New Years Eve Talk 2024 - William Haines

Discerning God's Providence is a reflection on the global situation in 2024. I'm grateful that here on said it's largely about international affairs and these kinds of problems. I thought, great, that's exactly what I'm going to talk about. So first of all, we need to think about how things ought to be. A good place to start is looking at the flood, where God tried to start everything all over again. This is a new start, a new beginning. After the flood, it was announced about Noah and his wife, who had three sons. The sons of Noah spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language. These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages in their territories and nations. Again, there's a long list of these people and their descendants. These are the clans of Noah's sons according to the lines of descent within their nations, and from these nations spread out all over the whole world after the flood.

Here we have this vision of a plurality of nationalities, languages, and cultures. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks added them all up, and it came to 70. That's interesting—70 different ones. In that sense, there should be this plurality and diversity of nations, languages, and cultures so people could listen and learn from each other. Every language you have is just a way of looking at and interpreting the world in which one lives. If you're thinking in one language, you look at the world in one way; if you're thinking in another language, you look at the world in another way. The more languages you have, the more ways you can see the world and relate to other people. The world is much richer when there's this plurality of languages and cultures, cuisines, and arts. I think that's the kind of world which God wanted.

So why should there be different nations and lands? People need a land, a home, a location in space where a nation can shape its own destiny in accord with its deepest aspirations and ideals. Different nations have different aspirations and ideals, different customs, traditions, and laws. This is very much the Old Testament vision. When God gave the people of Israel the promised land, there were clear borders. It wasn't about expanding and conquering the entire world, but clear borders: this is your eastern border, this is your northern border, this is your western border, and this is your southern border. Every nation should live within its own territory and not try to invade and occupy other lands, creating empires, while at the same time respecting strangers and foreigners. As it says in Ezekiel, you must share this land among yourselves, talking to different tribes. Each tribe of Israel receives a part, and each part you receive will belong to you and to the foreigners who live among you, whom you have to treat with respect according to the law.

When we turn to the principle, it emphasises that human history is a history of Providence or restoration. If we're thinking about what God's dispensation is, this is what it is according to the principle. Battles over property, territory, and people have continued without interruption, expanding their scope with the progress of human society. The scale of these struggles has broadened from the family level to the levels of tribe, society, nation, and world. Today, the democratic world and the communist world confront each other in a final conflict. We wish that had been the case, but in these last days of human history, Heavenly laws have ascended upon the Earth in the name of democracy. It's very significant that people should have a say in how their country is run and governed, bringing an end to the long phase of history in which people sought to obtain happiness by seizing property, land, and people. Empires often sought to control land and people by imposing their laws, customs, and languages.

The conclusion of World War I saw the defeated nations give up their colonies. The victims voluntarily liberated their colonies, providing them with material aid. This is the vision: all these empires that people have developed and built should actually be broken up so every nation can be independent and self-governing. In recent years, great powers have invited weak and tiny nations, some smaller than one of their own cities, to become member states of the United Nations, giving them equal rights and status in the brotherhood of nations. This vision was articulated clearly in the principal vision of God's Providence and how it should be developing. When we look over the past year, we should be thinking about what God's Providence is supposed to be like and how it has been going on. Some of the break-up of empires includes the old British Empire, which Mike and I were born into a long time ago, but it doesn't exist anymore, just a few islands that are still left. After the First World War, there was the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and these countries in Eastern Europe are still not always resolved. Later, there was the division of the Ottoman Empire, which governed a large part of Eastern Europe and North Africa. After the First World War, that was broken up because if you are on the losing side, whether you like it or not, you get broken up into different parts.

The Ottoman Empire was also broken up into what later became known as Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. The Kurdish people, about 50 to 60 million, suffered the worst as they never managed to get their own country, and that problem continues today in the conflict with Turkey. Currently, Turkey is trying to occupy the space that the Ottoman Empire occupied. The Chinese Empire also has a complex history, with the Han Chinese moving into areas like Taiwan and Tibet, trying to make the whole empire more Chinese. The same is true for Mongolia and Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are today. The Russian Empire expanded significantly, and after the First World War, it was broken up by the Communists, who were anti-imperialists. Stalin, who was appointed to manage the different nationalities within the Russian Empire, defined a nation as a historically constituted stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture. He started drawing the lines to break up the empire, but some nations, like Ukraine, began to want their own country, leading to fragmentation and instability.

