Many Israelis and most evangelical Christians in America continue to believe that present-day Jews have a biblical right to all of Arab territory in Palestine.
The best way for Israel to stop terrorist attacks in its territory is by first ceasing its occupation of all Arab land it captured in the 1967 War.
Admittedly, Israel correctly acted out of self-defense. However, the issue is no longer one of self-defense. The problem is that Israel will not pull back to its pre-1967 borders as long as many Israelis and most evangelical Christians in America continue to believe that present-day Jews have a biblical right to all of Arab territory in Palestine. For this reason a biblical examination of the issue is necessary.
As an evangelical Christian, of Indian origin, I wish to set the biblical issue in proper perspective.
Although the modern state of Israel has every right to exist (and all need to respect and honor this fact), this does not mean that Zionism (the belief that Jews have a biblical right to all of Palestine ) is correct. And it is Zionism that is primarily fueling the building and expansion of Jewish settlements on Arab land.
From a purely biblical perspective Zionism has enormous problems. The fact is that almost none of the Jews in modern Israel today are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine. Most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of Europeans who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews).
The last time that God promised in Scripture to bring the Jews back to their ancestral homeland was fulfilled centuries ago, when He brought them back from their Babylonian captivity. Thus, the Jews in present-day modern Israel are not a fulfillment of that ancient promise.
Furthermore, God’s promises to the Jews concerning the land were conditional – only so long as they obeyed Him were those promises concerning the land binding.
Most evangelical Christians today are looking forward to the seven year tribulation period of Israel, which would require the Jews to be in the land. But this period already occurred in history: during 63 A.D. to 70 A.D. (seven years ), when the Roman army besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. It was this destruction that Jesus said would mark the end of the age (the Jewish Age, that is).
Evangelical Christians who are dispensationalists are still seeking an Israel that the New Testament says is the spiritual body of Christ, made up of both Jew and Gentile believers in Jesus Christ, who together inherit the same promises.
The problem with most evangelical Christians today is that they interpret the Book of Revelation literally. Revelation is a book filled with symbolism and should not be interpreted literally. The Book itself tells us not to interpret it literally.
In the very first verse of the very first chapter we read, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John" (Revelation 1:1, KJV). The word "signified" in the passage comes from a Greek word meaning "signs" or "symbols." Thus, Revelation was meant by Christ to be interpreted symbolically, not literally! The Book of Revelation, like the rest of the New Testament, was originally written in Greek, so sometimes we must go to the Greek language to have a more precise understanding of certain words.
The modern state of Israel, now that it has been established, has every right to exist and most Palestinians now will agree to Israel’s right to exist. What they do not agree to is Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Israel’s continued building of settlements there. Most Palestinans will stop supporting terrorism if Israel simply gets out of their way (the West Bank), and that is the best way for Israel to stop the terrorism and preserve its security and peace – not to mention the security and peace of others.
It is important, however, to have some basic background knowledge of how the modern state of Israel was founded.
As one writer points out: "Israel was created (in the beginning) not by force of arms or military invasion, but terrorist activity advocated by Jewish immigrants, in an effort to get rid of the British Administration (the lawful government of the day, as sanctioned by the predecessor to the U.N). Britain abandoned its mandate and Israel was created by the U.N."
Any solution to the present crisis must also involve monetary or financial compensation being made by Israel to Palestinian families who have had their homes and lands seized and taken away during the formation of the modern state of Israel in the 1940's.
During that time Palestinian families suffered huge atrocities, including the slaughter of many civilans. This was one of the many horrible crimes committed against Palestinians, even by such notable political figures as former Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin, and the Palestinians should be compensated by the modern state of Israel for these crimes. That is only right.
For those interested in a Biblical study of the almost forgotten preterist view and interpretation of Bible prophecy concerning the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, please contact Evangelist John L. Bray at: P.O. Box 90129, Lakeland, Florida 33804. Evangelist Bray has written books, pamphlets, and numerous articles on preterism.
Also, The Preterist Archive (www.preteristarchive.com) contains much useful information of interest concerning preterism and the various preterist interpretations of Bible prophecy. Of course, please understand that by sharing these sites I am not necessarily endorsing all of the preterist interpretations and views expressed in them.
bgrnathan@yahoo.com
http://www.religionscience.com/
Read more articles by Babu G. Ranganathan
Firstly, many countries have never returned land that they have occupied as a result of a war and if I were to list them it would take quite some space so I'll leave the researching of that to you since you have proven to be a really good objective researcher.
