Economic Crisis in Israel
Shortly after taking over the coalition government of Israel, Shemon Perez paid a visit to Washington seeking U.S. aid to cope with Israel’s economic crisis. With inflation running 800 percent a year and a $24 billion foreign debt, the new Prime Minister made clear that his nation’s economic survival will depend on massive infusions of U.S. aid. The U.S. administration had already committed itself to $2.6 billion in military and economic aid in 1985 but economists estimate that as much as $1 billion more may be needed. After a meeting between Perez and President Reagan it was announced that the $1.2 billion portion of the aid package would be made available immediately but it was also made clear that stern fiscal discipline would have to be enforced.
Since the Likud party came to power in 1977 the government has been buying popular support with a loose money policy that has brought the nation to near bankruptcy. Money has been diverted from investment to consumer spending and an indexing system has insulated the public from the realities of run away inflation.
The question now being asked by students of Israel’s political economy is whether the democratic form of government will be able to command the discipline necessary to get the country back to living within its means. To help insure this objective the U.S. Administration has attached conditions to its financial assistance. A committee made up of economic experts from both countries will monitor Israel’s progress in such areas as reducing government spending, tightening import controls and instituting tax reform to encourage saving and investment.
A New Terrorist Policy
On the eve of his departure to attend the funeral of assassinated Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandi, United States Secretary of State George Shultz made a speech in which he called international terrorism a new form of international warfare and called for the United States to act in retaliation against those responsibility for the attacks. Until now U.S. policy has been to respond only when the responsible parties can be clearly identified and no innocent people could get hurt. Despite warnings by President Reagan the U.S. has not retaliated for the three terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities in Beirut since April 1983 because of the danger to innocent people.
Even within the administration there appears to be a disagreement about Shultz’s policy. Many experts on terrorism question the value of retaliation in combating terrorism. They cite Israel as an example, pointing out that although Israel has killed many more Arabs in retaliation than the number of Israelis killed by terrorists yet the terrorism continues. Students of terrorist psychology believe that retaliation only escalates the level of terrorist activity because of the publicity received. The experts say that the only defense against terrorism is tight security and a minimum of publicity because publicity is what terrorism is really all about. It is interesting that from a practical nonreligious viewpoint the methods most nearly in accord with Christ’s teachings on response to evil are considered to have the most chance of success.
An ironic twist was given the matter when even as the Secretary of State was denouncing terrorism and calling for tougher measures against terrorists a CIA handbook for guerrilla warfare surfaced in Washington. The document entitled “Psychology Operations in guerrilla warfare” was written as a guide to Nicaraguan rebels and calls for the hiring of professional criminals to bring about uprisings and the assassination of public officials. Apart from being in violation of laws against the sponsoring of terrorism, the manual embarrasses the administration in its condemnation of the terrorism of other nations.
Liberation Theology Challenged
In recent years the Catholic Church in Latin America and in the third world in general has been increasingly identified with Marxist activism and class struggle. The attempt to blend Marxism and Christianity has come to be known as liberation theology. In September the Vatican issued a long awaited document that challenges the concept and brands the more extreme forms a perversion of the Christian message.
While realizing the need to correct social ills and injustice the decree opposes the radical methods of liberation theology. It condemns the substitution of Marxist rhetoric for the traditional language of the Christian faith. It cites instances where Christian love is redefined as participation in the class struggle on behalf of oppressed peoples. The crucifixion of Christ is said to have been changed into a political event rather than the sacrifice for sin that traditional Christianity teaches.
The document is expected to disappoint the more radical members of the priesthood especially in Latin America. Guide lines have been laid down by the Vatican and it remains to be seen whether the reaction will be reluctant compliance or “loyal disobedience” as some term the stance taken by those who hope to influence the Vatican to modify its edict. The unusual speed with which the 36 page document was produced indicates the seriousness with which the Pope views liberation theology as a threat to unity of the Roman Catholic Church.
Armageddon and Politics
Religious issues have played a more prominent part in the recent presidential election than in any election in American history. School prayer, abortion, and the funding of parochial education have all been debated for years, but this was the first time that Armageddon became a campaign issue.
Although Reagan has never disclosed his personal beliefs in regard to Biblical prophesy it is known that he has had philosophical discussions with friends such as television preacher Jerry Falwell and singer Pat Boone about that version of Biblical prophesy popularized in Hal Lindsey’s book “The Late Great Planet Earth.” During the second presidential debate Ronald Reagan was asked if he truly believes the world is headed for a “nuclear Armageddon.” The president admitted to having had philosophical discussions about how current events coincide with the Biblical signs of the last days but he denied he had ever said “we must plan according to Armageddon.”
Toward the end of the campaign a group of liberal religious leaders who disagree with the administration’s hard line on nuclear defense accused the president of being unduly influenced by what they call “the theology of nuclear Armageddon” put out by the leaders of the fundamentalist religious right. President Reagan’s supporters claim the critics are playing secular politics and that they misunderstand both the Bible and the fundamentalist viewpoint.
Whether or not these debates have influenced voters is uncertain but it is remarkable that ideas that a few decades ago were preached only by an obscure minority should have gained such prominence in national politics. For those who believe that God controls the destiny of nations in accordance with his plan, the issues raised in this campaign make clear the incompatibility of such a faith with an active role in politics.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One