Stalin drew the lines so that all these new states were not homogenous, which created instability. For example, Ukraine has a mix of Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers, leading to civil conflict. After 1945, the Soviet Union was made up of many Soviet Socialist states, all part of what was the Russian Empire. In 1991, the Soviet Union broke up, and Crimea, which had been part of Russia since Catherine the Great, was transferred to Ukraine in 1954. When the Soviet Union broke up, Crimea became part of Ukraine, and the borders remained the same. However, the situation in Ukraine is complicated by the lines that Stalin drew, similar to how Africa was divided by former colonial powers. Ukraine has a mix of ethnically Ukrainian and Russian speakers, leading to conflict. Crimea has a complex history, having been part of Byzantium, then conquered by the Mongols, and later becoming part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. In 2014, Russia decided to annex Crimea, citing historical claims as part of the reason.

The main warm sea port was in the base of the Black Sea Fleet. When Ukraine became independent, Russia leased its naval bases from Ukraine, believing that Ukraine, as part of the former Soviet Union, would remain allied with them. From the Russian point of view, this arrangement was acceptable, albeit not ideal. However, political conflict and turmoil soon arose within Ukraine. Victor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian candidate, was elected after a rigged election, but he was overthrown during the Orange Revolution due to widespread discontent. Following this, Viktor Yushchenko, who was Western-oriented and aimed for Ukraine to join NATO, won the elections in 2008. Yanukovych later won again, rejecting the idea of closer ties with the EU and NATO, opting instead for closer relations with Russia. This division within Ukraine created a significant dilemma: choosing one side alienated the other half of the population, making it difficult for the country to maintain independence.

From a Russian perspective, Ukraine's aspirations to join the EU and NATO were strategically unacceptable. Crimea, historically considered part of Russia, was crucial for their naval operations and trade. The loss of Crimea to NATO control was seen as a direct threat to Russian security. The situation escalated when Russia invaded Crimea, which led to a controversial referendum where the people voted to remain with Russia. Critics argue that Russia should have sought a diplomatic solution through the United Nations, presenting their case for Crimea's return rather than resorting to invasion. The historical context of Crimea's status was complex, and many believe that a more thoughtful approach could have prevented the conflict.

The division in Ukraine can also be traced back to historical decisions made during the Soviet era. Stalin's arbitrary borders created ethnic tensions, particularly in Eastern Ukraine, where many Russian speakers reside. Some experts suggest that if the Soviet Union had broken up with a clearer plan, a referendum could have been held to determine whether Eastern Ukraine should remain part of Ukraine or return to Russia. Unfortunately, the rapid dissolution of the Soviet Union left many issues unresolved. The West's decision to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, despite Russian objections, further exacerbated tensions. George W. Bush's administration, in particular, pushed for NATO's expansion, which was perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its security.

The situation was complicated by internal Ukrainian policies that aimed to promote the Ukrainian language in predominantly Russian-speaking regions. This led to resentment among ethnic Russians, who felt their identity was being undermined. The push for a singular national identity created further divisions, prompting Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine. As NATO expanded, Russia felt increasingly encircled, leading to a perception of existential threat. From a Russian viewpoint, the annexation of Crimea was a necessary response to protect its interests and maintain its influence in the region.

In light of these complexities, it is argued that Crimea should remain part of Russia, as Ukraine is unlikely to defeat Russia militarily. Acknowledging Crimea's historical ties to Russia could pave the way for a more peaceful resolution. Both sides need to recognise the realities of their situation and the historical context that has shaped their identities. The ongoing conflict has led to a profound dislike and distrust between Ukrainians and Russians, complicating any potential for reconciliation. The idea that Ukraine could drive Russia out of its territory without significant consequences is unrealistic and could lead to further escalation.

Ultimately, a compromise is necessary for peace. The historical context of territorial disputes must be acknowledged, and both sides need to engage in dialogue to understand each other's perspectives. The lessons of past conflicts in Europe demonstrate that lasting peace often requires difficult compromises. The current geopolitical landscape is fraught with challenges, and without a willingness to listen and understand one another, the cycle of conflict is likely to continue. The need for mutual recognition and respect is paramount in moving towards a more stable and peaceful future.

The highest standards of goodness come to oppose and destroy regimes with lower standards of goodness to fulfil the providence of restoration. Therefore, conflicts and wars are unavoidable. In my opinion, we ought to have been much more involved in what is going on in Russia and Ukraine. If we understood things better, we would have been able to read the signs, like others did. That's why I called the conference in Geneva. Unfortunately, our movement seems incapable of reading the signs anymore. We should have been able to anticipate these events and hold conferences about these issues.