Secondly, most Ashkenazi Jews are not converts but direct descendants, again research, research, research. Thirdly, most arabs would not concede to peace once the "occupied territories" are returned (see Elan Journo article). There exists a deep rooted hate for the Jews amongst the Arabs.
Comment by naomi | July 20, 2006
Not sure what Bible you read but the one I have tells me that the Jews have Israel at the beginning of the 70th week of Daniels prophesy. How else could a deal be made with the surrounding countries.
With your logic we should all walk into the sea and leave the place to the animals because they were here first.
With your logic the American Indians can get back the United States by strapping bombs to their kids and having them blow themselves up in crowds.
Comment by Frank Baginski | July 20, 2006
Get real, Babu. Israel was attacked in 1967 before it possessed the land you contend is the reason it continues to be attacked.
It appears you have buried your nose so deeply into an historical exploration that something this obvious escapes you.
But then, perhaps it is just a case of you being an unrealistic fellow. The notion that whether the Palestinian population has anything to do with whether terrorist participate in their bloody sport is sillyness. Palestinians who denounce terror are what we all know as dead bodies.
Comment by nick | July 20, 2006
You are simply incorrect about many things.
You say "The fact is that almost none of the Jews in modern Israel today are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine.
" Nice try but the genetic evidence available shows otherwise.
Europeans who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews). Wrong these are different groups.
The last time that God promised in Scripture to bring the Jews back to their ancestral homeland was fulfilled centuries ago The problem you have with Judaism is the problem that Christians always have with Judaism. You deny the oral tradition. When Moses went up on Mt. Sinai, he only wrote down a portion of what he learned. The rest is the oral tradition. If you deny the validity of the content of oral tradition, you deny the existence of what you call scripture. Hebrew is written without vowels. Sometimes the meaning is ambiguous without those vowels. The oral tradition provides the vowels that were used in translating the original bible into Greek. If you can't trust the oral tradition used to interpret G-d's promises to the Jewish people, then you can't trust that same tradition which was used to translate the ""Old Testament" into Greek. And your religion falls apart.
Your attempt to start the history of the modern state of Israel after WWII is also wrong. In the middle of the 19th century, by many accounts, the majority of the people living in that area were Jewish. As the area got wealthier, Arabs moved in and, when they were in the majority started killing Jews. There were pogroms for instance in 1927 where thousands of Jews were murdered by Arabs.
In any case, the idea that the current Palestinians were living there in the 19th century is simply false. Mark Twain, writing in the middle of the 19th century, visited there and reported the land to be almost empty.
As for monetary compensation, it should start with the governments of Iraq, Iran, , Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt paying Jews for land and goods arbitrarily appropriated from their Jewish citizens in the last hundred years. And if there is any compensation, we should make sure to deduct from it the value of the land that Arabs there acquired by killing the Jews who bought the land from other Arabs.
And as an Evangelical Christian, you should be aware that Islamists are driving Christian Arabs out of the lands they occupy. . The people you are defending are intolerant of your people as well as mine.
Comment by Yaakov Watkins | July 20, 2006
This article flies in the face of reality on several points. Firstly, Zionism is the
reason there is a Jewish state to begin with. If it were not for Zionism, there
would be no demand for a country for the Jews to return to. If the Jews were
to have a country, then there could be no other country than Eretz Yisrael.
A Jewish state in, say, Africa, Cuba, or Nebraska with no holy Temple
Mount, with no real tie to the history of the Jewish people, and therefore no
way to fulfill G-d's commandments regarding where they will worship, is
to the Jewish and evangelical Christian mind, unthinkable.
Secondly, territory gained by conquest belongs by international law to that
country. Yisrael's giving up of her land to Arabic occupiers then and now is fairly
well unprecedented.
Secondly, a "return" of the land gained fair and square in the 1967 war will
not lead to a cessation of hostilities. We learn from the PLO Charter, the
Hamas covenant, and almost every statement ever made by Hezbollah that
the only cessation of hostilities will come with a return to the 1948 borders;
i.e., the eradication of Eretz Yisrael.
