Why are our conversations (!) about Israel-Palestine so problematic? Why is there an apparently unbridgeable chasm between the two sets of views on this issue? Is there a way to actually listen well to each other?
The Grove Ethics group has offered the beginnings of an answer. Two people, Colin Chapman and James Patrick, have set their views out on the key stages of the history of the conflict. In the booklet this pair of views is presented side by side; I cannot do that, so do not put any interpretation on the order here.
In this extract, I include their introductions, their accounts of the key moment of the foundation of Israel in 1947–8, and their conclusions. But the other sections are equally important.
I have found reading these two accounts side by side enormously enlightening. It illustrates how very different perspectives can develop and points to what we need to do to find a way to a better conversation.
You can buy the booklet, post free in the UK, from the Grove website here. It really is essential reading at the present moment.
Introduction: Colin Chapman
Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and Israel’s attacks on Hamas in Gaza have made people around the world more aware of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and raised huge ethical questions. Many see it as ‘the great moral litmus test of our times.’
Christians are deeply divided in their responses. This is firstly because we have different understandings of the history of the conflict, and secondly because we differ over questions of biblical interpretation.
This booklet attempts to address basic questions about the history: what are the roots of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? And how does each side interpret the main events since the 1880s?
On the left-hand page, I present the narrative which is more sympathetic to the experience and understanding of most Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. On the right-hand page, James presents the narrative that is more sympathetic to the experience and understanding of most Israeli Jews and Jewish people outside of Israel.
I first began to study the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while living through the civil war in Lebanon which began in 1975. At the same time, I was wrestling with a basic question of biblical interpretation: does fulfilment of biblical promises and prophecies about Israel in the Bible involve any present and future role for the Jewish people in the land?
My answer was a clear ‘No!’ because I concluded that the coming of the kingdom of God in Jesus transformed Old Testament ideas about the nation of Israel and the land. I have always therefore tried to draw a clear line between my understanding of the history of the conflict and my interpretation of Scripture. In what follows, however, it will be clear that James answers the same question with an emphatic ‘Yes!’ His understanding of all recent history in the Middle East is therefore deeply influenced by his biblical interpretation.
Since in this booklet we are discussing histories rather than theologies, these are the kind of questions that I hope readers will be asking about each stage of the conflict: how much common ground is there between these two histories? Can they both be true? Is one a fairer account of what happened than the other? On what basis should we attempt to make moral judgments about the actions of all the different parties that have played a role in this intractable conflict?
Introduction: James Patrick
The attack of 7 October 2023 and subsequent war has brought terrible suffering and loss to both Israelis and Palestinians, and stirred up strong emotions around the world. Both sides justify the current conflict using history, seeing their national identity under existential threat.
For Christians, called to be peacemakers, an ethical response requires us to try first to hear and understand both views before we can strive for justice. As British observers, the authors each sincerely lament Britain’s historic guilt in exacerbating the conflict, but in different ways. We aim to reflect each narrative as faithfully as we can, aware that even many on our own side will see things differently. I encourage Christian readers to listen directly to fellow believers in the land—both Christian Arabs and Messianic Jews—who identify with their people’s pain but seek reconciliation for Jesus’ sake. History is personal, so we must not delegitimize, despise or ignore either side.
On the historical facts, we do not totally disagree. We share much common ground about the main time periods and events since the 1880s (and before), who lived in the land, where and when. Thus, the left- and right-hand narratives can serve as two eyes, not just one, enabling depth of perception and error correction, utilizing differences of interpretation and style. Colin and I are equally committed to truthful investigation of history, to justice and international law, and neither would deny wrongdoing by those we represent, even according to their own ethical standards, though it is not our place to stand as their accusers.
Establishing accurate history must come first. Only then can it be evaluated ethically. Christians have inherited our universal ethical values from the Jewish Scriptures: every human in God’s image, rule of law not ‘might is right,’ self-defence, truthful witness and so on. The whole Bible also speaks to the particularity of the core dispute in this conflict—whether Jews also have a claim to the land. I believe fulfilment of God’s promises is always both spiritual and physical for Israel, and thus also for all nations. Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) fulfils God’s promises for both Israel and the nations, through one another (Rom 11.11–32), culminating in his coming reign upon the earth. This important theological dialogue deserves its own separate study.
Our highly concentrated parallel histories, revised in light of each other’s critique, finally intersect with a robust but respectful challenge to each other. We offer this conversation as an ethical provocation to more informed and compassionate listening for the sake of peace.
The next sections cover the background context, the rise of nationalist movements in the nineteenth century, the events around the First World War, and the British Mandate period.
1947–1949: UN Partition Plan & Founding of Israel: Colin Chapman
After Britain had asked the UN to take responsibility for Palestine, a special commission recommended the creation of two separate states. A Jewish state would cover 56% of the land. Jews at the time were only one-third of the population, and 42% of the Jewish state would be Arabs. An Arab state would include the remaining 44% of the land, with 749,101 Arabs and 9,520 Jews. Jerusalem and the surrounding area would be under international rule.
