desire to end Bibi’s time as Prime Minister, I felt I should do a little fact checking to see whether Evans has a point? Is Benjamin Netanyahu Christlike?

After what can only be described as minutes of painstaking research, I regret to share my perhaps surprising conclusion: no, Netanyahu is actually really really not like Jesus. Like, those two are super different.

Top 10 Differences between Netanyahu and Jesus Christ

  1. Bibi: Quote most remembered for: “The Arabs are voting in droves!” / JC: Quote most remembered for: “Love your enemies…” (Matt 5:44)
  2. Bibi: Wields state power and wants to keep it / JC: Defied state power and was ultimately murdered by the state
  3. Bibi: Doesn’t keep kosher but engages in l’shon hara (harmful and cruel speech, which is forbidden in Jewish law) / JC: Kept kosher and warned about the moral consequences of l’shon hara – urging people to pay attention to the words that come out of their mouths
  4. Bibi: Doesn’t observe the Sabbath / JC: Observed the Sabbath and commented on special circumstances when other Jewish values should take priority over strict ritual observance of the Sabbath
  5. Bibi: Has lied to so many people, friends and foes alike, so many times that even those politically aligned with him want him out of power and no one can trust his word on anything / JC: the opposite
  6. Bibi: Put on trial for 3 different cases for corruption. Claims that the trials are a sham but they’re actually not. Faces possible fines or jail time. / JC: Put on trial for staying true to his spiritual and moral convictions. The trial was actually a sham. He was actually crucified by the imperial authorities.
  7. Bibi: followers of his party have been shrinking over time / JC: followers of his party have grown into the billions
  8. Bibi: alpha male narcissist / JC: charismatic altruist
  9. Bibi: demagogue / JC: demigod (not trying to cause a theological kerfuffle here… just going for the easy laugh. Also, no disrespect intended.)
  10. Bibi: has lived a life of privilege and luxury / JC: not

Discovering Fred Halliday

Blogger’s note: I’m using this space to place a number of quotes from the late international relations professor, Fred Halliday, on a bulletin board of sorts. My plan is to add my own thoughts and comments, as well as other quotes from him and those in dialogue with his ideas, as I continue to process these ideas. By placing this content here I am not implying agreement or endorsement of these views – only a strong interest in learning more.

Selected Quotes I am studying:

One should not accept at face value what people who are struggling say: they may well be committing atrocities of their own. At the extreme end you have the PKK, the Shining Path, the Khmer Rouge and so forth. They may often be involved in inter-ethnic conflicts where they use a progressivist language to conceal what is in fact chauvinism towards another community. It goes for both Israelis and Palestinians. It goes for the IRA in Northern Ireland. It goes for the Armenians and the Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh, and other cases. So solidarity should not be taken at face value. Solidarity should be critical of what people say and do, while also being guided by the longer-term evaluation of people’s interests and rights and material social progress.

One should not accept at face value what people who are struggling say: they may well be committing atrocities of their own.

Prof. Fred Halliday

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

You got away from the stuff about which one was there first, or who was massacred most, or what their holy books say, or who were collaborators with imperialism—all such questions were secondary. The key question is, you have two communities which meet minimal criteria of self-determining peoples. And on that basis, you accord them equal rights. And secondly, you critique the chauvinism and the fake justifications and the violations of the rules of war of both sides.

The level and tone of polemic in the U.S. and in Europe on the Palestine question has degenerated enormously since the collapse of Camp David and the rise of the second Intifada. I find that much of the stuff put out in the name of Palestine is so irresponsible and sometimes racist. I also find the degree of anger and the one-sidedness of Israelis, and from pro-Israel people in the West, very disturbing.

Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/who-is-responsible-interview-with-fred-halliday/

What the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were to the cause of international communism, the US enterprise in Iraq in 2003 was to the ideals and legality of humanitarian intervention.

The war over Lebanon of July-August 2006 offers an example. The crimes of the Israelis (in wantonly attacking the infrastructure of Lebanon, and denying Palestinians their national rights) and those of Hizbollah and Hamas (in killing civilians, placing the lives and security of their peoples recklessly at risk, hurling thousands of missiles at civilian targets in Israel and fomenting religious and ethnic hatred) do not require particularist denunciation: that the one killed Arabs or Muslims, and that the other spilt Jewish blood. They are crimes on the basis of universal principles – of law, decency, and humanity; and should be identified as such. Particularism undermines the very basis of the denunciation, which presupposes universal principles.

Continue reading “Discovering Fred Halliday”