Munther Isaac is a Palestinian Christian theologian, pastor, and political activist renowned for his unwavering advocacy for Palestinian rights and his incisive examination of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Munther Isaac is a Palestinian Christian theologian, pastor, and political activist renowned for his unwavering advocacy for Palestinian rights and his incisive examination of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As the Academic Dean at Bethlehem Bible College, he actively fosters interfaith dialogue and reconciliation efforts within the region. (Isaac, Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac Academic Dean / Christ at the Checkpoint Conference Director, 2024)With a profound background in Palestinian Liberation Theology (PLT) and a steadfast commitment to social justice, Isaac has emerged as a leading figure in challenging the theological underpinnings used to justify Israel's policies, particularly within American evangelical circles. Through his compelling lectures, insightful writings, and thought-provoking sermons, he endeavors to illuminate the intricacies of the conflict while championing a resolution that upholds the rights and dignity of both Palestinians.
About a month ago, I watched a sermon he preached titled Christ in the Rubble.(Isaac, 2023)In the sermon, Isaac delivers a pointed critique of American evangelicalism's stance on Israel, accusing them of perpetuating injustice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, upon closer examination, Isaac's accusations mirror the very practices he condemns. I will outline Isaac's arguments and respond to his claims in this article.
The Argument of Munther Isaac
In his impassioned critique of American evangelical circles, Munther Isaac denounces what he perceives as a selective and weaponized interpretation of religious texts, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He contends that certain theological perspectives prioritize power and domination over compassion and justice, which justifies oppressive actions that perpetuate injustice in the region. Isaac also highlights the failure of American evangelical discourse to address historical injustices, such as the Nakba of 1948. He criticizes the perceived hypocrisy in their support for Israel despite advocating for human rights globally. Furthermore, he underscored the importance of embodying solidarity with the oppressed, drawing upon Jesus' teachings to advocate for a more compassionate and conscientious approach. However, while Isaac's critique raises valid concerns, it also warrants scrutiny for its potential to distort nuanced understandings of the conflict and exacerbate divisions rather than foster constructive dialogue and reconciliation. (Isaac, The Other Side of the Wall: A Palestinian Christian Narrative of Lament and Hope, 2020)Below is a summary of his essential arguments.
American Evangelicals Weaponize the Bible
Isaac strongly criticizes the weaponizing of religious texts within American evangelical circles, especially about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He argues that American Evangelical interpretations of biblical passages are being distorted to justify oppressive actions and ignore the injustices committed by Israel. This, according to Isaac, goes against the fundamental values of compassion and justice central to the Bible's teachings. He believes this manipulation only perpetuates injustice in the region rather than contributes to genuine peace and reconciliation.
Furthermore, Isaac finds fault with the uncritical endorsement of Israeli policies that often accompanies these interpretations. He sees this as problematic because it prioritizes the interests of a specific political entity over the principles of justice, compassion, and human rights. In Isaac's view, this approach fails to address the suffering of Palestinians and further exacerbates the conflict rather than seeking a meaningful resolution.
American Evangelicals Employ an Empire Theology
Munther Isaac's critique of American evangelicalism revolves around what he sees as an "Empire Theology," where power and domination take precedence over principles of justice and compassion. (Crossan, 2008)He argues that this theological perspective has a significant influence on American evangelical support for policies and actions that marginalize and oppress Palestinians, particularly those implemented by the Israeli government.
Isaac believes that American evangelicalism's emphasis on power and dominance leads to a skewed understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Spector, 2008)Rather than prioritizing principles of justice and compassion for all parties involved, some segments of American evangelicalism tend to align themselves with the powerful, often at the expense of the marginalized and oppressed, such as the Palestinian people.
To address this issue, Isaac aims to challenge and dismantle these ideologies within American evangelical circles. He advocates for a theology that promotes justice and equality for both Palestinians and Israelis, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the humanity and dignity of all individuals affected by the conflict. By fostering a theology grounded in justice, compassion, and equality principles, Isaac seeks to encourage a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within American evangelicalism.