Under strong pressure from the USA, the UN General Assembly approved the Partition Plan on 29 November 1947 by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions (including Britain).
The Jews accepted the resolution, and the State of Israel was declared on 14 May 1948. The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan because they believed that it was being imposed on them without proper consultation, and because they felt the division of the land was unfair. The Palestinians were too weakened to rise up for themselves because the British had crushed them so severely during the Revolt of 1936–1939.
Arab forces immediately invaded from Syria, Iraq, Transjordan and Egypt, but were quickly defeated. Their invasion has been described as ‘chaotic in conception and execution,’ and they all had different motives. Jordan was against the creation of a Palestinian state, and had reached an informal agreement with the Jews which allowed Jordan to take over the West Bank.
Jews describe the events of the period between 1947 and 1949 as their War of Independence, while Arabs describe them as al-Nakba, The Catastrophe. Arab historians and even some Israeli Jewish historians have documented what they call ethnic cleansing, in which around 750,000 Arabs (two-thirds of the Arab population) were either expelled from their homes by Jewish militias, or fled out of fear, or killed. There is evidence that the violence used (including rape) was similar to the violence of Hamas’s 7 October attack.
Around 500 villages were destroyed. By the time a ceasefire was declared in July 1949, Israel had taken over 23% of the land which would have been part of the Palestinian state. ‘The Nakba,’ says Nur Masalha, ‘remains at the heart of Palestinian collective memory, national identity and the struggle for collective national rights.’
Most Arabs would agree with the evaluation of Britain’s handling of the Mandate by the Israeli-British Jewish historian, Avi Shlaim: ‘The manner in which the Mandate ended was the worst blot on Britain’s entire record as the mandatory power. Britain left Palestine without an orderly transfer of power to a legitimate government. In this respect, the end of the Palestine Mandate has the dubious distinction of being unique in the annals of the British Empire.’
1947–1949: UN Partition Plan & Founding of Israel: James Patrick
Churchill’s original 1921 two-state solution for all Palestine had designated ‘Transjordan’ (78%) as Arab-only, yet the 1937 Peel Commission recommended further partition of the 22% (western, Jewish-led) Palestine, giving Jews 17% of it. Palestinian Arabs flatly rejected any Jewish sovereignty, and aggravated their Arab Revolt until Britain crushed it in 1939.
Facing implacable opposition to their ‘sacred trust of civilization’ towards the Jews (League Covenant, Art 22), Britain surrendered its Mandate back to the United Nations, which had just inherited all League of Nations responsibilities after WWII. Moved by the plight of Holocaust survivors being denied entry to the sole Jewish homeland, the UN Special Commission recommended a third partition plan, Resolution 181, more generous to Jews. The General Assembly approved it, though its decisions are never legally binding unless both sides agree. The Arabs again rejected any Jewish sovereignty, immediately launching civil war against them, thus rendering Resolution 181 legally moot.
The Jews, by contrast, celebrated international approval of their moral claim to a state, however small, and duly announced Israel’s ‘birth’ on the day the British authorities sailed away, evoking Isa 66.8. Referencing the ‘onslaught’ against them, their Declaration of Independence yet made ‘appeal’ to Arab residents of the land to ‘participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation,’ promising ‘complete equality of social and political rights to all.’ Borders were left unspecified, but on the universal legal principle of uti possideti juris, existing colonial territorial boundaries automatically become state borders on independence, unless otherwise agreed by treaty. As such, post-colonial Israel inherited earlier Mandate boundaries ‘from the River to the Sea’ by international law. Arabs had refused a partition treaty, and subsequent invasions were aggressive and thus illegal.
The next day, Israel was attacked by seven Arab armies. Egypt captured Gaza, and Transjordan took what it called its ‘West Bank,’ renaming itself ‘Jordan.’ All nations except Britain and Pakistan deemed this annexation illegal, including the Arab League. Israel fought desperately for Jerusalem’s Old City, but Transjordan’s Arab Legion (led by a British officer) took it, demolishing the Jewish Quarter’s ancient synagogues. All Jews were expelled from their holiest site and from villages in the West Bank, complete ethnic cleansing until 1967.
Israeli authorities repeatedly appealed to Arabs to remain, especially before Arab state invasions. Yet around 600,000 fled, most fearing advancing Jewish forces or heeding official Arab instructions to leave temporarily. Khaled al-Azm, Syrian Prime Minister (1948–1949), recalled, ‘But we ourselves are the ones who induced them to leave…by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations.’
The next sections cover the aftermath of this war, the changes after the Six-Day War in 1967, the beginnings of peace negotiations, and the situation now after October 7th.
Conclusion: Colin Chapman
Dear James
I am really grateful to you for the way you have engaged in this dialogue. You have certainly helped me to understand more fully the Israeli narrative, and to feel what it means to those for whom it is the only narrative.
