Introduction
The reader may wish to take a look at our commentary on Ezekiel chapter thirty-eight as a preparatory setup for this sermon, which is primarily interested in the general background that gave rise to the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict”as the world puts it, background that hopefully sheds light on the conflict itself. That conflict is one of the world’s most complex and emotionally charged and enduring conflicts, and we want to understand it better with God’s help. It could have been done via another category like maybe a biblical study, but we opted to do it as a sermon because of its religious underpinnings, it just seems like this is the right place for it.
Palestine, Palestinian
Who exactly is a Palestinian? The Hebrew word “PELESHETH” refers to the ancient land of the Philistines (e.g., Exodus 15:14, Psalms 60:8, 83:7, Isaiah 14:29, et al.) and denotes the coastal plain region inhabited by the Philistine tribes. The resemblance in the names PELESHETH and Palestine is not coincidental but reflects a shared historical context centered on Philistia. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus used the term “Palaistinê” to describe a broader region between Phoenicia and Egypt which encompassed both coastal areas and inland regions like the Judean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. What happened later though is key. The Romans adopted the name, and the Roman province of Judea was renamed “Syria Palestina” (literally, “Palestinian Syria”). This renaming happened by way of the Roman emperor Hadrian, who pinned the name on Israel as a decided pejorative primarily because of the Jewish revolts, revolts that quite irked the Romans. The area we know as the Gaza strip was home to the Philistines who were the bitter enemies of ancient Israel as was Syria, so Hadrian decided ‘… I’m gonna’ hang this pejorative around their rebellious neck and make it stick, and they will forever be known not by their own God-given name—Israel—but by their bitter pagan enemies’ name…’—a twisted, not so nice “joke” bottom line[1]. Later, around the year AD 390, during the Byzantine period, the province was reorganized into Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Salutaris. The “Syria” part eventually dropped off, leaving us with the familiar name “Palestine.” That’s it, that’s why this whole area including the Gaza strip, and the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) is referred to as “Palestine” to the day. So, it means that a “Palestinian” is someone who is native to “Palestine,” right? Yes, if only we could find such a native, but we cannot, at least not directly. In fact, the only peoples that were indigenous to that land were the ancient Canaanites with whom both Jews and Arabs share a strong genetic link.[2]. And the Canaanites the Israelites conquered[3] per God’s directive and Hammer (Joshua 1:1ff, “Hammer” = Joshua 1:9, cf. Jeremiah 51:20). The Philistines might truly be said to be “Palestinian,” but they were so-called Sea Peoples and were in no way indigenous peoples therefore. So who then are the actual people of “Palestine” today? They are descendants of the local citizenry of the former Ottoman Empire that dominated the area for roughly four-hundred years (1516-1917-18), and going back even further in time identifies them as Arab Peoples stemming from Ishmael, Abraham | Hagar’s son (Genesis 16:1ff, 21:1ff). Abraham, surely the common genetic link to Jews and Arabs, was from Ur of the Chaldeans, about 620 miles east over yonder in modern day Iraq (Genesis 11:31, thus not native to “Palestine;” there isn’t direct genetic evidence specifically linking Abraham as a common ancestor to Jews and Arabs, however, genetic studies do show that Jews and Arabs share a significant amount of common ancestry, which aligns with the biblical and historical accounts of a shared patriarchal ancestor, this is surely Abraham). Bottom line, there is no such thing these days as a real “Palestinian,” the notion is a farce nowadays, a farce nevertheless twisted into a propagandizing vehicle that sends a lying message to the uninformed that says the peoples of the southern Levant, particularly as concerns us the Gaza strip and the “West Bank,” are being denied their right of ownership of their respective lands because one genetic line, Jews, is denying the associated genetic line, largely Ottoman descended Arabs, its right of ownership. But they do not mention the “associated genetic line” part, and it leads people to think that Israel is some kind of expansionist, imperialist invader bent on conquest, that’s how they spin it. That, is ridiculous; it’s much more like a couple of siblings mixing it up over some contested thing they both want, and the winner is not “occupying” the other sibling’s stuff because as indirectly indigenous people they both have a legal right to it (more on that to come)—it’s just that one of the brats got a bloody nose and busted up pride, and the other one got a piece of pie or whatever and hopefully isn’t strutting too much for future harmony’s sake. Isaac and Ishmael weren’t full-siblings of course, but they were siblings nonetheless, they were paternal half-siblings (Genesis 16:15-16, 21:2-3, 9-10, 25:9). The peoples of so-called “Palestine” have a biblical center, namely Yahweh’s man of faith, Abraham (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:1ff, Hebrews 11:8-10, 17-19). The Israel leg stemmed From Abraham | Sarah via Isaac, the Arab leg stemmed from Abraham | Hagar via Ishmael. And notice that God loved both legs and “went out of His way” to bless and multiply each and said He would before He actually did as a testimony to His Name. But the key takeaway is that neither leg is directly indigenous to “Palestine” (that would be the Canaanites, they were directly indigenous, Jews and Arabs are both indirectly indigenous as genetically verifiable Canaanite descendants). This matters because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict revolves around land rights issues (among other things, but land rights is central). A contrasting example. When the European conquerors and settlers came to the Americas, they did in fact occupy the directly indigenous native Americans’ land—that sort of thing is not what is happening in “Palestine,” rather, it is filial, internecine sad to say, strife, and the land is fair game here for each since each is indirectly indigenous with genetic signals lining up with the ancient, directly indigenous owners, the Canaanites. So, we have a land contest between siblings sort of dilemma here nowadays, a dilemma that must be settled somehow. How does one settle the sticky matter of land rights[4] here? In this fallen world, it comes down to a matter of geopolitics, namely, who conquered whom at the earliest date, loosely, a “Doctrine of Discovery” is inferred[5]. This is a harshly criticized doctrine in modern times, we are applying it to antiquity and specifically to the Conquest of Canaan[6] ordered by the quintessential sovereign, Jehovah God (Joshua 1:1-9). The Canaanites were the indigenous peoples that predate Abraham certainly, peoples whom Israel alone conquered by way of the Joshua Hammer. According to the Doctrine of Discovery, at least, Israel is therefore now to be recognized as the rightful owner of what was Canaan and is now “Palestine” with full land rights as though directly indigenous. Let’s revisit the native American case to clarify that. Suppose one were an American sitting in one’s home one purchased, question is, who owns that property, the current owner or the conquered native Americans particular to the home’s area? Once or twice removed the owner of the home nowadays owns it, precisely because of the Doctrine of Discovery still in the law books. So, if the doctrine holds here today based on a previous conquest, it must apply to Israel today with regard to their previous conquest in Canaan, it is the same principle swinging both ways. It is not an apples to apples argument though, because as said, what is happening in Palestine is filial strife between indirectly indigenous peoples, that is different than the European conquests particular to the colonial era in the Americas, but we are assuming that difference can be sufficiently subsumed into the overall doctrine such that in toto it would hold in a court of law if pressed. The native Americans and the Palestinians find themselves affected by the same doctrine in our estimation, and the native Americans want their land back no less than the Palestinians want to dispossess Israel of land they claim is theirs and which Israel “occupies” from the Palestinian point of view. The difference is, the native Americans have largely integrated into a much larger national backdrop, things are more “cramped” over yonder in “Palestine” and the larger national backdrop, namely the Ottoman Empire, has disappeared, and Palestinians ever since find themselves struggling with a national identity crisis. That is not the case with native Americans, who maintain their ethnicity for sure, but also are readily able to integrate into and identify with a larger national backdrop—if they wish—that’s what is missing on the Palestinian side, namely the national aspect, and is a major factor that drives Palestinian nationalism, a topic we will only introduce here and will discuss more fully later. But suppose one’s piety and worldview were offended by the doctrine, let’s say, and one thinks it should not apply to Israel nor even still be in the law books, and let’s say they had their way in the matter, then we reckon that the homeowner above and myriad others probably ought to start thinking about giving up the happy-time Ponderosa to the original (indigenous) owner—no problem, right? What are the chances of that happening peacefully if at all? Slim to none outside of more violence and on it goes in a bloody, nasty cycle. Precisely that quandary is what puts the courts in a difficult spot, so they just let the doctrine ride and probably always will because hardly anybody is going to give back property peacefully in this fallen world, especially if it cost lives to get it, which at the national level that is almost always the case. Conquering and being conquered is a cruel thing, but that is humankind’s bloody legacy, and like it or not, it is not going to change outside of divine intervention or better outside of divine occupation of the throne down here. And the consequences of that conquering and being conquered establishes borders and ownership down here in the land of sin and sorrow, and it determines who is sovereign over what and whom in this flawed, sinful system we all are affected by and must come to grips with.
