Thoughts on the Jewish-Arab Conflict

Having just gotten back from Israel, I seem to have stirred the ire of friends and relatives in my comments in support of Israel. So, I thought it best to not trivialize the topic and write a bit more in-depth about my thoughts. There was some correspondence on Facebook regarding these ideas, but I realized that the conversation had degenerated into thoughtless responses. Many people automatically form a party line, whether it be a Democratic party, the Republican party, Ron Paul party, a dispensationalist evangelical Christian party, and respond as such without thinking seriously about the situation.
First, there are a few definite points that I wish to make…

  1. I am not pro-Israel or pro-Jewish. I am not pro-Tazmania or pro-Madagascar. To a great extent, I am not even pro-USA, although I have pro-USA sentiments only in that this is my homeland.
  2. I am not pro-Arab, nor am I anti-Arab. Too many of my dear friends are Arabian, or Iranian, or Turkish or something of the like. The Jews tend to be better thinkers for intellectual conversation, but the Arabs/Iranians/Turks tend to be more enjoyable people as friends. It’s hard to be anti-Arab once you know a few of them. By the way, the term Arab is often confused with all Muslim mid-East peoples. This is a collosal mistake. Turkey and Iran, for instance, are NOT Arab. And, there are a large number of non-Muslim Arabs.
  3. I do not view Israel in an eschatological sense as referring to people in a homeland that is now referred to as Palestine. I am not dispensational, and do not consider the return of Jews to Palestine as of highthened significance or a reflection of the fulfillment of any prophecy, since I do not see the Jews as having found their Messiah.
  4. I am uncertain about the continued biblical significance of the city of Jerusalem. Is it the place where Christ returns? Does it remain special among the cities of the world in God’s eyes? I don’t think so.
  5. I find no good evidence to suggest that the Jews living in Palestine today are not descendants of Jacob, though not always descendants of Judah (thus, the slightly loose terminology, which I’ll persist in. I won’t use the term Judahite because I don’t use the term “Jew” to specifically refer to those from the tribe of Judah). There is exceedingly poor evidence that the “Jews” are actually a mishmash of Edomites and races other than people descendant from Jacob, and the evidence for British Israelitism is even worse.

I also have made various observations regarding the situation in Palestine…

  1. The news media often makes overt lies about the situation in Palestine, and often is exceedingly deceptive about the situation, usually always with a pro-Arab bias. It is nearly impossible to know the exact situation, and visitors to Israel will often come back with very mixed feelings about the situation. My sense of inability to know the truth of the situation has been criticised as being defeatist in suggesting that we can know no truth about the situation, thus not allowing us to make decisions about Israel. I agree, but, it is NOT ours to make decisions about Israel, as I’ll clarify later on.
  2. Arabs in Israel outside of Gaza are in a vastly better situation that Arabs anywhere else in the mideast. The average salary of an Arab in Jordan is $30 / month. The Arabs on the west bank has a vastly greater income, and this is true elsewhere in Israel outside of Gaza (I say that because I simply do not know the situation in Gaza). The Jewish situation has served the Arabs well, and many of them know and appreciate that.
  3. I am told that the current population of Israel is about 6 million Jews and 2 million Arabs. Many of these Arabs live outside of the west bank or Gaza and in Israel itself. There are many towns that are solely Arab, such as Cana and Nazareth. These Arabs are free to come and go as they please. Their land is not encroached on by Jews.
  4. There are a number of towns and locations in the West Bank that are completely off-limits to Jews except by special permission. These places include Jericho, Bethlehem, and many locations in the northern West Bank, such as at Shechem.
  5. Most of the Jews, as well as most of the Arabs, that I have gotten to know have had a desire for a peaceful resolution to the issues in Palestine. Neither group has had a strong desire to eliminate the other party. Most seem to express a bona fide desire for some sort of settlement of issues, even if it resulted in some personal loss.
  6. Unlike most Americans whose knowledge of history is shoddy, both the Jews and Arabs remember history. The Jews in particular have a very strong memory of the Masada, and swear to never allow that to happen again. They have a distinct memory of being cast out of Great Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Germany (the holocaust) and Russia. You can see this memory every day as you walk the streets of Jerusalem. They have a particular fixation on never loosing their homeland again.
  7. Hamas rhetoric has been defiant about challenging the Jewish right to their so-called homeland. Hamas has persistently stated their desire eliminate the Jews from Palestine. Hamas, if you’ve forgotten, has been voted in by the Gaza population in a democratic election.
  8. Many of the current Jews in Israel are descendant of those who came out of Russian, bringing the Marxist/Communist ideology with them, as noted in the formation of the Kibbutzim. External capital has been necessary because of this faulty economic ideology. Historically, much of the money has come from sordid sources, such as the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds seem to have promoted a number of European wars through their money lending, and have tended to seem more interested in profits than in peace. Whether they are a part of a vast conspiracy I’ll leave to others to decide, though the Rothschilds are on the lips of most conspiracy theorists.

