The Palestine question...
an impartial point
of view, courtesy of Nora 
Q: Jews should have the right to settle anywhere they choose
in the historic 'Land of Israel'.
Discuss
The Jews claim that they have gained the right to settle anywhere
in the ancient 'Land of Palestine' for two reasons:
Firstly, because they are entitled to this land by divine
promise, and
Secondly, because the Balfour Declaration gave them the political
right to do so.
The two reasons might seem valid enough for the Jewish claim.
However, there are considerable faults in both claims that deserve
closer observation. The divine promise does not only include
the Jewish people, but rather the believers in God in general,
both Muslims and Christians. On the other hand, the Balfour Declaration
is invalid because it gave political legitimacy to establish
a Jewish homeland under false and contradictory circumstances.
First of all I would like to try and define where the historic
'Land of Palestine' is, and why it is an established 'Jewish
right' the Jews claim. Hassan Hadad explains that the Promised
Land, ëas defined in the Bible, is not an ambiguityí.
He contests that even though the boundaries of this land may
vary, its locality is constant. Jerusalem is the center, and
whether the rest of the land extends from the Nile to the Euphrates,
or from Dan to Beersheba, depends on ones interpretation. The
Jews believe that they have a right to return to this Promised
Land due to a divine promise set forth in the Bible (the Old
Testament), therefore settlement there is an act of religious
and righteous fulfilment. God promised this land to the sons
of Abraham in Genesis 12:7: 'Unto thy seed will I give this land
(Canaan)'. This divine promise stands above human considerations
and the law.
W. D. Davis makes clear that this divine promise has actually
been fulfilled twice and 'was so reinterpreted from age to age
that it became a living power in the life of the people of Israel'.
It is fulfilled with the establishment of the Kingdom of David
in 1000 BC and again after the Babylonian exile. In both those
two periods the Jews enjoy considerable autonomy and prosperity
as promised by God. Davis also claims that despite its fulfilment,
the promise to the Jews is irrevocable and hence reinterpretation
is allowed for the establishment of a modern Jewish state. Reinterpretation
is set forth in the Zionist theory established by Theodore Hertzel
in the late nineteenth century. As Hadad also notes, Zionism
is 'firmly anchored in the Bible, giving it an extra aura and
finality and incontestability...[since it] contains the only
available record of this state, its origin, its ideology, and
its prophetic and eschatological destiny'. Not many Jews are
supportive of Zionism believing that they are no ëlonger
a nation, but a religious community, and, therefore, expect no
return to Palestine.í Despite being a minority, the Jews
were already part of a nation in either Europe or America. They
have their own language, culture, experiences and society and
they saw no need to 'return' to Palestine. They believe that
their return to Palestine should not be a political mechanism
and they refuse to mix religion with politics. The return to
Palestine should be a spiritual process and should come after
the personal re-appearance of the Messiah. However, with increased
anti-Semitism, especially in Europe especially Nazi Germany,
many more Jews were starting to affiliate themselves with Zionism
and the 'right of return'. The Zionist theory was starting to
become a reality; and it grew in 1948 with the establishment
of the Jewish state in Palestine as a result of the UN Resolution
to partition Palestine between Arabs and Jews.
On the other hand, Christian scholars agree that ëthere
is no basis in either the Old Testament or New Testament to support
the claim that a modern Jewish state in Palestine is justified
or even demanded by the Bible or by Biblical prophecyí.
Alfred Guillaume explains that it is generally supposed that
the promise of Palestine given to Abraham in the Bible was made
to the Jews alone. However, this promise also includes the Arabs,
both Muslims and Christians, who claim descent through Ishmael.
Moreover, when the promise was made, Ishmael was already born
while Isaac was not. Just like in ancient times when the Canaanites
were driven out in order for the people of Israel to settle Palestine,
the modern Jews are trying to do the same with the indigenous
Palestinian Arabs. However, I believe that the situation differs
entirely here. The Jews are asked by God to settle Palestine
and drive out the Canaanites because they are not believers in
Godís religion. The modern Palestinian Arab is a believer
in God whether s/he is Muslim or a Christian. Therefore the Arabs
in Palestine have as much claim to the divine promise as the
Biblical Jews or their descendents. Guillaume also argues that
even though the land was promised, the promise was not an everlasting
one. The promise was for a long and indefinite period and the
word 'forever' and 'everlasting' in the Bible are merely a translation
of the Hebrew original word 'olam', meaning 'long time'. Secondly,
since the prophecies of return were already fulfilled twice,
they cannot be fulfilled and open to reinterpretation again.
However if, as Davis claims, reinterpretation is allowed then
all the believers in God are welcome to return to Palestine today.
