Tags
The Central Question
In an earlier post, I had asserted that the current nation of Israel does not bear the name of Yahweh well and, therefore, should not be considered in any way special or chosen. I then asked the question, “Does this mean that the Jewish people do not deserve a nation to call their own?” And I promised I would deal with this question in the next post. However, last week, I published a post about the then upcoming, now ongoing, general elections in India. With that urgent matter out of the way, let me return to my original idea for last week’s post. The question, “Do the Jewish people deserve a nation to call their own?” can be answered from a variety of perspectives.
There can be a secular or non-religious perspective, which only considers the Jewish people like any other people group without any ideas of ‘chosenness’ or ‘promise’ attached to them. Within this perspective I also locate the perspectives of secular Jews, who do not wish to be defined in terms of language found in the Hebrew scriptures. Then, of course, there are religious perspectives. Here, it is necessary to split them into Jewish and Christian perspectives, since these will obviously be different. There must also be a split along the lines of Zionist and non-Zionist perspectives. Hence, there are two non-religious perspectives and four religious perspectives that I will cover. I am aware that Islam may also have perspectives concerning the Jewish people. However, I am not familiar with these. Hence, in my view, silence is the best approach here.
In labeling the religious perspectives I was tempted to use the term ‘biblical’ instead of ‘non-Zionist’ because of my conviction that Zionism is unbiblical. However, I have always opposed the weaponization of the term ‘biblical’ in the attempt to silence opposing views. Hence, it would have been inconsistent for me to use the term here in what is surely going to be quite a polemic post. Also, since I will be dealing with a secular non-Zionist perspective, it would have been inappropriate (and perhaps offensive) for me to label such a view ‘biblical’.
But before we get to discussing the various perspectives, let us define what Zionism is since it plays a key role in most of the perspectives I am considering.
What is Zionism?
Broadly speaking, Zionism is the view that the Jewish people have a right to the land conquered under Joshua and solidified under David and Solomon. While the boundaries of the land under consideration may differ from person to person depending on where the definition stops, an aspect we will deal with at length shortly, using a modern turn of phrase, Zionism believes that the land ‘from the river to the sea’ belongs to the Jewish people.
Of course, as soon as we speak of such a right to the land, we must ask about the basis of such a claim. On what grounds do Zionists claim that the land belongs to the Jewish people? We will address this question within the discussions of each of the Zionist perspectives below. However, we cannot proceed to that, since the definition of Zionism itself has thrown up another term that needs definition.
Who is a Jew?
If you asked someone, “Who is an Indian?” the most coherent answer would be, “Someone who is a citizen of India.” Similarly, if you asked someone, “Who is a South African?” the most coherent answer would be, “Someone who is a citizen of South Africa.” In both these cases, we have considered an identity based on the name of the country.
However, the case of Israel and the Jews is markedly different. If you asked, “Who is a Jew?” you cannot answer, “Someone who is a citizen of Israel,” because this is obviously false since there are Jews in India who hold Indian citizenship and not Israeli citizenship. Further, if you asked, “Who is a citizen of Israel?” you cannot answer, “Someone who is a Jew,” because there are non-Jewish citizens of Israel.
So it is clear that the identity of a Jew is independent of his/her relationship to the state of Israel. But we still haven’t answered the question, “Who is a Jew?” Since Jews of different stripes answer the question differently, we will attempt an answer to this question when we are dealing with the perspectives specific to Jews. With that out of the way, let us proceed.
The Jewish Secular Zionist Perspective
From a Jewish secular Zionist perspective, which provides the foundations for the current state of Israel, there can be no appeal to divine gift since the secular perspective would not permit it. Hence, people who hold to this perspective have to claim that the land belongs to the Jewish people because they were the inhabitants of the land two millennia ago.
However, this is an incoherent claim because, to be consistent, we would need to allow Native Americans to lay claim to the Americas and Australian Aborigines to lay claim to Australia. However, while some people may be willing to go in that direction, it is tantamount to punishing the present citizens of America and Australia for the sins of their ancestors many centuries ago.
Further, from this perspective, there is no way to define a Jew. There are Jews from Europe, Jews from Palestine, Jews from Iraq, Jews from Egypt, Jews from India, etc. Contrary to common belief and assertion, they do not share an ethnicity. Hence, there can be no collective identity for such a group. Without a factor that gives the ‘Jew’ an identity, this perspective shows itself as incoherent even on this ground.
Furthermore, there can be no appeal to a national identity since this is precisely the subject under dispute. If there is no identity for these people apart from a nation, then the nation cannot actually give the people an identity. This undermines the foundations of every nation on earth since right now most people have no identity apart from their nation. And since the nations themselves are arbitrary results of centuries of lurid politics and deplorable warfare, these nations have no more basis from a secular perspective than that they just happened to exist at a time when the secular formulation of nationhood was taking hold around the world.
