Archbishop`s Statement Challenged as Unbiblical

The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement on 2nd August, expressing approval of the Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel’s presence in the so-called “Occupied Palestinian Territories” is unlawful. He accused Israel of “denying the Palestinian people dignity, freedom and hope,” adding that ending the occupation is “a legal and moral necessity” for world leaders.

Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.

On Monday 12th August, the Archbishop’s statement was challenged by more than 20 leaders of Christian ministries in the UK as being “biased, uninformed, naïve, and ultimately unbiblical”.

While those leaders share his compassion for the Palestinians, who have suffered for many years now, they dispute the claim that the State of Israel is primarily to blame, saying the responsibility lies firmly with those whose policy is violent resistance against any Jewish sovereignty in the land.

At the centre of their biblical argument lie God’s eternal covenant promises (see for example, Deuteronomy 4:37-40; Romans 11:28-29), which no appeal to international legal opinions or UN General Assembly resolutions can reverse. Consequently, they say the Palestinians’ only hope for lasting peace is a change of heart, to honour Israel’s God and live in harmony alongside the Jewish people.

In relation to this point, a very important fact many people miss is that more than two million Arabs live relatively peacefully in Israel, making up 21 percent of the population.

Of particular concern in the Archbishop’s statement is his appeal to governments worldwide to “reaffirm their unwavering commitment to all decisions by the International Court of Justice, irrespective of the situation”. In that, he appears to overlook the obvious bias against Israel within both the ICJ and the United Nations. He also appears to be treating the opinions of secular organisations as more relevant than the word of God.

Even on a secular basis, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion is flawed through ignoring the Jewish people’s indigenous claim to the territory, which was approved unanimously by the League of Nations in the 1922 British ‘Mandate for Palestine’. The borders of Mandatory Palestine would naturally be adopted by the state of Israel at independence in 1948, according to the legal principle of uti possidetis juris cited by ICJ Vice-President Sebutinde in her Dissenting Opinion.

But the challengers say the most significant point of the Advisory Opinion is in the unbiblical inclusion of “East Jerusalem” within an “inalienable right” of the Palestinians to sovereignty. Under Jordanian rule from 1949–1967, all Jews were expelled from that territory, which includes the Old City and the Western Wall. Since Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, freedom of worship has been guaranteed to all in that area.

The Bible reveals that Jesus will return to a Jerusalem that is no longer ruled by foreign nations (Luke 21:24), in which his regathered Jewish people will be ready to welcome their Jewish Messiah (Matthew 23:37-39; Acts 1:6-8), and that his return will bring judgement upon all nations who have divided up God’s land (Joel 3:2). These scriptures should lead Christian policy, rather than secular opinions.