American Evangelicals Helped Create Ethnic Cleansing of 1948
Isaac acknowledges the Nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe,” a word used by Muslims around the world to refer to the creation of the Nation of Israel as a catastrophic event that took place in 1948. (Sa'di & Abu-Lughod, 2008)For him, it was a significant moment of injustice and displacement in Palestinian history. He criticizes American evangelical discourse for its failure to recognize and address this historical injustice adequately. By calling for recognition of the Nakba within American evangelical circles, Isaac underscores the importance of addressing historical grievances as a crucial step towards achieving genuine justice and reconciliation in the region.
He believes that American evangelicals have played a role, whether direct or indirect, in perpetuating the injustices of the Nakba through their theological and political support of what he sees as Zionist ideals and the State of Israel. By failing to recognize the Nakba, Isaac argues that American evangelicals have contributed to a narrative that erases Palestinian suffering and marginalizes their experiences..
American Evangelicals Employ Inequality and Hypocrisy
Isaac highlights his concerns regarding inequality and hypocrisy within the Palestinian/Israeli context. He points out the perceived contradiction between the professed values of American evangelicals, such as advocating for human rights and democracy globally, and their unwavering support for Israel's policies, even in the face of documented violations of Palestinian rights.
Isaac critiques the inconsistency between the moral principles espoused by American evangelicals and their political actions, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite promoting values of justice and equality, many American evangelicals, according to Isaac, fail to hold Israel accountable for its actions, including the occupation of Palestinian territories, the expansion of settlements, and the use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians.
Furthermore, Isaac highlights the reluctance of Western powers, including the United States, to address Israeli violations of international law and human rights standards. He argues that this reluctance reflects a double standard in which Israel is given preferential treatment over other nations, despite its documented human rights abuses.
American Evangelicals Fail to Employ Solidarity with the Oppressed
Isaac emphasizes Jesus' teachings on compassion and justice, drawing parallels between the struggles of Palestinians and Christ's solidarity with the marginalized.
Isaac critiques American evangelical circles for what he sees as a lack of embodiment of Jesus' teachings in their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He argues that a genuine commitment to justice and liberation for Palestinians requires empathy, compassion, and active solidarity with those who are oppressed and marginalized.
By failing to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinians, Isaac believes that American evangelicals are complicit in perpetuating injustice in the region. He challenges them to reassess their theological perspectives and political positions, urging them to align more closely with the teachings of Christ and prioritize compassion and justice for all parties involved in the conflict.
My Response to Munther Isaac
Munther Isaac Weaponizes the Bible:
In response to accusations of genocide against Palestinians, Isaac contends that biblical principles are manipulated to perpetuate these accusations. He criticizes Western powers for providing theological support for Israel's actions while also condemning what he sees as America's racism, capitalism, and totalitarianism.
Isaac's viewpoint is significantly shaped by Palestinian Liberation Theology (PLT), a Marxist framework formulated in response to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While he acknowledges the influence of figures like Naim Ateek in PLT and draws ideas from them, Isaac diverges by striving to cultivate unity among Christians, Muslims, and Jews by promoting shared values. (Ateek, 2017)Nonetheless, despite his efforts to foster inclusivity, Isaac's theology, grounded in PLT principles, runs the risk of unintentionally fueling anti-Semitic attitudes due to its critical approach towards Israel.
He rebukes American Evangelical Christians for embracing Dispensational Theology, which distinguishes between the nation of Israel and the Christian Church. (Merkle, 2020)According to this theology, Israel is God's chosen people with distinct promises and covenants separate from those given to the Church. In contrast, Isaac's perspective is grounded in a politicized form of Replacement Theology, which asserts that the Church has superseded Israel as God's chosen people. He attempts to persuade Evangelicals that today’s Jews have no right to the land of Israel, no necessary connection with the promises of their prophets, no special covenant with God, and no hope without their inclusion in the Christian Church.
