Israel’s Right and Title to the Land of Palestine
One of the central issues raised by Muslims is that Israel must be removed from the land of Palestine. They insist that Israel has no right to this land in the present, and that its inheritance from God some 4,000 years ago was incorrectly recorded in the Bible. Specifically, Muslim doctrine changes the Biblical account regarding which of Abraham’s sons received this inheritance. Two versions of the same Biblical passage come down to this: was the land given to Abraham’s son Isaac or was it given to his other son Ishmael? Islamic historians claim that a passage in the Bible describing the banishment of Ishmael from the house of Abraham (Genesis 21:8-18) clearly refers to a boy at a young age. Since “adding the years” indicates Ishmael was approximately 17 years old, Islamic historians claim that names were changed and the son that was actually banished must have been Isaac. By extension, there have also been claims that Abraham’s wife was not really Sarah, as recorded in Genesis, but Hagar. Their positions as wife and maidservant, respectively, reversed. Thus, by “correcting” recorded Biblical history, Islamic historians are able to claim that Israel never received inheritance of Palestine from God.
The “inheritance” issue is significant as it formed the basis for important treaties in the 20th century, notably the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (Article 22). With the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, a series of international treaties led to giving the Jewish people right and title to the ancient land of Canaan, leading up to the official birth of the State of Israel in 1948. So, why question the relevance of a Biblical passage that dates back nearly four thousand years? The Islamic point of view is that the international treaties that gave title to Israel are null and void because the book of Genesis was tampered with and therefore invalid. The assumption that Biblical history was rewritten is a foundational pillar of the Muslim faith and forms the basis upon which they insist that Israel must be removed from Arab lands.
In a July essay posted to this blog by [sic] Nasrallah lebanon, a convincing argument was made that the blessings to Ishmael and Isaac were swapped based on passages cited from Genesis and the Koran. However, there is much more to the story than that laid out by Nasrallah lebanon. To understand the Genesis passage, the entire story of Abraham needs to be put into context. The story of Abraham’s life begins in Genesis chapter 11 and ends in chapter 25. Of note, the birth of Abraham was given by Bishop James Ussher as 1996 BC. The historical accounts in Genesis were passed down by word of mouth until they were transcribed by (commonly accepted) Moses some time after the Exodus, around 1440 BC. In addition to four hundred years of pass-down by word of mouth, the original text was written in the ancient language of Hebrew, was then passed down in written form by Jewish scribes for thousands of years, and finally translated into modern languages, including Arabic and English. Also of note, the scrolls of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) validated the story of Abraham at about the half way point, some two thousand years ago.
Key events that enable the life of Abraham to be kept in context include:
1. Abram and Sarai (renamed by God to Abraham and Sarah when he was 99 years old) traveled to Egypt when he was 75 years old. At that time Sarai was 65. Genesis 12:14-19 records that Pharaoh saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman and took her into his palace to be his wife.
2. Later, when Abraham was 100 and Sarah 90, King Abimelech of Gerar took Sarah to be his wife. As recorded in Genesis 20:1-3, this occurred just prior to the conception of Isaac.
3. Sarah died at the age of 127. Thereafter, Abraham at the age of 137 took Keturah as a wife and had six children with her.
Returning to our theme, which son was actually banished as recorded in Genesis 21:8-18? According to Nasrallah lebanon’s argument, Ishmael was around 17 years old so his age just doesn’t fit into this passage about a young boy crying in the desert. Isaac on the other hand had just been weaned so he would be about three years old – a better fit. However, to properly understand this passage, the reader needs to put the entire story of Abraham into context. In the key events listed above, the Pharaoh of Egypt desired to take Sarah to be his wife when she 65 years old. Later, the King of Gerar desired to take Sarah to be his wife when she was 90 years old. First, it is hard for me to imagine lusting after a woman of those ages. Second, it is even more difficult to imagine the heads of state desiring to marry a woman of those ages. In addition, at the age of 137 Abraham had the stamina to father at least six more children and finally died at the age of 175.
The point that emerges from these events is that the framework of time has been stretched. If one divides ages by one half, the entire story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac is much more cohesive. While in Egypt, Sarah at the age of 32 (65 divided by 2) is well past traditional child bearing age but is still a beautiful woman. At age 45 she is approaching the peak of her full and mature beauty, still very desirable for a head of state (King Abimelech), and still biologically capable of bearing Isaac. Finally, this places Ishmael at about the age of 10 in the banishment passage, a much better fit.
I cannot explain how the framework of time was changed – that will be left for the scholars. It can be suggested that misinterpretation most likely would have occurred during the four hundred years of pass-down by word of mouth. In all other regards, the events recorded in Genesis are consistent with each other and with all other books in the Bible. In fact, modern archaeologists continue to uncover evidence in ancient lands that verify the accuracy of Biblical accounts. It is notable that no evidence has been found to the contrary.
When the entire Book of Genesis is taken into context, a number of passages confirm that God intended his covenant and inheritance to go to the lineage of Isaac. Later in Genesis 28:13, God specifically affirmed his covenant and the inheritance of Canaan with Abraham’s grandson, Jacob. Thereafter, an Angel of God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 32:28). Thus, the land of Canaan was given as an inheritance to Israel.
