Do the Jews have a Biblical Claim to Palestine/Israel?

[Karl Radl]

Do the Jews have a Biblical Claim to Palestine/Israel?

Jews have a birthright to Palestine and Jews are divinely-mandated to rule Palestine. These statements are the sine qua non of Zionism writ large. Anybody who has ever argued or discussed the Israeli-Palestine conflict with another individual or group of individuals has come across variations on the theme of these statements.

The crux of the assertion is simply that the jews have a 'national right' to Palestine as being their 'homeland'. Aside from the fact that this conveniently ignores the necessary conclusion that Europeans and Arabs would thus also have the right; based on their history in the area, to call it a 'homeland': this argument is a misstatement of both the principle of national self-determination and also of what the Tanakh (i.e. the jewish scriptures en toto) itself tells us on this issue.

In this article I will examine the claim of the jews to Palestine on a Biblical basis and explain why they actually have no claim at all to it.

Let us begin first with the issue of national self-determination. Now this is always a subjective issue and needs to be treated as such. I would define a nation as being a biological group. This biological group must per force have an originating territory or at least a historic range: much like how a troop of monkeys or a pack of wolves have a stretch of territory/range they call their own. These ranges shift historically, but are often presented in a state's (which is of a nation but is not often the totality of the nation) religious literature as being absolute: one such example is the Rubicon for the Roman Empire. In that it represented the ancestral territory of Rome and as such was regarded as religiously inviolable.

The fact that a homeland is always established at the expense of others; or at least at their opportunity cost, by the right of conquest (i.e. the simple evolutionary rule of 'might makes right') means that national self-determination does not require a specific geographic location. It might have preferences, but it never has a sacrosanct right to a particular geographic location for reasons outside of its own myth-history (or mythos).

The only time it might seem to is when we cloak practical considerations (i.e. it already inhabits its perceived homeland; or at least partly does, hence it is has a 'right' to its homeland) in the veil of myth by asserting a 'mystic connection' between the nation and specific geographic areas.

The other time it might seem to be right to link a nation with a specific geographic area is when one believes in the myth-history itself and thus national self-determination and a geographic area become linked by a rationalizing mystic connection. As opposed to more rationally considering national self-determination and a geographic location to be separate non-linked issues as a nation can create a state on any piece of territory that is proportionate to that nation's population.

If we think about it (and as much as we might not like to believe it) there are no national homelands, because any given location could be fought over as being someone else's territory because at some point in history it has been subject to conquest. The only time a homeland becomes linked to a geographic area is when there is a practical consideration for doing so as opposed to simply an ideological one.

In relation to Zionism we can see this in Herzl's 'Der Judenstaat', which posits two possibilities for a jewish homeland. In the first and preferred instance Argentina (which was then being colonized and was hence free for the creation of a jewish state) and in the second and hoped for instance Palestine (which had long had but a small jewish population with the majority of people being of Arab descent and confessing either Christianity or Islam).

Herzl realised that Palestine was more of a dream than anything else, but yet the jews rejected several offers of other pieces of territory for jewish states (for example in Africa, South America and Siberia) in preference to Palestine, which was hardly jewish at all at that point in time. This necessitated the jewish genocide of Christian and Muslim Arabs in Palestine that was known as 'Plan Dalet'. (1)

Jewish intransigence on this issue directly lead to the genocide that followed for the simple reason that Zionism linked the jews as having a mystical connection to the geographic area of Palestine, which the jews then bent the whole of their energies into making come true. That in turn required that the established non-jews be removed as quickly and efficiently as possible and the best way to achieve that is simply to kill those you want to be rid of.

If the jews were so interested in national self-determination then they would have sought to create a viable state in a location where there were few people and they would be largely unobstructed from creating their national institutions and redrawing territorial boundaries. Further we should note that the jews while defining themselves as a people have for millennia lived as a 'people without land' in other words: they didn't have a country because they had their privileged status in the Roman Empire revoked and were then banished from Palestine due to their own bad behaviour and constant rebellions.

The question really is: can the jews demand a homeland in land that a large population of another nation have long since colonized? The answer is not really: given that at the time of the creation of Israel the jews had had numerous offers of land where they could create a state of their own, which clearly enabled them to determine their fate as a nation without killing the Palestinians if they so wished.

Instead the jews chose to attack the perceived homeland of another nation and regain that land by right of conquest: this then means that jews have asserted their right to self-determination by violating the rights of another nation to self-determination. This then means that when jews complain about Palestinian resistance they have little ground on which to stand precisely because they have created the situation where anti-Israel Palestinian resistance activities are necessarily those of a 'just war' (on the same grounds as Zionism's own claims) as their right to national self-determination has been violated by the jews who have deliberately chosen; and not been forced, to do so.