Hence, from a Jewish secular Zionist perspective, the state of Israel has as much a right to exist as any other nation currently in existence. However, it cannot legitimately claim that it is the state of ‘Jews’ since, as we have seen, there are Jews who are identified with other nations and non-Jews who are identified with Israel. In other words, while I will have to concede from this perspective that Israel has a right to exist, it does not have the right to claim it is a nation for the Jews. Hence, from this perspective, while it is coherent to say that the nation of Israel has a right to exist, as all other states do, it is incoherent to call this state a nation of the Jews. This objection comes from within the Jewish secular Zionist assumptions themselves revealing the claim that the current state of Israel represents all Jews is an incoherent claim. Hence, from this perspective there can be no nation of the Jews.
The Jewish Secular non-Zionist Perspective
Here too, since we cannot invoke divine action or promise, we will have to start with the idea that there is no land gift to the Jewish people. However, people who hold to this perspective would not advocate that Jews inherently have any link to the land. These people would want to be treated as any other people on the earth, neither favored nor disfavored.
From such a perspective, the very idea of a Jewish state would be incoherent since these people would want to assimilate within the nations in which they live. They would want to have the same rights and responsibilities as the non-Jewish citizens of the countries in which they live. In other words, while the idea of a Jewish state is incoherent from the Jewish secular Zionist perspective, as we have seen, such an idea is nonsensical from the Jewish secular non-Zionist perspective.
Of course, since, within this perspective, there is no impetus to create a separate Jewish state, there is also no need to clearly define who a Jew is. While those who hold to this perspective might themselves be non-observant Jews, they would be able to accommodate observant Jews within their camp as long as the observant Jews are not themselves Zionists. Hence, within such a perspective, while the predominant view might be to define a Jew in terms of his/her parents’ (primarily mother’s) Jewishness, it may be able to accommodate those who hold to the view that Jews necessarily must be Torah observant. But here we can see an intrinsic problem that remains concerning the definition of a Jew. However, we are not in a position to solve this issue at this juncture.
The Jewish Religious Zionist Perspective
When we reach the Jewish religious Zionist perspective, we can understand that they would assert that God had promised to give the Jewish people the land in perpetuity. However, if such a claim has to bear weight, there must be absolute clarity about the portion of land that is being referred to. Yet, as can be seen in the multiple maps below, there is considerable disagreement about what the bible designates as the borders of the promised land. After each map I have given a brief comment so that some key ideas are highlighted.
The site from which the above image is taken is run by Orthodox Jews and proposes the widest interpretation of the boundaries based on passages like Genesis 15.18, Exodus 23.31, Deuteronomy 11.24, and Joshua 1.4. However, none of the links on the page actually takes the reader to the verses referred to, let alone the larger context of the chapter within which the verse is found. The site also does not seem to recognize the inherent conflict created by the narrowing of the heirs to the promise of Genesis 15.18 in the latter passages. Genesis 15.18 could be interpreted to mean that all of Abraham’s descendants, including the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, would inherit the land. Indeed, Deuteronomy 2.5 clearly states that God was giving part of Transjordan to the descendants of Esau and Deuteronomy 2.9 clearly states that God was giving another part to the descendants of Lot. Hence, within the Torah itself we have clear statements that the whole land indicated in the map had not been given only to the descendants of Jacob.
The site from which the above map is taken is run by Messianic Jews. I have clubbed the Messianic Jewish Zionist perspective here with the Jewish religious Zionist perspective because I have not found a single Messianic Jewish resource that is not also Zionist. However, their view differs significantly from the Christian Zionist perspective I will be addressing later. The source article here hides the discrepancies in the biblical accounts by changing from maps to pictures in the middle. While the pictures are great, the whole purpose of such an article is lost when you ask the reader to compare the boundaries of the land under Solomon, shown in a map, with the boundaries specified in the bible, shown with location pictures. Also given the fact that the page simply cites (not quotes) verses from Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47, without indicating that there are discrepancies between the two, makes me conclude that the whole exercise here is one of dissimulation. I am really averse to making such a claim about anyone. However, in this instance, it seems unavoidable. And I think I know the reason for the dissimulation. It is difficult to proof-text that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Otherwise, most of the Jews would believe he is their Messiah. However, this is what Messianic Jews believe. Yet, one cannot hold that belief while also being honest that the prophecies about the land are not that clear and that there are different, contradictory versions of the land prophecies.
In the page from which the above image is taken, the discrepancies between Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47 are indicated in the map and the article text. The text also highlights the difficulty of reconciling the account in Numbers 34 with that in Ezekiel 37. Since the purpose of the site is merely to provide maps and not to comment on the maps, we cannot expect much of a critique beyond what they have done.
In the above two images we are faced with three different interpretations of the boundaries of the land. The article does not engage directly with the maps, but presents them only for information.
