The Israel-Palestinian Question

  • Dr. M. Daniel Carroll R., Professor Of Old Testament
  • Aug 15, 2002
  • Series: Dialogue on Contemporary Issues

Introduction

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the focus of regional and an international concern for several decades now. The historical, political, and theological issues are complex. This complexity requires that one attempt both to keep up-to-date on what is currently going on in the region and to inform oneself more and more about the many causes behind the crisis. Both the present and the past, in other words, are keys to trying to seek a viable solution in the future.

Toward that end, this website tries to offer resources for trying to think through the difficult morass that is the Israeli-Palestinian tensions. It will be periodically updated as new information and helpful publications come to light.

  1. Basic Historical Background
    1. Broader Considerations
      1. It is not enough to limit the analysis of the present problems to recent political events and developments. On the one hand, there has been a sense of frustration, inadequacy, and betrayal at the hands of Western (infidel) civilization that has been brewing for several centuries among Muslims and Arab states. (See especially Lewis, What Went Wrong? in the bibliography).
      2. On the other hand, it is helpful to factor in cultural values and mores vis-à-vis the function of religion, the concept of socio-political freedom, the role of women, technology, and the like. The Muslim world will process what is happening in very different ways than those in the West might understand.

    2. Late 19th - early 20th century:
      1. Zionism had a few proponents in the early and mid-19th century. It came to moreprominence through the efforts of certain key individuals, such as Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian Jew, who witnessed firsthand the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe in the last quarter of the nineteenth century (especially note: the growing nationalism in Germany, the pogroms1 in Russia, the Dreyfus case in France in 1894). Zionism was to be the political and geographic solution to the “Jewish problem.” Not all Zionist thought was expressly religious, however. At the beginning, Zionism was opposed by many Jewish religious leaders (on theological and nationalist grounds).
      2. In the early twentieth century Jewish settlers begin to arrive in Palestine as part of the Zionist movement. (They were not the first Jews to live in Palestine. There always has been some sort of Jewish presence there, and one wave of immigrants had arrived in the 1880’s.). By 1914 about one hundred thousand Jews had settled in Palestine.
      3. World War I brought the defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. The way was now open for the European powers to bring different parts of the Middle East under their jurisdiction. For example, it was agreed that France would control Lebanon and the Syrian coast. The British took Jerusalem in December 1917.
      4. The Balfour Declaration was communicated by the British government in November 1917, declaring that it would support the establishment of a homeland in Palestine for the Jews. A.J. Balfour was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. An issue from the very beginning: the consent of the local, indigenous population.
      5. The League of Nations in July 1922, gave to Britain the responsibility (the British Mandate) to establish the Jewish homeland and to preserve peace and the civil rights of all the parties. Arab rebellions in 1929, 1936-1939 led to the proposal by the British government of partition and separation of the land and the population.

    3. Th U.N. Resolution of 1947 – the Yom Kippur War of 1973
      1. 1947: U.N. Resolution 181: Recommended the partition of Palestine with an
        internationalized Jerusalem. Because the situation in Palestine continued to get more and more volatile, the British decided to end their Mandate in May 1948 and leave the implementation and supervision of the Resolution to the U.N.
      2. 1948: The declaration of the establishment of the Jewish state on May 14th, the day before the British withdrawal. The new government was immediately recognized by the U.S. (President Truman) but was attacked by forces from several Arab nations. The fledgling state was victorious and actually expanded the territory that had been assigned by the U.N. resolution. The West Bank became part of Jordan and the Gaza strip went to Egypt. Estimates are that half a million or more Palestinians were displaced.
      3. 1967: the Seven-Day War (June 5-11). Faced with the threat of a blockade, Israel launched a preemptive strike against bases in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. With the Israeli victory, Sinai (Egypt), Golan Heights (Syria), East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza come under Israeli control.
      4. 1967 (November 22): U.N. Resolution 242: The demand for Israel to return to the pre-1967 war borders.
      5. 1968: the founding of the PLO.
      6. 1973: the Yom Kippur War. The attack on Israel by Egyptian and Syrian forces on October 6th, on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement), the Jew’s most holy day.
      7. 1974: An Arab Summit recognizes the PLO as the sole representative of the
        Palestinian people        .