The So-called “West Bank” Background
Slippery and sneaky and loaded though this “West Bank” term is, it has become the most common name used in English that describes the territory situated on the western side of the Jordan River, which is Judea and Samaria going by longstanding biblical and secular history[7]. Most people do not give it a second thought anymore, that is how ingrained the term has become in the largely lingua franca utilized throughout the world these days. (We mean English, which is a prominent lingua franca, i.e., a “bridge language” facilitating communication between peoples from different native language backgrounds.) Judea and Samaria was occupied in 1948 and then annexed in 1950 as the “West Bank” by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan pursuant to the Arab Israeli war of 1948, thus Jordan introduced the term to the world (Jordan was known as Transjordan prior to June, 1949). Why the new designation? The term “Judea and Samaria” has strong historical and religious connotations in Jewish tradition, which would have complicated Jordan’s political and territorial claims and standing with its Arab neighbors. By using the term “West Bank,” Jordan aimed to emphasize the geographical aspect, and avoid the religious and historical implications associated with “Judea and Samaria”. Here’s the rub that vexes many of us these days in one form or another: This “West Bank” territory is central to the “Israeli–Palestinian conflict as the world puts it, with the “Palestinians” considering it the heart of their envisioned state, along with the Gaza Strip, while Covenant Israel sees it as the heart of their ancestral homeland chock full of manifest biblical history, and has settled its regathered immigrants there.
Although the “West Bank” was annexed by Jordan, please notice that it was separated from the rest of the Kingdom of Jordan (the so-called East Bank) and pulled back into the domain of Israel after the 1967 Six-day War—same Joshua Hammer, preemptive in this instance, whilst the enemies were massing their genocidal forces and preparing to disembowel Israel. So, Doctrine of Discovery notwithstanding, to whom does the “West Bank” belong, going back millennia in manifest biblical and secular history which knows only of an Israeli Judea and Samaria and knows nothing of a “West Bank,” and going by the Joshua Conquest, and going by the 1967 Six-Day-War? The answer is obviously Israel, especially if one now folds in the Doctrine of Discovery, but our point is that Israel’s ownership claim needs no doctrine, it is that strong. It belonged to the Canaanites first and foremost, but God lowered the Joshua Hammer boom on them by baring His holy right arm and gave it to Israel in keeping with His Will and His Word (let us not forget that God is a, no, is the only Righteous Dictator—He does whatever He wants, when He wants, for as long as He wants—whether people agree with His doings, or not, it flat does not matter to Him, His will stands no matter what), and since then Israel reclaimed it after being threatened with genocidal annihilation again and again. That tired pattern, centered on the Joshua Hammer, sets up the rest of the section and indeed the rest of the sermon.
During 1915–16, as World War I (WWI) was underway, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, one Henry McMahon, (secretly) corresponded with Husayn ibn ‘Ali, the patriarch of the Hashemite family and Ottoman governor of Mecca and Medina. McMahon convinced Husayn to lead an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, which was aligned with Germany against Britain and France in the war. McMahon promised that if the Arabs supported Britain in the war, the British government would:
SUPPORT ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT ARAB STATE UNDER HASHEMITE RULE IN THE ARAB PROVINCES OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, INCLUDING “PALESTINE.”
The bait was swallowed hook, line, and sinker, and a revolt ensued, led by T. E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”) and Husayn’s son Faysal. Importantly, the revolt was successful in defeating the Ottomans, a key moment in Middle East history, and Britain seized control over much of the area. In particular “Palestine” was conquered by British forces together with the Jewish Legion (11/09/1917). Just before, 11/02/1917, the British government had issued the Balfour Declaration, which stated that:
THE GOVERNMENT VIEWED FAVORABLY THE ESTABLISHMENT IN PALESTINE OF A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE BUT THAT NOTHING SHALL BE DONE WHICH MAY PREJUDICE THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF EXISTING NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN PALESTINE.
The Declaration was issued as a result of the belief of key members of the government, including Prime Minister David Lloyd George, that Jewish support was essential to winning WWI. By comparing the two all caps pieces of text, can the reader discern something amiss, a conflict of interest? Britain made the same promise to two at-odds entities (Jews, Arabs), largely promising the same thing (much-desired statehood), in exactly the same place (“Palestine”). That is going to cause longstanding misunderstandings and problems as we shall see. After WWI the area came under British rule as the British Mandate of Palestine as mandated by the League of Nations. The area mandated to the British in 1923 included what is today Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.(=”Palestine”) and Transjordan. Now, at this point in time the Jewish regathering by Father God was happening into the areas of Mandatory Palestine as also immigration took place to the Arab sector of Mandatory Palestine, which brought workers from Syria and other Arab neighbors. “Palestinians” saw this influx of Jewish immigrants (=God’s regathering of Israel let us not forget) as a threat, a “getting crowded out of a national identity, i.e., an independent state, which they were promised,” sort of threat. Things get ugly from this point forward. Demonstrations were held as early as 1920 already, protesting what Arabs felt were unfair preferences for the Jewish immigrants set forth by the British mandate that governed Palestine at the time (promises, promises, promises…). Soon there were outbreaks of violence, and all the ever-more convoluted bloodletting, that rages still today, was afoot. Leaning on the Balfour Declaration of old and the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which plan Israel accepted and the Arab nations rejected, Israel seized the moment. On May 14 1948, the very day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council approved a proclamation that declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz (=”land [of]”) Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Israel’s “Declaration of Independence” here from the British Mandate; it marked the end of British rule in the region, and the beginning of the first Jewish state in two-thousand years. Here we see the realization of national identity without loss of ethnicity, this is the very thing the Palestinians hoped for as well and thought they were promised. The Israeli declaration of independence was made by David Ben-Gurion, the executive head of the World Zionist Organization, later to be the first Prime Minister of Israel. There wasn’t any mention of the borders of the new state other than that it was in Eretz Israel. That very night, May 14, 1948, the United States recognized the provisional Jewish government as the de facto authority of the newly formed state. Three days later, on May 17, 1948, the Soviet Union granted de jure recognition to Israel. But as can be imagined, on the other side, the blood pressure was rising well into the danger zone. Please notice: An official communique from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on 15 May 1948, the day after the declaration of independence by Israel, stated publicly that Arab Governments found themselves:
“Compelled to intervene [per Israel’s recognized statehood to be clear] for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.”
