Discussion between a Jewish and a Palestinian follower of Jesus
For those who have been following along with the discussion of Israel/Palestine in the Dojo (and judging by the hit counts, it’s quite a number of you!), my good friend Jacob Isaacson (a Jewish follower of Jesus) has been in an honest, sometimes-heated, and very important discussion with my friend Rana (a Palestinian follower of Jesus). You can follow along or catch up to speed by reading the comments section of these two previous posts:
The discussion all started when I posted a political cartoon critical of the American/Israeli terms of negotiating a 3-month freeze on building new Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. After sharing why the cartoon offended him, I invited Jacob to share more from his perspective. I also invited Rana to share from hers as well. I have encouraged them both throughout these weeks of discussion to be honest, charitable, raw and authentic–while at the same time recognizing the inherent difficulties and the pain involved in any discussion of such emotionally charged issues as this one.
I’ve commended them both and encouraged them to see themselves involved in a ministry of reconciliation and peacemaking, both of which are non-negotiables for followers of the Messiah Yeshua! These type of discussions are EXACTLY what I envisioned when I launched Disciple Dojo! Such “sparring sessions” are supposed to be intense and challenging–not mere exercises in who has the best rhetoric–because they are forming and shaping the views, opinions, and even the theology of everyone involved!
I wanted to highlight a couple of Jacob and Rana’s comments below in order to frame the discussion in a way that brings it back to what I believe should be the focus with regard to the Legal/Political aspect of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. In a future post I will share what I believe to be the crux of the Theological/Biblical aspect and allow Jacob to share his thoughts in response.
Here is where the points both made were valid and worth pursuing further:
Jacob said: “In fact, if you read the text of the Peel Commission’s findings you’ll see that, although the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention and several other documents had established the right of Jews to return to the land of Palestine, the reason the British declared the Mandate no longer workable and convened the Peel Commission was that the Arab occupants refused to recognize the right of any Jews to migrate to the land or purchase land and continued to cause conflict in an attempt to prevent these things from happening (read the document above, their words not mine). To be fair, the Jews, as well, were divided on whether or not to accept the Peel Commission’s recommendations. Ultimately, the British threw out this plan, which opened the door for the later UN partition recommendations of 1948.
I agree that the San Remo Conference made it clear that the Arab occupants of the land were to be allowed to remain in the land free from oppression or discrimination based on race or religion. This is why I was quick to point out that it was not my intention to de-legitimize the Palestinian claim to the land.
Furthermore, your initial argument was that Israel is an “illegal occupier” of the land and that control of the land should revert back to it’s rightful “owners,” namely, the Palestinians. Even if the San Remo Commission, which was ratified by the League of Nations, did not set up a National Jewish Homeland, but only a British-controlled Mandate (which I do not concede), neither was there ever an official Arab state established for the Israelis to illegally seize this land from. As we’ve discussed, the Arabs flatly rejected both the Peel Commission’s recommendations in 1937 as well as the UN recommendations in 1948. Therefore, IF you’re correct and the San Remo Conference’s recommendations were regarding a British Mandate only and not a Jewish State (although this creates a debate of whether a Mandate establishes an official British State or simply gives them official charge over a State that legally belongs to the Jews), by the standards of your initial argument, control of the lands now held by Israel should revert to the control of the British.”
Rana said: ”The pain of so many Palestinians is that in 1948 Israel was created at the same time that Palestinians were being forced to leave from their homes, 750,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, including my own family. My family was NEVER allowed to return to their and they were NEVER compensated or EVEN apologized to. This is the CRUX of the conflict form the perspective of Palestinians. The forced migration of a population is a form of ethnic cleansing, some dictionaries go so far as to use the word genocide when defining ethnic cleansing. The fact remains that Israel was created on land that Jewish people did not own.”
Jacob said: “I do have a question for you… since I’m the one who keeps saying we need to look forward rather than back. You’ve made the point that Israel are illegally occupying the lands they currently hold. What is your recommendation moving forward? How can this be resolved in a way that brings lasting peace? Not that you or I can solve a problem that the greatest political minds of the past Century have been unable to bring resolution to, but what would your recommendation be if you were asked?”
Staying sharp,
JM
Categories: Blog, Church History, Eschatology, Hebrew Bible, Ministry, New Testament, Political/Social issues, Relationships
BTW, a good friend of mine who just returned from Israel sent me the following quote that is quite germane to this discussion:
“Criticising a political system as racist is not necessarily racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel’s right to exist within borders recognised by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system which gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestinians born in the country itself.” -Rev. Stephen Sizer
by jm on Dec 18, 2010 at 3:19 am
Hello,
I realize I never responded to the final 2 points, Carter covers some of what I wanted to get at in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xscq2nIKLHM&NR=1
Peace,
Rana
by Rana on Dec 21, 2010 at 8:34 am
and even Herzl, in the Diary of Theodor Herzl reveals in the draft of a letter that Palestine does not belong to the Jewish people:
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Diary_of_Theodor_Herzl,_Oct._18-29,_1898.
“With deepest reverence a delegation of sons of Israel approaches the German Kaiser in the country which was our fathers’ and no longer belongs to us. We are bound to this sacred soil through no valid title of ownership. Many generations have come and gone since this earth was Jewish.”
and, “This is the land of our fathers, a land suitable for colonization and cultivation. ”
It is important to remember the context of the se letters, anti-semitism in Europe, where Herzl lives and writes from with this context in mind.
Also Herzl writes about colonization during the period of colonialist European projects.
Peace,
Rana
by Rana on Dec 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Jacob:
Thanks for all your have brought to the table in this discussion. I’m a fellow colleague of JMS and have a tremendous amount of respect for him and the way he (and others like you) handle sensitive issues such as these. So, thank you.
Second, thanks for bringing up the San Remo Conference of 1920. Initially, I found your point rather convincing that the Conference of 1920 actually established Palestine as a Jewish homeland. Of course, if this were true, it would certainly disable many of the arguments saying that Israel is “illegally” land that does not “belong” to them.
However, after further research (and a few emails to Stephen Sizer) about the San Remo Conference of 1920 and what current weight (if any) it has on the issue at hand, his response was quite intriguing and consistent with my research.
I would like to offer his response below to you for feedback.
See here for the actual text of the San Remo Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
“San Remo adopted the Balfour Declaration which promised the Jews a national home in Palestine while not prejudicing the political rights of the Arabs. Britain was empire building and that included Palestine. The Jews were being allowed to settle in the British Empire. The secret Sykes Pico agreement with France had already done a deal to split the Middle East between their two empires. No independence, no national state, no sovereignty, no Israel.
The Partition Plan of 1947 was Britain’s exit strategy – an Arab State and a Jewish State. That is the basis for the Two State solution.
The lie to your colleagues fantasy is the succession of UN Resolutions that recognise the 1949 Armistice lines as the only legitimate international borders of Israel.
The UN, EU, US and Russia are all committed to the two state solution. That includes every country in the world except Israel (that has never defined its borders).”
Jacob, I’d love to get your feedback on Stephen Sizers rebuttal of your representation of the San Remo Conference of 1920 as offered in your previous post.
Thanks you Jacob and blessings to you.
by David Hickman on Dec 21, 2010 at 9:13 pm
[…] https://jmsmith.org/blog/discussion_jew_palestinian/ […]
by James-Michael Smith's Disciple Dojo – JMSmith.org » Continuation of Israel/Palestine discussion on Dec 23, 2010 at 7:55 pm