Whose Land Is It?

Ronald D. Witherup - Sulpician priest, bible scholar, and provincial of the U.S. Province of the Society of St. Sulpice.

The view of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives is one of the most impressive in the Holy Land. I still hark back to that view, which I was able to experience for the first time in 1992 on my inaugural trip to Israel. Although the contemporary walls around the Old City date only from the late Middle Ages, one gets a sense of the majesty of this ancient, historic city nonetheless. The first time I gazed upon the walls, in the shimmering twilight of the evening, I got goose bumps. The scene was so peaceful, almost surreal. My dream of finally visiting the land where Jesus had lived and walked had come true. But it did not take long for reality to intrude in my quiet reflection. Blaring sirens brought my ruminations to a halt. As majestic as the scene before me was, this was nevertheless a battleground. An age-old tug of war continues in and around the city. And at the heart of the disruption is the burning question: Whose land is it?

The purpose of this article is to offer a brief, personal reflection on this question, especially from the biblical point of view. The situation is much too complex to treat thoroughly here, but we can set forth a basic approach. Much of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves disputes over the Land. Various parties beyond these two groups weigh in on the question, often using biblical warrants to justify their perspective. While I do not think the biblical data alone can decide the question, proper reflection on them might issue us a note of caution to place this perennial question in proper perspective.

Terminology and the Land

The land is obviously a major theme in the Old Testament. Several scholarly studies have been devoted to this theme, and we cannot rehearse all of this information here. Our goal will be more realistic. Primarily, we want to explore the essential biblical perspectives on the land that might shed light on the proper or improper use of the Bible in addressing this question. As has been true for ages, people of all stripes invoke the Bible as a kind of sanction for one position or another. Indeed, the Bible was collated over such an extensive period of time and in such varying circumstances that virtually any position can be defended on the basis of one passage or another. Whether this is defensible from a contemporary scholarly perspective is another matter. But let's look first at some of the passages most commonly used with regard to the land of Israel.

At the outset I emphasize that even basic terminology can be misleading. The land at the center of the dispute can be called Israel, the Holy Land, or Palestine, depending on your perspective. Even in the Bible the designation can be problematic. While the term "Holy Land" is clearly a Christian perspective, expressing the connection of this area to the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the other two terms also represent valid designations from different perspectives. "Israel" is the name of the ancient kingdom that King David ruled over, once he united the tribes. It also refers to the northern kingdom after the death of Solomon (922 B.C.), which was distinct from the southern kingdom, Judah. But the term also now designates a modern state that the United Nations created in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust and the outcome of World War II. Pious Jews honor "the land of Israel" ('eretz Israel; cf. 1 Sam 13:19) as a Jewish homeland that fulfills the expectations of the Old Testament promises that God would create a homeland for the Jews.

The term "Palestine" simultaneously names an area that once encompassed the Roman province of Judea but also designated a wider geographic region in the eastern Mediterranean. Now the name applies to a fledgling and hoped-for future homeland for modern Arabs who call themselves Palestinians and who seek an independent state of their own.

Bandying these titles about can get one into tight situations. In using a specific term, one can be making a political statement of claim. As a Christian, I still prefer to refer to the modern state of Israel as the Holy Land. I think it is the most neutral term. Although this is considered a Christian term, the reality of Jerusalem as a city deemed holy by three faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) may give some legitimation to using this generic title for the entire area.

The Old Testament Perspective

What is the biblical testimony about the land? I will summarize the data succinctly and then offer some critical remarks based upon the state of scholarly research.

1) Even a cursory reading of the Bible shows that God, i.e., the God of Israel - Yahweh - promised a land to Abram, the father of Judaism, as part of the covenant between them. At God's direction, Abram sets out from his own homeland, Ur of the Chaldeans, to journey to the land of Canaan. But the text proceeds, "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'" (Gen 12:6b-7; cf. 15:18-21; 17:5-8). God repeats this promise to Isaac and Jacob, thus reaffirming to the great triumvirate of patriarchs the promise of a land to this chosen people (cf. Gen 26:3-4; 28:13-15; 50:24).

