How Should Christians Define Anti-Semitism?

In late April, the European Evangelical Alliance (EEA) announced its adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) formal definition of anti-Semitism, which has been endorsed by 37 countries—including the United States, Germany, and Poland. However, as Jayson Casper reports, a number of large Christian organizations are ambivalent about or opposed to the IHRA’s definition, largely because of its approach to anti-Semitism aimed at the Jewish state.

In a solemn ceremony last month at the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem, the European Evangelical Alliance (EEA) laid a wreath of remembrance.

It was also a pledge. “In awe and profound shame,” the alliance wrote on its Yad Vashem laurel, “yet with the promise for future solidarity.”

Alongside dialogue partners from the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC), the EEA warned that anti-Semitism is rising around the world. The EEA was joined in Jerusalem by Thomas Schirrmacher, secretary general of the World Evangelical Alliance, as well as Goodwill Shana, chairman of its international council. Though the two leaders also laid a wreath, the global organization did not sign onto the IHRA definition like its European affiliate.

 

Read more at Christianity Today

More about: Anti-Semitism, Evangelical Christianity, IHRA, Jewish-Christian relations

Iranian Escalation May Work to Israel’s Benefit, but Its Strategic Dilemma Remains

Oct. 10 2024

Examining the effects of Iran’s decision to launch nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, Benny Morris takes stock of the Jewish state’s strategic situation:

The massive Iranian attack has turned what began as a local war in and around the Gaza Strip and then expanded into a Hamas–Hizballah–Houthi–Israeli war [into] a regional war with wide and possibly calamitous international repercussions.

Before the Iranians launched their attack, Washington warned Tehran to desist (“don’t,” in President Biden’s phrase), and Israel itself had reportedly cautioned the Iranians secretly that such an attack would trigger a devastating Israeli counterstrike. But a much-humiliated Iran went ahead, nonetheless.

For Israel, the way forward seems to lie in an expansion of the war—in the north or south or both—until the country attains some sort of victory, or a diplomatic settlement is reached. A “victory” would mean forcing Hizballah to cease fire in exchange, say, for a cessation of the IDF bombing campaign and withdrawal to the international border, or forcing Iran, after suffering real pain from IDF attacks, to cease its attacks and rein in its proxies: Hizballah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

At the same time, writes Morris, a victory along such lines would still have its limits:

An IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a cessation of Israeli air-force bombing would result in Hizballah’s resurgence and its re-investment of southern Lebanon down to the border. Neither the Americans nor the French nor the UN nor the Lebanese army—many of whose troops are Shiites who support Hizballah—would fight them.

Read more at Quillette

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hizballah, Iran, Israeli Security