Isaac questions the idea of Christians having a unique relationship with Jews that is taught in the Bible, challenging the emphasis on "philo-Semitism" as a response to anti-Semitism. (supersessionism, 2021)However, John E. Phelan Jr. compares it to the analogy of responding to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter," suggesting that love for Jews or Palestinians should extend to all people equally. Nonetheless, Phelan Jr. acknowledges the unique relationship Christians, including Palestinian Christians, have with Jews due to Christianity's incorporation of Jewish history, sacred texts, traditions, and aspirations for the future. He emphasizes that while this connection is unique, it doesn't preclude the possibility of embracing love and respect for all peoples and traditions—a fact that Isaac appears indifferent to.
Isaac reinterprets biblical passages traditionally associated with Israel's historical and religious identity, such as narratives about the Promised Land or Israel's covenant with God. By highlighting alternative interpretations that challenge Israel's exclusive claims to the land, this theology undermines the legitimacy of Israel's existence and territorial sovereignty.
He also advocates for resistance against Israeli occupation, drawing inspiration from biblical figures who resisted oppressive regimes or pursued justice through nonviolent means. While this resistance may take various forms, including peaceful protest, civil disobedience, or advocacy for boycotts and sanctions, it poses a challenge to Israel's security and stability.
Isaac frequently affirms the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, sovereignty, and cultural identity within their ancestral homeland. By emphasizing narratives of Palestinian resilience, resistance, and national liberation in biblical contexts, this theology may strengthen Palestinian nationalism and collective identity, potentially undermining Israel's efforts to maintain its own national identity and security.
Munther Isaac Embraces an Empire Theology
Isaac is critical of the West and their perceived Empire Theology, prioritizing power and entitlement over justice and compassion. He argues that such theology underpins imperial forces' actions, including those of the Israeli government, in marginalizing and oppressing Palestinians. However, his stance advanced another empire, namely the Islamic Empire, which began after Muhammad’s death, and was rooted in power and conquest.
The Islamic Empire's conquests were motivated by a religious duty to propagate Islam and institute Islamic rule in newly acquired territories. This expansionist doctrine divided the world into two realms: the Dar al-Islam (realm of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (realm of war), with the latter deemed necessary to be brought under Islamic governance. (Garrison, 2014)Consequently, Islamic conquests were often accompanied by military campaigns aimed at subjugating non-Muslim territories and integrating them into the expanding Islamic empire. These conquests were characterized by the establishment of Islamic governance structures, the imposition of Islamic law, and the conversion or dhimmitude of non-Muslim populations.
Islamic conquests sought political and territorial control and cultural and religious hegemony. Non-Muslim populations were often subjected to social, economic, and legal discrimination, with Islamic culture and religion privileged over indigenous traditions and beliefs.
Naomi Zeveloff, in her article titled Munther Isaac: What Would Jesus Do at an Israeli Military Checkpoint? offers insight into Isaac’s evolution in thinking. (Zeveloff, 2022)She points out that Isaac's journey toward political activism began at Birzeit University, where he argued about Palestinian liberation amidst the backdrop of the Second Intifada. The violence during the Second Intifada took various forms, including shootings, suicide bombings, and attacks by Palestinian militants and Israeli security forces. The conflict resulted in significant loss of life on both sides, as well as widespread destruction and displacement.
Consequently, witnessing the impact of Israeli military actions in the West Bank propelled Isaac to seek ways to contribute to his people's cause. Inspired by the intersection of faith and politics, mainly through the works of Palestinian Liberation theologians like Naim Stifan Ateek, Isaac studied theology to advocate for Palestinian rights. This was the theological lens by which he looked at the situation. (Dabashi, 2024 )Thus, he views theology through the lens of liberation struggles and seeks to address the injustices Palestinians face within this context. From my vantage point, he tends to oversimplify complex political and theological issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He portrays Palestinians solely as victims of oppression without adequately addressing the broader historical and geopolitical context of the conflict, ignoring the fact that Islam is the chief culprit in this fight.
