Whose Promised Land? (5th edition), by Colin Chapman.

Synopsis of chapter 7a – Realities and Possibilities Today

‘The Things That Make for Peace’

7.1 Zionism

Is there something fundamentally flawed about Zionism, in at least some of its various forms?

‘Zionists have generally found it difficult to come to terms with the Palestinians’.

From the outset, there was an element of deception, along with an unwillingness to understand the Palestinian position, in the Zionist project.

David Ben-Gurion: for 20 years denied the existence of conflict.  When he did acknowledge it, he pronounced it as unresolvable.  He had little interest or engagement with Arabs as people.

Golda Meir and others denied there was a ‘Palestinian people’.

Whereas the Law of Return encourages Jews to return to the land, Arabs driven out in 1948/9 have been refused re-entry.

‘Violence was implicit in the original vision of Zionism’

How are the Jews to possess the land, if not by driving out the present inhabitants?

Theodor Herzl: the end justifies the means.

David Hirst: the Zionists were the original aggressors, and Arab violence a reaction to this.

‘A Jewish state requires a majority that has political power’

In order for a Jewish homeland to be a Jewish state, Jews needed to outnumber Arabs.  Leading Zionists refused to consider power-sharing.

Martin Buber, however, argued for a binational state.  Not as many Jews as possible, but as many as were necessary for flourishing.  They were the newcomers, and needed to earn the trust of the Arabs.  Otherwise, Zionism is mere nationalism.

‘Zionism and the idea of a Jewish state inevitably contains an element of racial and/or religious discrimination’

Herzl: Jews should think of themselves more in national terms, than in religious terms.  Thus, they should aim for the creation of a nation-state, moving from people to nation and from nation to state.

The main obstacle to Herzl’s vision was the fact that Palestine was at that time part of the Ottoman empire.  But most Zionists did not advocate integration with the Arabs, but rather the creation of a fully fledged Jewish state.

‘A Jewish state has not solved the problem of anti-Semitism’

Herzl: the creation of a Jewish state would reduce, but not eliminate, hostility against Jewish people.

Andrew Kirk: the existence of the state of Israel has fanned the flames of anti-Semitism.

Jacqueline Rose: it is not anti-Semitic to detest the persecution of the Palestinians.

We do not need to question the legitimacy of the state of Israel in order to question some of the ways in which Zionism has developed and asserted itself.

7.2 Christian Zionism

‘Christian Zionists believe that the establishment of the Jewish state is a very significant part of God’s plan for the Jewish people and for the world, and that for this reason they should support the State of Israel.’

Christian Zionism is rooted in a certain way of reading the Bible, including Genesis 12 and 15; Jeremiah 32; Ezekiel 34.  The return to the Promised Land is seen as the fulfilment of prophecy and (especially by Dispensationalists) as a sign of the End Times.

Some Christians, however, would eschew the above theology but still believe that Jews have some right to the land and think that the only solution to the present impasse is for there to be separate Jewish and Palestinians states.

Restorationism – the belief that God planned to restore the Jewish people to their ancient land and that this would be linked to the conversion of many Jews to Christ – dates back to the early 17^th century and the work of Thomas Brightman.

Dispensationalism dates from the 1830s, and has been espoused by J.N. Darby, William E. Blackstone and C.I. Scofield, together with popular teachers such as Hal Lindsay, Tim Lahaye and John Hagee.  God’s special purpose for Israel is a central tenet of Dispensationalism.

A summary by Stephen Sizer:

‘Crucial to the dispensationalist reading of biblical prophecy is the conviction that the period of tribulation is imminent, along with the secret rapture of the church and the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in place of, or alongside, the Dome of the Rock. This will signal the return of the Lord to restore the kingdom to Israel centred on Jerusalem. This pivotal event is also seen as the trigger for the start of the war of Armageddon, in which most of the world’s population, together with large numbers of Jews, will suffer and die (Hal Lindsey).’

‘Basic assumptions of Christian Zionism’

‘The Jews have a divine right to the land for all times.’

The return of the Jews to the land and the establishment of the State of Israel are to be understood as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.

The physical return (of the Jews to the land) will be followed by a spiritual turning (to Christ).

Christians should support and defend the Jewish state.  God blesses and curses peoples based upon their treatment of his chosen people.  (But some, e.g. Feinberg, stress that support should not be uncritical).

‘Questioning the biblical basis of Christian Zionism’

What difference (if any) did the coming of Jesus make to the Christian understanding of the Abrahamic promises concerning nation, land, covenant and worldwide blessing? –

N.T. Wright: Jesus saw himself summing up Israel’s hope and destiny himself.

In the teaching of the apostles, Jesus and disciples, drawn from all nations, form a renewed and restored Israel (Mt 8:11; Rom 11:13-24; Eph 2:15).

God’s promises through Abraham have not been annulled.  But the Jewish people, insofar as they have not recognised Jesus as their longed-for Messiah, fail to enjoy the blessings of the covenant.  They are like olive branches that have been cut off (Rom 11:20).  All the privileges and titles that belonged to God’s people in the Old Testament are now applied, not to a single ethnic group, but to people of all nations who believe in Jesus (1 Pet 2:9).

