Day 1478 - "We Do Not Turn the Other Cheek"

In case you have been sleeping, last week the  United Nations Security Council passed a resolution  rebuffing Israel's continuing annexation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This caused a dogmatic response from Prime Minister Netanyahu that forms the title of this post. The object of dissent is something called  the “two-state” solution.

 A little perspective helps appreciate the circumstance. In 1948 at the end of the first modern Arab-Israel war, the United Nations passed a resolution (194) establishing the principles for settlement of the conflict. (For all modern history, Palestinians lived in and owned property in Palestine.) The settlement requires returning Palestinian refugees to their homes at the earliest possible practical date and for the responsible government authorities under the principles of international law to pay any Palestinians who chose not to return for their land or the value of the property or damage to any refugee who returned and found their property damaged. (Of course none of the Arab states or communist bloc states who all recognized Israel as a state supported the resolution, and Israel was not yet a UN member.)

The subsequent Arab-Israeli conflicts have moved the borders significantly from their position in 1948 complicating a resolution even further.  A third source of conflict is that both Israel, Palestine and much of the Christian world reveres Jerusalem as a holy city.

As President Jimmy Carter has described repeatedly, the fundamental danger to the stability of Israel is the lack of a fair and equitable solution to this problem of ownership of land and representation of its citizens. Stripping away all the superfluous debate, there are only two feasible options for peace-loving people,

(1)  Israel forms a representative (democratic) government over all the land of Palestine including all Palestinian people living in the land,

(2)   The land of Palestine and Israel is partitioned into two independent states either according to the 1948 resolution, or boundaries agreed upon by Israel and Palestine.

Of course, there is a third option, that either or both Palestine and Israel seek to form a theocratic government(s) per force with sufficient violence to accomplish the ends of unilateral government.

It is patently obvious to anyone who evaluates the situation with an unbiased eye that the two-state solution is the only viable alternative for Israel, Palestine and peace. Why?

A one-state solution would incorporate Arabs into Israeli citizenship leading ultimately to them attaining majority control of elections.  This is unacceptable to Israel. Establishing, or attempting to establish a theocratic government(s) will lead only to increasing conflict and war.

A two-state solution allows Palestine and Israel to maintain sovereignty over its land, with perhaps Jerusalem established as a holy city cared for by all.  Rationally, this is the only viable alternative. Though one must admit it is foolhardy not to recognize that such an agreement requires mutual consent on boundaries and willingness to be a good neighbor to each party as the Law demands of all observant Jews and Muslims. It also requires religious tolerance on the part of both parties, something that has not been evident.

Nevertheless, the only possible path to peace is the two-state solution. Yet every settlement Israeli’s build on Palestinian territory is a strike against getting to that solution. The path Mr. Netanyahu follows leads to war with ominous global consequences.

It is fundamental to understand the primary motivation of the Jewish settlers, numbering in the 100,000’s who are building homes in Palestine. It is an extreme religious, if not apocalyptic, conservatism that sees all Palestine as part of the greater state of Israel. Yet this conservatism, rooted in historic Pharisee religious tradition, flies in the face of the teachings of the prophet Isaiah and of the commandments of the Law to which they claim allegiance. It also flies in the face of history since 586 BCE.

In the United States, many of the most ardent defenders of the status quo whereby Israel unilaterally seizes Palestinian land for settlements are Christian evangelical fundamentalists. Some even seek to inflame the fires of conflict by moving our embassy to Jerusalem as an act of spite to the Arabs and solidarity to the conservative Israelis.

This may be a good time for Christians to begin reading and embracing what they believe of the teachings of Jesus. We owe recognition of Israel as God’s chosen people but we are not in control of history, of our place in the Kingdom of God, nor do we have the mind or authority of God to know what plan he has for them and us.

Today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel captured the essence of the conflict and magnified the theological divide between Christianity and parochial Judaism. He said, “Israel is a country with national pride, and we do not turn the other cheek,” he said. “This is a responsible, measured and vigorous response, the natural response of a healthy people that is making it clear to the nations of the world that what was done at the U.N. is unacceptable to us.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu has placed this issue in its fundamental theological context. It is not pretty to embrace power and judgment over grace, but it makes the starkest division of grace as represented by the exposition of the Law by Jesus and that of conservative Pharisee thought. Regardless of how well we practice our Christianity, Mr. Netanyahu has placed our duty to it directly in our face. Christians do not seek revenge for perceived wrongs, violence and theft as balm for injured pride, or seek to impose by fiat their own theological perspective on the world.

I do not see any good argument against the United States abstaining on this vote, but perhaps I do see a theological imperative to have voted “yes” on it. Unless Israel can step up to the plate and offer the hand of friendship to the aliens living in its land, unless it can say, “you are my neighbor and therefore my brother,” there can be no progress on the issue but only conflict. Furthermore, given the almost 70 years of hostility between Israel and the Arab states, it is not clear how long one will need to extend one’s hand or how many miles of walking in another’s shoes are required to find peace. 

All we can do is remind Mr. Netanyahu that once his people were slaves in Egypt and the Lord heard their cry.