Sole purpose? Intervene, as in go to war here, for peace, security, establishing law and order no less? Notice: On that very day –May 15–the armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be the British Mandate, marking the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. This was solely intended to be a genocidal war against Israel no question (=”intervention”), but the Joshua Hammer fell yet again in this context as we shall see. The nascent Israeli Defense Force (IDF) thwarted the Arab nations and actually ended up extending Israel’s borders beyond the original UNSCOP partition mentioned. By December 1948, Israel controlled most of the portion of Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan River. The remainder of the Mandate consisted of Jordan, the area that came to be called the “West Bank” (controlled by Jordan), and the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt), regions that, notice, accrued to Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967 when the Joshua Hammer fell yet again. Notice how that Hammer keeps falling? Importantly, just before and during this conflict in 1948, many “Palestinian” Arabs fled the Arab sector of the British Mandate to become “Palestinian” refugees, emboldened to do so due to a promise from Arab leaders that they would be able to soon return when the war had been won, won swiftly. How’s that for overweening confidence on the one hand and believing a pipedream on the other. The story goes that the leaders did not want their people to get caught in the ensuing crossfire of the war they were starting, sounds likely and reasonable, and that Israel would be swiftly eradicated, not so likely and reasonable, and based on this rhetoric the people thought that it would not be long before they could return home and so they bailed out and headed for safety. It flat didn’t turn out like that, Israel was not eradicated, of course. This is the beginning of the refugee crisis/problem that we witness still today. The people fled to neighboring Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, where some were allowed in and some not. As concerns us in this sermon, others ended up or simply stayed in the “West Bank” and in Gaza where we witness still today refugee problems insofar as living conditions goes in these places—it is miserable and slum-like, even before 10/07/2023, yet with literally billions of monies of international aid flowing in–hands in the cookie jar here? These people are in “refugee camps” there. In the meantime, in keeping with Father God’s regathering of Israel and attendant provisions of recognized statehood to make that possible, Israel began populating and settling its ancestral homeland, particularly in its ancestral Judea and Samaria; large-scale settlement activities began after the 1967 Six-Day War, when notice please Israel captured the territory. This post ’67 period saw a marked increase in Israeli immigration to Judea and Samaria (and the Galilee), which significantly heightened tensions and anger among Palestinians. Jewish people, Israelites, immigrating to their native homeland in Judea and Samaria angered Palestinians, even after losing the territory yet again to the Joshua Hammer? There is something devilish and very wrong with that picture. It is the Palestinian leaders, particularly Iranian proxy sorts, these henchmen, that seed and feed this anger in the hearts and minds of the Arab people of “Palestine,” who are the chronic victims of these unbalanced leaders’ ambitious schemes and selfishness. That seeding and feeding extends to Iran certainly, terror’s center of gravity. Terror is not of God, no way, it is therefore necessarily demonic. Why? Across all the major religious traditions the nature of God is fundamentally opposed to acts of terror, these core teachings emphasize justice, love, mercy, and peace, which are entirely incompatible with the violence and fear that terrorism seeks to instill, violence and fear that is entirely compatible with the nature of evil expressed by all these traditions, and Satan is the embodiment of evil whatever tradition one considers. While the cultural, geopolitical, and historical contexts of Islamic Iran and Nazi Germany are different, Iranian terror radicalism not surprisingly has ominous parallels to the demonic Nazi terror death cult, including blatant antiSemitism, ideological extremism, and totalitarian control. And let us not forget that the global impact of Nazism was a world war, WWII, and the Holocaust–the Holocaust’s impact extended far beyond Europe, affecting global politics, human rights, migration patterns, and international law, its legacy continues to shape global discourse on justice, human rights, and the importance of remembering and learning from history. Well, the Palestinian argument now is that the refugees cannot return to their homes because of that Jewish immigration to and settlement in Judea and Samaria, thus they are stuck in the refugee camps with nowhere to go to call home, and Israel, the “occupier” of this territory should give it back so that “Palestinians” can rebuild. But if the billions of international aid money that flowed into Gaza is any indication ($17 billion by the way), the “Palestinian” people would still get ripped by these phony “Palestinian” Arab leader con men as we see it. Stealing the aid money earmarked for the “Palestinian” citizens is one thing, but evidence is mounting that these very “Palestinian” citizens are being used as human shields as well. That refugee problem is one of the main engines driving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Simplistically, we liken it to a bettor betting the farm in Las Vegas and losing (1948, 1967, 1973) then demanding that the house gives the money back (this is just an example, we are not advocating betting). It gets more twisted actually. If one pleaded for the bettor’s cause, and took their case to the United Nations, the bettor would get their money | land back if the UN had their way, because the UN sees the money | land as being illegitimately seized! That is how Bible-blind, irrational, and surface-deep that humanly concocted farce is, but hardly would a body with any semblance of mental equilibrium and a thicker hide give the bettor “their” money | land back. So why don’t other Arab nations take in the refugees and help their stressed brethren out here, like decades ago? Surely all that oil wealth some of them sit on could help out? They flat don’t want them–huh? Yet some of these very nations (pretend to) hold up the refugees’ cause and conduct terrorism supposedly because of Israel’s “occupation” of the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) which prevents the refugees there from returning to their homes, that’s the way it is spun to the international community, which for the most part is more interested in whether or not their favorite sports team will win its next game. It’s beyond wild and crazy this Godless world. Another sticking point here is upfront responsibility for the refugee crisis, it is shifted onto Israel, just another con job that the largely uninformed international public either swallows or more likely blows it off as a nuisance. Is Israel responsible for these refugee camps? That’s a silly question, as we see it no way because let’s face it Israel was attacked by a league of Arab nations that wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth in 1948, and they would have done it in ’67 had Israel not laid them waste preemptively. So, in both instances, the Joshua Hammer fell, and the Arab nations were thwarted, and the refugees…remained separated from their homes. This is very sad and tragic for sure, but Israel did not cause that plight, though all manner of reasons are given that try to shift the blame of the refugee crisis back on Israel. (It was against the backdrop of this refugee crisis, in the “West Bank,” that the “Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO was born by way of one Yassar Arafat advocating for a “return of the money to the betting loser” per our example; PLO now goes by “Fatah,” which means “conquest” in Arabic, a not so veiled rallying cry for “Palestinians” to launch commando raids against Israel and foment unrelenting unrest that garners the world’s attention to their cause—eradicate the Israel “tumor” in their midst and establish a Palestinian state with all its lost territories returned in that vacuum). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is convoluted and very hard to track, and most people do not understand or even care to understand what it actually consists of which opens the door for satanic lies and misrepresentation, hopefully by prayerful and careful adherence to God’s guidance and help we are cutting through some of that flack in this sermon. It has been quite a learning experience for us personally, an eye-opener for sure. The 1948 war came to an end with the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and each of its Arab neighbors. Armistice largely means “stalemate,” and what that means practically in this context is that the attackers’ goal of Israel-extermination failed.
Finally, a little more about Iran is apt here. Iran and Israel have not always been enemies, their relationship has gone through several distinct phases. Particularly, during the period 1947-1979, they were not enemies. In fact, Iran was one of the first Muslim-majority countries to recognize Israel after its establishment in 1948. During the reign of the Pahlavi dynasty, Iran and Israel maintained friendly relations, with Iran viewing Israel as a counterbalance to Arab states in the region. The relationship dramatically changed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. A new theocratic government took over and severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and adopted a staunchly anti-Israel stance. This shift was driven by significant ideological differences (cultural, political, social), no less significant theological differences (Jewish versus Islamic), and Iran’s support for Palestinian causes (sovereign Palestinian state, return of refugees to now-settled Jewish land, particularly in the “West Bank,” end to Israeli “occupation” of “Palestinian” territories [West Bank”]). Since the early 1990s, the relationship has been marked by open hostility, largely proxy conflicts via Iran’s so-called “ring of fire” knuckle-dragger terror organizations that surround Israel, proxies that receive financial aid, military training, and weaponry from Iran. Recently Iran has shown an inclination to directly attack Israel rather than by way of its proxies as has been the norm. Israel’s current military operations against Hamas (Sunni Islam), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Sunni Islam), Hezbollah (Shia Islam), the Houthis (Zaidi branch of Shia Islam), all Iranian proxies, comes by way of deterrence and self-defense and response to these enemies’ chronic hostilities displacing and killing Israeli citizens, and destroying Israeli Bible Lands (Islamic Iran, that regime, is clearly trying to destroy the Holy Land sites and erase that substantial witness to the Bible for the sake of establishing Shia Islam over all–think of the millions of pilgrims, scholars, and tourists who have traveled to the Holy Land to experience the Bible “coming to life”) and certainly not least these operations are in response to the demonic massacre of Israeli citizens, over 1200 men, women, and children on 10/07/2023, and of course the operations involve very difficult hostage rescue efforts. As for all this destruction and killing, one can hardly imagine that there is a nation on the planet that would turn a blind eye to that if it happened to them and not respond with all its military might to protect its citizens, its territory, and its sovereignty. These operations by Israel as we see it are a current-day manifestation of the Joshua Hammer at work yet again, the latest chapter. It means it will not end well for Israel’s enemies, unless we are in fact witnessing a matured unfolding of Ezekiel thirty-eight, and if we are, we better start looking east intently, because our Savior is on His way back for His final visit and we know that our manifest Salvation and eternity future draweth nigh Christian friend.
