Category: Opinion

Part of a series of brief posts offering a perspective on the conflict in Palestine.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

During World War One, Britain encouraged both Arab nationalism and Jewish Zionism as part of their military struggle with the Ottoman Empire. Both were promised national independence in Palestine in return for the support of the British war effort.

During World War One, the Great Arab Revolt against Ottoman ruled was led by Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca and his three sons Abdullah, Faisal and Ali. In return the British had promised support for an independent Hashemite state stretching from Syria to Yemen. 

Meanwhile, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 indicated that the British government viewed “with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and promised to “use their best efforts to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine …”

While this declaration had no legal status under international law, it did represent an explicit endorsement of the idea of a Jewish national home within historic Palestine. 

Delivering on the declaration was one of the terms for the mandate given to Britain by the League of Nations to provide “administrative advice and assistance … until such time as they are able to stand alone.” The British understood their role to include the establishment of a national home for the Jews while also preserving the civil and political rights of Palestinian Arabs, but this became increasingly fraught as tensions grew between the two local communities in Palestine.

In 1921—as a partial fulfilment of their promise to Hashemites, and despite their commitment to creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine—the British Mandate authorities established the portion of Palestine east of the Jordan River as the Emirate of Transjordan, ruled by Abdullah I as its first Emir. This emirate remained a British protectorate until 1946 when it gained its independence and adopted the name “Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” 

With the establishment of the United Nations, Britain relinquished its mandate to develop the autonomous political and social infrastructure of Palestine.  Resolution 181 (II) on 29 November 1947 agreed to a partition plan to create separate independent Arab and Jewish states within Palestine, while reserving Jerusalem and its suburbs as a special International Zone (‘Corpus Separatum’) outside either national state. Although Arabs comprised 67% of the population, they were allocated just 43% of the territory. The partition was accepted (with some reservations) by Jewish groups but was rejected by the Palestinians and all other Arab nations.

After the war of 1948 (see next post), Palestine was divided: with 78% of historic Palestine under Israeli control and the remaining 22% split between areas controlled by Jordan (East Jerusalem and the West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza). Following the Six-Day War in June 1967, all of historic Palestine was under one power, although expressed through a Military Occupation in the areas beyond the ‘Green Line’ of the 1949 Armistice. The Green Line is widely regarded as the de facto international border between Israel and Palestine following UN Resolution 242

Under the Oslo Accords, the areas occupied by Israel in 1967 were divided into three categories: Areas A, B and C. Area A was designed to be exclusively administered by the Palestinian National Authority, while Area B was to be jointly administered by the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Area C was to be administered solely by Israel. These arrangements have not been fully implemented, as Israeli military forces routinely enter Area A.

During the Second Intifada (2000–2005), Israel constructed a physical barrier more or less along the Green Line to prevent easy movement of people from the West Bank into Israel and Jerusalem. The wall cuts deep into Palestinian lands on the West Bank to include Israeli settlements as well as natural water reserves, and in places separates Palestinians from their fields or other members of their family.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

Part of a series of posts offering a perspective on the conflict in Palestine

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

As European powers asserted their freedom to act within the notionally Ottoman territories of Egypt and Palestine in the late nineteenth century, there was a growing sense in some circles that a Jewish nation state might be created in Palestine, on a portion of the so-called ‘biblical lands.’ 

One of those circles was an influential set of Evangelical Protestant beliefs known as ‘Restorationism.’ With roots in Puritan millenarian speculations between 1640 and 1660, this view proposed that by restoring the Jews to their ancient homeland the Protestant powers of Europe could defeat a feared (but non-existent) alliance between the Catholics and Turkey, while ensuring the conversion of the Jews to Christianity, and preparing for the return of Christ. That was quite an agenda and variants of it have been seen in recent Evangelical support for Israel. For a while fear of Communism displaced the Ottoman Empire, but fear of Islam persists among many Christian supporters of Israel.

