Columnists
The top ten things you need to know to begin understanding the Israeli/Palestinian impasse: Part 4
By Henry H. Bucher, Jr., Faculty Emeritus in Humanities, Austin College
Mar 27, 2024
Print this page
Email this article

Part 1 covered the first two issues in North Texas e-News (March 5, 2024)

 

Part 2 covered issues three to five (March 14, 2024)

 

Part 3 covered issues six and seven (March 18, 2024)

 

Henry H. Bucher, Jr.
8.—Those trying to understand this impasse have always made a clear distinction between historical ethical Judaism as a religion and modern Zionism as a type of secular political universalism with Israel representing a secular “messiah” (not an Orthodox Jewish idea since they believe that the true “Israel” can only be realized after the Messiah comes!)* Western Christians are divided with historic Protestants and Roman Catholics believing that Jesus was the Messiah and Saint Paul’s “New Israel” is the church. This leads to seeing the state of Israel today as any other modern state with all rights and privileges under international law.

 

Therefore, Christians should be seeking dialogue with Judaism—an elder sibling of Christianity—both being spiritually based. Some Christians read ‘dispensationalism’ into Israel’s founding in 1948 and make connections with the second coming of Christ. The total conversion of Israeli Jews when Jesus returns is a key part of the fundamentalist beliefs. The worse events become in the Israeli/Palestinian impasse, the closer we are to welcoming Armageddon, their argument goes.

_____________________________________

*There appears to be an ‘informal and unofficial understanding’ between Orthodox Jews and some Protestant Christians (such as Christians United for Israel—CUFI) that when the Messiah comes, the first question asked will be: “Is this your first appearance on earth?” If the answer is ‘no, the Orthodox will convert to Christianity; if ‘yes,’ Christians will convert to Judaism!

 

 

9.—Throughout modern history, every minority (alas, perhaps not the Kurds), has had a “protector” among the powerful nations—often tied to religion. The Orthodox looked to Orthodox Russia until 1917, the Catholics to Roman Catholic Italy, and so forth. Britain protected the Armenians and Jews with the USA protecting Jews especially after 1948 almost as an inheritance from Britain’s waning empire. The USA has never been neutral in the Israeli/Palestinian impasse. For many years the USA, South Africa and Israel voted as a lone trio on many UN votes that attempted to resolve the impasse. With the end of apartheid in South Africa, the USA and Israel often stood alone, not only on this conflict, but also on such issues as Cuba. For many years, Israel was compared to South Africa (primarily in their racial/ethnic policies) and even today, many would argue that until Israeli occupation of the West Bank ends, Arab areas of the occupied West Bank resemble “Bantustans” in South Africa. Former President Jimmy Carter’s book:  Palestine: Peace not Apartheid repeats this theme.

 

The USA knows that all Israeli settlements in the occupied West bank (and those that had been in Gaza) are illegal under international law and have been since 1967; but the USA ‘protects’ Israel from facing international law and reality by vetoing (or not enforcing) the many UN resolutions that go against Israel while we continue to support the UN on most other issues.

 

After the dominance of the Likud party, Israel has been on a collision course with Europe. The USA’s preemptive war in Iraq reinforced the growing world opinion that the USA is becoming more and more like Israel under Likud leadership. The less successful the USA is in Iraq, the more pressure the US must put on Israel to keep its international commitments.

 

Changes within Israel and the West Bank in late 2005 are monumental—such as Likud’s loss in the spring 2006 elections. By ignoring the PLO election victory and the possibilities for a peace settlement, the USA and Israel encouraged the Hamas election victory of 2006 but refused to deal with the political implications.* Israel (and often the USA) “encourage democracy” especially if their candidate wins.

 

*In 2006, the Hamas electoral victory in the West Bank elections was among the least covered events in the Western press. However, in the New York Times, January 26, 2006, a good summary was covered in “Victory Ends 40 Years of Political Domination by Arafat’s Party.” The first paragraph notes: “With discipline and a well-financed campaign to turn out its faithful in constituencies, the radical Islamic party Hamas scored an overwhelming victory in Wednesday’s Palestinian elections, taking 76 out of 132 seats, deposing the former ruling party, Fatah, which won only 43.” Israel wanted the election but rejected the results. Hamas shifted its headquarters to Gaza with the attitude of “if ballots are not taken seriously, we shall return to the bullet.” Today (late March, 2024) the Israel/Hamas war continues…) Now both Israel and Hamas are committed to destroy the other!

 

Meanwhile, back at the branches of the US government dealing with the Middle East, the Israel/Hamas ‘war’ appears to be a turning point in US policy.