Following Muhammad's death in 632 CE, the Rashidun Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali, continued his mission and expanded the Islamic empire through military conquests. (Marozzi, 2021)The early Muslim armies defeated the Byzantine and Sassanian empires, swiftly conquering territories in the Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia. These conquests brought large populations under Islamic rule and facilitated the spread of Islam through contact and interaction with local populations. Mark Durie points out that the Middle East saw significant Arabization due to Muslim conquest and occupation, leading to ongoing dominance and suffering for indigenous peoples like Copts, Greeks, Yazidis, Syrians, Armenians, and Assyrians. From an Islamic perspective, these conquests, termed "futuh" in Arabic, meaning 'opening,' were seen as positive, with Islamic ideology historically supporting occupation by Muslims. (Karsh, 2013)Durie believes that despite centuries of Ottoman military occupation in Syria, including the region known as Palestine, Palestinian jihadi movements aimed at establishing a "free Palestine" did not increase. (Durie, 2023)This suggests that the objection to Israel stems not solely from military occupation but from its status as a non-Muslim, Jewish-majority state. The core objection to Israel's existence, reflected in the Hamas Charter and statements by Palestinian Arab leaders, is the idea of Jews ruling over Muslims.
However, why does this phenomenon occur? I believe it originates from a couple of fundamental concepts that require examination. Stereotypes regarding Jews during Muhammad's ministry have far-reaching implications for Muslim perceptions of Israel. The historical contexts of “dhimmitude” and “fitna,” along with societal attitudes and narratives, contribute to the perpetuation of negative stereotypes and prejudices against Jews within Muslim communities. (Durie, The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom, 2010)These stereotypes often portray Jews as deceitful, untrustworthy, or disloyal based on historical experiences or narratives. When societal structures and cultural narratives reinforce these stereotypes, they can lead to the internalization of negative attitudes toward Jews among Muslims, shaping their worldview in ways that nurture distrust or hatred.
The Role of Dhimmitude
As Islam expanded and established its rule over various regions, a system called "dhimmitude" was implemented to govern non-Muslim populations, including Jews and Christians. Dhimmitude granted protected but subordinate status to these groups, who paid a special tax known as "jizya" and adhered to specific restrictions and conditions. Discrimination and an inferior legal status compared to Muslims were common, with distinctive clothing or symbols often required to identify non-Muslims. Durie states,
The system of dhimmitude engenders a set of deeply ingrained attitudes on both sides from generation to generation. Just as racism continues in America and other nations more than a century after race-based slavery was abolished, so the institution of dhimmitude continues to affect, indeed to dominate, relationships between Muslims and others, even when the jizya tax is but a distant memory. The dynamics can even extend to affect interfaith relations involving minority immigrant Muslim communities, in societies which have never been subject to the Sharia. (Durie and Ye'or p. 241)
Dhimmitude was a historical reality during the early Islamic caliphates, affecting Christians and Jews, who formed the majorities in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Muslim Empires. While the practice has evolved or diminished in many Muslim-majority countries, discrimination against non-Muslims persists. The emergence of Israel as a nation in 1948 challenged the traditional dhimmi system, causing unease among Muslims. Israel's success also raised questions about the decline of Islamic civilization.
The Quran's perspective on Jews evolved alongside its changing eschatology, reflecting historical contexts and interactions with Jewish communities. Concepts like dhimmitude played a significant role in shaping attitudes toward Jews and non-Muslims in Islamic history, and these historical narratives continue to influence contemporary Muslim perspectives. Isaac has inherited these views through his Palestinian upbringing.
Historically, under the dhimmi system, Muslims were perceived as winners, while Jews were often seen as losers. The emergence of Israel as a nation-state challenged the traditional dhimmi system and created a sense of unease among Muslims.
Israel's technological and economic success added complexity to this narrative, as early Islamic civilization had once been a scientific leader and creative force in the world. This led to questions about what had gone wrong in the Muslim world.
The 1948 and 1967 defeats of Arab nations by Israel were perplexing for some Muslims, leading to the belief that Israel's victories were linked to alliances with imperial powers. These historical narratives continue to have contemporary relevance in the minds of Muslims.