Principally, wars conducted by good sovereignty to destroy evil sovereignty are good and further the fulfilment of the providence of restoration. So, what is the difference between good and evil sovereignty? Good sovereignty is based upon the three blessings: freedom of religion, the rule of law, and democracy. This includes the freedom to worship God as you choose, freedom of speech, justice where criminals go to prison and not innocent people, property ownership, and a free market. In contrast, evil sovereignty lacks freedom of religion and often features arbitrary rule, where individuals in power dictate without following the law. This leads to state ownership of land and a lack of independent education, which we can see happening in various countries today.

When we look at Israel compared to the countries around it, we can say that Israel has a better sovereignty than Palestine or any Muslim country. Every Muslim country falls into a category where there is little to no freedom of religion and various democratic issues. Following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations in 1919 gave Britain a mandate to create a Jewish homeland. This decision was made by the international community, which recognised that the Jewish people should have a homeland. The land allocated was a small slither at the end of the Mediterranean, about the size of Wales, microscopic compared to all the Muslim Arab countries. In 1947, the United Nations voted to support this plan, and it was not a military invasion by the Jews; it was a decision made by the international community that should be respected.

Unfortunately, the Arab leadership, both in and out of Palestine, rejected the plan. Israel was invaded by five Arab armies. What they should have done was accept the UN proposal. If you want to be a member of the UN, you must accept its proposals; otherwise, you shouldn't be a member. Personally, I believe no country should be allowed to join the UN unless it is a democracy. After the Second World War, Israel expanded in terms of the land it occupied compared to what the United Nations wanted to give it. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan in 1950 and became part of Jordan, while Gaza remained part of Egypt. Historically, Gaza was part of Egypt and never part of Israel; the West Bank was never part of Israel either, as it was part of Jordan.

If the Arabs and Palestinians had genuinely wanted a Palestinian state at that time, they could have established one, but they did not. After the Second World War, there was the largest population movement in European history, yet most people living in Europe today know little about this. According to official West German accounts, over 600,000 Germans died during the process of being expelled from various countries where they had lived for centuries. The total number of Germans expelled or deported from Eastern Europe after the war amounted to 12 million. After the war, the Russians expelled every single German from a place called Königsberg, where many great German philosophers and musicians originated. Tens of thousands died trying to escape, and this is the reality of losing a war.

When the state of Israel was established, 600,000 Jews were expelled from countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt. These Jews had lived in Iraq since the time of the Babylonian Conquest, but they were told they did not belong there and were kicked out. They left behind houses, businesses, and possessions. Meanwhile, 720,000 Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, fled to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, but they were not granted citizenship and were kept in refugee camps. This situation persists today, as these refugees were not given the rights to citizenship, education, or business opportunities. In contrast, Europe did not create refugee camps after the Second World War; the last ones closed in the mid-1960s.

Only Jordan welcomed Palestinians and granted them citizenship. Any discussion aimed at a solution that is not based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people. Jews do not insist on a right to return to the Arab countries from which they were expelled; they have moved on. It is unfortunate when people become consumed with resentment, as seen in Scotland during the independence referendum, where there was significant bitterness towards the English. This resentment poisons the present and continues to affect relationships.

In my opinion, every nation should be independent, including Israel. As for Palestine, when Gaza was part of Egypt, the Egyptians should have decided how to manage that situation. It is desperately unfair for Egypt to refuse to take Gaza back while expecting Israel to administer it. Similarly, it is unfair for Jordan to leave the West Bank governed by Israel. The idea of a right of return should be abandoned, as it is not a practice that any other nation follows. Egypt should take back Gaza, and Palestinians should not be raised to hate Israel. Jews in Israel should treat Palestinians with more respect than they currently do. The narrative needs to change.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Hamas has been directed by Iran, and we saw the terrorist attack in Israel on October 7th last year. The media focuses heavily on what is happening in Gaza, which is indeed awful, but it often fails to report the context. Andrew Roberts, a prominent British historian, stated that the Israel Defense Forces killed fewer civilians per combatant than any other army in the history of warfare. He noted that less than two civilians are killed for every combatant, which is an astonishingly low ratio for modern urban warfare, where terrorists routinely use civilians as human shields. This reflects the professionalism and ethics of the Israel Defense Forces.

The media in this country is unfortunately very anti-Semitic. However, Father says that Judaism and Christianity should unite, as this is God's side versus Satan's side. Today, we have the Christian world supporting Israel, while Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, China, and North Korea oppose it. The future appears bleak, especially with the current government in this country, but I believe there is more hope in America. As we approach the festive season, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah. As God says to Jeremiah, 'For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.' For that plan to come about, we must get involved in making it happen. This unity of Judaism, Christianity, and unification is crucial.