Introduction
Justice and peace have
been intertwined since early days. In the Book of Psalms, it is written that,
“Mercy and truth are met together; justice and peace have kissed. Truth will
spring out of the Earth, and justice will look down from Heaven.” Justice is
thus reciprocally linked with peace, as well as with truth and mercy. Their combination
is a necessary condition not only for achieving peace but also for its
existence and preservation.
In Bible history there
were three periods in particular when God’s miraculous power was at work, at
the times of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and His apostles.
The conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua was a remarkable series
of events. The Israelites, who had been wandering in the desert for forty
years, displaced a culture that had been established for a long time. The
Canaanites had walled cities. Some of them were giants. Archaeologists have
found thousands of artifacts that show the material culture of the Canaanites.
Canaanites
The
Bible first mentions the Canaanites in Genesis 15:16. God was watching their
increasing evil. Their behavior and religion were both wicked. The Canaanites
were the inhabitants of Canaan, the older native name of Palestine. As a
geographical designation, the Hebrew form of Canaan seems to be derived from Hurrian, meaning belonging to the land
of red purple.[1]
As early as the fourteenth century BC this term came to be used of the country
in which the Canaanites, or Phoenician traders, exchanged for their goods,
their most important commercial commodity, red purple dye, which was obtained
from the murex shells found on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.
By
the time of the Conquest, however, the term Canaan was in vogue as the general
designation of the territory later called Palestine. Canaanites lived in both
the eastern and western part of the country (Josh. 11:3). According to Judges
1:9, 10, they were practically everywhere, in the hill country, the Negev, the
Shephelah, and Hebron. The language of Canaan (Is.19:18) refers principally to
Hebrew, but embraces the general West Semitic languages spoken in this
territory, of which Phoenician and Moabite were also dialects. Canaanite
religion involved child sacrifice.[2] It was a practice that
increased the more their cities expanded. Unlike other ancient civilizations
where such practices died out, the Canaanites perpetuated it.
Conquest of Canaan
The conquest began
already under Moses, when two kingdoms east of the Jordan were allotted to two
and a half Israelite tribes (Nm 32). The men from those tribes had promised
Moses that they would assist their fellow-Israelites until the land west of the
Jordan was in their possession. It was really the Lord who won the victories
and gave Israel the land. He had promised to guide and support Joshua as He had
supported Moses (Dt 31:23). Joshua was a brilliant strategist in the conquest
of Canaan, under God’s direction. When the Israelites moved into Canaan, the
great neighboring countries were relatively weak. The Hittites had faded from
the scene. Neither Babylon nor Egypt had a military presence there, and the
Assyrians did not become powerful for several centuries.
There is a lot to say about the account of the Conquest of Canaan and
scholars have not yet agreed what approach to take. In the framework of a
biblically based approach the Book of Joshua is a central piece for the
discussion. The book indeed describes specific details of the enterprise. By
following Joshua, the conquest can be structured as the fall of Jericho (Ch.
6), subduing of all the southern part of Canaan (Ch. 9–10), and all the
northern part in (Ch. 11), and parceling out the land to the tribes of Israel
(Ch. 13–21). As we read, the climax of the conquest comes with these words:
“The Lord gave to Israel all the Land, which he swore to give to their fathers…
for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands” (Josh. 21:43).
Modern interpreters of the text have argued that the conquest is in fact
a case of ethnic violence and racism. Others interpreters go on affirming that
this is a case of genocide. Certainly, when we analyze the case of the
Canaanites there are many questions to be answered like how cans this
aggression against the Canaanites be justified? Did God really authorize this
ethnic cleansing? What is the character of God? If we affirm that this was
God’s own doing, how can we judge God’s decision to wipe off a whole ethnic
group. All of these questions might not have answers in the present time, but
to read that God commanded these horrible deeds is quite shucking.[3] It seems that this story
challenges our own comprehension of the God of the Torah. No matter if one
agrees or disagrees with the narrative it is horrible to see the extermination
of an ethnic group. It is my claim that the Conquest of Canaan is not neither
genocide, ethnic violence, or racism in the modern sense of the terms; however,
it must be understood in the context of a holy war, which is sustained in a
mythical narrative.
