Scripture and Modern Israel's Land Claim

In reading the Burge chapters and watching the PBS video, it seems obvious to me that something is wrong with Israel’s land claims. In the Torah God calls Israel to be a nation set apart to bless every other nation that blesses it. Israel was meant to be a hospitable place, a hospitable place that people could tell was different, and a different place that would cause others to wonder why it was different. I am not convinced that modern day Israel is that place for the people of the earth. The claims that Israel had to the land were based on God’s ownership. He gave them the land as tenant farmers and shepherds to demonstrate that it was his to give and take away. As long as the Israelites obeyed God and followed his decrees—caring for people and offering hospitality—the land belonged to them, but when they began to disobey and neglect the poor they quickly lost their claim to the land. The prophets were an important part of this process of land ownership and wickedness. They warned Israel that if it neglected its impoverished and widows and aliens and orphans, it would soon meet justice. This justice often took the form of being forcibly removed from their lands. Today, Israel is in fact not the theocracy that it was in the time that the Torah was written down as law. I do not believe that Israel has the mandate to take these lands as they are doing. For one thing, they are not living as hospitable people. Their region is ablaze with hate and rage; they are not caring for the alien within their gates. A second reason is that God founded the Israelite nation of long ago as a religious nation bound to him, today Israel is secular—only thirty percent of Jews are religious according to Professor Pierce. My third point is that Israel is breeding a culture of violence. They are forgetting their own victimization at the hands of the Nazis and have turned into the abusers. In Israel, domestic violence is up—rape and murder—because young Israelis that return from military duty cannot separate their family lives from the attitudes that the government expects from them in order to forcibly drive the Palestinians from the occupied regions. Through all of this however, we have hope. Hope that since the kingdom of God is here, it will be stronger than the conflict and enable us to move past the violence, in order to bring a solution. What will the solution look like—two states, one state, something else? We cannot know, but we must hope.

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

In the post-modern period that we live in, it amazes me to see how far-reaching public relations campaigns can reach into the minds of governments and citizens. The extent of the Israel lobby’s power is almost limitless. I do not like the idea of an organization that can seemingly control the policies of such a strong government as the United States. The lobby and other filters determine that we will not see Israeli violence perpetrated against Palestinians, that we will have little knowledge of the occupation and that Israel does commit war crimes against the Palestinian people. The public relations campaign of Israel turns the conflict on its head by implying, through inconspicuous choice of diction, that the Palestinians constantly “attack” and the Israeli forces are constantly retaliating. This is most certainly not the case—the Israelis are not protecting themselves on land that is not theirs, they are being retaliated against for occupying a foreign nation. The Palestinians are tired of this treatment, and when enough rage boils over for their situation, they strike out against their oppressors. I believe that until the outlets and organizations that feed the American popular media are curbed, the Americans will be deluded into thinking that the Israelis are fighting a just war. This is the danger of propaganda, if one is under its spell, one will rarely notice it until confronted with the conflicting view. I find it outrageous to think that the illegal Israeli settlements are being portrayed as peaceful, innocent neighborhoods by the popular media in the United States. Instead, these settlements are the action of the Israeli government with the goal of driving more Arabs from their lands. Furthermore, when Israeli soldiers die on Palestinian soil—they become heroes, while dozens of Palestinians perish and are only mentioned as statistics—devoid of human quality. These deliberate attempts to undermine the Palestinians are subversive and have been very effective in fleecing the American public. A good question to ask is what purpose does Israel serve America for all of the aid it receives? According to the film, the United States gives Israel billions of dollars, yet receives no assistance concerning the surrounding Arab nations due to Israel's predicament. Support of Israel certainly does not bring stability to the region as violence continues day after day in the region. Journalists who should be relating the facts of the conflict become part of the conflict by feeding the United States the news that Israel supplies them. This is wrong. Events and groups that should receive coverage, such as the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions receive little, while suicide bombers that are harming hopes of peace dominate our television sets. One thing remains clear in this conflict—there will be no peace unless there is just peace.