Evangelical missionary groups such as the London Jews Society (LJS) promoted these ideas in leading British circles, including Lord Shaftesbury (1801–85), whose 1839 essay “State and Restauration (sic) of the Jews” in the Quarterly Review argued “the Jews must be encouraged to return in yet greater numbers and become once more the husbandman of Judea and Galilee … though admittedly a stiff-necked, dark hearted people, and sunk in moral degradation, obduracy, and ignorant of the Gospel … [They are] not only worthy of salvation but also vital to Christianityʼs hope of salvation.”

As a Canon emeritus of St George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem, I should acknowledge that the origins of the Anglican Church in Jerusalem lie in just such attitudes. The establishment of the Anglo-Prussian bishopric in 1841 was a Protestant political initiative to promote Jewish settlement in Palestine and oppose Catholic France’s close relationship with the Ottomans.

William Hechler (1845–1931) was a son of LJS missionaries and served as chaplain to the British Embassy in Vienna. In 1894 he published The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine in which he argued that rather than seeking to convert the Jews, Christians should assist them to return to Palestine. 

Hechler was an advisor to Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), who was the leading activist seeking to secure European support for a Jewish national home.  Herzl convened the World Zionist Congress that assembled for the first time at Basel in 1897, and he is widely recognized as the founder of Jewish Zionism. The anti-Jewish sentiments of Herzl’s Christian Zionist allies are not so widely recognized.

Palestine was not the only potential location for the proposed Jewish homeland, but it was eventually endorsed in preference to other colonial locations such as Argentina and Uganda.

A fund to finance the purchase of properties in Palestine for Jewish colonies was established by the fifth World Zionist Congress in 1901 although the idea had been under consideration since the very first Congress. Over time it has developed into a major instrument for Jewish colonization in Palestine, and it now known as the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet LeYisrael, or KKL). It currently owns at least 13% of all the land in Israel and has become a major—if at times controversial—Jewish institution alongside the State of Israel.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

This post draws on lectures I gave as part of the “Apocalypse Then and Now” class for the Brisbane College of Theology Master of Theology program in 2008: Christian Zionism

The third post in a series offering a perspective on the conflict in Palestine.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

For most of the past 5,000 years Palestine has been a remote province in a vast empire whose capital was far from Jerusalem. Despite the legends of an extensive empire ruled by David and Solomon, there has never been a powerful society based in Palestine with the capacity to project its power over anyone beyond a few small regional city states. Even then, the local warlords only had such opportunities when there was no dominant empire.

The empires which have dominated Palestine during the past 5,000 years include Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Alexander the Great and his successor empires (the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria and Mesopotamia), then Rome, the Byzantines, and a series of Islamic dynasties (Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Mamluk and Ottoman). The most recent of these great empires were the Ottomans, who dominated the area from 1517 to 1918.

The next empire is yet to emerge.

We are in one of the periods of chaos between empires.

It is just over 100 years since the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but as yet no new empire has arisen in the region. In this intermediate period the smaller powers are flexing their muscles and experiencing a brief moment of autonomy. 

In the case of Israel that has been based almost entirely on the strategic support of the US which has provided diplomatic cover for Israel at the UN Security Council while ensuring it has the latest weapons to maintain military supremacy within its immediate neighborhood.

Some analysts suggest that the next regional empire to control the Middle East generally, and Palestine in particular will be based either in Egypt, Iran or Turkey.

While Israel may survive as a nation state within the larger political arrangements of the Middle East, it will also need to come to terms with its location in that region and cease imagining itself as a European nation with a strange zip code. Sooner or later the longer term regional dynamics will reassert themselves after the short-lived interruption of Anglo-American supremacy following two global wars during the twentieth century.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

This is the second in a series of posts offering a perspective on the conflict in Palestine.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

Due to the convergence of several tectonic plates, Palestine is part of a ‘land bridge’ which allows movement between Africa, Europe and Asia. For millennia this has encouraged migration, trade and military campaigns. The major river valleys of Egypt and Mesopotamia facilitated the development of highly-organized societies, which typically projected their power northwards into Palestine (in the case of Egypt) or southwards to the southern edges of Palestine (in the case of the northern and eastern powers).