As to the biblical points, there will always be debate about these, but I wish
to point out that there is no seven-year tribulation period. There is a period
of seven years during which someone (often believed to be the Antichrist)
will "confirm the covenant" with Yisrael, only to break it after three years
and a half. Since the sudden breaking of treaties made in good faith is a
Muslim tactic, and the Muslims were not in existence during 70 A.D., it is
not unreasonable to infer the existence of a Jewish state in Israel in modern
times, though I will be the first to admit it is foolish to do so based only on
this observation without corroborating evidence, which we have no time to
examine here.
I have a big problem with the viewpoints of those who insist that the
Scriptures be fulfilled symbolically, exclusive of a literal interpretation.
Usually those who do so are looking to distort the meaning of what is written
to conform to their pre-existing notions. Of course this is not always the case;
I do not wish to rule out the esoteric in exclusive favor of the literal. I merely
wish to point out that an esoteric or symbolic truth does not render a literal
interpretation of that same truth untrue, as so many modern theologians
seem to believe.
Finally, the state of Israel was originally created by British mandate; at least,
that was the plan. The Jewish population did not begin action until the
British had dragged their feet, delaying the promised homeland. Israel was
legally established, if a little late, and so is entitled to the rights and protections
of their own sovreignty.
Comment by Lane Russell | July 20, 2006
If, genetically, the people in Israel today are descended from 'Europeans wo converted to Judaism', why then do their genetic templates show a continued homogeneity absent from other European populations, the populations from which they supposedly arose?
Hebrew blood has been diluted through the ages (and we talk about this as if it matters - see racism), but there nevertheless exists a continued genetic presence, unlikely if modern Jews descended from disparate European communites connected (like Christians) by a common religion rather than a common bloodline.
Even so, I doubt whether this gives Jews any special claim to dominate the Holy Land.
Comment by alex | July 21, 2006
For a different perspective on the root cause of the conflict, see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/israels-endless-war-is-_b_25336.html
Comment by anonymous | July 22, 2006
The best way for Israel to stop terrorist attacks in its territory is by first ceasing its occupation of all Arab land it captured in the 1967 War.
The recent experiences post the return of Gaza to the “Palestinians” shoots your opening statement out of the water! After the return of that parcel of land the Arabs, since I hate using the name now recognized when they never formed a nation, they quickly started lobbying rockets at the nearest Israeli towns. Did they start nation building? No, they started the provocation of Israel into another war! Yes they want a country but it is from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. They keep repeating this and I believe them since all their actions support this ambition. Babu you need better sources in doing your research!
Comment by Jacques | July 24, 2006
If a nation takes over territory by force, it's under no obligation to give it back. You can negotiate for it's return or take it back by force.
Israel was formed mostly from Russian influence. The USSR wanted somewhere to dump it's Jews. America got in on the act for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that we had then and continue to have the largest jewish population of any country in the world. Which is why, during the cold war, Israel was the only country on earth to have access to all NATO and Warsaw Pact weapons.
Comment by Kytross | July 25, 2006
Good article. The authentic conservative (and Christian) position is NOT support Israel nor the Muslims. Both are terrorists.
As Russell Kirk said, many neoconservatives have "mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."
Comment by John | July 27, 2006
Wow, taking Mark Twain for your historical reference on Palestine, where can you go wrong?
These comments appear to be no more than some inane arguments, mixed with some expressions of plain foolishness. That, you think is discourse worth your limited time?
Comment by Joe Bob Henry Jed | July 30, 2006
Only a person who does not understand the nature of prophesy could say what you have said.
Your statements concerning the return of Israel after their captivity in Babylon was only a part
of the prophesy for the Author of prophesy sees the end from the beginning. Contrary to what
many believe, the prophets did not limit prophesy to current events, or even to man's
interpretation of a prophecy's fulfillment, but to the ability of men to repeat history time and
time again.
Comment by JW Kopp | July 31, 2006
naomi, I wonder if you kight be so kind as to give the references for the statement you made.
"Secondly, most Ashkenazi Jews are not converts but direct descendants, again research, research, research. "
Or can you tell us roughly what proportion of Ashkenazi jews are converts and not descendents?
Thanks
Comment by Micael | August 1, 2006
Yacov you stated. "Europeans who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews). Wrong these are different groups."
Your reply seems wrong. Are you saying that no European jews are descendents of Khazars?
Surely it is an undeniable fact of history that some European jews are in fact descendents of Khazars and not biblical jews?
Comment by Micael | August 1, 2006