The Role of Fitna
Durie’s insight on fitna, a word meaning trial, persecution, or temptation, is helpful because this theological concept holds significant theological importance in understanding Muhammad's transformation and the early Muslim community's experiences. (Durie and Ye'or) Derived from the Arabic word "fatana," meaning to tempt or subject to trials, fitna encompasses both positive and negative inducements, including insult, slander, torture, exclusion, and economic pressures, aimed at causing Muslims to abandon Islam or dilute its claims.
Following Muhammad's migration to Medina, the revelation of Quranic verses concerning fighting made it clear that the purpose of fighting and killing was to eliminate fitna, as it could lead Muslims astray from their faith. The Quran emphasizes fighting against those who persecute Muslims until there is no more fitna, indicating that persecution is considered more grievous than killing in the context of Islam.
This concept of fitna became a foundational principle for justifying jihad, or warfare, in Islam. Islamic scholars interpreted fitna as encompassing not only persecution but also unbelief itself, equating it with a greater evil than killing. This interpretation established a mandate for Muslims to fight and kill all infidels who rejected Muhammad's message, aiming to make Islam dominant above all other religions.
Historically, the Islamic calendar began with the migration to Medina, marking a turning point where forbearance of fitna was no longer an option, and jihad was declared as a means to establish Islam's dominance. This theological perspective shaped Islamic jurisprudence and the understanding of jihad as warfare to extend the dominance of Islam and break the grandeur of unbelievers.
From a Palestinian perspective, the presence of Israel in the region is often seen as a form of fitna, as it represents not only a physical occupation of land but also a challenge to the Islamic identity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people. This perception is rooted in historical narratives, religious beliefs, and political grievances that frame the conflict as a struggle against oppression and injustice.
The concept of fitna is used to justify various forms of resistance against Israel, including armed conflict, protests, and diplomatic efforts to assert Palestinian rights and regain control over their land. Palestinians view themselves as engaged in a righteous struggle to overcome the fitna posed by the Israeli occupation and establish their sovereignty and independence. Therefore, a two-state solution is unacceptable.
Isaac perceives Israeli policies, such as restrictions on movement, land confiscations, and military occupation, as reminiscent of historical oppression and discrimination, shaping their views on identity, citizenship, and religious freedom. It seems that he frames the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation and perceived injustices as being part of a historical continuum of resistance against oppression, drawing parallels with past struggles against colonialism and discrimination.
Munther Isaac Supports an Ideology that Leads to Ethnic Cleansing
I need to preface my statement above by stating that this is not his intention but a consequence of his approach to the Palestinian issue. As a Palestinian Christian theologian, he says he advocates for justice, reconciliation, and coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. However, his work is rooted in Palestinian Liberation Theology, which seeks to address the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation while promoting nonviolent resistance and dialogue.
Munther Isaac's usage of terms like "Nakba," "genocide," "religious apartheid," and "Zionist" can be seen as provocative and inflammatory, particularly within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Katulka, 2013)These terms carry strong connotations and can evoke emotional responses, potentially fueling animosity and hatred towards Israel among certain audiences.
From his perspective, the term "Nakba," meaning "catastrophe" in Arabic, refers to the displacement and suffering experienced by Palestinians during the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. (Isaac, The Other Side of the Wall: A Palestinian Christian Narrative of Lament and Hope, 2020)For Palestinians, acknowledging the Nakba is a way to honor the memory of those who were forcibly displaced and to draw attention to the ongoing impact of that historical event on Palestinian society.
Isaac would recognize the Nakba as a significant moment of injustice and dispossession in Palestinian history. The memory of the Nakba is deeply ingrained in Palestinian national consciousness and is commemorated annually on May 15th, known as Nakba Day. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing Palestinian struggle for self-determination, justice, and the right of return for refugees to their ancestral lands.
The concept of the Nakba significantly shapes Arab views of Israel by framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one rooted in historical injustice and dispossession. Many Arabs view Israel's creation and subsequent actions as illegitimate and as perpetuating the ongoing displacement and oppression of the Palestinian people.
