| Summary: | Bethany Theological Seminary War is Peace: A Struggle for Peace and Justice in Palestine/Israel A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Peace and Justice by Jerramy D. Bowen Richmond, Indiana December 2011Copyright © 2011 by Jerramy D. Bowen All rights reservedii Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….iii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….iv Glossary………………………………………………………………………………….v Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………….1 Scope of the Project Methodological Process Why it Matters Chapter 2: This Land is My Land………………………………………………………10 Group Prejudice Hebrew Canon Muhammad‟s Dream The Christian Movement 1900 to Today Chapter 3: Through the Many: One………………………………………………….37 Historical Movements Civil Rights Movement Latin America Palestine and Arab Spring Chapter 4: Confronting the Walls that Divide…………………………………….…64 Women in Black Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD) Rabbis for Human Rights Christian Peacemaking Team Sami Awad Nayef Hashlamoun The One that Shocked Me Hebron Rehabilitation Committee Chapter 5: Conclusion: Tikkun Olam….…………………………………………….90 Bibliography………….………………………………………………………….…….97iii Abstract After hearing the painful story of the shop owner‟s experience of the occupation, I felt called to carry his story beyond the boundaries of the Separation Wall. I left Palestine ready to explore any and all means to change the narratives of the people of Palestine, but I had no idea what worlds I would discover. I began believing in a one state solution to the injustice in Palestine, but after a year of hearing story after story void of hope, I have come to realize that a one state solution is not viable. But hope exists, because instead of a one state, integrated response, I now understand that Palestine must be given full state hood, and the people must have the right to elect their leaders. Realizing that any movement towards peace and justice must come from the people, I argue the following: only through nonviolent direct action can justice be realized and a lasting peace embraced for the people of Palestine and beyond. This work includes many first hand narratives of those persons seeking a just peace in Palestine, and I have connected their active voice to those of the past who used the public square as an agent for change. From the farms of Texas to the jails of Montgomery to the streets of Bethlehem, the public square is necessary for change. It is only through the voice of the people, pulling on the conscientious of the world, can a just peace emerge in Palestine, the following work points to the truth that democracy must be more than ballot boxes; it must be the freedom to speak, publicly, against injustice. When this happens, Palestine will know peace. iv Acknowledgements: This has been a wild ride, and there were times I did not think I would find myself on this side of completing this work, but I made it. I have seen this work through, and it has been an amazing labor of love. But no journey, especially one of this magnitude, comes without a lot of help, and I would be remiss if I did not take this time to thank all of the amazing people who have made this adventure possible. I want to thank Dustin Gregg and Mark Godfrey, though you have missed the final leg of this expedition, you have always been a part of the process. I want to thank you for your thoughts, your readings, your insights, and your love. I want to thank the Bethany and Earlham communities for challenging me to ask questions of my faith and my calling, but also for pushing me to the limits of my academic abilities. If I soar, it will be because of the wings I earned through my years at Earlham School of Religion and Bethany Theological Seminary. I want to thank Scott Holland, Malinda Berry, and David Johns for guiding this work and demanding excellence from me. You all pushed me to the limits of my sanity, and I am a stronger theologian, person, and scholar because of you. I thank my church family, the West Milton Church of the Brethren, for giving me the time and space to finish this journey; you have been patient, and I am blessed to be a part of your lives. I thank my mother and father for encouraging me to conquer mountains and never fear the unknown; you gave me the drive and belief in myself to chase my dreams, thank you. I want to give special thanks to my mother for helping in the final steps of this work, without you, I would have been lost. Any wild ride opens doors for new faces to bless us, and this was no different. I want to thank Caitlin Wissler for doing last minute edits to the format, you were a God send. I want to thank my style editor, Sharlee DiMenichi, for doing so much work in so little time. And to David Wheeler-Reed for insight, advice, challenges, and great questions over amazing coffee. To my fellow CPT members, thank you for opening my eyes. But the people who have sacrificed the most and the ones I am most thankful for are my wife, Kendra, and my two children: Daniel and Reyna. You all gave up so much so I could be selfish and see this through. I love you and am so thankful for you.v Glossary of Terms ALWATAN Center – Activist group working for reconciliation in communities and striving for the rights of Palestinians. Led by Nayef Hashlamoun. Exegesis – An explanation or critical interpretation of a text. Fatah – Founded in 1964 and not to be confused with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, for more information see http://middleeast.about.com/od/palestinepalestinians/f/me080323.htm. Hadith – A narrative record of the sayings or customs of Muhammad and his companions. Hajj – The pilgrimage to Mecca prescribed as a religious duty for Muslims. Hamas – The political party that governs the Gaza Strip. Kafiya/Kaffiyeh – An Arab headdress consisting of a square cloth folded to form a triangle and held on by a cord. Koran – The book composed of sacred writings accepted by Muslims as revelations made to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. Populism – The theory that the rights of the average person should be protected. Settlement – An occupation by settlers over disputed land. Talmud – The authoritative body of Jewish tradition comprising the Mishnah and Gemara. Tikkun Olam – Hebrew for repairing the universe. Zionism – An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel. 1 Introduction In the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine, it seems for many that “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” Big Brother overwhelmed the populace with this mantra throughout George Orwell‟s, 1984, and it underscores a powerful truth. War can become a mechanism for peace. Slavery, in all its forms, gives the illusion of freedom. And ignorance blinds good people to injustices prevalent in the world, behind the false notion of national security. In 1984, Big Brother fools the citizens into embracing a false life, but more than that, Orwell illustrates how easily good people fall into the trap of endorsing an obscene government, even one that violates human rights, akin to Big Brother using Winston Smith‟s biggest fear, rats, to crush his spirit of revolution. Orwell describes what could happen when a few have unchecked power. In Orwell‟s case, the main character, Winston Smith, begins to see Oceania and Big Brother for what they are and begins to hate Big Brother. He realizes Big Brother rewrote history and fed the people lies, hoping to keep the masses ignorant of what is true and just, and Smith vows to engage in civil disobedience to usurp Big Brother. But he fails. Big Brother silences him. And Smith is brainwashed into loving Big Brother. Smith changes his tone after Big Brother tortured him by surrounding him with rats. Big Brother knew they could break Winston Smith if they would only saturate him in rats, and they did. The rats covered