One of the standard thought experiments on an issue like this is to ask: when a squatter takes over your house when you are occupying it then is it his or yours?

The answer to this in law comes down to who legally owns the property and the jews argue that they have just such a deed and that the Palestinians are; essentially, just squatters who need to be evicted. The basis for this argument is always cited to be the Bible or more precisely the Tanakh of Judaism (i.e. the Old Testament to any Christian readers).

It is asserted that the Bible is unequivocal in its assignation of ownership of Palestine to the jewish people. (2) The most common quoted paragraph is Genesis 15:18, (3) which says:

'On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphra'tes, the land of the Kenites, the Ken'izzites, the Kad'monites, the Hittites, the Per'izzites, the Reph'aim, the Am'orites, the Canaanites, the Gir'gashites and the Jeb'usites.'

This then seems to suggests that the jews have been specially gifted a huge swathe of territory from the Nile ('the river of Egypt') to the Euphrates in modern Iraq to Syria in the north as well as possibly the whole of Turkey ('the land of the Hittites') by Yahweh. This passage is seemingly confirmed in Joshua 1:3-6, which says:

'Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun shall be your territory. No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or sake you. Be strong and of good courage; for you shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.'

However re-read the last two sentences again and you will notice that Yahweh is introducing conditionality into the equation as he is asserting that because Joshua has come to the head of the Israelites: he will allow them to conquer their neighbours much as Moses did. However the implication of that statement is that in the time between Moses and Joshua the Israelites have broken their contract with Yahweh and their residence in their homeland has been terminated as well as having their territories curtailed because of it.

If we look at the precise language of what the book of Joshua says we should note that Yahweh has 'given' the land to the Israelites: it not implied that the Israelites own the land, but rather Yahweh does. Yahweh is the owner while the Israelites are merely the tenants he has chosen for his land.

When we look back at Genesis (15:18) we note that Yahweh made a covenant (i.e. a contract) with Abraham that he would give the land to his descendants (the Israelites/the jews), which thus necessitates that the Israelites are not the owners; but rather the tenants of, the land.

Observe what Deuteronomy 19:8-10 says on the matter. To wit:

'And if the Lord your God enlarges your border, as he has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which he promised to give to your fathers – provided you are careful to keep all this commandment, which I command you this day, by loving the Lord your God and by walking ever in his ways – then you shall add three other cities to these three, lest innocent blood be shed in your land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and so the guilt of bloodshed be upon you.'

In the above it is made very clear that the borders of Israelite territory are not cast in stone precisely because Yahweh is made to say that if the Israelites keep his commandments and ways then he will grant them an additional three cities to their inheritance from him. The conditionality of the offer is made very clear in the separation of the offer itself (up to 'give to your fathers') and the conditions of that offer (from 'provided you are') from each other with the former contingent upon the later.

Also bear in mind the phrase 'and gives you all the land which he promised to give to your fathers' necessarily (and correctly) implies that the Israelites were never in possession of their full (or even most) 'inheritance' as detailed in Genesis 15:18. This therefore means that Yahweh's offer of land is not a fixed proposition, but rather a fluid one built on the fulfilment of certain clauses by the Israelites (hence Nehemiah 9:7-9).

This is further shown in Joshua 21:43-45 when we are told:

'Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers' not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.'

The reader should once again note that the expansion of Israel is contingent on the Israelites being faithful to Yahweh (hence Joshua 1:3-6) and is not in anyway unconditional. In fact we note that Yahweh 'swore to give' the land to the fathers of the Israelites, which once again necessarily implies there is some reason that had not done so in the past. Thus requiring the existence of a conditional contract as opposed to an unconditional contract.

Indeed the conditionality of the Israelite/jewish residence in large tract of land is expressed in Genesis 26:5 when are told that the reason for the selection of the Israelites as the 'chosen people' of Yahweh was: 'because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.'

In other words: Yahweh's covenant with the jews is a conditional contract that can be revoked at any time based on the jews not fulfilling the terms of that contract. The terms of said contract are simply blind obedience to Yahweh's absolute rule. There are no 'ifs' or 'buts' in that.

Yahweh tells us that the residence of the Israelites/jews in the land of Canaan (i.e. most of modern Palestine) is conditional in Deuteronomy 7:7-11 when we read:

'It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the Lord loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and merciful love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them; he will not be slack with him who hates him, he will be careful to repay him to his face. You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment, the statutes, and the ordinances, which I command you this day.'