On the pages from which the above two images are taken, we have two more interpretations of the borders of the land. The associated book is written from a Jewish religious Zionist perspective but recognizes the discrepancies between the accounts in Numbers 34 and Genesis 15.
What we can conclude from the vast number of differing understandings of the borders of the land is that, while the Jewish religious Zionist may claim that God has given the Jewish people the land, this goes against some scriptures, which clearly indicate that God has given some parts of the land to other people groups. Moreover, when the boundaries of the land promised by God are themselves so greatly disputed, it seems strange to insist on such a promise.
Nevertheless, let us suppose that there is a land promise that is clear. Let us assume that the Jewish people were promised a piece of land the boundaries of which are uncontested. Yet, in the same scriptures that a religious Jew would consult to find the promise we also have the promise that disobedience to the Torah will lead to expulsion from the land (Leviticus 18.24-28). In other words, consistency of interpretation would require us to say that, while the land had been promised to the Jewish people, they lost their claim to it when they violated Torah, as the people who preceded them in the land had lost their claim to it. Hence, the Jewish religious Zionist view is incoherent because it cherry picks the promises of land grant while disregarding the promises of expulsion from the land.
The Jewish Religious non-Zionist Perspective
The Jewish religious non-Zionist view would agree with the Jewish religious Zionist view that the people of Israel were promised the land. However, they will also take seriously the promised expulsion from the land for disobedience. Hence, they would say that the presence of Jews in the diaspora is crucial to the Jewish vocation right now. The descendants of those Jews who had not been driven from the land in AD 70, following the first Jewish War, and AD 136, following the Bar Kokhba revolt, were permitted to be in the land since divine judgment had not dispersed them. However, they would say that all other Jews should submit to the divine will revealed in their being in exile from the land.
Many who hold this view believe that, when the Messiah is finally revealed, and remember, they do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, he will bring them back to the land. In other words, they would hold that, till the Messiah is revealed and established, a return to the land would be disobedience to the divine will. Hence, from such a perspective, the very formation of the nation of Israel would be a supreme sign of disobedience to the divine will.
However, like the Jewish secular non-Zionist perspective, there will be a difference of definitions concerning who is a Jew. Those who are religious will link being a Jew to Torah observance, while those who are secular will try to make other bases for declaring a person a Jew. Since both these views have the same position concerning the land and the issue of a Jewish nation, and since I am not a Jew, I will let the definition of a Jew, which is not mine to make anyway, remain unresolved.
The Christian Zionist Perspective
The Christian Zionist is a Christian who believes that there should be a Jewish state. Very often there is the claim that the whole land was given unconditionally to the Jewish people. However, as is invariably the case, the cited article does not mention the verses from Deuteronomy 2 in which God gives part of the land to the descendants of Lot and Esau. Neither does it mention the conditions that would lead to expulsion from the land, as in Leviticus 18. Hence, it is clear that the whole land was never given to the Jewish people and whatever was given to them was never given without conditions. However, Christian Zionist resources rarely mention such passages. Yet, I think I can confidently state that, if we have to silence some scripture to support our position, then perhaps our position is untenable and should be discarded.
Another often made claim by Christian Zionists is that the Jews should be in the land before Jesus is able to return. But Jesus told us that we need to be watchful, ready for him to return at any time (Matthew 24.42). However, if Jesus’ return is predicated on a prior return of Jews in large numbers to the land, then till that happens we would know he is not returning. In other words, if I knew that Jesus would return only after there is a mass move of Jews to the land, then, as long as that does not happen, I can be certain that he was not going to return and his word about being watchful would be irrelevant. Since I do not believe that Jesus has ever spoken to someone with words that are irrelevant to them, I can only conclude that a view that requires him to speak irrelevant words is incoherent.
However, let us assume that the Christian Zionist premise is correct and that the Jewish people need to return to the land before Jesus returns. What would be the purpose of this? Some Christian Zionists refer to Isaiah 11.12 and say that the purpose of this ingathering would be so that the people of Israel would be a banner to Yahweh, serving as a rallying point for him. I do not dispute the fact that Isaiah 11.12 does say this. However, unless we look at the context of the verse, we will never determine if the verse has been applied correctly or not. Here we can see that v. 16 clearly indicates that this is a prophecy about the return of the people from the northern nation of Israel who had been displaced by the Assyrians. Therefore, unless we have another passage post-dating Isaiah that tells us we should apply the prophecy in a different way, we are not justified in applying the prophecy in another context. If we do not have such a constraint then anything goes! Then anyone can apply any prophecy to any context just because that is the point they wish to make. It is clear that Isaiah 11.12 cannot be applied to the creation of the modern state of Israel because Isaiah 11.16 restricts it to the return from Assyrian exile.
