Biblically Based Oppression: Using Bible to Justify Occupation of West Bank

When atheists point to situations like that in Israel as examples of how religion can fuel violence, many religious theists will object that these situations are more about politics or economics than religion. It's true of course that politics and economics will play a role, but that is hardly a refutation of the idea that religion is important or even central to what's going on.

What's ironic is that it seems to be the case that those denying the role of religion are most frequently those who are most distant from the conflict. The people involved may recognize the role of religion more readily because it is, after all, their religion which is at issue. In Israel, for example, the secular Jews seem to be those most willing to exchange land for peace whereas religious Jews -- the Jews who believe that their god gave them that land -- are the least willing.

Case in point is Major Adrian Agassi, a devout Jew, army officer, and lawyer who has been serving as a military judge in the West Bank. He issues rulings in cases where Palestinians and Jews have disputes over water, land ownership, etc. In nearly ever case he rules in favor of Jews -- so often, in fact, that even prosecutors who have won their case have had to appeal against his unambiguously biased decisions.

In an unusually frank interview, which offers insights into the melding of religion, politics and law that underpins land seizures in the occupied territories, Agassi has laid out his belief that Israel has a biblical claim to territory beyond its borders and that he, even as an immigrant, has a right to live on it when those born there do not.

"When we [Israelis] say that this is a political conflict, then we lose the battle," he told the Guardian, adding that it should be remembered that the ancient land of Israel is "given to us by the Bible, not by some United Nations".

Agassi, one of the most important officials in the military courts wielding authority over large parts of the West Bank, says settling Jews on lands that made up ancient Israel stands above all other biblical commandments and only when it is done can they have "a promised land and a promised life".

"You say that these lands 'passed into Jewish hands'. Others would say that they came back into Jewish hands. Others would say that they are obviously ours, inherently," he said. It was, he claims, a mistake to call it the State of Israel. "If we would have named it the State of Jews, the Arabs would have understood that this land belongs to the Jews."

Source: Guardian

Adrian Agassi seems to be pretty clear that his position is based on his religion, his religious beliefs, and his interpretation of the Bible. He is not just some minor official, so his views will necessarily have a significant impact on all those in his sphere of authority. Even if he were unusual in his views -- and that's implausible at best -- he would end up influencing others to adopt positions at least similar to his in nature, if not in effect.

The statement that making this a political conflict rather than a religious one will cause them to lose the battle is very important. So long as political institutions are recognized as having any authority over the conflict, Jews may have to compromise to achieve peace. So long as the only authority being recognized is the Bible, though, then Jews can refuse to compromise because they are simply following the orders of their god -- and they can ignore all the interests, concerns, or suffering of others. The same is true of the Palestinians, of course.

So long as people treat this solely as a political conflict they will never reach people like Adrian Agassi.

Agassi served in the legal department that oversaw the confiscation of land in the West Bank to build Jewish settlements and was then appointed to the military court that decided Palestinian appeals against the seizure of their property. The Palestinians almost never won. His court also ruled on legal disputes between Jewish settlers and Palestinians.

Agassi denies his credo affected his legal judgments but his court was considered so biased by some critics that on one occasion the military prosecution, in an unusual step, appealed against Agassi's ruling in favour of settlers to Israel's high court.

Adrian Agassi didn't arrive at his current post all on his own -- he was placed there and is kept there by powerful people in the Israeli government. It would strain credulity to the breaking point to think that they are now or were in the past ignorant of his religious views. This means that, at best, his superiors regard his religious biases as tangential or irrelevant. It is highly plausible that they regard those views positively, even to the point of agreeing with them.

Agassi says a peace agreement with the Palestinians "goes against nature" because as far as he can see nothing had changed in last 4,000 years in the land of Israel, and that back to biblical times Arabs and Jews were at each other's throats.

Agassi uses the term Arabs because he claims Palestinians do not exist.

He came to this conclusion over the past decade while serving as a special judge for administrative arrest. Based on confidential intelligence reports, without trial, Agassi sent several hundred Palestinians - deemed to be terrorists or security threats - to prison for six months or more.

"You read the raw intelligence material and you see that most of them are moved by religious doctrine, not by a political one. They use religion in order to justify killing as many Jews as possible. Is this not a religious war?"

So Adrian Agassi sees the Palestinians a motivated solely by religion -- and his solution is to be motivated in his reaction solely by religion as well? Since when has a conflict been resolved peacefully when both sides become committed to mutually exclusive religious motives, religious traditions, and religious goals? Such conflicts are resolved when religion is moved to the background and more political motives, goals, and processes are emphasized. Adrian Agassi is thus one of the forces moving the conflict backwards, away from a peaceful resolution, rather than forwards towards peace.