At Bloggerheads

Recent commenter Mac Swift posted a rather long discussion of the Palestinian question on his blog, Vessel of Honour. Since the sentiments he expresses are shared by many Americans, especially Christians, it's worth making our disagreement public.

First, Mac has some factual misinformation:
"Palestine though is INCORRECTLY used to refer to ALL of Israel, when in reality it only represents the territory once inhabited by the Philistines, which would be a little bit larger than the Gaza Strip is today." This is etymology, not geopolitics, and has no bearing on the facts. Until the 1920's, "Palestine" referred to all of what is now Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Jordan. In a similar vein, his conclusion that Palestinians were meant to be "temporary residents" because of a 3,000-year-old name is intellectually irresponsible.

The Syrian irredentist claim is also less important than face value might suggest, because it's important to remember that until recently the Arab states have wanted to take over Palestine just as much as they want to take over Israel. Also, throughout Syria the Syrian flag is never flown except when accompanied by the Palestinian one - good propaganda to keep the refugees thinking the state is on their side.

"[S]ince day one Arafat has continued to propagate the lie that the Palestinians are a distinct group rather than merely a part of Syria, and they continue to hold fast to a land already promised by God to Abraham and his seed, the Jews." This is a crucial point. Zionists often point out - correctly - that there was no "Palestinian" identity historically. However, this logic shows a serious epistemological flaw, since "nation" is an entirely constructed, according to most anthropologists. There is no genetic link in most "nations", rather a set of common experiences and a crucial self-identification as a nation is what creates that nation. Thus, if a large enough group of people begin to think they are a nation and act like one, they are one. This has grave consequences for Wilsonian nation-statism, as well it should. Nonetheless, Zionist denial of Palestinian nationhood is equal and opposite to the refusal of a few Arab states (Libya, pre-2003 Iraq) to recognize that Israel exists. Whether something should exist or not or whether it existed in the past or not is an entirely different question from "does it exist". Palestinians (who identified mainly with their city before 1917, since their state was the huge Ottoman Empire) think of themselves as such, other Arabs think of them as Palestinians (Syrians certainly don't welcome them as brothers!), and 99% of the world affirms that they are indeed Palestinians. That's more than enough for nationhood.

The second fallacy in the above statement is that the Abramic promise is valid today. God is faithful to fulfill His promises, and He did - it was fulfilled over 3,000 years ago. More importantly, if God wants to give land to one people, He can do it without our meddling. Christians are not called to elect one people over another, but rather to glorify God and let Him take vengeance as it is due. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians instructed to help God fulfill end-times conditions or any other prophecy.

Though the Jews have been occupants of the land more or less for 3000 years, credence instead is given to the temporary sojourners, the Palestinian Arabs, whose presence in Israel (including the Gaza Strip) has transpired only in recent memory, as a result of the surrounding Arab nations refusal to taken in the refugees, exacerbating the very problem they say is the fault of the Jews! This should be an embaressment to the author. Jews have lived in the land only since 1900, and before that from 1200 B.C. or so until 135 A.D. when the Romans expelled them. A few trickled back over time, but remained a tiny minority in a few towns (Safed, Jerusalem, etc). The Palestinians are a blend of Mediterranean peoples - including Christianized Jews who lost their Jewish identity. They've been there forever in a sense, as a long series of invaders and migrators; like all peoples (including Jews) they are a mix. They've spoken Arabic since 750 or 800 A.D. To blame the other Arab states for creating the Palestinian problem by refusing to take in refugees is irresponsible as a Christian. Essentially Mac is saying that Jews - and no others - have a right to take land that's owned by other people, and those other people's co-religionists and co-lingualists should have to deal with it. That's like blaming the U.S. and U.K. for the Holocaust: yes, we should have taken refugees and that would have been a real mercy, but that doesn't mean that Hitler and others aren't ultimately to blame for the atrocities they committed.

Mac cites God promising the land as an everlasting inheritance to Abraham's descendants. However, Paul and Christ both made clear that as far as the New Covenant was concerned, Abraham's descendants were those who share Abraham's faith, not his parentage. Also, Christ told the Samaritan woman (and there are still a few Samaritans living where they have for 2,500 years near Nablus) that Jerusalem was no longer important but that true worship is in "spirit and truth." Thus, the New Covenant severs the ties of faith with both land and race. To propose that unfaithful Jews have a stronger theological claim to the Abrahamic promise than faithful non-Jews flies in the face of the New Testament.

"Yet men like Arafat claim the land was fully inhabited by Arabs in the Jews' absence! In truth, the land was so fully barren that those who risked inhabiting the land ended up leaving shortly afterwards because the land simply could not sustain their livelihood. The Arabs wanted nothing to do with this land. Temporary sojourners indeed." This is nonsense. Palestine - like most of the Middle East (and like Biblical Israel) - was sparsely inhabited, but was an urban society, not nomadic, and certainly not sojourning. Palestinians before 1900 identified strongly with their town, and families could trace their ancestory in a place like Lydda or Jerusalem back millenia. Mark Twain's quote is correct - but Mac's interpolation that "desolate" mean uninhabited is untrue.

Mac finally gets it right when he says that both Arabs and Jews need Christ. This I totally agree with - and there is nothing more beautiful (I've seen it) than Arabs and Jews gathering together on disputed land to worship their Redeemer and Messiah. Likewise, praying for peace is indeed our call, for we serve the Prince of Peace. But the peace that I know does not involve expelling people from the land of their fathers by military force.

Mac needs to wake up and smell the spiritual coffee. The New Covenant is about a people who were not a people becoming one, it's about racial unity under Christ, and it's about bringing glory to God in spirit and truth. I believe that the centerpiece of God's promises to the Jewish people in the latter days is salvation through Christ - not agnostic statehood.

My apologies to Mac for using strong language in refuting his arguments; I'm sure he's a sincere Christian and blogging what he believes to be true. Unfortunately, he is unaware of a lot of true facts, and aware of quite a few untrue facts. My suggestion is to flush the partisan sources - I read neither Israeli nor Palestinian literature. A good place to start is a textbook on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Find one by a reputable publisher, and make sure it's concerned with facts, not forming an argument. Stay away from religious authors, who usually have something besides the truth to prove (unfortunately). For a history of the state of Israel, historian Martin Gilbert's "Israel" is sympathetic to Israel but has a wealth of detail. For me, living in Jerusalem proved the crucial element in understanding the nature of the conflict and getting beyond the stereotypes. Of course, if you go there now, you might want to invest in a bulletproof vest - militant Palestinians and the Israeli army have both killed a few Americans and Europeans.