In more recent times, European powers such as Napoleonic France, Great Britain, Germany and even Mussolini’s Italy have seen the strategic value of this region. With the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 the economic and political advantages deriving from easy access to the Gulf, India and the ‘Far East’ were clear. During the twentieth century, the vast oil reserves between Saudi Arabia and Iraq ensured continued interest in Palestine and Egypt.

During the 35 years or so after the end of World War Two, the global rivalry between the US and the USSR (often called the ‘Cold War’) ensured that both blocs invested in this region. While Britain, France and the US gave solid support to Israel, the USSR tended to support the Arab nations opposed to Israel. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, this global power competition has become less significant, but can still be seen in the Russian support for Syria as well the continuing American support for Israel.

Palestine in general, and Jerusalem in particular, also has some of the most significant religious sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims. It attracts pilgrims from around the globe, as well as locals for religious festivals.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine

In recent weeks many friends have asked for my views on the tensions between Israel and Palestine.

I am conscious of the proverb about those who visit Jerusalem for a week and then go home to write a book about the conflict; and those who stay for a month and prepare a pamphlet upon their return home; while those stay longer remain silent after they go home.

As someone who has enjoyed extensive contacts with Palestine, Jerusalem and Israel over several decades—including time serving as a co-director for the Bethsaida Excavations Project on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee and various periods serving on the teaching team at St George’s College in Jerusalem (Dean 2015/2017)—I have tended to refrain from offering my opinion.

However, I have personal and professional connections with a range of Israeli and Palestinian people, including academics and religious leaders from all three faith traditions. Some of them are my closest and most intimate friends.

In this post I honour my relationship them them all, and seek to help other friends without such personal connections to Palestine and its peoples appreciate the dilemma faced by us all.

This post includes the opening section of a longer document which may never see the light of day. It passes no judgement, but seeks to offer some insight.

In what follows I presume what once would have been a novel idea, namely that individual persons and collective human societies have civil and political rights which derive from our dignity as humans and are not generated by a power advantage over others. A novel idea indeed, but one that is embedded in the international world order which has generated and sustains the conflict between Jewish and Arab societies in Palestine.

At the core of this conflict is not a competition for territory but a clash of identities. 

As it happens, the protagonists are people with common DNA. At the biological level they are the same peoples. Over the course of a lengthy shared and partly dislocated history, the peoples of Palestine (all of them descendants of the ancient Canaanites) embraced different identities. Some of them retained their Jewish identity despite dislocation and absence from Palestine. Others discarded their Jewish identity while remaining ‘on location’ in Palestine. During the Byzantine period most of the latter identified as Christians. Following the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem more than 1,300 years ago all of them now identify as Arabs and the vast majority of them are Muslims.

Their shared DNA reveals their common history while their unresolved conflict reveals their divided identities.

I take it as axiomatic that Jewish people living in Palestine may organize their affairs to enjoy their civil and political rights.

For me it is also axiomatic that Palestinians have identical civil and political rights, including the right to defend themselves when attacked or when those rights are denied.

It is also axiomatic for me that the indigenous Palestinians—with their unbroken history of continuous presence in the land—have a prior claim to undisturbed civil and political rights which constitutes a form of ‘Native Title’ (to use a term from current Australian law) which can never be extinguished. 

Palestinian sovereignty was implicit in the League of Nations Mandate given to the United Kingdom after World War One and was subsequently reaffirmed in UN Resolution 181 which approved the partition of Palestine. It has never been surrendered or extinguished. Indeed it is affirmed by almost 200 UN member states which formally recognize the State of Palestine.

Human rights and the future of Palestine | Location location | A time between empires | Zionism as a colonial project | Jewish migration to Palestine | Dividing Palestine | The war of 1948 | Wars and rumors of war | Palestinian resistance | Creating a shared future in Palestine