Why Religious Claims Cannot be Used to Claim Territory
Evangelical Christian Support for Israel vs. International Law
Recently I was reading about Evangelical Christian support for Israel, as I was trying to get a better understanding of this demographic’s support for Israel during the historic and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine. In doing so, I stumbled upon an article from the conservative paper the National Review, a source not exactly in my regular reading rotation, but one that provided an interesting and worrying glimpse into the kind of information that has been expressed towards conservative readers on this subject for many years. Written in 2019 by David French, this irritating article did sufficiently explain why evangelical Christians often are supporters of Israel. However, the article reinforced that the why is only informed by subjective religious beliefs, and is not actually supported by international law.
According to French, the legacy of evangelical Christian support for Jewish claims to Israel lies in Old Testament promises. Their support stems directly from the belief in two things: 1) That God has reserved Israel as the Jewish homeland, and 2) that the creation of modern Israel was an act of divine providence. This appears to be based on the following verses from the Bible:
Genesis 12:1-3: God's promise to Abraham
"The Lord had said to Abram, 'Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.'"
Genesis 15:18: God's covenant with Abram
"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, 'To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.'"
Genesis 17:7-8: God's everlasting covenant with Abraham
"I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
Ezekiel 36:24: Prophecy of the return to the land
"For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land."
Based on these verses, French’s concluding statement and argument was essentially this regarding Israel’s claim to Palestinian land: if a nation can make a claim to land for secular reasons, why can’t you do so for religious ones?
Regardless of any religious beliefs, this is actually a pretty simple question to answer.
Because it’s illegal, David. Because it’s illegal.
I don’t say any of this to criticize Christianity specifically. I understand that religion and spirituality can bring a lot to people’s day to day lives, and believe that people are entitled to religious freedom as long as no harm is done to others by weaponizing said beliefs. But regardless of what you believe within your own religious dogma, this does not mean that religious texts can be used as a claim to land. There is a long history where this has been the rule in international law, tracing all the way back to 1648 in Germany.
According to the International Court of Justice Jurisprudence, the importance of historical titles, effective control, and treaties take precedence over religious or “moral” claims to land. This can be seen in cases throughout history that established this legal precedence. The Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, for example, was a case from 1975 that illustrated a territorial dispute along similar lines. At the time, Western Sahara was colonized by Spain, but during the decolonization process, questions arose about the status of the Sahrawi, who were Western Sahara’s indigenous peoples prior to colonization. While Morocco and Mauritania also made claims to the Western Sahara based on “historical ties and religious affiliations,” the ICJ determined that these religious claims were not found to establish territorial sovereignty, as the self-determination of the indigenous Sahrawi peoples legally superseded religious claims.
The UN Charter does not recognize religious beliefs as a legitimate basis for making territorial claims, and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) outlines qualifications for statehood that include a “defined territory, permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.” Religious claims are not included as a basis for statehood or territorial disputes.
But why? To go back to French’s question, why was this decided, and why can’t religious beliefs be used to claim land?
Current international law stems back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. In 1618-1648, there was a religious dispute between Catholic and Protestant states known as the 30 Years War. This religious conflict resulted in widespread destruction of villages and crops all across Europe. The continent suffered economic disruption, the rise of diseases such as typhus and the plague, and a death toll of approximately 4 to 8 million people. Because of so much devastation in the name of people’s gods, the intention behind the Treaty of Westphalia was to prevent similar conflicts in the future, by emphasizing secular territorial sovereignty over religious claims.
These international laws exist for good reason. Countries are liable to go to war over land for all sorts of shitty reasons. While some claims are valid, many are obviously motivated by a desire for wealth, power, and imperial hegemony. While people are entitled to their own religious beliefs, there is no way to determine whose religious beliefs should supersede another’s. As such, no religious text can be used to support a claim. The Palestinians, however, have an indigenous and historic claim to the land, not a religious one, and so theirs is the claim that is legal.
In French’s article, he goes on to tell Christians that they are required to support Israel because of “experience and basic morality.” By “basic morality” he meant the old chestnut about “Israel’s right to exist” aka “Israel’s right to steal land from Palestinians and not be held accountable for it,” while by “experience” he just meant that he visited Israel once and felt nice about it:
“It’s difficult to overstate the profound impact that a visit to the Holy Land has on a believing Christian. I’ll never forget my time in Israel. Not only was it moving to stand where Jesus stood and to walk where Jesus walked, other aspects of the visit bring the miracle of Israel’s rebirth into sharp focus. How can you visit the ruins of the fortress of Masada and not grasp the improbability of the journey from total destruction to diaspora to renaissance?”
This paragraph strikes me as incredibly creepy and manipulative. I did not doubt that this man felt something, but this feeling has absolutely nothing to do with why Israel should be granted this land at the expense of the lives and dignities of thousands of Palestinians.
These two things he cites are simply not good enough to support Israel during this conflict. While you are entitled to spiritual experiences, these feelings do not change what is owed by international law.
While the subject of this essay is just this one article, reading it gave me quite a sinister feeling, because it helped me understand the narrative that has been communicated in the media to evangelical christians, who make up quite a large percentage of Americans. If this article can serve as an example of the media that has been targeted at this religious community, it means that these religious people have been manipulated on the basis of this inaccurate assumption: that one cannot be both a believer in Christianity and a supporter of Palestine during Israel’s occupation.
This could not be farther from the truth. To be a follower of Christianity, fixating on the subject of Palestinian land as being owed to Israel requires one to cherry pick this belief about land over other, more important central Christian beliefs. This includes Moses’ 10 Commandments, which clearly state in Exodus 20:1-17:
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Israel’s governments, with the support of their imperial partners, have been murdering and stealing from the Palestinians for over a hundred years, and cloaking the occupation in lies as they do so. If an Evangelical Christian subscribes to the principles of Biblical teachings, it goes without saying that regardless of what you feel about Jews being divinely owed this land, a benevolent god would not demand the slaughter of innocents and children based on this promise.
I cannot watch more images of the destroyed bodies of children. I feel that I must look at them, so that no one can lie to me about what I have seen. This year has been full of this. Children with jaws blown off. A child left with nothing more than an arm and a head. Children emaciated, children blown to pieces. I am not a religious person, but I was raised within religion, and understand that if one is truly in touch with their spirituality and morality, you already know instinctively that this is wrong. One must ask themselves if their god would really order that these children should die because of some vague promise about land to Abraham centuries ago. If a god demands this, is he benevolent? If a god demands this, is he worthy of serving?
Evangelicals would do well to remember that it is the “Golden Rule,” above any random obsession with land that is meant to supercede all teachings for those that identify as followers of Christianity: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Leviticus 19:18), a sentiment that should dominate anything prophetic included within this religious text.
Thank you so much for reading. If you like my writing and want to support me, please consider subscribing to my newsletter. I plan to write more regularly in the future, but need to first build my (free!) subscriber base. Thank you — you are much appreciated for your support!
Some articles and writers I’ve been reading on Substack:
"Gaza Is Complicated!" No It Isn't. Grow Up. by Caitlin Johnstone
There is a World Nuclear Crisis. Why are We not Talking About it? by Michael Feldman
Wars are conducted for the rich and powerful and fought by the poor and hopeless - Harry’s Last Stand Newsletter
Israeli Documents Show Expansive Covert U.S. Influence Campaign by Lee Fang and Jack Poulson
When Did Everything Become ‘Disinformation’?” by Ken Klippenstein
Thanks for making this important argument, Eleanor. International law should trump religion, especially when it's been cherry picked, like the religious argument for Israel's occupation of Palestine.
So powerful!✌️❤️