    4. 1.4. Camp David accords of 1978 – Oslo Agreement of 1993 until today
      1. 1978: Camp David accords (President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar
        Sadat        , Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin), in which Israel recognizes the basic rights of Palestinians (such as the right to autonomy). For a chronicle of the process, see Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President (New York: Bantam, 1982), pgs. 319-429.
      2. 1982: On June 6th Israel invades Lebanon to force out PLO.
      3. 1987: The Intifada2 begins in December in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza. The protests quickly spread to the West Bank.
      4. 1993 (September): the Oslo agreement negotiated between the Yitzhak Rabin
        government (with Shimon Peres as Foreign minister) and the PLO. Local autonomy to be given to Palestinians in West Bank and other designated areas.
      5. 2000: Second Intifada.
      6. 2002: Israel attacks the West Bank in an attempt to dismantle PLO and other terrorist infrastructure and locate/imprison its leadership.

  2. The Borders of Israel.

    The borders of the modern state of Israel have fluctuated, according to the outcomes of the various wars and international agreements since 1948. Over the last few years, a significant number of Jewish settlements have been established in the Palestinian territories (either by formal government policy—although this has varied according to the particular administration—or by Zionist groups on their own initiative).

    The boundaries of Israel in the Old Testament also fluctuated over time, depending on the socio-political realities at any given moment—e.g., before and after the division of the United Monarchy, the fates of Israel and Judah under pressure from the imperial powers (Assyria, Babylon), and after the return to the land after the Exile (under Persian rule). The most extensive boundaries apparently were attained during the reigns of David and Solomon and were achieved through conquest and political-economic negotiations. The farthest boundaries claimed to go from the “wadi of Egypt” through Syria to the river Euphrates. It is also important to distinguish what were the actual boundaries of ancient Israel from the various promises that were made to Israel at various times of its existence.

  3. The Identity of the Israeli and Palestinian States.

    1. Israel:
      1. It is important to be aware that the modern nation of Israel is not the kind of homogeneous and committed religious state that many might think it is. There is a spectrum of ways of practicing the Jewish faith, from the most orthodox to the more secular.
      2. Accordingly, among Israelis there is also a breadth of opinion on Zionism and the place of Palestinians in the modern state of Israel. The spectrum goes from militants (who desire to expel the Palestinians) to pacificists (who oppose the settlement plans of more right-wing groups and the government and seek coexistence with them).
      3. In addition, it is important to note that there is quite a diverse racial background of the Israeli Jews, because of their roots in a variety of countries and cultures from all over the world. There may well be some sort of historical thread back to biblical times through the faith of the Jews, but to move from that to say that the modern nation state = the ancient nation would be difficult, because of the vicissitudes of history, demographics, the nature and self- understanding of the government, etc.

      Palestine:

      The name is related to the ‘Philistines’, a people well known, of course, from the biblical period. One must be mindful to distinguish what the religious traditions of Islam might claim in terms of the historical-ethnic roots from the realities of demographic shifts, migrations, ethnic mixing, etc.

  4. Theological Considerations
    1. The interest in North America (both secular and religious) in the present situation, of course, is due in part to the presence of a relatively large and influential Jewish population in this country. The Jewish community has supported Israel politically and financially, and large numbers of North American Jews have immigrated to Israel. Also, the Zionist movement has had strong roots within the American Jewish community. In addition, there is a history of formal support by the U.S. government of Israel since 1948.

    2. General Theological Perspective: The nature of human government
      1. Arrogance: The OT teaches that the fundamental sin of humanity is pride in rebellion against God. This hubris is connected to humanity as a whole and to its dispersion into the nations of the world in Gen. 10-11. The prophets repeatedly denounce the arrogance of all nations, both large and small. Some of the best examples of this are found in Isaiah (Assyria, chpt. 10; Babylon, chpts. 13-14) and Ezekiel (Tyre, chpts. 26-28).
      2. Violence: The OT teaches that from the very beginning human arrogance finds expression in violence (Gen. 4; 6:11; 9:5-6). This is true at individual and corporate/national levels.
      3. Many would associate the words of Gen. 9:5-6 (cf. Rom. 12:14 -13:7) with the fundamental purpose of human government: to control human violence (and, therefore, to promote peace, justice, and the common good). These are some of the factors that serve as God’s markers for evaluating human government.