him. They haunted him. And in the end, the rats broke him. Big Brother‟s tactics work and Smith must submit himself to the authorities, because Big Brother will never be destroyed. Big Brother will own all of its citizens and in the end Smith, the one who believed he could make a difference embraces that which is evil and oppressive. Smith Introduction Bowen 2 chooses to believe that “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”1 Orwell‟s novel describes what life could be like in a society viewed not as a utopia but a dystopia. Orwell responded to the dream that society would right itself and be governed by a general understanding of justice, truth, and the common good. As we read in 1984, the future, for Orwell, appears bleak at best and downright evil at worst. His world includes an empire oppressing the lives of its citizens through information control and torture. His world is fictional, but his view of society flows from real experience.2 Much like Winston Smith, I have felt called to work for justice, after reading an article about the disappearing wetlands in Florida, as a kid, I needed an answer. Minutes after reading the article, I shocked my family with the argument that the Amish lived right. They looked at me with the quizzical look one gets after an idiotic statement, and they wondered what was wrong with me. I shared how the article helped me to see how destructive we were, and I felt I had a way to protect creation. We had to quit driving, we had to quit developing, and we had to live in harmony with the created order. They listened and offered a few challenges as they often did when I had unique ideas of saving the world. They were used to my idealistic musings, but I felt called to live differently, and a dreamer from another decade helped me see how I needed to live. We had few family traditions, but one of them involved watching our favorite sitcoms and a powerful episode left an indelible imprint on me. We were watching The Cosby Show, 1 George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Plume, 2003), 27, 287-308 2 Ibid., forward to 1984. In the forward Thomas Pynchon illuminates Orwell‟s motivations for 1984, and Pynchon brings to light some of the prophecies of Orwell that have come true. Looking at the US, post 9/11, Pynchon illustrates how Big Brother could be alive and well in the practice of Homeland Security. Pynchon argues that we are closer to Oceania and Big Brother than we realize, and we must be diligent, as citizens, to stop the government from becoming too powerful. Introduction Bowen 3 our Thursday night activity. It was the 1980s; life was good, for the most part, and that night changed my world. That night they aired Martin Luther King Jr.‟s “I Have a Dream” speech, to honor his birthday, and his words mesmerized me. I had never felt so much passion, so much truth, and so much pain in a speech. As his speech reached its amazing climax, King‟s cadence moved me to tears as his voice sang through the television. And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God‟s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, „Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.‟3 I was the only one in my family who was moved by his speech and something came alive in me. The car ride highlighted environmental concerns and sparked a deep desire to do what is right, but King‟s speech illuminated a passion to fight for justice. I knew that I would spend my life working with questions of justice, but I needed direction. Fast forward through college, baptism into an historical peace church, marriage, and a calling into the ministry, and I am in the Tel Aviv airport, wondering what I was doing in this small terminal, on the other side of the world, separated from my security. I thought this land was violent, full of terrorists, and inhabited a people that did not want me there. I held onto half-truths that had enabled my ignorance. I was, in a very real sense, the character Winston Smith before his revelation of Big Brother. I believed that the enemies of Israel were my enemies; I believed that the connection between the United States and Israel was not only right, it was just, because after the Holocaust, Israel had a right to protect itself, and the 3 Martin Luther King, Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. Clayborne Carson (New York: Time Warner, 2001), 227. The episode, as best as I can remember did not cover the entire speech. In the interest of time the show could not replay the complete discourse. I read the full manuscript in undergrad, and I believe the total speech should be required reading for all college students, because of its historical, social, political, and theological significance. Introduction Bowen 4 United States had an obligation to never let the evil genocide of the Holocaust happen again. And I believed around every corner of Jerusalem, near the dark alleys where people whisper quietly, terrorists plotted my destruction. I bought the propaganda our media and our government sells and believed the lies about Palestine. I enjoyed my comfort, which allowed me to remain ignorant to human rights violations, such as home demolitions, occurring in the West Bank. Nancy Bowen, in her commentary on Ezekiel, points to those who remain silent in the face of sexual or spousal abuse as complicit. “There are many levels at which one may be a bystander. There is the mother who fails to interfere when her husband sexually molests their daughter…Americans who fail to hold companies accountable for their treatment of workers…”4 And as a typical American, I continued to support Israel without knowing the truth of the occupation. I believed the lies that they had always been fighting, what could I do? I believed the people of Israel were there first, they had a right to the land, and they were God‟s chosen people. Who was I to tell God‟s people that their actions were ungodly? More disturbing, like the citizens of Orwell‟s Oceania, I simply ignored the plight of a people that I often viewed as less than, which as Bowen‟s commentary adds is an act of violence. “Situations of violence are usually defined in terms of the victim and the perpetrator. But there are those who see it happening, who hear reports of it third hand, and whose help is sought by the victims. These are the bystanders.”5 Being a bystander does not free one from guilt, but as King demonstrated in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, onlookers are guilty. 4 Nancy R. Bowen, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Ezekiel (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010), 151. Bowen sheds light on a painful truth, in cases of violence; many witness the injustice and do nothing about it. She argues that their ambivalence towards the injustice makes them culpable. 5 Ibid., 151. Introduction Bowen 5 “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”6 In his letter, King reacts to church leaders, who have asked him to quit protesting and marching for civil rights. They want him to be patient and insisted that his actions incited violence, and he needed to let change happen organically. His response is the powerful prose calling their silence an egregious violation of justice. Then he adds that the movement demands justice.7 When I read King‟s work in college I felt moved to remain active against oppression, but an embarrassing truth is that my apathy toward the plight of the Palestinians challenged my understanding of King. Who could claim to be a fan of King when he wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Could anyone embrace and preach this gospel of justice, when one, all too often, mirrored the apathy of the white liberal churches that King railed against? My ignorance, my blindness, my prejudice not only dishonors the legacy of King, but they disgrace the revelations God gave me during my life journey. 1984 is just a novel, a story to read and enjoy and be weary of, but Oceania is fictional. Yet after walking in the dust of a people that has been silenced, demonized, and oppressed, I realized that Big Brother is real. I realized as I heard painful stories of inhumanity, like a baby being arrested and charged with assault, that the government and media had fed me lies, and I did not know the true Palestine. We might as well be listening to our own “two minutes of hate” as news agencies endorse violence against the enemy. Ignorance is safe. But in those two weeks in Palestine, I found peace, meaning, purpose, and passion. Life became more beautiful. Life extended beyond my safe existence. Life tied me to a family in Hebron who had had their home demolished twice. Life emerged 6 King, 196. 7 Ibid., 188-204, 189. Introduction Bowen 6 sitting next to the father, as he rehearsed the story of his infant son‟s arrest because the one year old touched the cheeks of the Israeli Soldier who came to demolish the home. The dad, believing he could not give his son a future, handed the boy to the soldier, and the boy grabbed the soldier‟s cheeks. It was assault. The child was formally charged and later acquitted, but now the boy, who is ten, lives with the fear that his record will come to light, eventually. Why did the government demolish this man‟s home, arrest his son, and make his life miserable? The Israeli government labeled this man, who is viewed as a man of peace by Christian Peacemaker Teams, as a terrorist. Propaganda enables abhorrent acts of injustice. What I gained most from his act of hospitality is that laughter and love are languages that transcend cultural differences. Nothing made us laugh more than when he conned me into eating a hot pepper, stealing my breath, apparently practical jokes cross cultures too. This man is no terrorist, a practical joker, perhaps, but someone with violent tendencies or motivations? No. He is a father who gently brushed his children‟s hair. He is the man who welcomed me into his home. And he is the man who upset his wife because he forgot to tell her we were coming to dinner. He has dreams for his children, believes peace is possible, and angers his wife. He is not a terrorist, he is my brother. After that night, King‟s words, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” took root. I knew, when I returned to my job, my family, and my life I had to tell this family‟s story. They entrusted me with their pain, not just so I would be shocked, but also so that I would retell their story and help end the violence against them. They opened my eyes, and they brought me liberation. But that freedom brings a heavy load of responsibility. It is my calling to tell their stories, but more than that, to think creatively on ways to end the occupation which is the source of their pain; it is an occupation endorsed and empowered by Introduction Bowen 7 ties to the United States government. This work begins a journey of seeking paths to a just peace, not only for the Palestinian people, but for any who find themselves labeled Proles by a government intent on silencing dissenting voices. It emerges out of my experience in Palestine, coupled with a lifelong narrative of seeking justice and peace. While looking at the effectiveness of the Populist movements throughout history in the United States and Latin America, as well as the First Intifada in Palestine, I argue that only through nonviolent direct action can justice be realized and a lasting peace embraced for the people of Palestine. Only through social acts of civil disobedience can the shackles of the occupation fall away and the people of Palestine realize liberation. This work has three chapters that will include a history of the conflict, as well as illuminate popular movements in history, and it will end with the voices of those going to the streets, organizing, and struggling for change today. The first chapter begins with the genesis of the conflict. I do not want to get bogged down in biblical exegesis, though naming the biblical history will be crucial to illuminating some of the foundational elements for the conflict. If Abraham‟s nomadic journey stands as the religious justification for ongoing conflict, then it needs to be addressed. Through the Abrahamic narrative, I will show the complexities of having the three major monotheistic religions claiming divine right to the land. From there I will draw attention to the Islamic story, illuminate the Judaic tradition, and shed light on the Christian belief, before moving the account forward. I will give little time to the history of the land, including Muhammad‟s vision, illustrating Islam‟s claim to the Dome of the Rock. I will include the violence perpetrated by the Christian crusaders. Introduction Bowen 8 From there I jump forward to the Twentieth century and set the stage for today. Nineteen hundred forty eight remains a pivotal turning point for Israel and Palestine. Israel, as a nation, reemerged through a United Nations declaration. The United Nations did not seek input from the Palestinian people and created the new nation within lands already settled by Palestinians. This action sets into motion a history of violence. Though peace remains a focal point of many leaders, including our current administration, peace seems elusive. This chapter speaks to the United Nations‟ resolutions, the work of President Jimmy Carter, and what current groups are fighting. Violence does not need to have the final say in the sequence of events between Israel and Palestine. Nonviolence can work and prove that change can come without the sword. After the history and contemporary struggle, I turn the attention to social movements throughout American history and those found in Latin America as well as Palestine. Part of this chapter will bring to light the work of Mubarak Awad, whose voice and influence guided the First Intifada, and whose nephew becomes a primary character in the third chapter. Looking at Mubarak Awad, as well as other personalities in the nonviolent direct action movement, I point to the valuable work of peace in promoting a more just society. It is this chapter that speaks to the truth that change must come from a grassroots, bottom up paradigm, in order to enact lasting change. The final chapter brings in the voices currently working for justice and peace, which come from all religious backgrounds. It is this chapter, in light of the success of the social movements, which puts real voices to the dream. I spend a good deal of the third chapter detailing the work of Sami Awad, who is, in my opinion, the closest we can get to a modern day Martin Luther King, Jr. My time with Awad helped me see that peace can be an effective Introduction Bowen 9 weapon against violence and oppression. I divide this chapter into the voices of those persons who find themselves on the streets of Jerusalem, the public spaces of Hebron, and the home demolitions of Bethlehem, all working for a general goal: to bring justice and peace to Palestine through nonviolent direct action. This work has emerged from nearly thirty years of wondering if I can, in my little part of the world, make a difference. Over the last eight years, as the pastor of the West Milton Church of the Brethren, I have come to realize how difficult it is to make a difference, but now more than ever, I feel that we must not be deterred. Too often I have been a bystander as oppression, injustice, violence, abuse, and malevolence destroy lives. It is not ok to be a citizen of Oceania, while people suffer, and it is not ok to claim ignorance and impotence against evil. We are not without a voice. We are not without rights. And we are not without power. We need only seek and it shall be found. We need only knock and the door will be opened. And we need only educate ourselves and let that deep voice within that knows difference between right and wrong to speak. When this happens, we will name the lies for what they are, and we will, in the words of Isaiah, “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”8 8 Isaiah 2: 4. All scripture quotations come from the New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version, unless otherwise noted. 10 Chapter 2 This Land is my Land “If we focus on our differences, our focus is on each other. If we focus with unity, our focus is on God.” Anonymous “We have all come here in different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Martin Luther King, Jr. I spent the early years of childhood in a small, economically challenged Kansas town. Jobs were scarce. Education limited. The people were angry, and they needed a target for their frustrations. For the people in this small town, many of them family, minority groups became their focus, especially African-Americans. According to Ted Peters, a Lutheran Theologian who writes about sin and group sin, group prejudice becomes normative when one group feels threatened. When those threats of loss emerge, a group can do unspeakable things to those who become the majority‟s scapegoats. It makes little difference if that group is the Israeli government or suicide bombers, when we view members of another group as less than human, we justify violence against them. Group Prejudice Peters argues that there are social and individual elements to sin and we can trace these to our need to exist. “We kill—figuratively or literally—in the vain hope that someone else‟s death will sustain our life. Anxiety, in short, is the sting of death afflicting the living.”1 He rehearses the murder of Herman Tarnower. A jealous lover murdered Tarnower, because she felt like she was losing her sense of self. She had lost her job, and the affair consumed 1 Ibid., 39, 169. This Land is My Land Bowen 11 her. Peters adds, “But it was more than mere jealousy that led her to pull the trigger. Jean Harris had just learned that she would lose her coveted job and much of her reputation along with it.”1 He continues, “The threatened loss of her career and her social standing compounded her frustration in love, all of which seemed to constitute a loss of her being. The threat of social death sent her into a rage.” As stated earlier, it is not only on a personal level that violence against someone can occur, but when a group feels it could lose its identity, even societies descend into repulsive acts of violence. “This massacre of Vietnamese civilians can be understood in part as the attempt of some desperate soldiers to press the lid down on a pot boiling over with frustration and rage.” Peters rehearses a story from the Vietnam War, when a group of American soldiers, from the Task Force Baker, massacred between 450 to 500 innocent villagers, mostly women, grandparents, and children. This systemic bloodshed points to the ease by which healthy persons can fall into violence.2 Peters is not the focus of this study, but he reveals a powerful truth. When we want something bad enough we will endorse injustice and violence to get what we want. And if we feel our existence is at risk, we can do things to perceived threats that under normal circumstances we would never imagine possible. “Prejudice is a social curse that has the function of making people feel justified in their efforts to dehumanize others.” Peters continues, “The entire effort has but one aim: to kill whoever happens to be the enemy when war breaks out. If war has already broken out, the task is easier.” It is to the troubling and violent tradition of Israel/Palestine that our attention now turns. 1 Ted Peters, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994), 35. 2 Ibid., 39, 65-169. This Land is My Land Bowen 12 Hebrew Canon Current affairs in Israel/Palestine involve many sides justifying their violent actions. But how did it begin? Have war and violence always existed? Has hatred been the only emotion flowing from both sides? Has peace ever worked? Is there anything in their history that would make peace viable? These questions invite us to go deeper into the rich history of the Israelis and Palestinians. “When they had come to the land of Canaan, Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.”3 Gene Roop, in his commentary on Genesis, describes this scene as God fulfilling God‟s promise to Abraham, but it is also foreshadowing, according to Roop, how God will move Sarah from barrenness to fertility. “Geographically, this unit moves from Mesopotamia to Canaan. Theologically, the direction of God‟s instructions leads Sarah and Abraham from barrenness to fertility.”4 While this is not an exegetical piece, it seems appropriate to use the sacred texts to illumine some of the justification for the violence. When a divine right to the land is held, violence against other groups occurs with little remorse. Earlier in his commentary, Roop hints that the presence of the established peoples threatens the faith, but that God‟s promise exists regardless of the people. “With the mention of the Canaanites and local sanctuaries, the narrative signals some other possibilities and problems in the family‟s future. Association with the Canaanites will enable Abraham‟s group to move from family to nation, but will at the same time threaten to destroy their 3 Genesis 12: 6-7. 4 Gene Roop, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Genesis (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1987), 100. This Land is My Land Bowen 13 faith.” Roop echoes what I sense is the primary theology of many, “The future will happen in this place, but not yet and not without problems.”5 What about the communities that were firmly established when Abraham moved into the land? It stands to reason that if God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants, as Genesis advocates, then God seems to ordain the expulsion of these people. And as Ted Peters highlights, when faced with a sense of loss, people resort to violence.6 If God gave the land to Abraham and his progeny, then the assembly of persons attached to Abraham appears to have a God given legitimacy to the land, while any other persons, on the land, stand in the way of the promise and become targets for violence. Those established persons become ungodly pagans impeding the will of God. The cycle of violence, in Palestine/Israel, can trace its roots to a nomad, named Abraham, who left his homeland and planted seeds in an already settled land. This theory that Israel comes to be in the presence of other nations is covered in A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, “The Terah family does not live in isolation, but is bound—in its earlier history and in its contemporary reality—to others. Moreover, from a genealogical and theological perspective, those others are part of the “extended” family.”7 Israel is not an island onto itself; it is tied to many different nations. In a utopian world the diverse communities could share the land and live in peace. But reality is much different. “To be sure, Israel will stand in a relationship of enmity with many of these groups, but is always possible to view this as a family relationship, which may help explain the intense animosity.” The authors of Theological Introduction explain how 5 Ibid., 99. 6 Peters, 39-169. 7 Bruce C. Birch, Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Freitheim, & David Peterson, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 77. This Land is My Land Bowen 14 Israel came into being, but also how the nation of Israel has found its identity through violence against the established peoples.8 A history of feuding seems to define the Jewish narrative. In Genesis 14, Abraham defeats a bevy of kings. Jewish historian Josephus describes the scene, “and before they could arm themselves, he slew some as they were in their beds, before they could suspect any harm; and others, who were not yet gone to sleep, but were so drunk they could not fight, ran away.”9 Josephus states that Abraham entered the conflict, with the Assyrians, to defend his nephew Lot.10 Rehearsing the scene with the kings of Assyria develops a pattern of violence, which empowers the godly to legitimize war and domination. It seems to be that the mantra is, God brought us into this land, and we are God’s people, and since we are the children of the promise; it is our divine right to not only settle this land, but also to conquer it. And we see the ideology that God delivers foreigners, time and time again, into the hands of the Israelites throughout the book of Judges. “Then Judah went up and the LORD gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they defeated then thousand of them at Bezek.”11 The book that precedes Judges, Joshua, can be read as a litany of conquered foes.12 Joshua and Judges, which have been attributed to the Deuteronomistic history, tells the heroic story of deliverance and divine intervention.13 “In the section of the Deuteronomistic History found in I-II Kings, two theological themes are 8 Ibid. 9 Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 39. 10 Ibid. 11 Judges 1:4 12 Birch, 189. 13 Ibid., 188, 359. This Land is My Land Bowen 15 interwoven. The dominant one, set forth in the theological introduction to the whole history (Deut. 1-4), is the call to be faithful to Yahweh‟s covenant with Israel, under sanctions of blessing and curse.” God‟s blessings manifest themselves through conquered nations.14 The authors of Theological Introduction to the Old Testament suggest that God gives the land as a testament to God‟s grace. “Israel links its reception of the land, albeit by force, to the old enduring promise of God in Genesis. In the end, the land is a gift of God.”15 Whether it was the intent of the Deuteronomistic writer to develop an ethnocentric ideology for the Jewish people or not, it emerged as time helped them create an identity that the land is God‟s gift, and they are God‟s people. It could be a natural evolution to develop a deep sense of group pride, and if that group views themselves as superior, then any and all others are by design inferior. “They draw a line between good and evil and place themselves on the good side of the line. The line serves as a criterion for judging others to be morally inferior. It sets up a we/they dualism. It justifies exclusion tactics. It permits prejudice.”16 In the case of Israel, it could be argued the Hebrews believed themselves to be greater than the others, which could increase the downward spiral into crimes against the others. The less than group is seen as substandard, inhuman, but more than that, these nations are enemies of God.17 As we examine the status of the conflict, in 2010, the history of the Jewish people is saturated in violence. Throughout the Hebrew Canon, stories unfold of tribes being conquered, slaughtered, and destroyed, because they were ungodly. These nations 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 190. 16 Peters, 179. 17 Ibid., 174. This Land is My Land Bowen 16 worshipped false gods. And Lord demanded their destruction. The God found in these stories, to some, appears as a malicious, vindictive God who not only chooses one group of people over another but also endorses the group dynamics and prejudices that Peters writes about in Sin. If that were the story anchoring a collective history, it makes sense that those people view themselves superior, because God chose them. Powerful regimes, all over the world, use God as a justification for detestable acts of injustice. Josephus adds, “Now as for the king of the Hebrews, he was assisted by God, who gave him great success in his wars…”18 As deeply rooted the theological justification for violence against others may be, it raises a question of whether this is a God any would want to follow? We have traced the Jewish narrative, through the line of Abraham, and the ideologies that have emerged from their common story. But Abraham had another son, and how do we deal with Ishmael, who, according to the biblical text, was driven away by his father and God? But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the boy and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you. As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a nation of him also, because he is your offspring.” So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.19 Roop describes the scene, “God instructs Abraham to do as Sarah demands. God will do what Abraham cannot—care for the sons of Abraham…No words are reported as Abraham sends a son and his mother off into the desert.”20 Roop does not challenge what appears to 18 Josephus, 189. 19 Genesis 21: 12-14. 20 Roop, 139. This Land is My Land Bowen 17 be divine abandonment, a theory I will highlight later. Roop, and others, appear to accept the role of the divine, because God promises “to do what Abraham cannot—care for the sons of Abraham.” Roop ends this disturbing scene with the following, “We have labeled this section, “the problem of the other child.” We know from the saga that the boy‟s name is Ishmael, and yet the text never uses the child‟s name…He lives his life as the victim and sometimes the benefactor of promises made and kept by others.” Without challenging the actions of God, Roop ends his short rehearsal of the Hagar and Ishmael story, stating Ishmael will benefit from his ancestry.21 The authors of Introduction to the Old Testament suggest the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael serves another purpose. “Israel told these stories to offer explanations for the ways in which the peoples of Syria-Palestine (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Ishmaelites, Israel) came to be in their various relationships.”22 Similar to Roop, the authors of Introduction illuminate the power of God‟s promise, which extends to Ishmael, as a statement of inclusion for those outside the Jewish tradition. “The deity‟s care for Ishmael is consistent with the motif struck in Genesis 12: 1-3, namely, that there should be blessing beyond the household of Israel.”23 The authors focused on the promise to illustrate God‟s faithfulness to the covenant. This is a traditional and patriarchal reading of the text. Neither group delves into the injustices perpetrated against Hagar, and God‟s role in her injustice, even in the promises to Ishmael, which emerge outside the community of Ishmael‟s birth. God gives Ishmael, and by proxy Hagar, the consolation prize. It is as if God says, “Thanks for being in the narrative for a while. You served your purpose as literary characters. Here is your parting gift.” Though 21 Ibid. 22 Birch, 88. 23 Ibid., 82. This Land is My Land Bowen 18 there is a blessing; it emerges after God endorses an act of violence against Hagar and Ishmael: “do as she tells you, for it is through Isaac, the true son and heir, that offspring shall be named for you. (Italics added)”24 Thankfully womanist theology offers new eyes on this disturbing scene. Phyllis Trible gives more attention to the violence against Hagar and Ishmael. Speaking about Abraham‟s role, Trible writes, “Yet his resistance simply strengthens Sarah‟s power, for God sides with her. Consequently, the deity alters Abraham‟s vision.”25 In this brief retelling of the troubling scene, Trible highlights God‟s role in the violence. “To minimize Abraham‟s relationship to Ishmael, God calls him „the lad‟ rather than „your son.‟ Moreover, the deity describes Hagar not as „your wife‟ but as „your slave woman,‟ a description that tellingly emulates the vocabulary of Sarah (21:10). If Abraham neglects Hagar, God belittles her.”26 Trible highlights a different, more troubling truth of the narrative, God abandons Hagar and Ishmael. Roop points to God‟s act in the desert as God‟s faithfulness to the promise. “He lives his life as the victim and sometimes the benefactor of the promises made and kept by others.”27 A view shared by the authors of Introduction, “Though abandoned by the household, the author notes that “God was with the boy.”28 A brief caveat to a troubling scene does little to offer justice to the victims, Hagar and Ishmael. Trible, on the other hand, pushes us deeper. In wrestling with the desert scene, Trible writes, “Departing her land of 24 Genesis 21: 12. 25 Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 21. 26 Ibid., 21-22. 27 Roop, 139. 28 Birch, 81. This Land is My Land Bowen 19 bondage, Hagar knows not exodus but exile.”29 Trible, comparing Hagar‟s desert journey, which brought her close to Egypt, to her current exile, writes, “Furthermore, it does not border Egypt. Receiving Hagar in forced exile rather than voluntary flight, this wilderness is an arid and alien place. It offers a deathbed for a child.”30 Trible explores the anguish Hagar felt. Trible describes the scene as Hagar weeping, but adds that scholars have robbed the text of its power, because typical writers use masculine constructions, which highlight the value of men, while neglecting the role of women. Thankfully through the work of Trible and other womanist theologians, Hagar has a voice. Trible makes Hagar a powerful character, especially when Trible compares Hagar‟s wandering to Israel‟s desert experience. “Unlike Hagar, Israel will complain; it will murmur and rebel; it will demand food and water. Yet throughout, God will be on Israel‟s side. With Hagar, the reverse happens. God supports, even orders, her departure…”31 Hagar‟s narrative illuminates how easily humanity falls into structural violence. “Read in light of contemporary issues and images, her story depicts oppression in three familiar forms: nationality, class, and sex.” But also because as much as the Christian/Jewish narrative focuses on Abraham and the promises made through Isaac, Trible names God as a perpetrator of the violence. God enables the group identity to exist, when God orders Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael. However, when we examine the narrative through the lens of our Muslim sisters and brothers, the story carries a different tone. Muslims rehearse the story of Hagar during their hajj to Mecca. Our Muslim friends attach themselves to Hagar and retell her journey during one of their holiest acts. For Christians and Jews, Hagar is a disclaimer, a footnote, but in Islam Hagar takes 29 Trible, 23. 30 Ibid., 24-25, 27. 31 Ibid. This Land is My Land Bowen 20 center stage. They align themselves with Hagar‟s desert journey as they circumnavigate the mountain.32 Hagar‟s role, in both the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions, points to the common heritage that all monotheistic faiths share, but it also highlights the different lens that each takes. And the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition views Hagar as an addendum to the narrative, but the Islamic tradition lifts her to heroine status highlights one of the roadblocks to peace. Though we come from the same tradition, Abraham, our interpretation of the narrative varies greatly. But we must embark on this difficult journey. And though I do value the biblical tradition because it tells the story of how religion affects our treatment of neighbors and enemies, it also helps create prejudices. More than that, I want to demonstrate religion‟s role in group prejudices, and explain how divine discrimination leads to violence against others. The intention of this first chapter is to enlighten the many layers behind the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel. The genesis of conflict may go back to Abraham, but the story of violence stretches beyond the plains of Palestine. Abraham serves as the “patriarch” of the three main monotheistic religions, but as history shows the fight for Jerusalem extends beyond a common lineage. Many people and peoples, like the crusaders, coveted Jerusalem, and they created another history of violence, one that is much more sinister and frightening, and it is to the story of Jerusalem that we now turn. Muhammed (pbuh)’s Dream The scene is a familiar one. The founder of the Islamic faith, while going through “the year of Sadness,” experienced a night vision from the angel Gabriel.33 In this dream 32 Ibid. This Land is My Land Bowen 21 Muhammad met with Jesus, Moses, and Abraham, and they prayed together under Muhammad‟s leadership. After praying with the trio, Muhammad‟s ascension continued. “From here Muhammad experienced the Ascent into Heaven (the mi”raj), in which he was taken from the first to the seventh heaven, meeting with Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.”34 This connection to Judaism and Christianity manifests throughout the Muslim faith, “In addition to all this, under the inspiration of Muhammad, a famous covenant was made with the Jews, Muslims, and other inhabitants of the city, (Medina)…guaranteed religious liberty in the city and determined the rights and duties of members of all religions: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and others.”35 Chapman adds, “The event is seen as a commissioning of Muhammad for his ministry as Prophet, and demonstrates the continuity between Islam and the previous religions of Judaism and Christianity.”36 Muhammad‟s respect for the Jewish faith revealed itself when he ordered the followers of Islam to pray toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.37 Islam was a fulfillment of God‟s salvation, and Islam supports all the prophets. Specifically Abraham, known as Ibrahim, is the foundation for Jews‟, Christians‟, and Muslims‟, covenant with God.38 Abraham, as the „father‟ of all peoples and religions did 33 Colin Chapman, Whose Holy City: Jerusalem and the Future of Peace in the Middle East (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 93. Chapman compares the three major monotheistic religions and each religion‟s claim to godly and historic ownership of Jerusalem. He does a fair job, for the most part, offering objective views of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, but by the end of his text, his text becomes an apologetic for a Christian answer for peace. 34 Ibid. 35 Ira G. Zepp, Jr., A Muslim Primer: A Beginner’s Guide to Islam (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2000), 23. 36 Chapman, 94. 37 Zepp, 23. 38 Walter H. Wagner, Opening the Qur’an: Introducing Islam’s Holy Book (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2008), 308. This Land is My Land Bowen 22 what others could not do, „rendered full obedience to God.‟ But it is not only Abraham that Muslims revere, but also Moses and Jesus. “Moses is a liberator-messenger for Jews and a forerunner of Jesus for Christians.”39 As for Jesus, “Well, Islam thinks very highly of Jesus, more highly than any other religion does, save Christianity. The Qur‟an assigns Jesus such titles as „Messenger,‟ „Messiah,‟ „Prophet,‟ „Son of Mary,‟ „Word of God,‟ Sign,‟ and „Servant.‟”40 The foundational theology of the Qur‟an and the teachings of the Prophet taught acceptance of other religions. “Therefore, Muslims are expected to believe in Moses, David, and Jesus, to revere all these scriptures, and to respect Jews and Christians as „people of the book.‟”41 Chapman quotes the Hadith, a collection of the Prophet‟s sayings, which puts Jerusalem on a level higher than normal earthly cities.42 Chapman shows the common heritage that the Qur‟an points to, “This conveys the idea that this land has been set apart and destined by God for the children of Israel, who are, as it were, Semitic cousins of the Arabs, and related to the Arabs, through their ancestor, Ishmael.”43 The authors of Introduction to the Old Testament agree, “However, the tradition also attests that God is concerned for more than just Isaac. The deity‟s care for Ishmael is consistent with the motif struck in Genesis 12:1-3, namely, that there should be blessing beyond the household of Israel.”44 The history of the Muslim presence in Jerusalem, or at least how the Prophet and the Qur‟an view Jerusalem, is vital to get a glimpse of the canvas today. But as history 39 Ibid., 315. 