By framing Israel's establishment as a catastrophic event resulting in the dispossession and suffering of Palestinians, the Nakba narrative inherently questions the legitimacy of the Israeli state. This can foster resentment and hatred towards Israel among those who sympathize with the Palestinian cause, potentially leading to support for actions aimed at undermining or dismantling Israel as a Jewish state.
The Nakba narrative reinforces the perception of Israel as an occupying power responsible for the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people. This portrayal of Israel as an oppressor can contribute to the dehumanization of Israelis and justify violent or coercive measures aimed at resisting Israeli control, including the expulsion of Jewish populations from Palestinian territories.
For some individuals or groups influenced by the Nakba narrative, the historical injustices suffered by Palestinians may be seen as grounds for seeking retribution or redress. This could manifest in calls for the expulsion or removal of Jewish communities from Israel or Palestinian territories, effectively resulting in ethnic cleansing.
Munther Isaac Promotes Inequality and Hypocrisy
Munther Isaac's application of Palestinian Liberation Theology (PLT) as a framework for critiquing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reveals elements of hypocrisy and perpetuates inequality. While he condemns Western powers, particularly the United States, for failing to hold Israel accountable for Palestinian rights violations, his approach appears selective, overlooking similar injustices by Arab states. This bias undermines the credibility of his theological analysis.
PLT often portrays the conflict as a struggle against Western colonialism, framing Western powers as the primary oppressors of Palestinians. Consequently, Isaac disproportionately focuses on critiquing Western countries while downplaying the role of Arab states in perpetuating the conflict. This skewed emphasis contributes to an incomplete understanding of the conflict's dynamics.
Furthermore, PLT emphasizes solidarity with the oppressed, drawing parallels between the Palestinian struggle and global liberation movements. However, this emphasis on Western oppression leads to a prioritization of critiquing Western powers over holding Arab states accountable for their actions. As a result, Isaac's analysis needs to balance and address the complexities of the conflict.
Additionally, PLT's interpretation of justice may prioritize addressing Western injustices while overlooking similar injustices by Arab states, further perpetuating inequality in assigning responsibility and accountability. The narrative of Palestinian suffering and resistance in PLT often emphasizes Western oppression while minimizing the role of Arab states, reinforcing a victimhood mentality and justifying a focus on critiquing Western powers.
By disproportionately targeting Western powers as the primary agents of oppression, Isaac overlooks the culpability of Arab states and Palestinian leadership in perpetuating the conflict. This failure to hold all parties accountable hinders efforts towards a balanced understanding and constructive dialogue.
Overall, Munther Isaac's approach to critiquing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through PLT disproportionately focuses on Western powers while neglecting the role of Arab states. Addressing these biases within PLT and promoting a more balanced analysis could foster deeper understanding and facilitate constructive dialogue and resolution in the conflict.
The problem with perpetuating this narrative is that it undermines efforts towards a two-state solution. Resentment towards the West, fueled by historical grievances such as colonialism and imperialism, leads to suspicion of Western powers' motives in the Middle East. This suspicion, coupled with perceptions of Western support for Israel, exacerbates anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world and fuels resistance against the Jewish state. Such sentiments hinder prospects for peace and perpetuate the region's conflict cycle.
Here's how:
Selective Application of Theological Principles
Isaac appears to selectively apply the principles of Palestinian liberation theology, focusing on critiquing Western powers like the United States while overlooking similar injustices or actions by Arab states. This selective application suggests a bias or double standard in his theological analysis, which undermines the credibility and integrity of his critique.
Failure to Address Arab Responsibility
By disproportionately focusing on Western powers as the primary agents of oppression and injustice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Isaac overlooks the role of Arab states and Palestinian leadership in perpetuating the conflict and exacerbating Palestinian suffering. This failure to hold Arab actors accountable contributes to an incomplete and skewed understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the region.
Perpetuation of Inequality
Isaac's failure to apply consistent scrutiny to all parties involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict perpetuates inequality in how responsibility and accountability are assigned. By disproportionately blaming the West and absolving Arab states of their share of responsibility, Isaac reinforces a narrative of victimhood among Palestinians while downplaying the agency and accountability of other actors.