      At a very basic level, this orientation to human nature should alert us to expect arrogance and violence on both sides of the ‘divide’, as it were, in the present situation in Israel-Palestine. One should not be surprised by the intransigence, desire for punishment and revenge, the reality of the suffering of the innocent, and the difficulties in negotiation. On the other hand, one must also ask if and how each side is trying to reflect or achieve (whether consciously or unconsciously) what God requires of all nations (peace, justice, the common good).

    3. Who are God’s People? The Issue of the Church’s Perspective on the State of Israel

      At a minimum, much of the interest from the Christian perspective is grounded in the fact that all would in some sense see Israel-Palestine as the Holy Land (Hence, the visit by hundreds of thousands of pilgrims each year). It is the land of the Bible and the place where Jesus lived and ministered.

      A more formal reflection on the issue necessarily requires consideration of an answer to
      this question (“Who are God’s people?”) at three levels:
      1. At one level, God’s people is made up of all those that respond in faith to Jesus Christ and become part of the worldwide Church. These would include both believing Gentiles and Jews (Eph. 2).
      2. At a second level, one then must define more specifically the relationship of the Church to Judaism and the state of Israel. Key questions that would need answering include:
        1. Does the Christian Church succeed or supersede the Jewish faith and, thereby, since the time of Christ, set it aside as the people of God? Or, do Jews (and Israel?) still remain the people of God in some sense?
        2. How do different theological systems define the nature of the OT political promises to Israel (especially those having to do with occupying and governing the land)?
          1. If the Church replaces Israel as the people of God (even as it incorporates believing Jews), then the modern state of Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy. One can still believe that a remnant of Jews (as individuals) will turn to Jesus as Messiah (Rom. 9) but not hold to any kind of future political state of Israel as part of the plan of God. If such is the case, there is no particular theological reason to support the state of Israel, except in the more general sense of trying to control human violence and to seek peace between warring nations.
          2. If one’s eschatological system does hold that there is a future for an entity called Israel in the plan of God (in addition to those Jews who become part of the Body of Christ through faith today), then the way is more open to relate biblical material to modern realities. The staunchest defenders of this persuasion would come from within the dispensational camp. Having said that, however, one can believe that there is a future for the state of Israel, but one unrelated to the modern, more secular state. This option would believe that there might be a connection between the modern state of Israel and that of the eschaton (although precisely what that connection might be is hard to define), but that the two should not be confused (and thereby excuse the excesses of the present Israeli government.).
          3. Even if one does support Israel on the basis of certain theological
            convictions, two additional observations are pertinent: First, it is crucial to emphasize that this does not require agreeing with all of the Israeli government’s policies and actions. The OT is full of accusations and condemnations directed at biblical Israel for violations of the will of God. Today should be no different. Second, at the very least, one should reflect upon OT laws concerning making peace with the occupants of the land and the rights and compassion to be extended to the “resident aliens.” To say simplistically that Israel has the right to live in the land does not respond to the pragmatic, legal, and very human problems of Palestinians displaced at the formation of the state of Israel.
      3. A third consideration: Another important component of the debate must include the views of Palestinian Christians. It is too easy to reduce the situation to simply an Israeli- Muslim problem. Palestinian Christians could very well have (and many do) a different appreciation of the rights of Israel to the land and its role in eschatology.

    4. Is There Any Possible Relevance of the Present Situation for (End Time) Eschatology?

      For those of the belief that Israel does remain in some sense the people of God and that they (as individual Jews and as a nation) will play a significant role in a future eschatological end times scenario, this latest conflict is of a different sort than the 1967, 1973, or even Gulf War. It is not that Israel finds itself under direct attack from external enemies, but rather that it is responding to unrest from a population under its own jurisdiction and legal and military control. I suspect that those who have connected the previous wars with their eschatological scheme would find it much more difficult to relate it to the present situation.

      The theological challenge is to attempt to consciously coordinate one’s theological position to the political discussion. Without a solid theological base, it is easy to allow one’s ideology to dictate the debate.