The conquest of
Canaan: reflections
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin
says that Israel’s ethics of warfare regarding the conquest of Canaan can be
best explained by monotheism’s struggle to survive, where monotheism is seen as
a minority movement with a distinct theology and ethics than the others[4]. The
Bible reports that commend the destruction of Canaanites are closely linked
with the destruction of idolatry and idol worship. The Old Testament prophets
are also affirming that idolatry is one of the reasons for exile. In a
post-exilic situation religious purification is followed by ethnic purification
like the accounts of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; they reinterpret the
Exodus and the Conquest events as a literal command to get rid of foreign wives
whom they probably married during exile. It might be possible that later a fear
of pagan influences that could again bring disaster for the Jews gave birth to
proselytism.
Ethnic Violence or
Racism in the Narrative of Conquest of Canaan
The conquest of Canaan
is narrated in the Book of Joshua, which most scholars regard as historically
suspicious, although, there are numerous passages that strictly describe the
elimination of the Canaanites. Some appears in the Book of Deuteronomy, the
Book of Judge, and elsewhere. The first part of the Book of Joshua covers the
period when he led the conquest of Canaan. According to Joshua 1:1-9, God
appointed Joshua to succeed Moses as leader of the Israelites; who was sent by
Moses with twelve spies to explore the land of Canaan (Numbers 13:1-16). In
Killebrew’s evaluation, she notes that both Joshua and Judges portray Israel as
a non-indigenous group distinct from the native Canaanites.[5]
For many Bible readers,
one of the most troubling themes in the history books of the OT is the role of
warfare. The conquest of the promised land
of Canaan by Israel is particularly disturbing to some. The conquest and settlement of the land
chiefly in the book of Joshua, although in some early battles in the
Pentateuch, and the conquering of additional territory by Saul, David and
Solomon in the Books of the Kingdom (1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings).
Many modern readers of
the Bible find deeply troubling the narratives depicting ancient Israel’s conquest
of Canaan and annihilation of the Canaanites. Critics are quick to classify
these military campaigns as atrocities, barbarism, and genocidal massacre,
exemplifying what many consider the most problematic moment in the history of
ancient Israel. A growing number of evangelical interpreters concede that
Israel perpetrated genocide on the Canaanite peoples. One scholar, C. S.
Cowles, goes so far as to suggest that “Moses was the first in known history to
spell out an ideology of ‘holy war’ that dictated the genocidal destruction of
enemies. Moses and Joshua were the first to engage in campaigns of ‘ethnic
cleansing’ as ḥerem (acts of
religious devotion).”[6]
God used Israel as His
instrument of divine judgment to drive out the immoral Canaanites from His
land. Total destruction of the
inhabitants was to protect the Israelites from adopting their wicked
behavior. Israel’s right to the land was
based upon God’s promises to the forefathers, rather than any intrinsic merit,
but their prolonged occupation was subject to their continued obedience to God
and His covenants. Thus, continuation as
stewards of the land was on a spiritual rather than ethnical basis.
Israel-Palestinian
Conflict
Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict, which has largely become one of the most controversial and polarizing
issues within modern day international politics. While this geographic hotspot
has seen conflict and land claims for a significant amount of history, the
modern day Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not based in thousand-year-old
historical or biblical conflict between the two populations. Nor is it a
historically deep-rooted religious struggle between Judaism and Islam. Rather,
its context is predominantly rooted in territorial claims, complex modern
politics, and issues regarding sovereignty of the nation-state entity. Further
complicating matters is the significant level of international involvement by
global organizations such as the United Nations, and other significant players
like the United States, Iran, Lebanon, and several other countries.[7] At
its core this conflict consists of two parties fighting for the right to
peaceful statehood existence within the same geographical region of the Middle
East.
Contemporary Jewish and
Palestinian conflict began at the turn of the 20th Century as many Jews
worldwide began the Zionist movement.[8] Some of the prevailing issues in the
conflicts include to name but a few, exceedingly large numbers of Palestinian
refugees who threaten the economy of Palestine, control over airspace, Hamas
refusal to recognize Israel as a nation state, Refusal of the International
system to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, Palestinian political
parties and other organizations that are slowly turning into terror groups, the
fight over Jerusalem as the capital city of both these stats among others.