The Ottoman Empire and Islam
The rise, and fall, of the Ottoman Empire are the hinges on which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict turns, the division of its lands and Jewish | “Palestinian” nationalism comprise the door inextricably affixed to those hinges. This empire rose to worldwide prominence during the sixteenth century, dominating large portions of southeast Europe, western Asia, and North Africa. However, its foundation began much earlier, around 1299, with the emergence of the Ottoman principality centered in northwestern Anatolia, which coincides with part of the territory of modern-day Türkiye. Over time, it transformed from a small frontier state into a powerful empire that reached its peak under Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566). The key moment of this transformation was the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Sultan[8] Mehmed II, marking a major turning point in Ottoman history. The empire lasted until the early 20th century; it was predominantly Sunni Muslim. The sultan held the highest position in Islam, even claiming the caliphate after defeating the Mamluks. Sunni clerics had significant influence over the government, and their authority played a central role in regulating the economy. The Ottomans adhered to the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Maturidi school of theology, which is one of the three creeds particular to Sunni Islam, it is consistent with the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence mentioned. Ruling over “Palestine” for centuries, the empire’s influence extended to the religious and social fabric of the region. While Sunni Islam was the dominant religion, it coexisted with other religious and ethnic communities, notably the Jewish people; more on this in a moment.
“Palestinian” nationalism developed gradually, influenced by sundry factors such as Ottomanism (to foster a sense of shared citizenship and identity beyond the individual), European notions of nationalism, and especially the dispersion of Arab identity, i.e., the fragmentation of the same due to geopolitical changes, particularly border changes due to the Ottoman collapse. This fostered a sense of “national identity freefall,” a loss of being anchored to something bigger and stronger than oneself in the national sense to put it in simple language. So, identity-dispersion occurred due to geopolitical changes, in turn it did the obvious, it strengthened Palestinian resolve to shape an identity, certainly not a new one in the sense of non-Arabic and non-Islamic identifications, but new in the sense of being tethered to a new state, to be anchored once again nationally, and this anchor Palestinians envision as a new state of their own with which to identify, and Israel…they see as “crowding them out” of what they envision to be that (promised) dream, they see Israel as a threat to resetting a long lost national anchor thus reestablishing a solid Arabic and Islamic identity all alike tethered to a nation once again. Sunni Islam plays a significant role in shaping this “Palestinian” national consciousness, but it is not solely a religious phenomenon, it includes historical, political, and social dimensions as well which we have put in simple and very general terms here.
The sack of Jerusalem at different points in history significantly impacted Jewish nationalism and shaped the trajectory of Jewish identity. The destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians marked a profound tragedy for the Jewish people. It shattered their religious center and led to the Babylonian exile. During this period, Jewish nationalism shifted from a focus on the Temple and the land, to a deeper sense of spiritual connection, emphasizing faith, law, and community. Let’s face it, when one loses everything material, suddenly deeper and more important things snap into focus. Jews in Babylon maintained their distinct identity, religious practices, and longing for return to Zion. That is consistent throughout the long periods of Jewish dispersion, they never lost their Jewishness not a whit of it. The destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans was another pivotal moment. Jerusalem fell, and the Jewish diaspora expanded, and Jewish nationalism adapted. Namely, without a central place of worship, sacrificial worship shifted to prayer, Torah study, and synagogue gatherings. Although Jews dispersed across the Roman Empire their longing for Jerusalem was strong and persisted. That’s the consistent Dispersion pattern. Later, the Bar Kokhba Revolt against Roman rule also ended in defeat, it was devastating, both Roman defeats were (AD 70, 135). Jerusalem was razed again, and Jews faced harsh restrictions. But here’s the consistent pattern: Despite adversity, Jewish nationalism remained resilient. The hope for redemption and return to the land ever endured. Jewish communities in the diaspora clung to their identity, traditions, and the dream of God’s promised regathering. Waves of Jewish immigration (Aliyah[9]) to Palestine from the late 19th century onward reshaped Jewish life. The Zionist movement, Jewish nationalism in shoe leather, sought a national homeland, and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised (there’s that word again) such a Jewish homeland in Palestine, leading to increased immigration. This is not a light matter, no way, because Jewish immigration fulfilled the age-old biblical promise of regathering (as in Ezekiel 38 et al.). It symbolized the return to ancestral Judea and Samaria, revival of the Hebrew language, and establishment of institutions. These early immigrants were industrious and hardworking, they transformed the desolation that awaited them; they formed agricultural settlements, urban centers, and industries, laying the groundwork for the future State of Israel. Their commitment to the land, resilience, and shared vision fueled Jewish nationalism. So, what we see is historical tragedies, resilience, and immigration converging to shape Jewish nationalism, reinforcing the dream of realizing a regathered, restored Israel per God’s Word—that is what kept the dream alive, that Word, faith therein. And said faith was rewarded, it always is, sooner or later.
Jewish and Palestinian nationalism intersect on a piece of real estate, “Palestine.” Similar motivations and sentiments drive each in the mundane sense. Each reaches back in its secular and religious history to justify its claim on that piece of real estate, that trajectory for each is the same largely. Who’s right? Based on reasons we discussed above we hold that Covenant Israel has unequivocal rights to that piece of real estate “Palestine,” and a good chunk more to be sure. The salient points of those arguments above would be the land grants made by Jehovah God to His Covenant People Israel, the Conquest of Canaan by Israel and the Doctrine of Discovery, biblical and secular history that through ancient times understood Israel as Judea and Samaria and the Galilee, the pervasive role of the Joshua Hammer that has fallen again and again in the heat and dust of battle to the undoing of Israel’s genocidal enemies in particular—those enemies must understand that God will flat-out not allow Israel to disappear, things will get grim indeed for them toward the end, but they will not disappear. And then we have also verifiable fulfilled ancient prophecy as concerns the regathering of Israel—this is a particularly weighty argument in our estimation because through it centuries-long work by the divine enters the argument in favor of Israel; that regathering against all odds is astounding to put it mildly.