In other words: Yahweh has chosen the jews because they (starting with Abraham) were faithful to him and has helped them because; not in spite, of this. If the Israelites/jews do not hold to his rules however (i.e.'those who hate him') they will suffer a brutal punishment, which is specified in Deuteronomy 6:13-15 as follows:

'You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name. You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples who are round about you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; lest the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.'

Essentially then the residence of the jews 'in the land' (i.e. in Palestine let alone in whole of the territory allotted to them in Genesis 15:18) is conditional upon them obeying Yahweh's laws and that disobedience of those laws leads to punishment and even extermination (for example Joshua 7:11-12; 23:16; Jeremiah 7:4, Isaiah 53:4-6 and Ezekiel 33:23-26).

This is directly stated in Leviticus 25:23. To wit:

'The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me.'

In other words: Yahweh is the owner of the land allotted to the Israelites/jew in Genesis 15:18 and has at times occasionally granted the jews tenancy of that land, but not ownership. Hence the statement in Psalm 24:1 that: 'The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof'. Yahweh owns the land, while the Israelites are merely tenants who he has; and we should note that this is explicitly a charitable/merciful act not a simple bargain (i.e. the Israelites/jews had poor references but Yahweh the landlord kindly gave them the benefit of the doubt), loaned the land out to on a conditional contract (hence Leviticus 18:24-28).

Yahweh also directly tells us the tenancy of the land is conditional when we are told in Ezekiel 33:26 that:

'You rely on your sword, you do detestable things, and each of you defiles his neighbour's wife. Should you then possess the land?'

Simply put Yahweh is asking a rhetorical question in order to illustrate to the Israelites/jews that their residency and claims to the territorial promises of Genesis 15:18 are not unconditional (i.e. they do what they wilt and nothing will change), but rather contingent on the Israelites/jews towing Yahweh's line.

Indeed Yahweh has actually given Jordan to the sons of Moab/the Ammonites according to Deuteronomy 2:9-10; 2:19, while he has also given part of the Negev to the descendants of Esau according to Deuteronomy 1:44-46; 2:1-5 and King Solomon promptly gave away bits of his supposed divine inheritance to the Phoenicians for booty (without ill effect) to build himself palaces according to I Kings 9:11-13.

All this clearly indicates that the Tanakh most emphatically does not support the jewish ownership of the land indicated in Genesis 15:18 as we are told repeatedly and unequivocally that Yahweh owns the land and that the jews are merely tenants he has allowed to rent it on condition of their abiding by his saying and rule.

Even if Genesis 15:18 indicated an unconditional contract then it would be equally clear that in order for the jews to fulfil the passage then they would need to conquer and either kill or drive out all the non-jews of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Plus in most/part of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq as well as potentially (depending on the interpretation of the passage) Turkey, Oman, Yemen and Bahrain.

In other words Israel would not be fulfilment of Yahweh's contract if that contract were unconditional.

This clearly then puts the brakes on the unconditional interpretation as it would quite literally mean genocide on an unprecedented scale to implement and the jews would have to trust to Yahweh's military knowledge to defeat the resultant launch of total war by (at least part) the international community against it as well as the plethora of anti-jewish killings and riots that would follow such an Israeli policy.

It it thus clear that the solution to the following thought experiment: when a squatter takes over your house when you are occupying it then is it his or yours?

Is to assert that whoever legally owns the house is the owner and that when we look to the Tanakh as the jews suggest: we see that the jews in fact have no right to the land because they were only ever tenants and never owners. By violating Palestinian national self-determination they have also removed their own claim for such precisely because they have rejected other houses that were free for them to occupy and also plots on which they could build in order to occupy the big house across the street that is already occupied but which they desire to occupy themselves.

In essence then the jews are the squatters, while the Palestinians are the aggrieved owners of Israel/Palestine.

References

(1) On this see Ilan Pappe, 2006, 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine', 1st Edition, Oneworld: Oxford and Ilan Pappe, 2011, 'The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven
(2) For my commentary on this I am indebted to Stephen Sizer, 2004, 'Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?', 1st Edition, Inter-Varsity Press: Nottingham and Stephen Sizer, 2007, 'Zion's Christian Soldiers?: The Bible, Israel and the Church', 1st Edition, Inter-Varsity Press: Nottingham. These two books are beautiful demolitions of both Christian Zionism's and to a lesser extent jewish nationalism's claims.
(3) I have used the Revised Standard Version for the Biblical quotes as it usefully gives alternative Hebrew/Aramaic translations of both words and phrases .

----------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-claim-to.html