The Link between
Justice and Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is, as noted, one of the classic cases wherein justice and peace are
intertwined. Indeed, both sides see themselves as victims of the injustice
caused exclusively by the other side. The Palestinian demand for a just peace
as a condition for resolution of the conflict is particularly salient. In the
absence of objective or agreed-upon criteria for evaluating and defining the
historic injustice, the historical narratives of the parties to the conflict or
the collective memory of each side become the only sources for defining
justice. The collective historical narrative, which develops over time and
describes the history of the conflict to its own group, includes a set of
social beliefs about justice that addresses the justice of the goals, the
collective self-image, the sense of victimization, the unity of members of the
group, and the de-legitimization of the rival.[9]
Peace efforts
Since the late 19th
Century, the two states have fought over two major issues; control over
Palestine and the existence of a Jewish state within the Muslim Arab world. The
Arab-Israeli clash continued to create armed conflict in the aftermath of the
wars, the tenor of the situation began to change when all of the Arab states
accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242. This document called for Israel to
pull out of the occupied territories, but it also guaranteed secure borders to
all nations, thereby accepting Israel as a sovereign country for the first
time. Further progress towards a long-term solution seemed possible in 1972
when Palestine hinted that it might accept a peace treaty with the Israelis if
they would return the occupied territories.
Throughout the mid 1970s,
the United States was taking more and more of a leadership role in the Middle
East peace process. U.S. interests in the region, particularly alliance with
Israel along with President Carter’s personal desire to solve the problem,
fueled this new engagement. Meanwhile, both Egypt and Israel were showing new
enthusiasm for the peace process largely because they both realized that they
would benefit from a closer relationship with the U.S. hence the Geneva conference
of 1977.[10]
After the 1991 Gulf War, President George H.
W. Bush called on Arabs and Israelis to come to high-level negotiations. After
significant US diplomatic efforts, the parties met at Madrid, Spain in late
October 1991. This led to many unproductive rounds of bilateral talks between
Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Conclusion
The relationship
between peace and justice is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
particularly in light of the Palestinian demand for a just peace. The Palestinian
demand for justice has two layers; a demand for procedural justice and a demand
for transitional and compensatory justice. The demand for procedural justice
relates primarily to Israeli recognition of the Palestinians as an equal partner
in the peace process given the irregularity in power relations between the two
sides. The demand for transitional and compensatory justice focuses mainly on
Israeli acknowledgment of its responsibility for perpetuating injustice against
the Palestinian people and for its remedy. The Palestinian demand for
procedural justice was acceptable to some of the Israeli representatives, but
they had trouble carrying it out in practice, and thus the relations between
the parties were not grounded in real equality.
Bibliography
Abuminah, A One country: A bold proposal to end the
Israeli-Palestinian impasse. London: Metropolitan Books, 2006.
Bahrani, Zainab. Race and Ethnicity in Mesopotamian Antiquity.World
Archaeology, 2006.
Joseph, Telushkin. Biblical Literacy. New York: Harper
Collins Publishers, 1997.
Kaiser, W. C. A
history of Israel: from the bronze age through the Jewish Wars. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Biblical account of the Conquest of
Canaan. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1985.
Lori, Rowlett. Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Telushkin, Rabbi
Jospeh. Biblical Literacy. Harper
Collins Publishers, New York, 1997.
www.palestinepnc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=552&Itemid=345&lang=ar.
Accessed: 09/07/2018. 5.45 PM.
[1]
W. C.
Kaiser, A history of Israel: from the
bronze age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1998), 21.
[2] Yehezkel
Kaufmann, The Biblical account of the
Conquest of Canaan (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1985), 72.
[3]Telushkin Joseph, Biblical
Literacy (New York: Harper Collins Pubishers, 1997),63.
[4] Rabbi Jospeh
Telushkin, Biblical Literacy, Harper
Collins Pubishers, New York, 1997, 65.
[5]Rowlett Lori, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 89.
[6] Zainab Bahrani,
Race and Ethnicity in Mesopotamian
Antiquity (World Archaeology, 2006),
50.
[7] Abuminah, A One country: A bold proposal to end the
Israeli-Palestinian impasse (London: Metropolitan Books, 2006), 39.
[8] Zionism is the
national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a
Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel
(roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine)
[9] tp://www.palestinepnc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=552&Itemid=345
&lang=ar.
Accessed: 09/07/2018. 5.45 PM.
[10]
R Rotberg,
Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of
Conflict (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009),115
No comments:
Post a Comment