  5. Issues to Consider

    1. Recognize the complexity of the religious issues: The significance of Jerusalem for Islam and Judaism, the different stories each of these traditions tells concerning the people of God and their relationship to God and the land, the possible role of violence in each of the traditions. It is also important to be aware how Zionism itself has developed over time and is understood differently by different groups within Israel today.3
    2. Recognize the complexity of the political issues: The displacement of 1948, the sequence of international accords and the compliance (and lack thereof) by both sides in the conflict, the multiple tensions within the PLO and within the Israeli political scene regarding the conflict, and the difficulty in developing a solution that might bring agreement and peace.
    3. Recognize the complexity of the human dimensions.
      1. From the Arab side: the sense of powerlessness after multiple military defeats, the displacement of populations since 1948 and the sense of loss of their historic lands, the sense of humiliation under Israeli control and power, the frustration over misrepresentation by the West and its media.
      2. From the Israeli side: the lack of trust and the frustration at what are perceived to be the violation of agreements done in good faith, the sense that they have been the ones who have developed the infrastructure and offered more humane conditions to the Palestinians than the Arabs have themselves, the sense of betrayal and misrepresentation by the West and its media, the feeling of continued sacrifices and victories (and, for some, the theological justifications) for establishing the right to the land.
      3. One must not make simplistic generalizations about either set of people—here I mean the “ordinary people”, who work, try to raise a family, and seek to follow their religion or worldview. Even if a solution were to be brokered, there would still be the need to deal with longstanding prejudice and hatred and suspicion on both sides.

  6. Sources for Further Reading and Up-to-date Information
    1. Books (This bibliography is continually updated)
      1. Historical Perspectives: The following list moves from the perspective of more “objective” reporting to Israeli writers to Palestinian views. The Israeli and Palestinian works include both sociopolitical and personal views and experiences (and there is variety within these two groups as well).

        Analysis from outside:
        Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster, 1996)

        World politics and conflict today are being driven more by civilization/culture issues than nation states. The cultural connections cross national boundaries. Today the“Islamic resurgence” is key. Issues include: how Islam is to define itself and its relationship to the West. From the other side, the challenge is to understand this process and to properly respond to the necessary adjustments, threats, and the like.

        La Guardia, Anton. War Without End: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land (St. Martins Press, 2001).

        Billed as the most definitive work since Friedman’s From Beirut to Jerusalem. The author is an editor for the British paper, The Daily Telegraph.

        Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

        The author is perhaps the most respected scholar on the Middle East and Islam in the West. This book recounts the loss of world influence and power by Islam (in particular the Ottoman Empire), that took several centuries, and the attempt of Muslims to come to grips with their loss of preeminence and with Westernization since that time. Offers a helpful historical and cultural perspective to the modern crisis is the region.

        Geoffrey Wheatcroft. The Controversy of Zion: Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma (Addison-Wesley, 1996).

        Jewish and Israeli views:
        Benjamin Netanyahu, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network (2001 ed.; Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2001) [Israeli]

        Author is a former Prime Minister of Israel. Designed to alert people in the West to the threat of international terrorism—its worldview, acts, and networks—and suggest ways for governments to combat it. Terrorism deliberately targets civilians. Says that militant Islam desires to impose its form of Islam on the world, not through democratic process but by destroying its enemy. The primary enemy and greatest power in the West is the US; Israel is seen as the beachhead of the West in the Arab world. Arabs feel that they have suffered centuries of humiliation and defeat at the hands of the West, more recently by Israel.

        Blumenfeld, Laura. Revenge: A Story of Hope (Simon & Schuster, 2002). [American Jewess]

        Written by the daughter of a New York Jew, who had been shot by a Palestinian while visiting Israel in 1986. She goes to Israel right after her wedding to live there with her new husband for a year. Her personal motive is to meet and confront the would-be assassin and in the process explores the whole issue of revenge.

        Uri Savir, The Process: 1,100 Days that Changed the Middle East (Vintage Books, 1998). [Israeli]

        A personal and detailed account by the head of the Israeli negotiation team that hammered out the Oslo agreement over a three-year period. Part of the human side of the story is his growing appreciation of the Palestinian perspective and team.