Furthermore, Dr. Frank Stagg argues that the political Israel,
which emerged in the 20th century, is a total contradiction to
the Biblical Israel. The people of God in the Bible transcend
all national and racial categories. The People of God are in
fact the believers in God, and not only the Jews. Stagg then
references The Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:26-29:
For all ye are sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
For whatsoever ones of you were baptized into Christ did put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor
freed-man, neither male nor female; for all ye are one in Christ
Jesus. If ye are of Christ, indeed ye are Abrahamís seed,
heir according to promise.
The People of Israel are confused with solely being the Jews,
and not Muslims or Christians, who are also the People of God.
Israel is not a geographical, ethnical or political entity, but
a body of believers. Sami Hadawi also mentions that the Bible
points out to a spiritual kingdom for all mankind and not to
a political Israel that has driven people out of their homes
and colonised them. It is therefore impossible to confuse Israel
of the Bible with Israel of today because they contradict each
other.
The Arabs, or the Canaanites are the original inhabitants of
Palestine. Palestineís central location allows it to be
a center point for battles as well as religious, cultural and
social influences. Many of the invaders or passers by were integrated
into Canaanite culture and state. The Hebrews only came in by
the 13th century BC, and lived together with the Canaanites.
The kingdom of David only lasts 70 years and was interrupted
by the invading Assyrians and Babylonians. The Jews were exiled
although they came back with the Persian invasion of Palestine.
However many Jews preferred to stay where they were. Many of
them lived in Central Asia and Russia and other lands where they
were assimilated and even changed their religion. Later many
had to leave Czarist Russia to Europe and the US. Many of today's
Jews are actually descendants of converted Jews especially those
who were living in the Khazar areas of Central Asia and Russia.
Muhammad Mahdi explains:
The Bible does not support the Zionist position. Nor does
the rules of
rational analysis. For it is not unreasonable to assume that
the Arabs of
Palestine are more entitled to their home than those immigrant
Jews from
Europe or elsewhere and whose ancestors might have been converted
to Judaism from amongst some of the Slavic tribes several hundred
years ago. (One wonders whether Palestine is also the home of
the ancestors of Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Jackson who converted
to Judaism not long ago). But even if we assume that these immigrants,
or converts, were the direct descendants of Abraham, still this
does not entitle them to go to the "home" of the Arab
"cousin" without his permission. Similarly, the Americans
cannot go to England and Europe on the basis of the historic
ties and European ancestry without permission. It is not a secret
that most of the present day Russian immigrants to Israel are
non-Jews but are justified under the pretext of family ties.
Furthermore, God promised the land to the Israelites, which
is a race, not a religion. In fact it is very hard to identify
today's Jews as Semites. What gives a Chinese or an African,
who converted to Judaism, the right to come to Palestine, confiscate
a Palestinian house or property, and displace a family who is
rooted there for centuries. On the other hand, the Canaanites,
and later their descendents the Arabs, continue to be the all
time occupants of the land. Most of Palestine's population was
Christianised at the time of Constantine I. With the Muslim conquest
of Palestine, many converted to Islam while others remained either
Jewish or Christian. It becomes quite evident that a large part
of the original population of Palestine was and always remained
there. The ancient Jews of Palestine are part of the population.
Many remained Jewish, while others assimilated and/or converted
to either Christianity or Islam over the centuries. This further
proves that the divine promise of a spiritual and holy ëIsraelí
(if we may call it that) was implemented due to the continued
presence of the populous in Palestine.
G. W. Bowersock says that the Jews and the Arabs of the Holy
Land lived together in harmony and that there was 'social coherence',
and he criticises the Israeli claim that the Jewís enemy
has always been an Arab. He also explains that 'the decision
made... to introduce an entirely new population into a part of
the costal territory of Palestine has wiped out the possibility
of ever restoring the coherence or natural balance'. In fact
I believe that the Zionist reinterpretation of the Bible is invalid.
Modern Israel is a colonial entity, which uses the Bible to serve
its purposes. Since 1918, many Orthodox Jews fought side by side
with the Muslim and Christians Palestinians against the Zionist
invaders. They refuse to even recognize the state of Israel or
do business with any of its governmental agencies.
Zionism is a political movement, and through politics it reached
its goals under the disguise of religion. The British, as the
mandate power at the time, issued the Balfour Declaration (BD)
in 1917 promising the Jews a homeland in Palestine:
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will
use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this
object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
This declaration gave Zionism the political right to Palestine.
However, this Declaration is unsound for several reasons. Musa
Mazzawi makes it clear that when Britain issued the BD, it did
not possess Palestine and therefore they could not give it away
or control its destiny. It gave away what they do not own to
those who do not deserve. Palestine belonged to its inhabitants
and no one had the right to deal with it in anyway. The Arabs
were not consulted and the Declaration was therefore, not binding
upon them. Moreover, even if the British did have the right to
do so, they only promised the Jews refuge/home in Palestine and
not the establishment of a Jewish state. Winston Churchill said
so specifically in a statement in 1922:
Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become
ìas Jewish as England is Englishî. His Majestyís
Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have
no such aim in view. Nor have they ever contemplated, as appears
to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the
subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in
Palestine.
