World Council of Churches
Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches
Reformed Churches Bern-Jura-Solothurn
Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum (PIEF)
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE
“Promised Land”
Church Center Bürenpark, Bern, Switzerland
10 - 14 September 2008
Zionism and the Right to the Land
Rev. Christoph Jungen
Reformed Churches Bern-Jura-Solothurn, Switzerland
It may legitimately be questioned whether it is possible to discuss Zionism within the context of a Christian dialogue on the promised land without falling into the trap of allowing Zionism’s claim to the land to become part of the “text” we are interpreting, on the same level as the biblical text.
Nevertheless, the discussion (and not least Jewish-Christian dialogue as a whole) in past decades has become increasingly dominated by the Zionist narrative with respect to the land of Israel/Palestine to a degree that it can not be ignored. The Zionist narrative has, whether we like it or not, become part of the core identity of a high percentage of Jews—even those who do not live in Israel.
Therefore, while it is and remains absolutely essential to make necessary distinctions between politics, ideology and religion/theology, it is equally necessary to look carefully at the links and joints between them as the crucial points where problems arise that cannot be solved by artificial separation.
Questions for discussion
Zionism has and sometimes still claims to be a movement against assimilation, loss of traditions, etc., that sought and seeks to form, cultivate and strengthen Jewish identity in many ways other than or beyond the connection to the land. Is this still true? In what ways is the claim to a “promised land” a necessary or non-essential ingredient in this? If yes, and if territorialism is an integral part—would in principle any land or place to build a nation have served the purpose (as it was discussed in the beginning—Argentina and Uganda options)?
Zionism has understood itself and has claimed to be a national liberation movement seeking self-determination with no colonial overtones. When and why did the colonial aspect creep in and even become dominant?
Can and should we distinguish between aspects of Zionism that are a response to the history of persecution and elements that are part of the nationalistic spirit of the day?
In what way was “socialist Zionism” with its strong opposition to a Jewish “diaspora mentality” and a corresponding stress on the materiality of the land an impetus to increased claims on the land as a necessary part of new Jewish identity at the expense of a diaspora identity now seen as fundamentally deficient? Where, in this process, did the socialist-internationalist perspective get lost?
How does the concept of “civil religion” as it is used in discussing society and religion in Western cultures help in assessing Zionism and its relationship to the land? In what way did Religious Zionism (Rabbi Kook), in trying to build a bridge from religion to politics, sacralize a basically secular ideology and thereby make it more resistant to discussion and change?
How do we respond theologically and spiritually to this kind of civil religion?
What constitutes a political, cultural and religious identity? Is the connection to a piece of land—to special places, mountains, cities—an unnegotiable part of such an identity? Does it constitute illegitimate “spiritualizing” if we claim it is not? Does the inclusion of land and ethnicity in one’s religion automatically make God into a real-estate agent or a tribal deity?
Points made in the discussion
We need to develop a positive view of the reality that we all have multiple identities and guard against the dangers of monolinear identities. Our identity (religious, politically, culturally) is always an unfinished project!
We need to delve deeply into the mind and traditions even of our adversary in order to find the constructive elements in that tradition as well as in our own.
We need a positive view of mythology, rather than fighting against mythologies as such (because they can be destructive), by choosing mythologies from the riches of our traditions (creation, Abraham, prophets) that promote an inclusive rather than an exclusive view of the land and coexistence of peoples.
We need to chose between different traditions—universalist traditions, e.g., Abraham-Melchizedek, and xenophobic and violent traditions, e.g., Joshua. This is something scripture-based religion can do better than a secular ideology.
What would have happened theologically if the Zionist state had materialized elsewhere or even if in Palestine had taken a different name, e.g., “Sharonia”, because of the plain of Sharon? (The question of “language markers” that signal certain contents.)
Our task is to educate people on these questions. But how do we bring the discussion to the grassroots?
