Understanding Conflict in the Middle East–Part Two
Why do the Israelis and Palestinians place so much attention on having a homeland in the geographic region that was anciently known as Canaan? Will there ever be an end to the conflicts and political tensions between the Israelis and the Arab world? Israelis see the city of Hebron as being the symbolic bedrock of their national conscience and identity in the Middle East, which is reasonably understood because the area of Hebron was an historical settlement of the patriarchs and believed to be the familial burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Hebron was also one of the five indigenous Amorite cities overthrown by Joshua during Israel’s conquest of the land of Canaan beginning in the late 15th century BCE. Noting that Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem marshaled the assistance of Hoham king of Hebron, Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon, to fight against the tribes of Israel who were at that time beginning their conquest into the ancient land of Canaan. Then, in the period of the early monarchy, David was crowned king of Judah in Hebron, and he ruled from this city until he overthrew the Jebusites at Jerusalem, the city that later became the capital of the powerful regional empire that was the Commonwealth of Israel. What followed was a long history of the commonwealth’s interactions with neighboring kingdoms and successively rising Eurasian-based empires that lasted for more than 1000 years, and these political interactions are notably evident in the histories of the former ancient empires of Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. What is helpful then about these interactions, and the historical narratives they create, is that they allow us to reasonably conclude that ancient Israel’s place in history and its national identity is largely associated with the ancient land of Canaan—understood in the Arab world to be the general pre-1948 region of Palestine. Consequently, it should not seem surprising to us to discover that the biblical narratives and the commonwealth’s geopolitical history in this region naturally combined to influence the political thinking of the great powers who sought to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in “Palestine” following World War II. Because that influence and political thinking eventually led to a mandate (Resolution 181) issued by the United Nations—promoted by the United States and the then Soviet Union—that proposed a two-state solution to the national movements of the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs. However, because of the diverse historical, religious and political views that have long existed between the Israelis and Palestinian peoples, and among those nations and peoples that have a vested interest in this region of Middle East, we see that the United Nations has not been able to fully implement any mandates that called for two separate sovereign states—one for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. (Some consider Zionism to be the catalyst for a more cohesive national movement that developed among the Palestinian Arabs.) Leaving us with a political situation that is quite apparent in the modern-day city of Hebron. Now, in Hebron we find an interesting political and religious tapestry where the symbolic heart of Israel’s national aspiration falls under the jurisdiction of Muslim authorities, and where a Palestinian enclave has been formed by “occupying” Israeli forces that are precariously situated within the bounds of Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Creating a situation that brings us to examine the underlying common thread that runs through this tapestry, and one that forms a geopolitically unsustainable paradox that undeniably represents the proverbial “powder keg” that exists not only in Hebron, but also in the city of Jerusalem, and by extension–the Middle East. So what then is the underlying common thread that weaves through this political and religious paradox in Hebron? Simply, it is the definitive belief in the promises given to Abraham–a belief held by many Israelis–which they uphold as a God-given political “right” to claim the land “between the river and the sea,” and this thread has become intertwined with the Palestinian’s belief that they have a “right” to the same land based on the mandates granted by the United Nations. Citing also their long-standing occupation in the region, and the precedent of their earlier ownership in the area formerly known as Palestine. (Keep in mind that the Israelis too have used the mandates to form a nation-state, while many Palestinian Arabs in this area also claim to be descendants of the Patriarch Abraham.) Now, from the biblical perspective the covenant by promise made with Abraham is understood to be the solution to the conflicts that exist in the Middle East, because this promise is foundational to the gospel of the coming kingdom of God (Mk. 1:14-15). However, because this promise included a landed inheritance in Canaan for the descendants of Abraham—claimed by most Israelis and some Palestinian Arabs—it places these promises in an uncompromising situation, conflicting with several United Nations mandates regarding Palestine that were based originally on the UN Resolution of 1947, establishing a Partition Plan for Palestine. Which brings us back to a familiar and somewhat similar problem that was once addressed by the Apostle Paul, who asked: “Is the law then against the promises of God?” Now, in Paul’s day, he was addressing the nature of the promises and their relationship to the commandments of God, but today we hear echos of this issue brought forward in the political rhetoric surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Which has created a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to a two-state solution for political “Palestine” as the weight of the “promises,” and a host of historical traditions and narratives, and also religious interpretations are brought to bear on the current political issues that now affect the Middle East. Revealing then the knot in the thread. Which is understood by a simple question: Are the United Nations mandates then against the promises of God to Abraham? Interestingly enough the answer to this question is the same as the Apostle Paul’s response to the church