        Palestinian views:

        Edward W. Said, The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After (rev. ed.; Vintage
        Books, 2001) [Palestinian]

        Said is an internationally known Palestinian intellectual. He speaks strongly in defense of the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and of their fundamental right to return to the “occupied territories.” Even as he is harsh in his criticism of what he views as Israel’s arrogance and duplicity, he is also very critical of the many weaknesses of Arafat’s governance and feels that Arafat conceded too much during the Oslo process and other occasions. Palestinians need to raise up a healthy, open, and democratic self-consciousness as they learn to face themselves, Israel, and the rest of the world. Pragmatically, there can be no military solution for either side. Coexistence must be the goal.

        Raja Shehadeh, Strangers in the House: Coming of Age in Occupied Palestine
        (Steerforth Press, 2002) [Palestinian]

        Author is a Palestinian, whose family had to leave Jaffa in 1948. Founding member of Al-Haq, a human rights organization in the West Bank (http://www.alhaq.org), although he no longer is with that organization. Recounts his life and the fate of his father, a wellknown lawyer, who was killed by other Palestinians in a legal dispute (They were never brought to justice, as they were apparently collaborating with the Israeli government.).
        Melancholy tone: despair at continual Israeli violations and inability of Palestinians to make positive steps toward self-determination and the rule of law.

      2. Theological Perspectives
        1. Attempts to be as even-handed as possible

          Gary Burge. Who Are God’s People in the Middle East? What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians (Zondervan, 1993).

          Colin Chapman. Whose Promised Land? (Lion Publishing, 1983).

          Eugene Marsh. Israel and the Politics of the Land: A Theological Case Study (Westminster John Knox, 1994).

          Offers a very helpful introduction to the complexity of the human situation and an historical overview (complete with maps). From a Reformed theological perspective, sees no literal predictions relating the modern state of Israel to the Old Testament promises. At best, because of its unique claims, Israel today should live in accordance with its obligations to God and neighbor.

        2. sympathetic to Palestinian perspective

          Naim Ateek. “Pentecost and the Intifada” in F.F. Segovia and M. Tolbert (eds.),
          Reading from this Place, vol. 2: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective (Fortress, 1995), pgs. 69-81. [Palestinian Christian]

          With Rosemary Radford Ruether has also written the book Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (Orbis, 1990). In this article he connects the empowerment of subjected Palestinians who rose up spontaneously against Israel to that of the fearful young Church at Pentecost. Today Palestinian Christians in the power of the Spirit can work against oppression in the West Bank and for the establishment of a separate state, with the Intifada as an inspiration.

          Michael Prior. The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique (The Biblical Seminar, 48. Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

          Offers a helpful summary of Zionism and the early history of the state of Israel, although some details are left out (such as Camp David, the assassination of Anwar Sadat). Writes from a view sympathetic to the Palestinians (pgs. 106-73). Critiques what he feels are the colonialist myths of Zionism (pgs. 175-213).

          Rosemary Radford Ruether and Herman J. Ruether. The Wrath of Jonah: The Crisis of Religious Nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (HarperCollins, 1993)

    2. Internet Sources
      1. Pro-Palestinian
        Palestine Chronicle: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/

        Palestine Monitor: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/

        Palestine 2002, link to International Solidarity Movement: http://www.intifada.com

      2. Pro-Israeli
        The main Israeli Press in English: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/

        The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism: http://yahoodi.com/peace/

        A new website under construction: http://www.holyland-tierrasanta.com/

      3. Ministries to Jews, with views on present situation on their web sites
        Israel, My Glory: http://www.foigm.org/

18 August 2002
Dr. M. Daniel Carroll R.
Professor of Old Testament
Denver Seminary

 

Endnotes 

1 “Pogrom” is a Yiddish word meaning “devastation.” It refers to the massacre of innocent people (in
particular, Jews).
2 I have seen two explanations, one that connects the term to a root meaning “to recuperate, to recover”, another to a root meaning “to shake off.”
3 I have recently read two interesting pieces on the Internet that demonstrate the diversity within
contemporary Zionism and its varied reaction to the Palestinian issue (“Zionism Then and Now” at
www.tau.ac.il/taunews/96winter/zion.html and “Zionism” by B. Neuberger at www.israelmfa.
gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ng0). Also note Geoffrey Wheatcroft. The Controversy of Zion: Jewish
Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma.

Comments(0)

Comments: