Religious leaders say Israel was never promised to the Jews

Revisionist theology is a dangerous precedent that is becoming increasingly popular in both Christian and Muslim discourse.

By AVI YESAWICH
israel topo map 298.88 (photo credit: Courtesy)
israel topo map 298.88
(photo credit: Courtesy)
A series of developments originating from the epicenters of monotheism continue to blur the line between religious belief and downright bigotry. Recently, a delegation of high-ranking Synod of Bishops convened a two-week conference at the Vatican, during which the assembly called for an end to the Israeli (i.e. Jewish) occupation of Palestine. The official statement issued by the delegation claimed that that certain biblical concepts could no longer be used as justification for the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.
RELATED:Blind-date diplomacy
When asked to elaborate on the assembly’s position, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros (handpicked by Pope Benedict XVI to construct the Synod’s concluding propositions) explained, “there is no longer a ‘chosen’ people…the justification of Israel’s occupation of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures.”
Even if we can ignore such malicious revisionist theology, another fallacy floats to the surface: why are the world’s “holiest” men rescinding support for religious concepts that are undeniably - and quite prevalently - rooted in the sacred texts of their faiths? Do these individuals honestly believe that centuries-old hallowed concepts no longer apply?
If yes, normally I would say we are witnessing a positive step forward for modern humanity. However, when selective observance of religious dogma by leaders of faith is used to the detriment of another, warning bells start ringing.
The reader may opt to believe that the aforementioned position doesn’t reflect Christian majority opinion. However, several ensuing conferences attended by top representatives of various Christian denominations yielded similar proclamations throughout Europe and elsewhere. Furthermore, prominent publications and religious figures with intimate connections to the upper echelons of the Vatican and other religious institutions have similar condemnations against the Jewish State: Namely, that Israel’s very creation is a sin that cannot not longer be based in biblical scripture. Israelis (again, Jews) are bent on the permanent oppression and subjugation of the Palestinian people.
For its own part, the Islamic world hasn’t exactly been reticent with its own feelings towards the Jews or Israel. The spread of vitriolic hate can be found in a majority of mosques throughout the Muslim World and beyond. For example, prominent Iranian Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mebsa of Iran – Ahmadinejad’s spiritual mentor – recently issued a fatwa declaring suicide bombings and the killing of Israeli children to be permissible. Israel is constantly depicted as a cancerous tumor that must be wiped off the map, and the Jews are a people that will be eventually be thrust into the Mediterranean. This outstanding sense of hatred prevails despite several Surah’s, such as 5:21 and 17:104, in the Quran which seemingly recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.
Within the Tanakh/Old Testament, one can find many verses supporting a Jewish return to the Land of Israel (such as Isaiah 43: 5-6, Ezekiel 20: 34 and Jeremiah 23: 3-6). The New Testament appears to be silent on the issue of the land, perhaps because a Jewish presence in the land of Israel was obvious to Jesus and his disciples.
Of course, individuals—regardless of religious beliefs—are free to debate the validity of such verses to their heart’s desire. Still, one would imagine that orthodox clergymen would ostensibly possess significantly less leeway in flirting with any dubious interpretations.
It is important to distinguish between religious and humanistic logic regarding the importance of establishing a comprehensive, lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. From a humanist perspective, the reasons are straightforward: Israelis and Palestinians deserve safety, security and the right to self-determination. They are both entitled to religious, cultural, political and economic freedoms within internationally recognized borders. Basic human rights as recognized by the majority of the international community should be bestowed upon both populations.
Contrarily, arguments based on Abrahamic doctrines are far more challenging to support depending on the degree of the individual's religiosity.
Undoubtedly, many religious leaders agree with the humanist positions, but how can the outstanding contradiction with religious dogma be properly addressed? Can the proclamations made in holy books that nod towards Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria be considered gospel or not? Is reconciliation truly possible? At the moment, outright avoidance and blanket denials of legitimacy seem to be the most popular and intellectually dishonest solutions circulating at the moment.
Whether such criticism is construed as genuine, anti-Semitic, duplicitous or simply delusional, the increasing rejection of Christian and Muslim recognition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel exposes an alarming trend that must be confronted.
Perhaps in the face of perpetual violence coupled with the lack of divine intervention and the palpable conflict of religious and political interests, keeping the faith is much harder than one might like to believe.
The writer is an independent journalist and political commentator. He has degrees from Cornell University and Tel Aviv University, is an IDF combat reservist and co-founder of the political blog/site, www.israelicentrism.com