I suspect you believe that Britain has generally played a highly honourable role throughout the conflict. You do not accept that Britain made contradictory promises to the Arabs and the Jews, and do not find any problems in the Balfour Declaration. You seem to think that Britain’s commitment to support the creation of a Jewish national home trumped any responsibility not to harm the interests of the Arabs. You imply that, although the Arabs were the majority, they should simply have given up their desire for independence and self-determination and meekly accepted that they would become a minority in a Jewish state, grateful for all the economic benefits that the settlers would bring.
You seem to me to maximize what you see as the violence of the Arabs, but minimize what many see as the violence of Jews. You do not believe that the Nakba was anything like as serious as Arabs make out, and are unwilling to accept that the Jews engaged in ‘ethnic cleansing.’ You make a great deal of the violence of the Hamas attacks on 7 October, but do not express any opinions about how Israel has been waging war on Hamas and Gaza.
I am surprised that you do not seem to make any moral judgments about what the Zionists did. You seem to see Zionism as a great success story and believe that the Arabs are largely to blame for their suffering. You do not have any criticism of Israel for its control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza since 1967 and are unwilling to see this as an ‘occupation.’
One of my greatest problems with your approach is that your interpretation of the history seems to be so deeply influenced—if not controlled—by your interpretation of the Bible. For you, God’s promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants as ‘an everlasting inheritance’ has given the Jewish people a divine right to the land for all time, and this overrides the rights of the Arab majority who had been living in the land for centuries. Since the return of Jews to the land was a fulfilment of predictions in the Old Testament, we do not need to ask too many ethical questions about the process by which they took over the land.
I hope very much that this is the beginning—and not the end—of our dialogue.
With sincere thanks and best wishes in Christ, Colin
Conclusion: James Patrick
Thank you Colin for initiating this dialogue, for modelling how to seek conversation with those of contrasting views. Your persistent advocacy for Palestinian Arabs over many years is honourable, and pro-Jewish Christians need to listen with more compassion to the Arab people, not least Arab Christians.
One of the challenges of compassion is knowing when to confront in love. ‘The wounds of a friend can be trusted.’ This applies to us supporters of Israel’s existence though not always its policies, and Israeli society is robustly self-critical as your sources demonstrate. But surely it should also apply to friends of those Palestinians and Arab states whose choice of violent rhetoric and actions have repeatedly initiated wars with Israel, in which their own people then suffer most. Thankfully it seems the Arab world is now turning towards peace and normalization instead, and I long for this for the Palestinians.
I too believe every ethnic group deserves self-determination; after all, that is what Zionism means—Jewish self-determination. But self-determination need not be statehood. The Jewish people accepted smaller and smaller portions of their ancestral homeland, simply wanting autonomous self-rule. Conversely, you found various excuses for the Arabs rejecting every offer of a Palestinian state (1937, 1947, 2000, 2008, 2014, 2020). Did self-determination matter less than denying it to others? Does not classical Islamic teaching give Muslims a divine right to the land for all time, with Jews and Christians allowed only as dhimmis? Jewish teaching grants minorities equal rights (Lev 19.33–34).
You suggest that Zionists secretly desired and attempted ethnic cleansing, contrary to every official statement and policy of the Yishuv and the State of Israel to the present. We agree that would be wrong, so why not also the idea of a Jew-‘free Palestine’ in the ‘West Bank’ (or else ‘from the River to the Sea’) as it was pre-1967? Total separation only leads to worse conflict, as in Gaza, so surely integration deserves a chance instead? After effective de-radicalization, mutual familiarity and respect should lead to collaboration, as it does within Israel.
Perhaps what surprises me most about your perspective on this history, as a Christian, is how little God’s unfailing love for the Jews (Rom 11.28–29) overflows from your heart also, fully reconcilable with love for the Palestinians and all other nations. Given your respect for the Bible, you agree, do you not, that the land to which the Jewish people are returning is the one land from which they all originally came, unlike any settler-colonial movement in the world? Their homecoming proves God’s covenant faithfulness, but even secular experts verify their indigenous claim, international legality and ethical example.
I look forward to more communication on these matters, with genuine appreciation, James
Colin Chapman was ordained in the Episcopal Church in Scotland. He has taught in seminaries in Cairo, Bethlehem and Beirut, and in the UK at Trinity College, Bristol and the Selly Oak Colleges in Birmingham. He is the author of ‘Whose Promised Land?’ (Lion, 1983, and SPCK, 2024).
James E Patrick studied theology at Cambridge and completed a DPhil at Oxford. He has served as an officer of the Society for Old Testament Study and lectured in Old Testament for Spurgeon’s College, London. He is currently Chairman of Love Never Fails, an alliance of 25 British Christian pro-Jewish organizations.
The booklet can be bought, post-free in the UK, from the Grove website here.
Buy me a Coffee