2) Subsequent Old Testament books pick up on these promises, especially Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua. Heroes like Moses and Joshua are portrayed as leading the chosen people to the "promised land" in fulfillment of God's covenant. This land is sometimes described as flowing with "milk and honey," signs of prosperity and peace (Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5). This scenario also includes the annihilation of the various peoples who inhabit the land (e.g., Deut 7:1-11; 20:16-18). This is part of a complex reality called the herem or "sacred ban" in which everything opposed to God and standing in the way of the chosen people is to be destroyed. This is both to honor God wholeheartedly and to prevent self-service looting for one's own benefit. Although this aspect of the biblical faith strikes modern ears offensively, it was part of the culture at the time and is deeply imbedded in the Old Testament's understanding of God as a divine warrior who is out to protect his people.

Interpreting the Biblical Perspective

What is one to make of this perspective? Scholars point to several problematic aspects of this entire scenario.

1) The historicity of the patriarchal narratives is highly questionable, at least in the details. While some aspects of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, for instance, are consonant with what is known from outside sources, other details are not. The name "Chaldeans," for instance, is anachronistic, since they did not come into existence until around the 9th cent. B.C., centuries after Abram's existence. There is no guarantee that the events narrated about the time of the patriarchs - 18th cent. B.C. - are actually a record of that time. In fact, there are clear indications that later materials have crept into the narratives and reflect an interpretation of the narrated events from later perspectives. This should not be surprising. The Old Testament in written form only started to come into existence in the 10th cent. B.C., around the time of King David, and continued down to the 2nd cent. B.C. Later writers often reworked the traditions, especially after the Exile (6th cent. B.C.), to address their own theological perspective. This fact is simply an acknowledgment that the Bible is history and theology. There are multiple layers of both imbedded in the biblical material. Sorting the one from the other is a tenuous task at best, and with the land traditions, it can be daunting. Moreover, the texts bear witness to historical developments that came about over a long period of time, such as the sociological change from a nomadic and semi-nomadic society to one that was more agricultural, settled and urban. The texts do not always reveal the factual historical complexities of this shift.

2) There is an implicit acknowledgment in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's chosen people originally but results from the covenant relationship with Yahweh. It is, in fact, the land of the Canaanites (among others, such as the Kenites, Kennizites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc.; cf. Gen 12:5; 15:19; 23:2; Exod 3:17). There were, in other words, indigenous peoples in the land. Nowhere does the Bible address this question from an ethical or moral perspective. Rather, the theological perspective dominates the Old Testament in which the land is "promised" to Israel.

3) Archaeological evidence, which at times can be and has been used to demonstrate the historical accuracy of some ancient biblical texts, sometimes demonstrates the opposite. Most glaring, for instance, is the biblical description of the fall of such towns as Jericho or Ai. Archaeological digs have shown that these cities did not exist as walled cities in the time of the patriarchs, and indeed there is no evidence of massive destruction of these cities in the time period described by the biblical accounts. Moreover, many scholars now see evidence of a gradual, peaceful settlement of the land over time, intermingling with the native populations, in considerable contrast to the biblical portrait of a war-like conquest described in Joshua and Judges.

4) Even the extent of the land of Israel in ancient times, usually designated as "the land of Canaan," is uncertain. The common formula invoked to note the boundaries of ancient Israel is "from Dan to Beersheba" (Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 17:11), but scholars know that the boundaries changed and were fairly fluid throughout the entire Old Testament period. The extension of the boundaries from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south refers primarily to the land west of the Jordan River, and does not include the Mediterranean coast or what is now known as the West Bank. One text, which seems hyperbolic, speaks of the scope of the land as extending from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18)!

