Aiming for Reconciliation

Translation of an interview with Michael Mulder
published in Handschrift, magazine of the ChristenUnie, April 2009
Original article: ‘Inzetten op verzoening’


drs. M.C. Mulder‘When you take a position on Israel it is imperative to be clear about the Biblical foundations you build on,' states Michael Mulder, director of the ‘Centre for Israel Studies'. ‘The ties we as Christians have with the Jews are unlike those with any other people. This being said, we are still responsible to work alongside others towards a peaceful solution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I would suggest that explicitly supporting the Christian Palestinian community would be a valuable addition to the electoral manifesto of the ChristianUnion.’

Faithfulness

The present people of Israel, people of God?

‘I feel that it is of vital importance to keep speaking of Israel as God's covenant people. That they are, is rooted in the confidence we have, that God does not withdraw the promises He once gave. I'm aware of the fact that from the start a section of the ChristianUnion has consistently avoided speaking of the present state of Israel as "God´s covenant people of old". They would hold that, since the coming of Christ, God's covenant with human beings has been essentially changed and broadened. It is my conviction that this broadening of the covenant did not result in the old covenant ceasing to matter. Through the work of Christ heathens may now share in the hope which God promised to Israel.

That is why the undiminished significance of God's words spoken to Israel is so vital to me, because through this I find underlined the fact that I may live with a  God who really holds on to what He has said. If God's word and His faithfulness to Israel cease to exist when God begins to work out His other intentions, I have every reason to doubt God's word and faithfulness to me today. This does indeed mean that as a Christian I don't want to leave out the people of Israel, whenever I think about the faithfulness of God. And this works the other way round as well, for when I look at Israel, I do observe signs of God's faithfulness there. I can see many Jews returning to the land of Israel, where they can live as Jews under relatively safe conditions under a Jewish government. I regard this as a sign of Gods faithfulness, and  consequently also as a way in which Gods promises of old are fulfilled in a new way. This is not saying that I see a connection between specific prophecies, and claims on specific parts of the land.’

Injustice that chafes

How on earth can you feel a tie on Biblical grounds, to a people who drive Palestinians from their land?

‘There is a great deal of chafing injustice in Israel, that is impossible to cover up with a blanket of theology. This includes the wrong that Palestinians have suffered and still suffer at the hands of Jews. A tie with Israel on Biblical, historical and moral grounds, can never ever lead to a justification of this wrong. But does seeing in the foundation of the state of Israel an example of Gods faithfulness, necessarily imply legitimizing the broader politics of the state of Israel? As I see it, there is a considerable distance between both these things. This distance may come out in human errors in the Israeli government, that can not be identified with the directions of God. People are also very ready to identify injustice immediately in a one-sided way in any acts of the Israeli’s.

I would suggest that it is vital to the political position of the ChristianUnion, despite the many things that may obscure our vision, to keep on recognizing in public the line that may be drawn from the faithfulness of God to the promises He's made and to the decision, made under international law, about the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own. I would like to stress the importance for us as Christians to view this as more than just a decision recognized by international law. Still this aspect of international law is very important. It's appropriate that the manifesto for the elections states the fact that political support may not disregard the principal consideration of international law.’

Living space for the other side

The manifesto for the parliamentary elections mentions secure and recognized borders for Israel as well as recognition of the nationalistic aspirations of the Palestinians. How realistic is this?

‘The question may be asked how these two things relate to one another. The problem is that a part of the Palestinian people is governed by a government which they have elected, but which takes up a non-democratic position. A government that deals with its citizens in a way that is completely different from the way Israel does. A government that is not willing to acknowledge the fact that there's a place for the Jewish people in Israel. I agree with Inez Polak in the Trouw newspaper of January 3rd, who states the view that any peace settlement with the Palestinians should be an agreement that is in line with the historical consciousness of the Palestinians. Allow me to quote what this means according to her: "That is why it (any settlement) can never be a final solution, because in the end of course they expect to win." When Israel and the Palestinians really start talking to one another, this cannot be based on anything else than the mutual recognition that there has to be some living space for the other side.’