In order to swap the names of Isaac and Ishmael to suit the Islamic version of events, major portions of Genesis and the rest of the Bible must be rewritten. The complexity of such a version requires human conspiracy which would inevitably result in inconsistencies and errors. Thus, the Islamic argument that a complex hoax is more believable than the simple truth simply fails.
The “inheritance” issue is significant as it formed the basis for important treaties in the 20th century, notably the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (Article 22). With the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, a series of international treaties led to giving the Jewish people right and title to the ancient land of Canaan, leading up to the official birth of the State of Israel in 1948. So, why question the relevance of a Biblical passage that dates back nearly four thousand years? The Islamic point of view is that the international treaties that gave title to Israel are null and void because the book of Genesis was tampered with and therefore invalid. The assumption that Biblical history was rewritten is a foundational pillar of the Muslim faith and forms the basis upon which they insist that Israel must be removed from Arab lands.
In a July essay posted to this blog by [sic] Nasrallah lebanon, a convincing argument was made that the blessings to Ishmael and Isaac were swapped based on passages cited from Genesis and the Koran. However, there is much more to the story than that laid out by Nasrallah lebanon. To understand the Genesis passage, the entire story of Abraham needs to be put into context. The story of Abraham’s life begins in Genesis chapter 11 and ends in chapter 25. Of note, the birth of Abraham was given by Bishop James Ussher as 1996 BC. The historical accounts in Genesis were passed down by word of mouth until they were transcribed by (commonly accepted) Moses some time after the Exodus, around 1440 BC. In addition to four hundred years of pass-down by word of mouth, the original text was written in the ancient language of Hebrew, was then passed down in written form by Jewish scribes for thousands of years, and finally translated into modern languages, including Arabic and English. Also of note, the scrolls of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) validated the story of Abraham at about the half way point, some two thousand years ago.
Key events that enable the life of Abraham to be kept in context include:
1. Abram and Sarai (renamed by God to Abraham and Sarah when he was 99 years old) traveled to Egypt when he was 75 years old. At that time Sarai was 65. Genesis 12:14-19 records that Pharaoh saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman and took her into his palace to be his wife.
2. Later, when Abraham was 100 and Sarah 90, King Abimelech of Gerar took Sarah to be his wife. As recorded in Genesis 20:1-3, this occurred just prior to the conception of Isaac.
3. Sarah died at the age of 127. Thereafter, Abraham at the age of 137 took Keturah as a wife and had six children with her.
Returning to our theme, which son was actually banished as recorded in Genesis 21:8-18? According to Nasrallah lebanon’s argument, Ishmael was around 17 years old so his age just doesn’t fit into this passage about a young boy crying in the desert. Isaac on the other hand had just been weaned so he would be about three years old – a better fit. However, to properly understand this passage, the reader needs to put the entire story of Abraham into context. In the key events listed above, the Pharaoh of Egypt desired to take Sarah to be his wife when she 65 years old. Later, the King of Gerar desired to take Sarah to be his wife when she was 90 years old. First, it is hard for me to imagine lusting after a woman of those ages. Second, it is even more difficult to imagine the heads of state desiring to marry a woman of those ages. In addition, at the age of 137 Abraham had the stamina to father at least six more children and finally died at the age of 175.
The point that emerges from these events is that the framework of time has been stretched. If one divides ages by one half, the entire story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac is much more cohesive. While in Egypt, Sarah at the age of 32 (65 divided by 2) is well past traditional child bearing age but is still a beautiful woman. At age 45 she is approaching the peak of her full and mature beauty, still very desirable for a head of state (King Abimelech), and still biologically capable of bearing Isaac. Finally, this places Ishmael at about the age of 10 in the banishment passage, a much better fit.
I cannot explain how the framework of time was changed – that will be left for the scholars. It can be suggested that misinterpretation most likely would have occurred during the four hundred years of pass-down by word of mouth. In all other regards, the events recorded in Genesis are consistent with each other and with all other books in the Bible. In fact, modern archaeologists continue to uncover evidence in ancient lands that verify the accuracy of Biblical accounts. It is notable that no evidence has been found to the contrary.
When the entire Book of Genesis is taken into context, a number of passages confirm that God intended his covenant and inheritance to go to the lineage of Isaac. Later in Genesis 28:13, God specifically affirmed his covenant and the inheritance of Canaan with Abraham’s grandson, Jacob. Thereafter, an Angel of God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 32:28). Thus, the land of Canaan was given as an inheritance to Israel.
In order to swap the names of Isaac and Ishmael to suit the Islamic version of events, major portions of Genesis and the rest of the Bible must be rewritten. The complexity of such a version requires human conspiracy which would inevitably result in inconsistencies and errors. Thus, the Islamic argument that a complex hoax is more believable than the simple truth simply fails.
