BRITISH-ISRAEL

Southland Times, Issue 22489, 25 January 1935, Page 5

BRITISH-ISRAEL

EXPOSITORY COLUMN. ' -No. 33.— (By Historicus.) British-Israel and World Peace. I have often pointed out in these columns that there are many people whc reject our British-Israel claims without having seriously examined them. Man} of them have an idea that the BritishIsrael believer is some sort of a troubler of Israel, a fanatical nationalist, a despiser of other nations, a set of cranks that read up all the deeds that won the Empire, and want yet further war so as to get yet further territory. None of these conceptions are anything but misconceptions, so far as my knowledge of British-Israel literature or of British-Israel believers goes. I think we are at least as peace-loving as other people, both privately and nationally. In my own case, four years as a soldier more than reconciles me to the present national peace. Like my fellow believers, however, I know from the Bible how foolish it is in the sight of God to cry “Peace! Peace! where there is no peace.” This is the cry of the pacifist to-day, and therefore I have yet to meet the British-Israel believer who is a pacifist. The League of Nations. After the Great War, the Allies met in conference and re-arranged the frontiers of Europe. This, of course, was only according to precedent. One other great thing was done then, however, namely, a League of Nations was set up for the future preservation of world peace. The prime mover was President Wilson of the U.S.A., but his Government refused to ratify his action, and America did not join the League. Nor has it done so since. Germany was permitted to join, did so, but has since withdrawn. Japan, too, has retired from the League. ’ Russia, the most populous state of Europe, has never been a member. The Allies’ terms of peace were perhaps moderate in the circumstances, but the frontiers of many European States were unjustly drawn, national minorities were committed to the care of unfriendly majorities; yet the League, it was hoped, would prevent future war in Europe! The League of Nations most certainly has not stopped war. Its apologists, the League of Nations Union, tell us that it has definitely prevented some wars, and has no doubt indirectly prevented others. The fact remains, however, that in no year since 1918 has the world been without war, often on a fairly large scale. Nor has the League of Nations been able to prevent or punish such acts of aggression on the part of its members as D’Annunzio’s coup against Trieste, the French occupation of the Saar, Mussolini’s coercion of Corfu, or Japan’s attack on China. The League’s machinery for applying economic pressure to its members who war aggressively in spite of Geneva s warning finger, seems always to fail, or in all probability has not been tried. The League, too, as Sir Leo Chiozza Money has pointed out, has always listened with most respect to the nations that had the biggest battalions, and has done literally nothing to alleviate the plight of sorely oppressed national minorities which it was pledged to protect. Nor has the League been able to bring about disarmament. Britain, it is true, set seriously about fulfilling her pledge to disarm, but other nations have rather increased their armaments, so that we have lately had to go back on our promise, rather than be hopelessly outclassed in the matter of national defence. Europe is probably as well armed as in 1914. Experts, indeed, tell us that it is more so, and the war devices are still more fiendish now than then. Poison gas and high explosives could now immediately wipe out whole cities if applied, as they would be if war broke out. 8.1. and the League. Such is the post-war world. These things being so, the British-Israel believer can scarcely be blamed if he regards the League as a crafty device of our enemies for shearing the British Samson’s locks; a scheme for trading by our enemies on our known reputation for national honour, to their no small advantage. If such views are widely held in the British-Israel ranks, they can scarcely be blamed in the circumstances. In this matter the Brit-ish-Israel authorities pointed out the religious shortcomings of the League at its establishment; they have drawn attention to them ever since, and the I logic of events has always been on their side. What are the religions and moral shortcomings of the League? Well, firstly, when it meets at Geneva it never invokes the blessing of the God of Peace on its deliberations. The name of God does not once occur in the Constitution of the League. Secondly, the League of Nations is composed (apart from Anglo-Saxondom) of peoples who, whatever they may say of peace at Geneva, give no practical sign of meaning what they say. Clerical visionaries, benevolent headmasters of our schools and colleges, members of the League of Nations Union, may all feel that the League is the beneficent result of a great and Christian ideal, but this is really due to the fact that they look at the League through Anglo-Saxon spectacles. They regard it with Anglo-Saxon minds. They envy no other nations, and are apt to forget that other nations are envious of us. And this envy will mean .war unless we are both nationally and individually witnessing for God, with a full trust in his protection. And this is where we lamentably fail. The Bible and National Defence. What, now, has the Bible to say? Well, compulsory military service would well accord with God’s will. In ancient

Israel all able-bodied men had to fight against the foreign aggressor; all tribes had to come to the help of any others that were so attacked. Aggressive wars on Israel’s part were condemned, but defensive wars were to be undertaken in full confidence that God would deliver His people Israel. And so He did, whenever His conditions were observed. In the New Testament the character of the soldier is always mentioned with praise. John the Baptist’s reply to the soldiers did not condemn their calling. As Dr Headlam, Bishop of Gloucester, put it (see the Southland Times 26/3/32): “The soldier, however imperfect his character may be, who is ready to lay down his Ufe for his duty, has understood the teaching of Christianity much better than those who are so anxious to relieve themselves of the obligation of supporting the forces of the country.” The Bible’s teaching is that Israels cause must be just. She must not be the aggressor. If attacked she must do two things: (1) Cry to God and trust to His aid, and (2) be up and doing. We, the modern Israel, must do these two things also.