The BD is not recognised in international law as well because
the Jews are not a body politic, but a religion. A state cannot
be established on the basis of a religion. The BD is issued for
political reasons and not religious ones. The British not only
promised a homeland for the Jews, but at the same time it also
promised the Arab independence, and with the French it promised
to carve out Arabia into colonies leading to the secret (at the
time) Sykes-Picot agreement. These three promises are contradictory
because British self-interest was the motivation. Britain needed
all the support it could get against the Turks and the Germans
during WWI. The British promised the Jews a homeland at the same
time they promised Arabs independence. Why were only one promise
fulfilled but not the others? Hence the promises contradicted
each other and cannot be regarded seriously. In addition, the
Palestine mandate itself was invalid because it violated Article
22 of the League of Nations and incorporated the BD. Therefore,
even politically, the Jews lose the claim to the right to settle
anywhere in the historic 'Land of Palestine'.
Furthermore, the BD specifically declares that there will
be no violation of Palestinian rights in Palestine. Clearly their
right have been violated many times. Karen Armstrong says:
The British mandate administration began to implement the
Declaration. A Jewish Agency was set up to "facilitate the
acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews" which meant
increasing Jewish immigration, confiscation of Arab lands, displacement
of Arab inhabitants, improvement of Jewish communities on account
of "non-Jewish communities", etc. These measures where
in gross violation of the already rejected Declaration as "they
would prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities"
in Palestine. The British administration under a Jewish High
Commissioner employed various pretences and excuses caused the
loss of Arab lands to the new immigrants. A British White Paper
of 1922 argued that there was no question of subjugating the
Arab majority. The idea was rather simply to create a center
in (but not in the whole of) Palestine where Jews could live
as right instead of no sufferance. In other words the British
implementation of the Declaration was in complete violation of
what the British intended of the Declaration.
This shows that Zionism is a purely colonial movement. In
fact Zionist tactics in Palestine are quite similar to those
of Machiavellism, justifying the means to an end. The conquerors
invaded the area and imposed harsh measures on its inhabitants.
They tried to disintegrate the population in order to remain
powerful and dominant. This is quite true with the Zionist invasion
of Palestine.
In conclusion, from the arguments set forth it becomes evident
that the Jews do not have the right to settle anywhere in the
historic ëLand of Palestineí. This is quite obvious
for the several reasons given. Neither the Biblical Promise seems
to support their claim nor the political instrument of the BD
is implemented in letter and spirit, let alone its legality.
With regard to the Biblical promise to Abraham, assuming its
authenticity also includes the Arabs as well because they are
descendents of Abraham. Most of these descendents remained in
Palestine and through the centuries adopted Judaism, Christianity
or Islam. Hence it is impossible and quite absurd to say that
the modern Jews are pure descendents of the ancient Israelites.
Furthermore, the divine promise was already fulfilled and not
open to reinterpretation as the Zionists claim. In fact the Israel
of the Bible is a spiritual one and not a political entity. Nevertheless
the Zionists did reach their goals through politics with the
Balfour Declaration and later by the adoption in 1948 of the
United Nations Resolution to partition Palestine into two states,
one Arab and the other Jewish. The Declaration itself is quite
controversial because it was a result of political self-interest,
and this deems it invalid. This is also true of the UN Resolution
since it gave the Jews 52 % of Palestine while leaving the Arabs
48% after they owned 93% in 1948. Hence the claim of the Jews
that they have the right to settle anywhere in the historic ëLand
of Palestineí is null and void and cannot be accepted
by the international community.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Armstrong K., Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths,
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996)
Davis W. D., The Gospel and the Land, (Berkley:
University of California Press, 1974)
Hadad H., ëThe Biblical Bases of Zionist
Colonialismí, in Abu-Lughod I. and Abu-Laban B. ed. Settler
Regimes In Africa and the Arab World: The Illusion of Endurance,
(Wilmette: The Medina University Press International, 1974)
Hadawi S., et al., eds, Palestine: The Promised
Land, (Amman, 1968)
Mahdi M., Nation of Lions...Chained, (San
Francisco: New World Press, 1962)
Nuseibeh H. Z., Palestine and the United Nations,
(London: Quartet Books Limited, 1981)
Said E. and Hitchens C., Blaming the Victims:
Spurious Relationship and the Palestinian Question, (London:
Verso, 1988)
http://www.palestinehistory.com
|