‘New Testament teaching about the land’

Mt 5:5 contains the only clear reference to the land in Jesus’ teaching.  What originally applied to the promised land (Psa 37:11) is now broadened to include ‘the earth’.

Rom 4:13 – the promised to Abraham is similarly broadened to extend, not just to the promised land, but to ‘the world’.

Whereas ‘inheritance’ in the Old Testament often refers to the land (see Deut 4:21; Josh 11:23; Psa 105:11), in the New Testament it refers to all that is offered in Christ to believers (Acts 20:32; Eph 1:11; Pet 1:4; Heb 4:3).

Christian Zionists claim that the New Testament says so little about Israel and the land because its writers take the Old Testament promises and prophecies for granted.  But it is better to understand this silence in terms of the New Testament insistence that the kingdom of God extends to people of all nations and races.

‘The outworking of Christian Zionism’

Many Christian Zionists are so wedded to their particular reading of Scripture that they pay scant attention to the historical realities of the conflict.  The Bible says that the land belongs to the Jews, and that settles it.  The Palestinians, accordingly, must accept their lot.

Christian Zionism has been particularly strong in the USA, where millions of evangelicals have given strong and largely uncritical support to Israel.  The God-given rights of Israel almost completely trump the human rights of the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, Dispensationalism anticipates great tribulation for the Jewish people.

Christian Zionists are divided on the question of evangelism of Jewish people.  Many have no qualms about sharing their faith.  But some hold to a separate way of salvation for Jews.  The International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, accordingly, teaches the Christians are called to ‘comfort Zion’, rather than to evangelise Jews.

All of this sends a harsh message to Muslims.  They must keep their hands off God’s Chosen People, or face the consequence.

Christian Zionists seem so preoccupied with God’s plan for the future (as they see it) that they have no message for people living in the here and now.

But what if Christian Zionists are wrong in their predictions?  They have wrongly predicted the end of the world several times.  What if American opinion turns against Zionism, as it turned against the war in Vietnam?  What would a failed Zionist vision do to the theology and faith of those presently committed to it?  Take note of 2 Peter 3:3f.

7.3 Zionism and Islam

How do Muslims think about the issues?  What are their claims to the land?  What are the differences between the secular standpoint of the PLO and the religious ideology of Hamas and Islam Jihad?  How is it that Palestine has a special place in Islam, with Jerusalem being its third most holy site?

(a) The land in the Qur’an.  There are several references to the land in the Qur’an, suggesting to Muslims that the whole land is sacred (both to Jews and to themselves).

(b) Muhammad and the land.  Palestine and Jerusalem feature in a number of important events in the reported life of Muhammad.

(c) Jerusalem in Islamic tradition.  Various sayings attributed to Muhammad indicate the importance of Jerusalem for Muslims.  It was widely accepted that Jesus would return to Jerusalem and vindicate Islam as the one true religion.

(d) Jerusalem in Islamic history.  Muslims point out that the land was in their hands for 1,300 years, The Dome of the Rock was built in AD 691 as a place of pilgrimage.  Many important names in Islamic history are associated with Jerusalem.

(e) Jerusalem and the Crusades.  The Christian/European intrusion in the 12^th century is mirrored by the Jewish/Zionist intrusion in more recent times.

(f) The land in popular tradition.  Not only Jerusalem, but Hebron, Gaza and other sites in Palestine are important for Muslims.

The Muslim theology of the land is, therefore, very similar to the Jewish theology of the land.  The land is a divine gift and belongs exclusively to Muslims.

Muhammad’s relations with the Jews of Medina.  Tensions between Mohammad and certain Jewish tribes in AD 622 can be explained in terms of conflicting religious beliefs.

Jews living under Islamic rule.  For many centuries, Christians and Jews within the Islamic empire were allowed to practice their religion, because they were regarded as ‘people of the book’.  Relations were, accordingly, generally peaceable.  Even so, Christians and Jews often felt like second-class citizens.  The rise of Zionism may have seemed to be a revival of the older disputes between Muhammad and the Jews.

Islamic opposition to Zionism.  Against this background, the attitudes of Islamic groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, Hizbollah in Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Iran become understandable.  Such groups envisage the end of Zionism and the establishment of an Islamic state covering the whole of Palestine.

Various factors feed into the Islamic dimension in the conflict:

The settler-colonial movement which creates tensions between two peoples, each with a claim on the land.

The motives and strategies of Islamism.

The demise of Communism which has, in the eyes of many Christians, created a vacuum which Islam has been filling.

If Israel had withdrawn from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Hamas might never have existed.  And If Israel had not invaded Lebanon in 1982, there might be no Hizbollah today.

Terrorism and suicide bombing are an expression of weakness and despair in the face of a formidable modern army.

Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish fundamentalism have much in common.  The mix of nationalism, Zionism, and the Bible is just as volatile as that of nationalism, Arabism, and the Koran.

Even radical groups, such as Hamas, are capable of taking a more pragmatic and conciliatory approach.

Relations between Iran and Israel have been coloured by relations with the USA.

The Islamic religion is not the primary driver on the Palestinian side.  Rather, people have been dispossessed and have turned to religion to inspire their resistance and their quest for justice.