We need yet in this Ottoman | Islam section a word about sentiments inside the Ottoman Empire. During World War I, the Hashemite-led Arabs (essentially the Jordanian-led Arabs) launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, eventually leading to its demise, a key moment in this background. This uprising sought to gain independence from the Ottomans, another incentive that made the British bait promising an independent Arab state in Palestine all the easier to swallow. The Ottomans were seen as rulers who generally suppressed Arab aims and desires, both theologically and more mundanely in the give and take of everyday life, leading to bold-faced resentment[10]. Now here follows a maybe unexpected sentiment going by today’s reality. The late 19th and 20th-century global forces set Israelis and “Palestinians” on a collision course, but please notice that despite what we witness today and witnessed in the not-too-distant past—not very pretty—a prettier and much longer period of coexistence and somewhat harmony and even friendliness existed between the two peoples in the Ottoman world. Hard though it is to appreciate from today’s vantage point, certainly, the Ottoman world nevertheless once united Jews and “Palestinians” as citizens (Ottomanism in shoe leather, i.e., citizens coexisting), even as they definitely still vied with one another in a rather shifting theopolitical landscape (not all roses and sunshine, just lots of it). The British and French division of Ottoman lands after World War I altered that picture in the negative. In the negative with very serious implications for regional stability[11]. The division of the Ottoman territory and attendant nationalism-driven “WHO GETS WHAT,” that dark salient, is what we transitioned to[12], and it stole a lot of roses and sunshine. But let’s step back and think more clearly, let’s invite God into our thinking, let’s get anchored. Immediately a question arises: How else was God to orchestrate the regathering of Israel in keeping with His millennia-old prophecies wherein He declared He would do precisely that, namely, regather Israel? That empire had to fall and get carved up because Israel was “buried” inside it, and only by its demise and subsequent carving up could Israel “pop out,” as a sovereign nation, as promised millennia ago. Actually, one could just as easily argue that the empire also had to rise and sweep over the Middle and Near East like it did for that fulfillment to happen—God was at work on both ends as we see it. But there is persecution now for Israel, there is much suffering. What’s up with that? Surely that too is part of God’s plan, for His people are refined and tempered in the fire…to be a better people of God, more dependent on Him, to be more like Him, even the Suffering Servant Yeshua, whom we love and serve and should strive to be like.
The fall of the Ottoman Empire was a key moment that shaped and is shaping Middle and Near East history and it was a key moment in the ultimate fulfillment of biblical prophecy as concerns regathered Israel (and not least Messiah, His return, end games and end times, and on it goes). What is ironic here is that God utilized the very enemies of Israel, and the rampant sin of human disharmony for sure, to accomplish this miracle of regathering. Had those enemies been able to get along with one another, there would not have been a (disharmony) vehicle available that could be exploited for ulterior motives like securing the Suez Canal for imperial Britain and its WWI allies by way of a disharmonious, in-fighting Arab Revolt encouraged and invigorated by sugar-coated, duplicitous promises by said Allies. Recall that the Ottomans were aligned with Germany in WWI, the Arab Revolt diverted enemy resources, disrupted Ottoman victories, helped secure the Allies’ flank, and in particular it helped secure crucial Middle East assets like the Suez Canal. But our point is that Israel’s enemies in fact did not get along very well, disharmony manifested[13], and a very bloody in-fighting[14] Arab Revolt happened, and on the heels of that Arab Revolt came crashing down the Ottoman Empire[15]. Had that empire not fallen and then been carved up just later, the land and people we call Israel today would surely still be buried in its Sunni Islam fabric is probably fair to say. Maybe less persecuted and less suffering as citizens of the empire as before, but definitely not a sovereign state (recognized as such by 164 of 192 UN member nations at the time of this writing). How’s that for the sovereignty of Jehovah God the Almighty on display accomplishing His prophetic will, even the great I AM here transcending impossibly convoluted geopolitics across the centuries, yea? Let’s put a period at the end of this rascal and call it quits for now.
Concluding Comments
Before we summarize and conclude, please note that figure 1 tries to generalize much of what was discussed in this sermon. The sermon was primarily interested in the general background that gave rise to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; our plan was to focus on that background and let it do the heavy lifting for us as concerns better understanding of the conflict per se. In dendritic fashion the sermon necessarily branched out to include many factors and much history, a complex web of interrelationships that had to be pulled in to bring reasoning clarity.
The rise of the Ottoman Empire had a profound impact on world history. Established around 1299 by Osman I, it became a very powerful dynasty that spanned large parts of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and North Africa for over six-hundred years. For many of those years the Ottomans fostered art, science, trade, and for that period during which it remained strong, stability as per the vast territory it controlled. By 1517, they controlled Syria, Arabia, “Palestine,” and Egypt. During the time of Ottoman prominence (1517-1917), Judea and Samaria was part of the larger province of Ottoman Syria. The Ottomans divided their territories into administrative units (eyalets= “province”), divisions based on culture, geography, and strategic value (very loosely akin, at least in principle, to the ancient Persian satrapies), and the area corresponding to Judea and Samaria was part of the Sanjak of Jerusalem, itself part of the larger province of Ottoman Syria. (A Sanjak was a smaller administrative unit within an eyalet, often translated as “district” or “banner.”) Each sanjak was governed by a sanjakbey, i.e., district governor. The term “sanjak” means “flag” or “standard,” reflecting its military origins; Jerusalem was always a boiling kettle and needed its own special administrative watchdogs essentially, so thought the Ottomans. More generally, the Ottomans determined to closely govern the Sanjak of Jerusalem due to its strategic and religious significance, the need to counter European influence, ensure administrative efficiency, and secure their southern borders. The Ottomans incorporated Judea and Samaria into their administrative province of Syria in the early 16th century. After conquering the region from the Mamluk Sultanate, they organized it as a single eyalet within the larger Damascus Eyalet. Later, Aleppo Eyalet split from this administration. By organizing that region as part of Ottoman Syria, the Ottomans established a sense of geopolitical unity, it facilitated commerce, communication, governance, and trade within the broader Syrian context. Arabic became the dominant language, and Islamic culture flourished. Local (Arabic) names for places persisted alongside historical Hebrew names like Judea and Samaria. This linguistic and cultural blend shaped a diverse identity for the region, and within this diverse tapestry Jews and Arabs coexisted as citizens, their cultural expressions largely unfettered, and flourishing. The absence of draconian restrictions fostered harmonious living, itself bound by a shared identity—the stamp of “citizen.” Now, the Ottoman delineation of administrative boundaries laid the groundwork for future territorial claims, particularly as concerns us, the Ottoman administrative delineations significantly influenced the assignment of mandates by the League of Nations. After World War I, the League of Nations granted mandates to administer former Ottoman territories. The French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, the British Mandate for “Palestine” (including the “West Bank”), and the British Mandate for Mesopotamia (later Iraq)—these were all shaped by the Ottoman legacy and geopolitical considerations. What concerns us most is the British Mandate for Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine period (1920-1948) had significant and lasting impacts on regional stability in the Middle East. The decisions made by Britain can be looked at in two ways, namely their role in the fulfillment of prophecy over against regional stability. It could be argued that several key decisions and policies implemented by the British during this time contributed to long-term instability, and yet were crucial for the fulfillment of prophecy.
- The Balfour Declaration (1917), expressed British support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in “Palestine,” which led to increased Jewish immigration, which was met with strong opposition from the Arab population, but of course fulfilled biblical prophecy insofar as regathering Israel.
- The British facilitated Jewish immigration to Palestine, which intensified tensions between Jewish and Arab communities, ditto as per fulfilled prophecy.
- . British attempts to manage tensions often resulted in policies that pleased neither side, leading to outbreaks of violence and unrest[16].
- Various proposals to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states were considered but never fully implemented. These plans often exacerbated tensions and left both Jews and Arabs feeling betrayed.