But someone may say that those who were displaced by the Assyrians never returned to the land. That is perfectly true. However, this does not require us to view the creation of Israel in 1948 as the fulfillment of the prophecy. But in 2 Corinthians 1.20 Paul says, “For in him every one of God’s promises is a ‘Yes.’ For this reason it is through him that we say the ‘Amen,’ to the glory of God.” In the context of 2 Corinthians 1, it is clear that Paul asserts that all God’s promises have been fulfilled in Jesus. This obviously means that at least some of the promises are not fulfilled literally. With that in mind, it seems clear that the return of the Jews exiled by Assyria was never accomplished in a literal manner.
However, consider the two maps above. The first shows the extent of the Neo Assyrian empire. The second shows the nations covered in the list in Acts 2.9-11. It is clear that the nations covered in Acts 2 included most of the areas included within the Neo Assyrian empire. In other words, per the logic of the Gospels and Acts, the return of the Jews from Assyrian exile happened when Jewish people heard the Pentecost proclamation of Peter, repented, and joined the newly founded Jewish renewal movement centered around Jesus the Messiah. To expect a future ‘return’, then, is to reject what Luke intends to tell us through Acts 2, namely that even the Assyrian exile had been brought to an end by Jesus through the outpouring of the Spirit.
The Christian Zionist view ignores passages that clearly contradict the position. It asserts a claim that makes Jesus speak irrelevant words. It applies a prophecy to another context despite the prophecy clearly being limited to one specific context. And it undermines the role of the Spirit in Acts 2. It is clear then that the Christian Zionist view is fatally incoherent. Because of this their premise concerning the relationship of the Jewish people to the land is deeply flawed. Hence, there can be no justification for a Jewish state from this perspective.
The Christian non-Zionist Perspective
Finally, we reach the last perspective I will deal with – the Christian non-Zionist perspective. This is much like the Jewish religious non-Zionist perspective in that people who propose this view would claim that God had given the Jewish people some of the land. However, the Jewish people were exiled as a result of their disobedience. And they would return to the land only when the Messiah is revealed.
Where the Christian non-Zionist would differ is in the claim that the Messiah has been revealed. Hence, the exile is over. However, because the Messiah has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, the ‘holy land’ has now expanded to include all the earth. Because of this any idea of returning to a literal geographical space because it is somehow ‘holy’ is meaningless. And because all the earth is under the dominion of Israel’s Messiah, who has created one community from the disparate peoples of the earth through his Spirit, any attempt to create a nation that separates Jews from non-Jews is an attempt to reverse the unifying work done by the Spirit.
The Stark Reality
The six perspectives I have considered are obviously split into two large groups – Zionist and non-Zionist. I have shown that the Zionist perspectives are internally incoherent and, therefore, unsatisfactory bases for answering the initial question, “Do the Jewish people deserve a nation to call their own?” I have shown that the Jewish secular non-Zionist perspective and the Jewish religious non-Zionist perspective, while internally consistent, would face a difficulty with clashing definitions of what it means to be a Jew. Yet, from both perspectives a separate Jewish state is either undesirable, the secular view, or a sign of disobedience to God, the religious view. Quite obviously I propose the Christian non-Zionist view within which the ‘holy land’ itself now encampasses the whole earth. Hence, any idea that Jews need to return to the land is incomprehensible from this perspective.
Therefore, I would hold that the answer to the question, “Do the Jewish people deserve a nation to call their own?” is “No!” just as it is “No!” for any people. No people deserve a nation to call their own. This is because defining a nation along the lines of a people group automatically puts in place an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ reality that is the seedbed for conflict. We need to move away from defining our groups in terms of unalterable aspects of our identity.
But someone may say that this would leave some people groups vulnerable to exploitation, oppression, and annihilation by other groups. Well, the truth is that vulnerability is a reality of human existence. Having our own princedoms in the Indian subcontinent did not prevent us from being exploited and oppressed by the European colonial powers. Having their own kingdoms did not prevent the people of South America from being exploited, oppressed, and annihilated by the same powers. Having their own kingdom did not prevent the Irish from being exploited, oppressed, and brutalized by the English.
The lie of the nation state is that it can protect us. But the reality is that it cannot. India does not provide security to Indians. Just ask the minorities who are persecuted within India’s borders. Or ask those who were imprisoned and tortured during the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi. Canada does not provide security to Canadians. Just ask the native populations there, who have been abused and hounded to near extinction. The USA does not provide security to its citizens. Otherwise, why would they have to imprison the native populations in reservations? And ask the numerous African American boys, like Trayvon Martin, and men, like George Floyd, who have been killed by the America state apparatus.
No! Security is the empty promise of the nation. But only those in power are ever kept secure and they wield power to suppress and oppress the common people. However, the fact of the matter is that all humans can only have lasting security if we humans refuse the seduction of the nation state and its appropriation of the use of violence to further its ends.