The Complicated Issues of Israel/Palestine

I think most Mainline Protestants are conflicted about the whole Israel/Palestine issue. Unlike our Fundamentalist friends, we don't see Israel as the center piece in a global war that will usher in Jesus' glorious return (we're not dispensational premillennialists), nor do we believe Jews will end up in hell if they don't convert. And yet we feel sympathy for the Palestinian people (but not the Intifada or the continued violence). We want to see a non-violent solution that will allow Jew, Christian, Muslim, and Druse to dwell together in peace. Personally, I think the only way this will happen is with a two-state solution -- but such a state probably will never be completely stable.
This morning I came upon a piece by James Besser in the Baltimore Jewish Times. It raises the dilemma of the Jewish community to know who their friends or foes are. This piece paints (at least in my reading) Mainline Protestants as unreliable friends, more concerned about supporting the "weak" party -- Palestinians -- than the "strong" party -- Israel. In other words, we simply do not understand the need for self-defense. I would argue that we do understand that need and have argued strongly that violence will not achieve the Palestinian goal, but we also believe that the Israeli's tend to over react and so provoke more violence. Much the same can be said for many of the problems with the US occupation in Iraq -- are we helping or hindering recovery?
I read this after reading an article in the most recent issue of the Christian Century (May 15, 2007). It is an article written by Rabbi Yehiel E. Poupko entitled: "Land Grant: Israel and the Promises of God." This is an excellent portrayal of the Jewish commitment to "the Land." It speaks of the founding of Israel as a somewhat unexpected fulfillment of God's covenant gift of this Land to the Jewish people. He writes: "God chose one people, the children of Abraham and Sarah, who are the nation of Israel, to conduct its national life upon the land." (p. 21). And later he affirms the eternal nature of this covenant.

"According to the Torah (Gen. 13:14-17; 15:18-21), the Covenant of Peoplehood is unconditional and immutable, as is the grant of the land to the children of Abraham and Sarah. Only after the covenant at Sinai, in which Israel pledged to be faithful to the mitzvot, does residence in the land become conditional upon fulfillment of the mitzvot. The grant of the land remains
irrevocable." (p. 22).

I am inclined to believe that this is so -- and yet there's a problem.
It is true, as Poupko writes, that there has always been a Jewish presence in this region, but at least since 135 CE, that has been a minority presence -- at least until the last half-century. My problem with the article is that it, like other pieces I've read from a Jewish perspective, gives little attention to the fact that this region was populated prior to the great migration of Jews to the area in the 20th century. Poupko speaks of the possibility of sharing the land, and that the entirety of the land grant need not be required, but still there's the problem that this was and is an inhabited land. And thus, the reason for our ambivalence toward the state of Israel. I affirm it's right to exist and yet, well I'm not sure.
I have Muslim friends and I have Jewish friends. One of my closest Jewish friends is a Rabbi whose sons are serving in the Israeli army. I went to their farewell party to say goodbye to them. I respect and honor their commitment to the land. So you see, there is need for conversation and hopefully for a peaceful and long lasting settlement that will grant dignity to all involved. That is my daily prayer!
So, hopefully this helps explain why many of us within the Mainline churches want to be friends with Jews and even with Israel, but why also have issues to resolve.

Comments

Popular Posts