We are not picking on Britain here, whom we love and pray for as part of our JA Blessings family, it’s just part of the background; facts are stubborn things.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
The big picture, the pervasive role of the Joshua Hammer. After declaring its independence on May 14, 1948, upon expiration of the British Mandate, on the very next day Israel was attacked, sparking the Arab-Israeli War. Here again the Joshua Hammer fell, and Israel thwarted its enemies, extending its borders beyond the 1947 UN partition plan. The 1949 Armistice Line, the so-called Green Line, solidified the division of territories between Israel and its neighboring attackers after the war. It marked the boundary between Israel and the areas occupied by Jordan (including the “West Bank”) and Egypt (including Gaza). The line was not intended as a permanent border but became significant in subsequent discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per se. Pursuant to that war, Jordan annexed the “West Bank” precisely as such, introducing the term, but only Britain (and Pakistan) recognized that move. Again the Joshua Hammer fell, and pursuant to the Six-Day-War in 1967, Israel captured the “West Bank” from Jordan. So, whose is it, both by tradition (static biblical and secular history), and the ’67 war et al. (dynamic geopolitics)? The ownership status of the “West Bank” is…a contested issue today, wow. While Israel has control over parts of it, its official status is still subject to negotiations,[17] which we know are influenced by not so Israel-friendly international forces, especially these days. Please note: That is why Israel-hate propaganda is so very important to Israel’s enemies, the more of a negative slant on Israel that they can pump into a largely uninformed international public, the stronger their negotiations are at the international bench. The “paragon of virtue,” humanist, liberal media, a brood of hypocrites in our estimation, is pumping out this propaganda as sensationalist journalism, which is cash in the bank for this crowd—slick podcasters averse to breaking a sweat to make a living and their hand-picked guests, and the mainstream media are laying it on thick here. Well, the Oslo Accords in the 1990s established a framework for discussions, but a final resolution has certainly not been reached. And notice: That very international community recognizes the West Bank as occupied “Palestinian” territory and has proposed various peace initiatives aimed to address its future status—you bet. Meanwhile, the errant term continues to be used worldwide outside of Israel, and with that errant usage is erased a massive chunk of biblical indeed Salvation history, but only presumably so because Jehovah God’s Word stands intact forever, particularly the Judean Cross. As we see it, Satan has been hard at work here for a long, long time this lying, blood thirsty, forever fool and loser.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not really a conflict, no not really, it is more like a high-stakes chess game with a “Legal’s Mate” trying to work itself out, a calculated sacrifice of the queen to deliver a checkmate blow via some of the minor pieces in the mix, but it will likely end more like a “Smothered Mate,” checkmating the opponent’s king when it cannot get out if its own way, bogged down and hemmed in by its own pieces owing to a series of short-sighted blunders, summarily checkmate follows, typically by way of a knight. The “knight” here represents an indirect but decisive force, which we tend to think is military, but could be inescapable, intense diplomatic and/or political pressure on the hemmed in party.
We will conclude with an analogy that maybe gets at the real-time “West Bank” debacle, which is itself rather central to the overall debacle. We have a friend who owns a large farm with well over three-hundred acres of prime farmland in a river-bottoms countryside, very fertile land. It’s been in the family many years, they have owned it “for the duration” so to speak, since the Compact of 1806, even before the Doctrine of Discovery went into the law books, a time of land grants here in the U.S. They call their farm “BEULAH LAND,” that’s precisely how it is registered with the county in the owner’s name. Now they named it “BEULAH LAND” because they reckon that God gave it to them by His exceeding lovingkindness and grace in keeping with Isaiah 62:4, and also because their last name somewhat rhymes with “Beulah” and is almost spelled the same. And every time they look at the “Beulah Land” placard hanging over the main entranceway to their farm, they remind themselves of God’s lovingkindness in giving the family that fertile and wonderful land and they say a little thank you prayer and praise His gracious Name. And there’s no doubt that it was given to specifically them when they look at that placard, not least because of the rhyme game reminder they concocted. Well, maybe that’s a little bit too disconnected and simplistic to use as an analogy to the “West Bank” debacle, but please allow us to go with it anyway. Their farm is adjacent to a river that overflows its banks every now and then, that is why their land is so fertile. Folks covet that farm because of that fertility. If some individual came along and thought up a program by which to snatch the property away from our friend, a good starting place would be to figure out a way to blur the more than two-hundred years old “ancient” if you will record that is on file at the county clerk’s office. So, change the name of the place from “BEULAH LAND” to, say, “WEST BANK,” and after that work your way back to a false ownership that eventually replaces the rightful owner on record with the fraud, then cook up a scheme whereby the new name and ownership sticks. And if the true owner contests, and makes trouble for your program, light a fire under his hiny either by way of some “accident,” or outright to his person, whereby he must defend himself, or be undone, and persist in this until he either gives up the fight, or is pushed out by a legal system that finds him guilty of atrocities in the way of deterrence and self-defense. But one way or another, snatch that farm away from him and to yourself, and close any open doors, discredit the rightful owner in such a way that shuts down any possible avenues of reversal of ownership back to him, even if that means eliminating him personally somehow, without getting outright caught of course; justify and/or cast enough doubt on your elimination act that hands-down garners folks’ sympathy and/or gets you off the hook. That, in so many words, is what Israel’s enemies have been doing to Israel since 1948 when the “Beulah Land Farm“ was registered in the Clerk’s office.
Praised be your sovereign Name Father God. Please rise up and defend your Covenant People, Israel. Please hear our prayer for the peace of Jerusalem and the peace and safety of Israel proper. Amen.
Illustrations and Tables
Figure 1 General Overview.
Figure 2. Legend for Figure 1.
Figure 3. Roses and Sunshine in the Ottoman World.
Works Cited and References
“A Letter of Invitation.”
Jesus, Amen.
< https://development.jesusamen.org/a-letter-of-invitation-2/ >
“Arab Revolt.”
Encyclopedia.com.
< https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/arab-revolt-1916 >
“1948 Palestine War.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war >
“Daily Life in Ancient Israel.”
BibleHistoryDaily.
“Discovery Doctrine.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine >
“Fostering Compassion in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict.”
PsychologyToday.
“Four Scenarios for Geopolitical Order in 2025-2030: What Will Great Power Competition Look Like?”
CSIS.
“From the River to the Sea: Why it Makes no Sense.”
IsraelMychannel.
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMLkh7jAOHQ >
“Identity and Inclusion: Rethinking Citizenship in Arab Societies.”
ABCCenterDC.
< https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/identity-and-inclusion-rethinking-citizenship-in-arab-societies/ >
“Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Timeline.
Education.cfr.org.
“Israel’s Rush to ‘Apply Sovereignty’ in the West Bank: Timing and Potential Consequences.”
TheWashingtonInstitute.
“Jerusalem in the Ottoman Rule (1516-1917).”
IJSSE.
< https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhsse/v6-i1/5.pdf >
“Jerusalem Sanjak.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Sanjak >
“Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites.
Bible History Daily.
“Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank >
“Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank.”
HistoryToday.
< https://www.historytoday.com/archive/jordan-formally-annexes-west-bank >
“Judea versus Judah—What’s the Difference?”
AskDifference.
< https://www.askdifference.com/judea-vs-judah/ >
“Mandate for Palestine.”
WorldHistoryCommons.
< https://worldhistorycommons.org/mandate-palestine >
“Mandatory Palestine.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine >
“Mandatory Palestine: What it Was and Why it Matters.”
Time.
< https://time.com/3445003/mandatory-palestine/ >
“Martyrs Day (Lebanon, Syria).”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs%27_Day_%28Lebanon_and_Syria%29 >
Microsoft Copilot.
August 2024.
“Nakbah.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba >
“Occupation.”
Meriam Webster.
< https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupation >
“Occupation: International Law of.”
Center for conflict Research.
< https://conflictology.org/articles/the-international-law-of-occupation/ >
“Ottoman Arabia.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Arabia >
“Palestine.”
Jesus, Amen.
< https://jesusamen.org/palestine.html >
Palestinians Stole Jewish Land. Unfortunately, it is True!”
IsraelMyChannel.