No comparison

‘In fact both the governments are quite impossible to compare. Under a solely Jewish government the Arabs, be they member of Fatah or of Hamas, may live as free citizens. Whereas under a solely Palestinian government it has turned out be impossible for Jews to live as free citizens. This might perhaps be possible in an area that is governed by Fatah, but under Hamas rule it really is out of the question.

A lot has been said about disproportionality. And it exists. But we have to realize that it exists in many ways, because we can not really make a fair comparison between the two parties. This has to do with the way the Arab leaders treat their own people. Most of all it has to do with the position which the Arab world took up in 1947: no room for any recognition of the Jews in Israel. Currently this point of view is in the process of being islamicized, with the result that it resounds more and more clearly outside the Arab world as well.

When you're looking for a way for Israel to exist within secure and acknowledged borders, the most feasible outcome for some of the parties may be: "temporarily recognized safe borders". I fear that if Israel doesn't want to content itself with that, a solution will not be found.’


That means international monitoring?

‘Perhaps an international monitoring authority may help to make a possible agreement last longer. This way the position that is held broadly in the Muslim world, namely that there can be no lasting place for a Jewish presence, may perhaps be pushed into the background without getting a feeling of losing face too much. And maybe this way there may come about a situation for Israel in which it will give up more land and leave more room for self-rule in the Palestinian territories, in accordance with the Oslo Accords.’

Two states

Do you see any solutions?

‘Mutual recognition can be insisted on, by keeping the pressure on Hamas to acknowledge the fact that useful talks can be held only when the existence of Israel is recognized. It also requires Israel to abandon their policy of creating settlements, on the West Bank and in other territories. Fatah on the other hand will have to guarantee that when they're fully autonomous, there will be no return to the old views about the annihilation of Israel. All of this means that the goal should be a two state solution, but in such a way that it allows Palestine to develop into a fully functioning state. In order to achieve this, Israel would have to return the areas it has conquered during the Six-Day War. The area identified as ‘Palestine' would have to be larger than the fragmented territory that Barak envisaged in 2000. In order to do this, some of the larger settlements, like the ones around Hebron, would need to be abandoned. As there's a real fear that this would automatically lead to the Palestinians to interpret this as a first step on the road to total victory over Israel, an international monitoring authority, that has sufficient power and is recognized by both sides, just may be the best way to solve this.’


Jerusalem as an undividable capital?

‘What meaning does ‘undivided' carry? There are at present demographical, infrastructural, governmental and economical divisions in the city. However, it is quite clear that the city is less divided than it was in 1967. If returning the territories that were conquered during the Six-Day War, would result in East-Jerusalem falling under exclusively Palestinian rule, this would amount to a division of the city, which Israel would be justified in rejecting. Such a partition would make life in Jerusalem, the accessibility of the holy places for adherents of all three religions that are present, unacceptably difficult. Is the consequence of this view then, that even East-Jerusalem should stay under Israeli rule, as it is today? I would underline, that I do not draw such a conclusion from my understanding of the Biblical significance of Jerusalem.

On the other hand, in comparison to the present arrangement, it would not seem acceptable either, to permit a loss of accessibility of some parts of East-Jerusalem to the Jews. Under current agreements, Jews are not allowed to enter the West Bank, while at the same time Israeli Arabs are free to live in Israel. Because of this incongruity, a solution will have to be found that enables both Jews and Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, to travel safely throughout Jerusalem, and to have access to their particular holy places. The best way to achieve this would be to create a specific and peculiar status for East-Jerusalem, under international monitoring, and with some form of common government such as partly exists at the moment.’

Reconciliation

‘Financial and moral support can and must be given only when it is crystal clear that the aim is not violence based on the refusal to acknowledge Israel, but reconciliation.

Perhaps explicit support in favour of the Christian Palestinian community may be important in these matters as a complement to the policy up till now followed. I would consider it to be a valuable addition to the manifesto of the ChristianUnion if the party would incorporate a pledge to give more support to elements within the Palestinian community, who strive for reconciliation, and which at the moment have a rather hard time. It is worthwhile to mention in this respect explicitly the Christian community, both in the territories that are under Palestinian rule, as well as in Israel.’

Interview by Cornelis Vlot, chief editor of Handschrift

translation by Martin Strengholt, with thanks to Eric MacKay