40 Zepp, 169. 41 Ibid., 47. 42 Chapman, 94. 43 Ibid., 95. 44 Birch, 82. This Land is My Land Bowen 23 demonstrates, even though the three religions claim a common patriarch, animosity emerged. “This happy relationship soon turned sour when the Jews would not accept Islam and convert to the new religion.”45 Chapman adds, “In 634, just two years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the Muslim Arabs conquered the south of Palestine and began a series of raids in the direction of Jerusalem.”46 The Muslim armies conquered Jerusalem in 638 C.E., and the patriarch of Jerusalem, which was under Christian rule at this time, surrendered the city to the caliph Umar. Christians did not allow Jews into Jerusalem, while Christians controlled the city, and Muslims adopted this practice. After signing the agreement with Sophronius, the caliph Umar went by the Temple Mount, amazed to see its destruction. It was at this site that he ordered the construction of a temple, a place of worship. Fifty years later, the Dome of the Rock emerged upon the site where the Temple Mount once stood. The Dome of the Rock became one of the holy places for Muslims to journey to through a pilgrimage, similar to the Christians‟ journey to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.47 Now that three religious faiths called Jerusalem holy, conflicts seemed imminent. Chapman alludes to the building of the Dome of the Rock as a statement that Islam would have a permanent presence in Jerusalem. “The Dome of the Rock…was a dramatic assertion that Islam had arrived and was here to stay. It issued an imperious call to the Christians to revise their beliefs and return to the pure monotheism of Abraham.” There would be issues because, as some scholars have recorded, Muslims referred to the sacred Church of the Sepulchre, as the Church of the Dung-heap, and this would do little to build 45 Zepp, 23. 46 Chapman, 96. 47 Ibid., 56, 100. This Land is My Land Bowen 24 bridges for peace. When they built the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Basilica of the Virgin Mary, they opened the door for further violence.48 The years 661-750 witnessed Jerusalem becoming the third most holy city for Muslims. Pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem to circumambulate the Dome of the Rock, similar to their hajj to Mecca. The leaders built mosques, hospitals, schools, libraries, and hospices, responding to the increased population. “From about 1000, as a result of gradual conversion to Islam, Muslims constituted the majority of the population.”49 Peace was possible, but after three hundred years of sharing Jerusalem, the decision to demolish the Church of the Holy Sepulchre changed everything. From a time of tranquility, a season of ongoing violence would emerge, as the Christians responded to the destruction of a holy site for pilgrims. After the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Christian response was quick and severe, and the crusades illustrate how quickly an area can fall into rampant violence. “Crusaders entered Jerusalem on 15 July 1099, they killed almost every person in sight (Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike), making the streets run with blood.”50 The Knights Templar used the Al-Aqsa Mosque for barracks, defiling the holy site, increasing the hatred and angst. Saladin ended the Crusader rule in 1187. Unlike his predecessors, Saladin protected the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and allowed Christians to enter it again, with a small fee. He returned the Muslim holy sites to their sacred status and began calling the city by its Arabic name, al-Quds. Harmony might have come, once again, in al-Quds/Jerusalem, but the west shattered those hopes. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid., 96-97. 50 Ibid., 102-103. This Land is My Land Bowen 25 British King, Richard the Lionheart, wanted to solidify the Christian and Muslim hold on Jerusalem by suggesting Saladin‟s brother marry Richard‟s sister. Saladin recognized Jerusalem as a sacred city for Christians and Muslims but added that the Muslims, because of the Prophet‟s ascension, valued Jerusalem more. But beyond its sacred nature, Saladin added, “The land was also originally ours, whereas you have only just arrived and have taken it over only because of the weakness of the Muslims living there at the time.” The violence might have ended, but the damage was done. “There can be no doubt, however, about the lasting legacy of the Crusades on Christian-Muslim relations and on the future of Jerusalem.”51 He adds, quoting Zaki Badawi, “It was the Crusaders who transformed Jerusalem into a potent symbol of Islam once again.”52 The Christian Movement How does a religion, which had strong Jewish roots, become a system of beliefs that enable rulers to persecute Jews? Jews and Christian‟s common heritage can be traced to the book of Acts, “These last words do not refer to a conflict between Jews and Gentiles, for Acts makes clear that at that time there were still no Gentiles in the church.”53 Gonzalez continues, “The earliest Christians did not consider themselves followers of a new religion. All their lives they had been Jews, and they still were…Their faith was not a denial of Judaism, but was rather a conviction that the Messianic age had finally arrived.” Herod and other Jewish leaders persecuted the early church, pushing the early Christians away from Jerusalem, and this could have been set the stage for anti-Semitic sentiments later. Whatever the cause, it is clear that the early Church did not take long to distance itself from its Jewish 51 Ibid., 103. 52 Ibid. 53 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: Harper, 1984), 18. This Land is My Land Bowen 26 heritage. “In any case the result of all this was that the ancient Jewish church, rejected by Jews and Gentiles, found itself in increasing isolation. Although by A.D. 135 a number of Jewish Christians returned to Jerusalem, their relationship with the rest of Christianity had been almost entirely severed…” Jewish Christians had no home, so they returned to the home of their origins: the Jewish faith.54 Christians, from the time of Constantine, have had a powerful affect on the face and landscape of Jerusalem, and might have had the most damaging impact on Jerusalem. “Not even the Caesars, who twice leveled Jerusalem, had thus eliminated Jewish political autonomy—an abolition that would not be reversed until 1948.”55 The evolution of Jerusalem from a land Christianity ignored to a land that Christians occupied reveals the sinister nature of religion. “What might be called history‟s first pogrom, an organized violent assault on a community of Jews, because they were Jews, took place in Alexandria in 414, wiping out that city‟s Jewish community for a time.”56 Carroll concludes this section by stating that “The land of Israel, long ignored by Christians who had happily left it behind for the centers of the empire, now became known as the Christian Holy Land. Christians returned to it, not for the last time, with a vengeance.”57 Church historian Bruce L. Shelley adds insight to the ascension of the Christian Empire in his book, Church History in Plain Language. In his chapter on religion and power, he describes the emergence of religious leaders. Though this new theocracy helped Christians 54 Ibid., 20, 22. 55 James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 176. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. This Land is My Land Bowen 27 come out of hiding, it also opened the door for the faith to be perverted, and these new personalities had a strange affect on the Christian community.58 Shelley adds, “By 380, rewards for Christians had given way to penalties for nonChristians. In that year the emperor Theodosius made belief in Christianity a matter of imperial command.”59 Christianity emerged from the hidden caverns to empirical rule, cementing this budding faith in the annals of history. Chapman, detailing the work of Bishop Makarios, writes, “At the council of Nicaea in 325 he, (Constantine), agreed to a request from Bishop Makarios of Jerusalem for permission to demolish the temple of Venus/Aphrodite, which the Romans had built over the traditional site of the crucifixion and the empty tomb, and to build a church in its place.”60 Though Christianity, under Constantine, was still emerging, it would not be long until Christianity controlled Jerusalem. As more and more Christians migrated to Jerusalem, it became necessary to build places for them to live and worship. By the end of the fourth century, there were nearly 400 monasteries in Palestine. However, it was the motivation and intentions of Constantine to make Christianity the dominating religion. “Constantine wanted the new church in Jerusalem, the Anastasis, The Church of the Resurrection, to be the most splendid church in the world, and to provide evidence of the triumph of Christianity over both Roman paganism and Judaism (Italics added).”61 And on 17 September 335, “Jerusalem from now on was to be a “Christian Jerusalem” and Palestine a Christian Holy Land, providing public symbols of the new Christian empire.” Carroll adds, “That pivotal 125 years not only illuminates the 58 Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 96. 59 Ibid. 60 Chapman, 57. 61 Ibid., 57, 59. This Land is My Land Bowen 28 conflict between Christians and Jews, but escalates it.”62 The ascending religious empire enabled a faith, which comprised of only ten percent of the population, to dominate. The ripples led, time and time again, to persecution of the Jews, because they were believed to be heretics. The migration from oppressed to oppressor took three hundred years, but it would be another seven hundred years for the Christian presence to once again, ring through the streets of Jerusalem, but their presence was not for peace. From the decree of an overzealous Pope, Christians invaded the Holy Land and slaughtered all in sight. In 1095, Pope Urban the II vowed that God wills the taking of Jerusalem from the Muslims, and if God wills it, God will bring success. “Since theirs was a religious enterprise, they begged God for support, marching around the city barefooted and singing penitential hymns…As the breach grew, resistance melted. The defenders fled from the walls, and the crusaders swept into the city that was the goal of their long campaign.”63 Chapman adds this eerie truth to that invasion, “When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem on 15 July 1099, they slaughtered almost everyone in sight—Muslims, Jews, and even Christians.”64 Rehearsing an eyewitness account, Chapman goes further, “If I tell you the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the Temple and Porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers…”65 Apparently the author of those words viewed everyone as unbelievers, even fellow Christians. 62 Carroll, 176-177. 63 Gonzalez, 293, 296. 64 Chapman, 62. 65 Ibid. This Land is My Land Bowen 29 The crusades impacted the whole of Europe and Holy Land for about 200 years, but the violence reverberates today. The vicious attacks, and the indiscriminate killings that occurred, against Jew, Muslim, and Christian, became a stain on the history of Christianity. It would be wonderful if we had learned something, but on 11 December 1917, nearly seven hundred years after the last crusade, General Sir Edmund Allenby entered the Old City, through the Jaffa Gate, and declared; “Now the Crusades have come to an end.” Chapman adds, “The historian, David Fromkin, explains the significance of Allenby‟s capture of Jerusalem in these words: “The liberation of what he (Allenby) called the „the most famous city in the world‟ was what Prime Minister (Lloyd George) had wanted for Christmas…”66 The new crusaders were more adept at killing and dominating. The history of Jerusalem, and the roles that Christians, Jews, and Muslims have in the violent narrative of Jerusalem, gives a basis for Jerusalem‟s identity today. 1900 to Today Any student of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians knows that a loud voice is the Zionists. The movement, known as Zionism, can be defined as, “A contemporary movement that seeks to restore the Jewish people to the land of Israel as their historic homeland since biblical times.”67 From the beginning, the early Zionists returned to Israel to establish a secular state and ignored Jerusalem all together. They viewed the Jewish Quarter as revolting.68 The mass migration into Israel had begun, and the settlements started. “For the first Zionists who built their settlements on the coastal plains and in Galilee in the 1880‟s, 66 Ibid. 67 Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 308. 68 Chapman, 134. This Land is My Land Bowen 30 Jerusalem simply was not very important.”69 The early Zionist posed little threat, but they found their way to Palestine because the countries they left were closed.70 And it becomes a quick transition from a nonreligious movement to a movement that occupied and oppressed Palestine in the name of God. Responding to the most horrific acts in history, the United Nations would do more than create a Jewish state; their decisions would become the groundwork for many of the military clashes that have emerged after 1948. The atrocities of the holocaust should remain in our psyches forever. The images of the bodies, the sunken cheeks, the open graves, and the evil must be etched in our memories so that we never forget what happened. And the response of the United Nations to recreate a Jewish state, in response to the holocaust seems reasonable and fair, but at what cost? The world turned too many blind eyes to the injustices in Nazi Germany, and there needed to be reparations for the abhorrent apathy to Nazi Concentration camps, but does giving the Jewish people a country make up for the evils? And if the re-establishment comes on the backs of an already settled people, how is that just? May 14, 1948 stands as a pivotal day in history. On that day, the United Nations formed the new state of Israel, in a small sliver of land between the Jordan River and the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.71 Though this came as a fulfillment of a dream for Jews all over the world; the United Nations‟ quick deliberation became a nightmare for the Arabs who adamantly opposed the formation of a Jewish state. The United Nations did not anticipate the years of violence that followed. 69 Ibid. 70 Bernard Wasserstein, Israelis and Palestinians: Why do They Fight? Can They Stop? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 7. 71 Ian J. Bickerton, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History (London: Reaktion Books, 2009), 8. This Land is My Land Bowen 31 Resistance and retaliation led to war. Over the sixty-year period from 1948 to 2008 several wars were fought as Jews and Arabs could not, or would not, reach acceptable agreements over the huge range of issues…Geography was at the heart of the confrontation, but religion, ethnicity/race and history added to the ferocity of the fighting…Israel framed the conflict as an existential one threatening the very survival of the state. Palestinians depicted it as a struggle for national recognition and natural justice. As the years wore on and casualties mounted, both sides became more intransigent, ramping up not only the rhetoric but the intensity of the hostilities. In the end, the violence has
|
|---|