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1xhkNChyyU >
“Partition of Palestine.”
Britannica.com.
< https://www.britannica.com/topic/Partition-of-Palestine >
Psychological Aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Systematic Review.”
APAPsycNet.
< https://psycnet.apa.org/record/206916-0017-25 >
“Resurgence of Palestinian Identity.”
Brittanica.com.
< https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/Resurgence-of-Palestinian-identity >
“Revolutions and Rebellions: Arab Revolt (Ottoman Empire/Middle East).”
InternationalEncyclopedia.
“State of Israel Proclaimed.”
History.com.
< https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed >
“Study finds ancient Canaanites genetically linked to modern populations.”
Tel Aviv University.English.Tau.AC.
< https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites >
“The Guns of Lawrence of Arabia.”
< AmericanRifleman.
< https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-arab-revolt-the-guns-of-lawrence-of-arabia/ >
“The Israelite Occupation of Canaan: An Account of the Archaeological Evidence.”
Biblical Archeological Society.
“The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters.”
MIT PressDirect.
< https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/43/2/7/12211/The-Power-of-Nations-Measuring-What-Matters >
“The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century.”
Butrus Abu Manneh.
“Timeline of the Name Palestine.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine >
“This is WHY NO ONE wants the PALESTINIANS!”
IsraelMyChannel.
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Uqy2elngA >
“West Bank.”
Encyclopedia.com.
< https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia/west-bank-and-gaza-political-geography/west-bank >
“West Bank.”
NewWorldEncyclopedia.”
< https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/West_Bank >
“West Bank.”
Wikipedia.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank >
“West Bank.”
WorldFactBook.
< https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/west-bank/?embed=true >
“West Bank Annexation-Answers to Frequent Questions.”
TimesofIsrael | Singer.
< https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-annexation-answers-to-frequent-questions/ >
Why Choosing the Right Historical Approach to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Matters.
Time.com.
< https://time.com/6588848/israeli-palestinian-conflict-historical-approach/ >
“Who were the Canaanites? Ancient human DNA evidence yields answers.”
ScienceDaily.
< https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170727122039.htm >
“Whose Land is it?
IsraelMyChannel.
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr36qyUbZfQ >
Notes
[1] The name “Israel,” which means “he who strives with God,” or “God contends,” has its origins in the biblical account of Jacob wrestling with God and God renaming him “Israel” (Genesis 32:22-32, the name change is reaffirmed in Genesis 35:9-12 together with land and seed multiplication reaffirmations). So, Jacob’s descendants are the Israelites, who adopted his new name as their collective identity. Essentially, the name “Israel” symbolizes this people’s shared history and covenant connection to God. Please note that a covenant is a type of promise, but it is more than just a simple agreement here. In the context of Covenant Israel, it is a sacred and binding agreement between God and His people that has stood fast for nearly four millennia now. It involves commitments and obligations on both sides, and it is considered unbreakable and eternal. For example, the covenant with Abraham included promises of land, descendants, and blessings, with the expectation that Abraham and his descendants would remain faithful to God. The idea that Jacob and God wrestled on the very ground that would later be promised to his descendants adds a profound layer of symbolism to the story. It emphasizes the physical (via ground) and spiritual (via God) struggle that Jacob underwent, which can be seen as a metaphor for the challenges and perseverance that the Israelites would face in their journey to claim and settle the Promised Land back in the day and now. Quite apropos indeed that Israel, ancient and modern, derives its name from this very Jacob-to-Israel name change struggle journey. Clearly therefore, the establishment of “Israel” as a nation in 1948 reflects both historical and sacred ties to the land in unbroken covenant fashion. The reader may wish to tuck this away: Often in the main text we will be mentioning a “Joshua Hammer” falling, notwithstanding fulfilled prophecy, this Covenant, maintaining it unbroken, is central to why it falls in the conflict-context of this sermon. God is faithful to His Covenant with Israel, something Israel’s enemies either do not fully grasp yet or more likely refuse to do so in denial with their head buried in the sand purposely ignoring the evidence.
[2] DNA studies of human remains from archaeological sites in the southern Levant found that modern populations in the region share a strong genetic link with the ancient Canaanites, particularly in Lebanon. Most modern Jewish and Arabic-speaking groups exhibit at least half of their ancestry as Canaanite according to the research. It is thought that the Canaanites descended from a mix of local inhabitants and migrants from the Caucasus or perhaps modern-day Iran, at a time in history before metal tools were being used.
[3] After the death of Moses God instructed Joshua to lead the people of Israel across the Jordan River into the land promised to them. Notice that the borders of this land extended from the desert in the south to the Lebanon Mountains in the north, and from the Euphrates River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west:
Red Sea: Exodus 23:31,
Sea of the Philistines (Mediterranean Sea): Exodus 23:31,
River of Egypt (Wadi of Egypt): Genesis 15:18, Numbers 34:5,
Euphrates River: Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 1:7, Joshua 1:4,
Sidon: Joshua 13:6,
Jordan River: Numbers 34:12.
Joshua sent twelve spies to explore the land and they brought back mixed reports. Ten of the spies belabored the challenges—fortified cities, big and powerful inhabitants—causing fear among the Israelites. Only Joshua and Caleb believed they could conquer the land with God’s help. The majority’s lack of faith led to a forty-year wilderness wandering spanking (Numbers 13:25ff). Ultimately Joshua led the Israelites in an invasion across the Jordan River. They captured the important city of Jericho and continued to conquer other towns in the north and south, gradually bringing most of “Palestine” under Israelite control.
[4] We are assuming that indigenous peoples would have recognized and understood land rights to their native territories that outsiders do not have, rights that extend beyond mere legal ownership which is assumed.
[5] The Doctrine of Discovery, which deprived Native Peoples of the Americas of their land during the colonial era it must be said, remains in the law books today. The United States Supreme Court recognized it as legitimate in 1823. Modern-day legal scholars continue to challenge its impact, but courts still cite this legal precedent. The Land Back Movement, led by Native Peoples, challenges its legality, and recently the Catholic Church, which was involved in its inception, did likewise.
[6] There are no definitive historical claims or records of a single group conquering the entire region of Palestine before the Israelite conquest led by Joshua. There are several groups that had significant influence and control over parts of the region (Amorites 2000-1550 BC, Hyksos 1630-1530 BC, Egyptians 1550-1070 BC), but of course that is not the same thing as a conquest. That the Conquest took place is a matter of archeological evidence as well as logic. For starters, there are obviously no original Canaanites anymore, yet Israel flourished and established a historical society replete with historical records and a verifiable infrastructure (e.g., the Second Temple quarry, stone vessels of early Jewish communities, etc.) The evidence of an ancient Israel exists and so does the modern state of Israel; evidence of the ancient Canaanites also exists, but there are no Canaanites nowadays, no modern version of that society to be found anywhere—they disappeared. Sure, there are descendants, but that society and its hallmarks are nowhere to be found, not like Israel, which maintained a consistent Tradition across the ages. One can look at Israelite Tradition today and find the same in antiquity, but where does one go today to find an unbroken Canaanite Tradition that goes back to antiquity? Even though there are descendants, that culture disappeared bottom line and whatever Tradition they had set its terminus when they were conquered by Israel with no continuity possible therefore. The logic bodes well for a Canaanite Conquest by Israel as put forth in Scripture, and together with the archaeological evidence pretty much seals the deal as we see it.
[7] The name Judea is the Greco-Roman designation for the area that was part of the kingdom of Judah. Most of the returnees from the Babylonian Captivity were from the tribe of Judah, which likely influenced the name.
- The Babylonians translated the Hebrew name for Judea into Aramaic as “Yehud Medinata” (meaning “the province of Judah”) or simply “Yehud.”
