Netanyahu Quotes Torah to Palestinians, But Is Religion a Framework for Peace?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a much-anticipated speech Sunday, laying out his ideas about how Israel and the Palestinians can achieve peace. I'll leave the geopolitical analysis to others. To me, it was striking how much of the speech was based firmly on Judaism and religion. Given that Netatnyahu and the Palestinians do not share the same faith, is it possible that this is a path to common ground?

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Consider this passage from the speech (translation by Ha'aretz):

"The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah – this is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers. ...

"The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People.

"As the first PM David Ben Gurion in the declaration of the State, the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books, and gave it to the world."

And where is it written that Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people, where David and Solomon and Abraham and Isaac and the others walked? The source for that claim is in the Jewish scriptures, the "Book of Books," the Bible.

Even the phrase that Netatnyahu used several times referring to Israel was religiously fraught. "Eretz Israel," is the biblical Hebrew for the "land of Israel," as opposed to the secular "medinat Israel," or "state of Israel" that Netanyahu used several other times.

"Eretz Israel" (or more properly, "Eretz Yisrael") is a phrase often used by religious Jews who want to maintain control of Judea, Gaza, and Samaria because they say it is part of that God-granted "land of Israel."

To be sure, Netatnyahu describes a vision of peace that allows for two nations on that land:

"In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence."

How was this speech heard by the Palestinians, most of whom are Muslim and all of whom depend for their support on Muslim-led nations? Their sacred text, the Quran, offers an alternate history for the same land: Ishmael, not Isaac, is Abraham's favored son and the heir who fathers a nation that walks in submission to God's will.

There exists no generally accepted contemporaneous archeological evidence for the existence of the individuals mentioned in the Bible. The biblical accounts may be true in important ways; tradition can be an amazingly effective way to carry essential facts through the generations. But Netatnyahu was making a case using evidence that his enemies do not accept.

How would Netatnyahu or his political allies in Israel receive a speech delivered by a Palestinian leader that stakes out a divine claim to Palestine based on the Quran and hadiths? Even if that leader then offered to negotiate? Maybe that would work?

I'm not suggesting that there was anything necessarily wrong or even unexpected about how Netatnyahu made his presentation. Jewish history and theology are no less "facts on the ground" in Israel than are the 21st century issues the prime minister also addressed. But the Jewish reality inevitably runs into the competing Muslim history and theology.

Consider an issue that Netanyahu did not talk about: Jerusalem. In the center of that city is a small hill. Jews call it the Temple Mount. Muslims refer to it as the Haram al-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary. How small is this hill? If you've ever flown though Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, you have a point of reference: The entire Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary area could easily fit atop any single terminal. When people say there is no room for compromise there, they're talking as much about real estate as politics.

And when key constituencies on both sides believe they have the Almighty on their side, where is the common ground?

Back in 2000, that small hill was one of the stones upon which the peace process foundered. Ariel Sharon, then gathering his successful campaign to become prime minister, told an international gathering of about 4,000 evangelical Christians that "the land of Israel is holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims, but it was promised by God only to the Jews."

Around the same time, in the al-Aqsa Mosque, atop the Haram al-Sharif, Imam Muhammad Hussein gave a sermon. He declared that the souls of the Palestinian shahidim - martyrs – hovered over the mosque, and he called upon all Muslims to follow their example.

Back in 2000, I wrote:

If politics is the art of compromise, religion is the search for the unconditional. Both sides say that agreement about Jerusalem and the sacred hill must be in a final peace accord. But the influence that a rigidly religious perspective exerts on either side defines the limits of negotiation.

Much has changed in nine years, but has that? Is this the time that those in control agree to disagree about what Adonai or Allah said many centuries ago, while they find ways to accommodate the needs of their two peoples today?





Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!