A number of people have accused the Israelis of apartheid. Is that true? I’ve not been to South Africa to know and understand the nature of apartheid, but I fear the word “apartheid” might be used a bit too freely. Apartheid simply means separation on account of race. That’s a terrible definition in this setting since it is mostly impossible to distinguish an Arab or Israeli by race alone. With their clothes off, they look alike! The real issue is cultural differences that separate the two factions. Arabs and Israelis dress differently, have different religions, behave differently, and have completely different goals and aspirations for themselves and for their land. If you wish to identify apartheid occurring, it must be on the basis of religion, economics, dress, or something else. Yet, isn’t that a phenomenon that occurs virtually everywhere in the world? Has Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Europe, or the USA ever been seriously accused of apartheid? Yet, all countries have very distinct separations based on personal attributes. You can’t go to China or Japan and expect to be treated exactly like a Chinese or Japanese. I haven’t seen anybody accuse China or Japan of apartheid. So, I suppose, something else is really meant.
Could it be that the Israelis purposely force an economic disadvantage on their Arab countrymen? I can’t answer that question. The facts are quite obvious that Arabs tend to flock to Israel from the surrounding countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere because there is a strong economic advantage to living in Israel. Gaza inhabitants want the borders open because of the economic advantage of the Jewish influence, and wish to work and recreation in Israel proper. So, it is possible that the Arabs are relatively disadvantaged as compared to Jews, yet distinctly advantaged as compared to their treatment in other Arab lands. There are many stories of Israeli atrocities against the Arabs, and I suspect that many of them are true. Yet, it is difficult to be in such a removed position to act as the final arbitrator and judge on the situation. We are presuming too much! So, apartheid simply is a false accusation.
A pressing question is, whose land is it? I refer the reader to a documentary analysis of the land question in the book From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. By strictly historical standards, it belongs to the Canaanites, since they owned it first. The Canaanites no longer exist. Philistines had a long occupation of the land, but they were invaders. The Israelites (and now Jews) have had the longest possession of the land, yet it was given to them by God on a conditional basis, which they have not met. The land was forcefully taken from them in a manner that defies description. The Muslims were invaders. Christians briefly owned the land during the Crusader era. The Ottomans (Turks) were the last owners before the British took occupation of the land. So, a historical precedent goes weakly to the Jews. From a population point of view, during the Ottoman occupation, almost nobody lived in the land. Migrations began at the beginning of the 20th century, but these migrations were not natural, with the British forcefully blocking Jewish immigration in a near Nazi fashion. Even still, by 1948, there were approximately equal numbers of Arabs and Jews in the land. So, the population itself does not answer the question. The West Bank was last owned by Jordan, who never had a longstanding right to ownership of that part of Palestine. The same goes for Egypt and the Gaza strip. The Golan is not heavily occupied, and mostly by Arabs that are disenfranchised from the Muslims of Syria, who (Syrians) also have no longstanding right to ownership of the land. TE Lawrence promised all of Palestine to the Arabs for their assistance in fighting the Germans, a promise made singularly and immediately not withheld by Great Britain, who also has no longstanding right to the land. On a simple land basis, Arabs own large portions of land within Israel proper. If Jews don’t belong in the West Bank, does the reciprocal idea hold true? Should the Jews force the Arabs out of Israel proper if the Jews are forced out of the West Bank? Jewish settlements in the West Bank have for the most part been purchased lands, and not “stolen” or booty of war, as the news media would lead you to believe. Perhaps the real apartheid is being forced by the Arabs on the Jews!