5) The biblical perspective is sometimes clouded by other political agenda and heavily influenced by literalistic interpretations. In particular, radical religious Zionists have used the biblical data as an absolute warrant for justifying the forceful taking of land even in our day, on the assumption that these ancient texts now justify modern realities. In a strange twist, some fundamentalist Christians support this position, albeit for their own reasons. They believe that God's kingdom will only come fully once the state of Israel is re-established in its biblical proportions and the Temple is restored. The complex history of intervening centuries plays no part in this simplistic reading of the biblical data.

Confronting the Current Reality

This biblical perspective, then, cannot be taken in every detail as a kind of "blueprint" for the contemporary situation in the Holy Land. We should acknowledge the perennial value of the Bible's teachings without asserting that the Bible applies directly to every moral situation in our own world. This approach is both thoroughly Catholic and consistent with many other interpretative traditions, Protestant and Jewish. In my judgment, the only place to begin with the question of the land is not with the Bible but with the facts of the present situation in the Holy Land. We must begin with reality as it exists now. The situation "on the ground" is what we must now confront. There can be no going back to an idyllic, pre-modern vision. With this in mind, I offer three minimal elements of the current situation that must be acknowledged for the question of the land to be addressed.

1) Both peoples, Israeli and Palestinians, will have to learn to co- exist peacefully. The land really belongs to both of them and must be shared. The state of Israel is a fact, established by the United Nations and having the right to exist. There is no going back to a pre-1947 world. The Palestinians, at the same time, also have a right to exist as a nation. They must be guaranteed a fair, independent, viable, and contiguous state to call their own. In addition, the resources of the land, such as water, which is so crucial in that desert climate, must also be shared fairly by the two parties.

2) The current Israeli practice of forcefully expanding the settlements in Palestinian territories is morally and legally wrong. Not only does it violate United Nations resolutions, but it exacerbates the problem of preserving a viable territory for the Palestinians to govern. The facts are important to remember. More than 200 settlements now exist in the occupied territories, and some 400,000 Israelis have crossed the earlier internationally established borders to live in these new areas. Since 1967 Israel has expropriated 24% of the West Bank, 89% of East Jerusalem, which was largely Arab, and 25% of the Gaza strip, all for its own use and under the guise of the need for security. From speaking with some of the Israeli settlers, many of whom are Jewish immigrants from other countries, including the U.S., one gets the impression that this movement is justified simply because of the biblical promises.

3) Jerusalem remains a thorny problem, especially because of its unique status in the three great religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Holy See has repeatedly called for special consideration of Jerusalem. Internationally, Jerusalem is not recognized as the capital of Israel, despite Israel's unilateral declaration to that effect in 1967. Jerusalem must be preserved both as an entity where so many holy sites exist side-by-side and attract (when conflict dies down) many international visitors, and also as a home to many diverse religious communities who have a right to preserve their homes and way of life.

Conclusion

As I mull over the memories of my several visits to the Holy Land, I do not just recall the various images of the fascinating places I visited. I also recall the many people I met and engaged in conversation, both Palestinian and Jewish. The sense of fatalism and depression was at times almost overwhelming. Both sides have obvious love for the land, and both are struggling to preserve what they believe is a God-given right.

As John Paul II has said on more than one occasion, what must be preserved is not only the Holy Land itself but human dignity. Human rights take precedence over ancient claims to land. These two peoples who have common Semitic roots must strive harder to overcome their ancient prejudices and negotiate a fair and just resolution to the current crisis. The biblical tradition should not be used literalistically to justify a modern, political situation. Violence has only begotten more violence. It has not solved and cannot solve the problem. Although I am not naive enough to believe the resolution will come easily or quickly, I do pray that we who stand on the sidelines are willing to help more in the future. I still gaze out over the "holy city" of Jerusalem and let the psalmist's words flood over me: "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you. Peace be within your walls" (Ps 122:6-7).