The debate within Israeli society over whether to give up land for peace, or to give up peace for land, is coming to a head. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is forcing a disengagement from Gaza, which involves relocating by July 8,000 Jewish Israelis from their homes in Gaza settlements. Sharon’s main argument, it seems, is that giving up the occupied land in Gaza will allow Israel to keep most of the Palestinian land it has confiscated on the West Bank, where it has already settled about 400,000 Jewish Israelis in (from an Israeli point of view) permanent settlements.

Sharon says United States President George Bush has agreed with this, in principle, although the Bush administration is reluctant to say so now, when it is putting pressure on the Palestinian Authority to be more democratic and also to disarm Palestinian terrorists. Sharon said publicly on March 28th that it was too much at this time to ask President Bush to make a specific commitment. But Sharon intimated that Bush has given him this commitment in private.

Those who oppose disengagement from Gaza offer several counter arguments. First, giving up land without gaining something only makes Israel look weak. This is the view widely held of the decision by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak to pull occupying Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Afterwards, Hezbollah in Lebanon claimed victory, and Palestinians saw that violence works, the opponents of disengagement argue. So, why repeat such a mistake in Gaza?

Second, they say leaving Gaza will bring terrorist guns closer to the rest of Israel. Just as with Lebanon, they claim, it will become easier to attack Israeli citizens inside Israel with rockets and mortars. As the result will be less security, rather than more, what is to be gained by disengagement?

Third, many Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jews argue that God has given all the land now in dispute to Israel, including Gaza, so none of it should be ceded to Palestinians for any reason.

The first two arguments are consequentialist, for they involve a debate about the likely consequences of disengagement. As the consequences of relocating the present Jewish residents of the Gaza settlements cannot be fully known until after disengagement occurs, there is no way for either side to convince the other with their arguments. Each side expects the consequences that support its desire either to withdraw the settlers, or to leave them there. End of debate.

That makes the third argument more crucial, because it is not about the possible consequences of disengagement. Instead, it is about what it means to be a Jew. To be faithful, must Jews strive to control all the land, where their ancestors once lived and sometimes exercised political control? Is that commanded of Jews? Or, are Jews commanded to seek a just peace for all those living on the land of their forefathers, which includes Palestinians as well as Jews?

This argument is basically a debate about Jewish scripture and its interpretation. We should not be surprised that those engaged in this debate, on both sides, can find texts in the Hebrew scriptures, and in the Talmud as well, which support their positions.

Jews opposed to giving up land for peace point to texts about Israel as God’s chosen people. These not only include the Ten Commandments, as all Christians will recall, but also passages commanding ancient Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the promised land, who resisted their conquest and the right of the chosen people to rule. These texts are at the heart of the exodus narrative in the Torah, and no religious Jew can simply dismiss them as unimportant.

Jews who are willing to give up land for peace look primarily to texts in the Prophets. They point to passages such as Micah 6:8, which reads: "What does the LORD require of you, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" But they also find great significance in the opening of the Torah, where God makes man and woman in God’s own image. (Genesis 1:27) This text in the Creation story reveals that every person, whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, is precious in the sight of God.

From a Christian perspective, the Creation story and passages from the Prophets seem more clearly to reflect God’s will than the story of God’s chosen people in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But this is largely because Christians read the Hebrew scriptures in their Old Testament as pointing not only to Jesus, who was crucified, but also to the risen Christ as understood through Paul’s interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

The early church even rearranged the Hebrew scriptures to emphasize this understanding. Jews read their scriptures basically in the order that the books were written: Torah-Prophets-Writings. The Old Testament, however, presents these books in a different order: Torah-Writings-Prophets. In the Christian Bible, God speaks to the chosen people, the chosen people struggle on their own without hearing directly from God, then God speaks again but this time through inspired prophets. The New Testament becomes the final chapter in this story of God’s revelation, for the Church proclaims that the prophecies of God revealed to the Jews (but rejected by them, the Church teaches) have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

To understand the debate among Jews concerning their scriptures, Christians need to consider what it would be like to read the Old Testament books in the order that Jews read them: Torah-Prophets-Writings. The Torah presents the direct words of God to Moses, the Prophets the indirect word of God through inspired men, and the Writings the reflections of Jewish leaders on the Torah and the Prophets. In this narrative, the Torah is clearly preeminent. It not only comes first, but also is said to contain the commandments given by God to Moses for his people.

This is why religious Jews, who are willing to trade land for peace, cannot expect to win this argument by simply quoting the Prophets to the religious Jews, who oppose such a trade. Supporters of giving up land for peace must also find justification for their understanding in the Torah. Moreover, they must combat interpretations in the Talmud that privilege the chosen people, because the Talmud historically is the guiding interpretation of the Torah.

Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jews study only the Talmud, because it immerses them in the ancient debates among rabbis as to how Jews are to read and interpret the Torah. These Jews argue there is no need to read the Torah on its own, because it is all in the Talmud. Moreover, how could one properly understand the Torah without the benefit of the commentaries of the rabbis? In Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox yeshivas (seminaries) the Prophets are largely ignored.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that texts emphasizing "the chosen people" are at the heart of the Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox understanding of God’s commandments. This is why, for these Jews, the idea of giving up land for peace contradicts their basic Jewish identity.

It should be clarified that the land some Israelis would trade for peace is, under international law, Palestinian land. It is land taken during the war of 1967, land which the Israeli government has confiscated from Palestinians to build settlements and roads and security barriers, land which Jewish settlers are stealing for their orchards and their crops. There is no Israeli land on the table. All that might be traded for peace is Palestinian land now occupied by Israelis. Moreover, to attain peace most Israelis would trade only some of this occupied land, as they believe a good deal of it should be retained by Israel to ensure its security.

It is somewhat hopeful that those who support trading land for peace are largely secular Jews, who are less influenced by the religious debate. These Israelis are more apt to be affected by the behavior of religious Jews, than by their theological arguments. Those opposing Sharon’s disengagement plan have begun to block traffic on highways, and are threatening to escalate disruption to prevent the removal of religious settlers from Gaza. Some resisting disengagement have threatened violence, and crass bumper stickers have appeared suggesting Sharon will share the fate of Yitzhak Rabin (who was assassinated for promoting the Oslo Peace process).

Polls show a majority of the Israeli public supports the idea of disengagement, and settler violence against soldiers or government officials will certainly reinforce this view. On the other hand, if the government and army behave badly in removing settlers from their homes, then settlers may regain some of the sympathy they now seem to be losing among the majority of secular Israelis.

I am writing as a participant in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, which is sponsored by the World Council of Churches. The views expressed above are my own and do not necessarily represent the World Council of Churches. If you wish to publish or disseminate this letter beyond personal friends, please contact the EAPPI Communications Officer (eappi-co@jrol.com) for permission to do so. Thank you.

Bob Traer, 28 March 2005

For other Letters from Jerusalem, go to http://christian-bible.com/Ethics/lj.letters.2005.htm.

Home   Exegesis   Scripture   Worship   Ethics   Dialogue   Parables   Email   

1 in Faith: A Christian Bible Study † Copyright © 2000 by Robert Traer