The use of religion to justify Israel's occupation of Palestine is irrelevant. The issue is one of human rights, and access to land and resources. The Palestinians obviously have a right to the lands they have lived on for thousands of years. The oppression of Palesitinians by Israel undermines thier legitimacy and makes their secuiry impossible. It is the root cause of their inability to co-exist in the region and perpetuates animosity toward them, the US and Jews globally. The only solutions are recognition of a Palestinain state in the West Bank, Gaza and half of Jerusalem or a single state in which all are equal citizens.
Religious justifications for ethnic cleansing only cloud the real issues and make matter wose.
Posted by Partisanpoet | Mon Sep 04, 03:52:00 PM EDT
I am in total agreement with you. Silver Eagle has a different view point than mine on some issues.
I believe that Israel together with the US must aggressively work to solve the Palestinian issue.
The blockade of the land, Berlin-like walls, and no man's land are wrongful treatment of the Palestinian people. But Israel has understandably done this for the sake of self-protection, do you blame them? I do not.
Palestine must be established as a state and the Palestinians must abandon their violent actions as this is not really allowing the achievement or progression of their social agenda.
This specific issue is a dividing one and is used to paint the US along with Israel in a very negative way with the worldwide population of Muslims.
Peace efforts in this region must be given top priority by the United States, the United Nations, and Israel. Dignity must be given to the Palestinean nation now.
The treatment of the Palestinian people is one of the major underlying issues that cause absolute rabid hatred of the Jewish people by many people around the world. Many of the comments that I have deleted because of their tone, words, and threats of a violent nature, have been on this particular thread.
The Palestinian issue is festering and when openly addressed and moved in a dynamic peace process where both Israel and Palestine work together with the world community in a spirit of flexibility, will work to greatly help stabilize this complex and turbulent region of the world.
Thank you for your insightful comments. Religion can sometimes cloud issues as they are emotional ones. We must focus on the strategic objectives and work to keep the religious aspect, albeit a most important one to both parties, out of the resolution.
Posted by The Watcher | Thu Sep 07, 12:47:00 PM EDT
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Posted by The Watcher | Thu Sep 07, 12:47:00 PM EDT
Partisan Poet and Watcher, the religious theme in my post was not based on my opinion but on the stated beliefs of many in the Muslim communities and as posted by [sic] Nasrallah lebanon. Those beliefs are distorted versions of the Book of Genesis, which needed to be set straight.
Israel's right and title to the land it presently occupies is based on treaties that were drawn up by well-intentioned diplomats and heads of state who desired to create a homeland for the Jews. They didn't arbitrarily select Palestine as the homeland for the Jews; they based this region upon the inheritance passages as recorded in Genesis. You may not agree that these treaties were based on religious views and that’s fine with me.
Most people will disagree with your use of the term “ethnic cleansing” as there is certainly no systematic mass murder in Israel. You may want to review the mass murders in Rwanda, Somalia, former Yugoslavia, and yes the Holocaust. They are examples of why the term “ethnic cleansing” was coined.
It needs to be pointed out that Jews have inhabited the region of Palestine in small numbers through the ages, even as second class citizens paying Muslims the Dhimmi tax. Their oppression by the Islamic rulers over the ages was horrendous. In fact, it would be correct to classify the mass murders of Jews over the ages as “ethnic cleansing”.
Regarding present day tensions, the people of Israel are fighting for their very existence. There are internal threats from the Palestinians as well as on every border. The Presidents of Iran and Syria openly state that the nation of Israel needs to be wiped off the map. Only words? It is well documented that the war materials used by Hezbollah and the Palestinians were supplied by these states. Therefore Israel has to rely on its world class defense force. History shows that Israel’s wars have almost always been defensive; i.e. in response to being attacked.
Recently, Israel gave the Palestinians Gaza and did these people say "Fine, we have our own state now, let's live in peace, get to work, and be prosperous"? No, they set out to use their land as a staging ground for attacks against Israel. The most recent conflict in Gaza resulted from Palestinian murders of the Israeli border soldiers and the taking of one as hostage. Nothing defensive about that – that was an offensive act of war, period.
There is so much hatred and retaliation that it’s impossible to separate cause from effect. Unfortunately, the peoples of this region prefer bloodshed to living in peace. Do you really think they can work together for peace? Please explain how. Thus, the walls, buffer zones, checkpoints, and other security measures that will be in place for the foreseeable future.
The people of Israel would like nothing more than to live in peace. However, the Arabs in and around them have made peace impossible through senseless attacks including numerous homicide bombs and rockets that indiscriminately target innocent men, women, and children.
In civilized society, dignity is never given to those who practice or support terrorism. Dignity will only be given to those who act dignified. Yasser Arafat was once asked why the Palestinians make poor choices. He answered “that’s because we are only given poor choices”. Arafat was wrong. The Palestinians need to learn to make choices that solve problems instead of creating them. The cycle of hatred and revenge needs to be broken, state-sponsored murder and terrorism must stop, and the people of Palestine need to focus on that which will lead to peace. In the process of earning their dignity, they will also enjoy peace and prosperity.
Posted by Silver Eagle | Fri Sep 08, 05:23:00 PM EDT