Hypocrisy in Critique
Isaac's differential treatment of Western powers and Arab states regarding Israel reflects a form of hypocrisy in his critique. While he holds Western countries to high moral standards based on Palestinian liberation theology, he appears to excuse or downplay similar actions by Arab states, thereby undermining the moral consistency and integrity of his theological analysis.
Overall, Munther Isaac's approach to critiquing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through Palestinian liberation theology while disproportionately focusing on Western powers and neglecting the role of Arab states can be seen as promoting inequality and hypocrisy. A more balanced and comprehensive analysis that holds all parties accountable for their actions and policies would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the conflict and potentially facilitate constructive dialogue and resolution
Solidarity with the Oppressed
In the ongoing discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Munther Isaac's perspectives on the matter warrant a critical examination, particularly concerning the repeated rejection of peace offers by Palestinian leaders. From a Zionist standpoint, such rejections represent a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, rooted in the refusal to acknowledge and accept the existence of a Jewish state.
Throughout history, Israel has made numerous attempts to establish peace through the creation of a Palestinian state, demonstrating a genuine willingness to compromise and make significant concessions. Yet, Palestinian leaders have consistently opted for violence and rejectionism instead of embracing genuine efforts toward reconciliation.
A poignant example is the Peel Commission's proposal in 1936, which generously offered Palestinians 80% of the disputed territory. Despite this substantial concession, the offer was outright rejected and violent. Similarly, the UN's two-state solution in 1947 faced hostility and war from Arab states and Palestinian militias.
Even following Israel's victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, which saw the acquisition of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, opportunities for peace were squandered. In 2000, Ehud Barak's comprehensive offer of a Palestinian state covering Gaza and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital, was rejected by Yasser Arafat, triggering the Second Intifada.
Subsequent peace efforts, such as Ehud Olmert's offer in 2008, were met with similar disdain by Palestinian leaders. Despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, granting Palestinians complete control of the territory, it was exploited as a launching pad for terrorist attacks against Israel rather than a platform for peaceful coexistence.
These instances collectively underscore a troubling pattern: the consistent rejection of peace offered by the Palestinian leadership and their unwillingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Genuine peace can only be attained when Palestinians recognize Israel's legitimacy and commit to resolving the conflict through dialogue and negotiation rather than resorting to violence and rejectionism.
The persistent rejection of peace by Palestinian leaders underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. Rather than exerting pressure on Israel to make further concessions, the international community must urge Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and engage in meaningful negotiations toward a two-state solution founded on mutual recognition and respect. Only through genuine dialogue and a willingness to compromise can a lasting peace be achieved in the region within PLT and promoting a more balanced analysis could foster deeper understanding and facilitate constructive dialogue and resolution in the conflict.
The problem with perpetuating this narrative is that it undermines efforts towards a two-state solution. Resentment towards the West, fueled by historical grievances such as colonialism and imperialism, leads to suspicion of Western powers' motives in the Middle East. This suspicion, coupled with perceptions of Western support for Israel, exacerbates anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world and fuels resistance against the Jewish state. Such sentiments hinder prospects for peace and perpetuate the region's conflict cycle.
Here's how:
Selective Application of Theological Principles
Isaac appears to selectively apply the principles of Palestinian liberation theology, focusing on critiquing Western powers like the United States while overlooking similar injustices or actions by Arab states. This selective application suggests a bias or double standard in his theological analysis, which undermines the credibility and integrity of his critique.
Failure to Address Arab Responsibility
By disproportionately focusing on Western powers as the primary agents of oppression and injustice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Isaac overlooks the role of Arab states and Palestinian leadership in perpetuating the conflict and exacerbating Palestinian suffering. This failure to hold Arab actors accountable contributes to an incomplete and skewed understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the region.