What is an appropriate military response of the Israelis to an attack on their area of Israel? Most people would respond that the Israelis have a right to respond, but that it needs to be a measured response commensurate with the destruction of the attack. Statistics are often given that show much greater damage and lives taken out by Israelis than by the Gaza Arabs. Two issues need to be clarified. First, when rockets are fired on a civilian population and statements made by the Palestinians that they intend to eliminate the state of Israel from the map, that does not sound like an act of terrorism, but rather, a declaration of war. Since when does a war limit the response of either party to commensurate damage? Secondly, the Palestinians have intentionally placed military operations in populated centers in order to stir an international reaction. The dupes are those Westerners who fail to take these matters into account and utilize the statistics for precise analysis of the situation, and not emotional knee-jerk opinions.
I object seriously to the US response to the entire situation. Those who know me know that I am a Ron Paul supporter and that I support his stance of aggressive non-intervention in the entire situation. I don’t always agree with the rationality of Ron Paul, but I do agree with his ultimate conclusion here. Ron Paul comments that we should immediately cease and desist from supporting every faction in this conflict. I couldn’t agree more. Why are we sending millions of dollars into Israel, millions in Gaza, millions into Egypt, millions into Syria, and millions more into the other nations in the mid-east? Is this not serving the opposite of its intended purpose, by not forcing all parties to a more amicable solution.
Why has the church not developed a peaceful solution to the situation? Why have we not had our brightest and best thinkers propose solutions that would promote the Kingdom in the states of the mid-east? Why have we not insisted on non-military solutions? Where are the missionaries that could be streaming into these nations that need a true answer to the dilemma? Doesn’t Christ suggest that peacemakers are the most blessed of all people? Or, do we persist in the military rhetoric of the last 100 years that can peace comes through war? Hasn’t the last 100 years taught us that war only begets more war? If we honestly feel dispensational enough to think that the land of Palestine belongs to the Jews and that they need to re-conquer the land as Joshua through David did, are we willing to concede that genocide to wipe out the “heathen” populations of the land, as Joshua was commanded to do, would be appropriate? Or, do we find it strange that David employed many military personnel that was not Israelites! Perhaps you haven’t noticed that Bathsheba’s first husband was Uriah the Hittite, and he was listed as one of David’s mighty men?  Or, that David would sacrifice Israelites to avenge the wrongful deaths of Gibeonites, who were Canaanites? Clearly, the Scripture points to a higher ethic than just the preservation of a race.
The bible does ask Christians to do three responses for Israel. The first is to pray for peace in Jerusalem. When was the last time you did that or did the church specifically get together to pray for peace among Arabs and Israelis? Secondly, the church is to act as a peacemaker. When was the last time the church refused to take sides in the Arab/Israeli conflict in order to truly seek for a lasting peace? Thirdly, the church is responsible for promoting the kingdom. When was the last time the church considered bold responses in bringing the kingdom of God to Palestine? There are many Arab Christians, and a few Israeli (Jewish) Christians. Have we supported and prayed for their ministries? Have we fought for their freedom to deliver the gospel in Israel? It is said (I can’t verify it) that Israel is very restrictive to Christian missionaries—when was the last time the church filed a formal complaint to the US state department regarding this? Perhaps we are not quite so interested in peace and promoting the Kingdom of God as we’d like to think!
In conclusion, we Americans are poor arbitrators of the situation in Palestine. Our information is unreliable, and there are too many forces at play that we cannot account for. Besides, it is not ours to arbitrate and side one way or another. We must ask ourselves for biblical “Christian” solutions, and those solutions will be the most radical of all. The Arabs as well as the Israelis need Christ, and if that isn’t our highest priority and concern, then we’ve lost it.