Blood and Tears Response

The film really brought to light that there is extremism on both sides. This extremism clouds the issues that are at hand and prevents easy solutions. One thing that can be said fairly is that the Palestinian Arabs have been victims of domination—from history to today. Recently their domination has been at the hands of the nation of Israel. They have been forced off their land and not allowed to return as refugees. I believe that this is wrong. People that leave their land due to wartime concerns for safety, reserve the right to return to their lands when the fighting ends. To me it seemed that many of the Israeli opinions voiced in cameos were mildly ignorant of what the government was doing to the Palestinian people. The woman from the settlements did not seem to care that the land she lived on previously belonged to a Palestinian family, and this has been a major obstacle to peace. This is partly what caused the Oslo Accords to fail. Violence and the continuance of settlements is what caused their breakdown. Even after watching this film, seeing the suffering and passive attitudes, reading the swathes of material and hearing the stories from Mrs. Hekman, I cannot still completely understand their plight, yet I do feel for them. The Israelis that were displaced from their lands have found a new home, why are the Palestinians any different? Do not they have the same right as humans to form their own state too? The media says that they had their chance with Sharon’s “generous” offer, but how can a people live, as the video said, using only the rooms of a house and not the hallways. With no access to the kitchen, or the bathrooms any inhabitant would wither away in filth, which is exactly what the Israelis have forced the Palestinians to do in their own land. That said, it is important to note that on both sides, the silent majority is comprised of those that stand in the middle, yet they remain out of the spotlight, behind those that claim victory for Islam and continue the violence, behind the state that promotes terror.

First Carter Book Response

Jimmy Carter dealt with the Middle East before, during and after his term as president of the United States. He was involved as a Senator, and supervised many important accords, some of which have been followed, some of which have not. In the first part of his book, Carter states that peace is not self-sustained. The two sides of any relationship, be it Israel-Palestine or husband-wife, must both put forth an effort for it to work. After the first Intifada, the United States became focused elsewhere, the regimes concentrated on domestic issues, and there was little communication from the side of Israel. Relationships must be constantly defined at such a high level of complexity because the actions of one party directly influence the other. The audio book also highlighted the need for a legitimate compromise, one that satisfies both sides yet leaves both desiring a little more. The compromise must be pragmatic yet contain the respected ideologies of both parties for it to be successful. Critical to this compromise is the realization that the Israelis will not be eradicated, and the Arab-Palestinians will not leave all of King David’s former lands. At this point, none of the offers from either side has either been serious enough to be considered, or honored by both parties. This is a regretful place to be in, and few can see this better than Carter. The conflict is so much more complex than it is portrayed to be by the news media, considering the history atrocities performed by either side. I want to say to Israel and Palestine—Give up something! Let this come to an end! Is it so difficult to compromise enough so that your children need not live in fear, or in shame? I want to plead with the Israelis to permit the Palestinians to live as people in their own nation. I desire the Palestinian Arabs to accept an offer that is truly in good faith if one comes along. I want both sides to see that they cannot have it all, indeed sometimes they can have little, but I fear that I am still too naïve to judge either side. However, through Carter’s book, Burge’s book and other resources, I desire to know both sides of the conflict and be able to decide for myself, free of bias, what is at the heart of the issue and to be able to play some small part towards peace.

Journal One

The Occupation 101 film that we watched in class today was a very educational experience in regards to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Sadly, I had very little knowledge of the situation in the region beforehand, despite daily news reports and study of the region in secondary school. As far as I knew, the Arab-Palestinians were using unprovoked violence to steal land from what was rightfully Israel. As with overcoming any bias or preconceived notions, I now see how hopelessly naïve my thoughts were about a region that has dealt with so much turmoil. The plight of the Palestinian people is seemingly hopeless—faced with an American community that shows little awareness, and lobby groups exerting influence for the rights of their oppressors, it saddens me, but does not surprise me that the Palestinian people have reverted to violence in some cases. I cannot understand what it would be like to live under occupation from a foreign nation, in land that is my own. Without the ability to be a viable nation-state, without the possibility of economic success, without the support of its neighbors, Palestine will never thrive until they have their own lands free from occupation. A man in the video said that before the conflict the Israelis and Palestinians lived as brothers in the land…brothers…brothers. I see no reason why they cannot live this way once again in the future. This is very contradictory to the false notion that there has always been fighting in the Middle East. Where this notion came from, I do not know, but I do know that until international bodies like the U.N. or others force Israel to heed international law, Palestinians will get nowhere. Groups like AIPAC distort the public image of Palestine as being the antagonists in a story that in reality has only two protagonists. Palestinians are seen as terrorists, when they have been driven there out of sheer helplessness. This in no way condones terrorist groups, but it does put the situation into perspective. Because I have only seen a movie, I cannot fully grasp the condition that Palestinians are living in and the problems they face, but through class this January, I hope to come to a better realization of their quandary and what I can do in my own small way to help them.