Perpetuation of Inequality
Isaac's failure to apply consistent scrutiny to all parties involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict perpetuates inequality in how responsibility and accountability are assigned. By disproportionately blaming the West and absolving Arab states of their share of responsibility, Isaac reinforces a narrative of victimhood among Palestinians while downplaying the agency and accountability of other actors.
Hypocrisy in Critique
Isaac's differential treatment of Western powers and Arab states regarding Israel reflects a form of hypocrisy in his critique. While he holds Western countries to high moral standards based on Palestinian liberation theology, he appears to excuse or downplay similar actions by Arab states, thereby undermining the moral consistency and integrity of his theological analysis.
Overall, Munther Isaac's approach to critiquing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through Palestinian liberation theology while disproportionately focusing on Western powers and neglecting the role of Arab states can be seen as promoting inequality and hypocrisy. A more balanced and comprehensive analysis that holds all parties accountable for their actions and policies would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the conflict and potentially facilitate constructive dialogue and resolution
Conclusion
In conclusion, Munther Isaac possesses the potential to be a key player in advancing peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To achieve this, he must first acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation and advocate fervently for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. Through such actions, Isaac can showcase a steadfast dedication to dialogue and reconciliation.
Moreover, by unequivocally condemning violence and terrorism, fostering interfaith dialogue, and endorsing a two-state solution, Isaac can foster an environment of understanding, tolerance, and cooperation among diverse communities. Addressing Israel's security concerns and actively engaging in constructive dialogue with Israeli leaders will further cement his commitment to peace.
Overall, by embracing these steps, Munther Isaac can epitomize genuine devotion to resolving the conflict and contribute significantly to efforts aimed at achieving a lasting and equitable resolution in the region. However, accomplishing this task will necessitate a substantial paradigm shift and unwavering determination.
Ateek, N. (2017). A Palestinian Theology of Liberation: The Bible, Justice, and the Palestine-Israel Conflict. Maryknoll: Orbis.
Crossan, J. D. (2008). God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now . San Francisco: Harper One .
Dabashi, H. ( 2024 , February 5). Middle East Eye. Retrieved from War on Gaza pits Palestinian liberation theology against Evangelical Zionism: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-palestinian-liberation-theology-zionism-evangelical
Durie, M. (2010). The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom. Melbourne: Deror Books.
Durie, M. (2023, June 22). markdurie.com. Retrieved from Mark Durie Blog: https://markdurie.com/christian-muslim-relations-implications-for-jews-and-israel/
Garrison, D. (2014). A Wind in the House of Islam: How God Is Drawing Muslims Around the World to Faith in Jesus Christ. Monument: Wigtake Resources LLC;.
Isaac, M. (2020). The Other Side of the Wall: A Palestinian Christian Narrative of Lament and Hope. Lisle: IVP.
Isaac, M. (2023, December 24). hastings & district palestine solidarity campaign. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-1brSPn66w
Isaac, M. (2024, March 16). Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac Academic Dean / Christ at the Checkpoint Conference Director. Retrieved from https://bethbc.edu/Faculty/munther-isaac/
Karsh, E. (2013). slamic Imperialism: A History . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Katulka, C. (2013, October 1 ). Palestinian Liberation Theology. Retrieved from Freinds of Israel Gospel Ministry: https://www.foi.org/free_resource/palestinian-liberation-theology/
Marozzi, J. (2021). Islamic Empires: The Cities that Shaped Civilization: From Mecca to Dubai. New York City: Pegasus Books; Reprint edition.
Merkle, B. L. (2020). Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies . Bellingham: Lexham Press.
Sa'di, A. H., & Abu-Lughod, L. (2008). Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory. Columbia Unmiversity Press.
Spector, S. (2008). Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
supersessionism, A. P. (2021, July 28). A Palestinian evangelical’s supersessionism. The Christian Century.
Zeveloff, N. (2022, March 21). Munther Isaac: What Would Jesus Do at an Israeli Military Checkpoint? @naomizeveloff Posted. Retrieved from Center for Religion and Civic Culture: https://crcc.usc.edu/munther-isaac-what-would-jesus-do-at-an-israeli-military-checkpoint/