THE TABLET

THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY FOUNDED IN 1840

TWO-STATE SOLUTION

UNCOMPROMISING TOUGHNESS DOES NOT PAY

Perhaps because quite a lot of it is unsavoury, ignorance of British history is widespread in Britain itself – while others have to live with the consequences. This is so in the Middle East, where it is at the heart of the war between Hamas and Israel. Alongside this ignorance of history goes ignorance of religion, especially the curious tale of how, in the first half of the twentieth century, Britain tried to reshape the territory between Syria and Egypt, Palestine, in accordance with what would now be regarded as extreme Protestant fundamentalist fantasies tinged with racism. No wonder the details are forgettable. Yet looking at these roots of the present conflict could leave a lopsided picture, for fantastic religious obsessions also lie behind the militancy of Hamas. Indeed, understanding them could be part of the solution. What drives Hamas, a jihadist terrorist movement derived from the Muslim Brotherhood, is the conviction of a divine mission not just to wipe Israel off the face of the earth but to spread an uncompromisingly extreme version of Islam throughout the world. According to this fringe Islamist ideology, it is God’s will that this “pure” Islam should prevail, and obstructing God’s will is the work of Satan. Making sure it does not prevail therefore undermines this ideology, showing that this is not what God wants after all. It was this that helped to undermine Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Failure shows that the project does not come from God. So maybe, therefore, Hamas does not have to be eradicated completely. It merely has to be seen to have failed so that it can no longer claim to have the blessing of Allah.

The theory that Israel has a divine right to the land has a tortuous recent history. British foreign policy in the Middle East was for generations shaped by Lord Shaftesbury, Disraeli’s foreign secretary. Like many evangelical Christians of his time he looked forward to the Second Coming of Christ, which would only be achieved, he believed, if the Jews returned to Israel and converted to Christianity. This prophecy was derived from a literal reading of a selection of biblical texts. He also believed that Britain had a divinely appointed role in bringing this about. But the possibility of doing so did not occur until much later, after General Allenby’s victory at the Third Battle of Gaza in 1917, when Palestine fell under British control.

This was the context in which Arthur Balfour, Lloyd George’s foreign secretary at the time, issued his famous declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Shaftesbury’s aim, which faded only slowly from Foreign Office consciousness, had been to create “an Anglican Israel, restored by Protestant England, at one stroke confounding popery, fulfilling prophecy, redeeming mankind”, in the words of Barbara Tuchman in Bible and Sword (New York University Press, 1956). Perhaps because this early version of Zionism was apparently anti-Judaeic if not actually antisemitic, Jewish leaders in the West were at first hostile to the Balfour Declaration. The return of the Jews to Israel, they believed, should be left to Providence. Being converted to Christianity in order for this to happen was an odious price to pay.

Ironically, the strongest religious Zionists in Israel now are Jews on the far right of the political spectrum, who press for Israel to annex the whole Palestine territory. They do not

realise they would be fulfilling the vision of Lord Shaftesbury, whose millenarian mantle has now passed to Evangelical fundamentalists in the United States. They still heavily influence the foreign policy of the US towards the Middle East. Meanwhile Britain was courting Arab friends in the fight against Germany’s First World War ally, the Ottoman Empire, and they greatly assisted Allenby’s advance northwards. The Arabs felt Britain had promised them a self-governing Palestinian nation in return for their help. As the occupying power, Britain was granted a post-war mandate to govern Palestine, and somehow to manage these two conflicting promises. It did so with a good deal of bad faith and mendacity until the squaring of the circle became impossible. By Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, Britain’s mandate was terminated and Palestine divided between Jews and Arabs.

This is where Israel’s title deed to the territory in international law stems from. War followed, the first of several, the latest of which is ongoing following Hamas’ attack of 7 October. It ill becomes Britain to play shocked bystander as the tragedy unfolds. It has historic responsibilities towards both sides, and has its share of the blame. But so does Israel. By any measure, the 1947 resolution presupposed that Israel would behave decently towards its Arab citizens and neighbours, whereas nearly a million Palestinians were promptly driven into exile and their land seized by Jewish settlers. Nor has Israeli policy since then addressed these injustices. Rather than doing so, it has compounded them both in Gaza and in the occupied West Bank. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in both cases has been disgraceful. A convincing case has been made that Israeli governments, particularly those led by the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have surreptitiously fostered the rise of Hamas in order to make a two-state solution – which Hamas and the Israeli far right both reject – unworkable.

But a two-state solution was and is the only possible answer that brings peace to the land. Understandably in the light of Jewish history, it is difficult for Israeli politicians of right and left to recognise that using force to suppress Arab grievances only adds to them. Uncompromising toughness does not pay. This has to be the message that US President Joe Biden presses home. If wolves and lambs are to dwell together in peace (Isaiah 11:6), mercy must flow between them. The endless mutual provocations that have disfigured the past 75 years must give way to dialogue. At present the two sides are heading in the opposite direction, and in all probability are about to make things even worse. Biden can use the immense financial and military strength of the US as leverage. Humanitarian aid must not be impeded; civilian lives must be protected whether Arab or Jewish; human rights are inalienable, not optional. If Israel is to win the war against Hamas, it has to accept some share of the responsibility for the breakdown in its relationship with the Palestinians.

But others too share some responsibility for this calamity. The antisemitic persecution that created the need for a secure Jewish homeland did not start with Hitler. It lies heavily on the conscience of Christians.

2 | THE TABLET | 21 OCTOBER 2023

For more features, news, analysis and comment, visit www.thetablet.co.uk