- The Persians also referred to the region as “Yehud Medinata” or simply “Yehud.” This name persisted under Persian rule. Again, it was derived from the ancient Kingdom of Judah, which centered predominantly in Judea.
- Under Greek rule, it was translated as “Judaea.”
- During Roman rule, the province encompassing Judea, Samaria, and other regions was called “Judaea.” It extended over parts of the former Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms. In AD 135 the Emperor Hadrian reorganized the region, merging the territories of Judea and parts of Syria into a single administrative unit which he called “Syria Palestina.” He deliberately chose that name as an affront to the Jewish population. The pejorative referenced both Syria and Philistia, each historical enemies of the Jewish people. The “Palestina” part of the pejorative derived from the latter. The renaming occurred after Hadrian suppressed the Bar Kokhba revolt, he aimed to transform Jerusalem into a Roman metropolis and suppress Jewish nationalism and religious practices. This was the not so nice dagger administered by Hadrian. Hadrian did by way of that dagger the same as is being done today by way of the “West Bank dagger.” Hadrian did an expedient rename, and the enemies of Israel are doing the same thing centuries later. There is a devil behind that. But going by the bulleted list just above is it not clear that the name “West Bank” is a decided outlier? It’s actually worse than that, it is bogus as concerns referring to the heartland of Covenant Israel. As pointed out by the list, the name “Judea” clearly remained similar even though each civilization across time had its own variation for this biblically vital region. Let us not forget that Jesus wrought Salvation in Judea—the quintessential moment in history that qualifies and secures precisely Judea’s place for eternity.
Now, the name “Samaria” has an interesting origin. In Hebrew, it is Shomron, which literally means “watch mountain” or “watch tower.” The Bible tells us that the name was initially applied to a hill that Israelite King Omri bought from a man named Shemer for two talents of silver. This talent likely weighed less than the Attic talent; if nevertheless we used an Attic talent of some twenty-six kilograms, then going by today’s price of silver about $1K/kilogram, the cost would have been no more than $52K. But silver is currently undervalued relative to benchmark gold going by historical gold/silver ratios of 50-60, it is currently 80, and adjusting to the means, we get $1455/kilogram, which increases the cost to about $76K; a fair guess of the cost by today’s standards is somewhere between $50K<>$80K, or about 5M<>8M Jewish leptons (K thousands, M millions, lepton likely the amount of the widow’s mite, about a U.S. penny, Mark 12:41-44), so the cost was “a king’s ransom,” way out of the reach of an ordinary worker in that day. One must keep in mind that the weight of the talent we used could have been different which would shift the calculated cost—it’s just a guess here. The main takeaway is that only a king or deep pockets could have bought that hill for a two talent asking price. On top of this hill Omri built a city graciously naming it after Shemer (with a little imagination one can see ”Samaria” in that name “Shemer”; 1Kings 16:23-24, archaeological evidence). Later, this city, Samaria, became the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel (and also a center of idolatry sad to say). The region of Samaria as concerns us here encompassed the central highlands of Israel, including the city itself and the surrounding territory. Despite various name changes over time, the Bible consistently refers to it as Samaria, and of course its citizens are known as Samaritans. And again, the term “West Bank” corrupts the ancient history that itself bodes well for the name Samaria. Let’s just drop the “West Bank” propaganda and call this area what it is supposed to be referred to according to longstanding biblical and secular history, namely Judea and Samaria. If Israel’s enemies did that, then they would at the same time be acknowledging Israel’s unequivocal right to that territory, so there it is, a prime motive that keeps this area a phony “West Bank” instead consistent with Jordan’s motivations back in the day (1950 annexation).
[8] Sultan is a historical title with several meanings. Originally, it was an Arabic abstract noun signifying “strength,” “authority,” or “rulership.” Gradually it came to represent certain rulers who claimed near full sovereignty without asserting the overall caliphate. In Muslim countries, the title carries religious significance, distinguishing it from the more secular term “king.”
[9] The term “Aliyah” is not inherently Arabic; it has Hebrew origins. In the context of Jewish immigration, “Aliyah” refers to the act of returning to the Land of Israel. The word itself means “ascent” or “going up”. It symbolizes the spiritual and physical journey of Jews returning to their ancestral homeland, fulfilling the biblical promise of regathering. While the term shares linguistic similarities with Arabic, its significance is deeply rooted in Jewish history and identity.
[10] Many Arabs felt that the Ottoman rulers did not adequately represent Islam. In turn, the Hashemites, who claimed descent from Muhammad, sought to establish an independent Arab state based on Islamic principles. But there is more to the resentment that grew than that. The Ottoman Empire was multi-ethnic, and Arab subjects therein felt they faced discrimination oftentimes—that fostered much resentment with time. And the execution of Arab citizens in Damascus and Beirut in 1916 (referred to as “Martyr’s Day”) further eroded flagging loyalty to the empire and fueled support for open revolt.
[11] A one-state solution that unites is better than a two-state solution that divides, a working precedent of history told me so… (Fig. 3).
[12] Let us not forget that when then the UN proposed its partition plan in 1947, Israel accepted it even though it would have ended up with some stuff in the Negev of all places, and the Arabs flat rejected it.
[13] Please notice that Islam could not unify the warring parties, indeed Islam, or rather doctrinal interpretations and applications thereof, lent to the disharmony. Not to say that Islam alone caused the disharmony, because geopolitical and historical dynamics played at least as great a role in that.
[14] On one side were the Ottoman forces, largely Turkish fighters, but also Arab and Kurdish fighters, on the other side, were the Hashemite-led decidedly Arab forces, representing those who revolted against Ottoman rule. It was largely Arab against Arab, but not solely so. The Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic entity, and Arab soldiers served in its ranks, these then were fighting against other predominantly Arab forces seeking to be rid of the Ottoman yoke. So, it was a complex conflict, with Arab against Arab dynamics for sure, but not entirely so. Lawrence of Arabia was a prominent officer on the Hashemite-led side, and he was British. Of course Britan had a vested interested in the fight so no surprise that British fighters like T.E. Lawrence here were in the fray on the Hashemite-led side.
[15] The Ottoman Empire, once a very formidable power, faced a gradual decline over centuries. By World War I, it struggled economically and militarily, leading to its eventual undoing in 1922. The modern nation of Türkiye emerged from its remnants. The empire’s agrarian economy could not keep pace with industrialized European nations, hindering its ability to produce heavy weaponry and support Germany’s war effort during World War I
[16] For example:
- The 1930 Passfield White Paper, which sought to limit Jewish immigration and land purchases to address Arab concerns, but it angered the Jewish community, who felt it restricted their growth and development.
- 1939 White Paper, which proposed limiting Jewish immigration to 75,000 over five years and restricting land sales to Jews. It was intended to appease Arab opposition but was seen as a betrayal by the Jewish community, especially in the context of rising anti-Semitism in Europe.
- Peel Commission (1937): The British proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. While this plan was an attempt to address both communities’ aspirations, it was rejected by the Arabs, who opposed any division of Palestine, and was only reluctantly accepted by some Jewish leaders.
- The British implemented various land regulations to manage the conflicting interests. For example, the 1929 Hope Simpson Report recommended restrictions on Jewish land purchases to protect Arab tenant farmers. This policy was seen as discriminatory by the Jewish community and insufficient by the Arabs.
- In response to escalating violence, the British often imposed harsh security measures, such as curfews and collective punishments, which alienated both communities. These measures were seen as oppressive by the Arabs and as inadequate protection by Jewish people.
[17] Negotiations regarding the ownership of the” West Bank” primarily involve several key parties, namely Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) representing the Palestinian people, the United States, and an international community comprised of the United Nations, the European Union, and neighboring Arab states. The negotiations have been going on for decades, and involve historical, political, and social factors.