I'm halfway through Munther Isaac's new book Christ in the Rubble, released last week. I wanted to read the book because it represents the viewpoint with which I am less familiar, the pro-Palestinian side in the ongoing conflict—to use a word Isaac does not like—between Israel and the Palestinians. When I say I'm less familiar with this viewpoint, I mean I haven't read much thoughtful analysis from this side of things. I come at the issue from the other side, and so I was skeptical when I got my hands on Isaac's book, skeptical but curious. He has managed to soften me. I should also say that this has not been one of my passions, that is, reading up on Israel and Palestine, so I come at this somewhat ignorant. Perhaps I'll have more to say about the book once I'm done with it.
For now I'm going to highlight a few consecutive passages in the middle of his fourth chapter, in a section that argues that western support for Israel is (among other things) a product of racism against Arabs. Having read his argument, I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't argue against the thesis, either.
The first thing I want to highlight is Isaac's response to this set of comments from Nikki Haley, in which she talks about Egypt and other "pro-Hamas" Arab countries taking in Palestinian refugees, and rather she laments that this is not happening. Here is Isaac:
Calls for Arab countries to receive Palestinian refugees are essentially calls for ethnic cleansing. We cannot be fooled by their pretended humanitarian concern. Such calls ignore Palestinians' rootedness in the land and their national identity; such calls are not in the interest of Gazans. Why don't Nikki Haley and others who make such calls instead ask why the United States or western European countries don't open their borders to take in Israeli Jews? The idea that Palestinians are mere numbers that can be moved from one place to another while Israelis take more and more Palestinian land embraces the logic of ethnic cleansing, dehumanizes Palestinians, and denies their right to self-determination in their homeland. (p. 122)
There's a lot here. Some of this is not carefully worded, such as the first sentence quoted above. And (later) the reason no one is calling on western countries to take in Israeli Jews is because Israeli Jews are not refugees. But the reason I highlight this statement from Isaac is because of his comment about "Palestinians' rootedness in the land" and his later statement about "homeland." I'm not sure I feel this same sentiment about land, and I'm just wanting to think about this idea some more. Perhaps reading more Wendell Berry would help; does he feel what Isaac thinks the Palestinians feel? As a biblical scholar, I think of Brueggemann's book on The Land, which I haven't read either. I like the idea of rootedness in a place, but I grew up in Kentucky and now live in Alabama and could very much see myself in several other places of the world, if the situation were right (i.e., job and family). Connection to land doesn't really come into for me, I think. So I'm just signaling here a point at which I think I am failing to properly evaluate a concern that many people consider weighty.
The very next paragraph:
Other instances of the racist logic that has dominated imperial discourse about the war in Gaza can be seen in the discourse surrounding human shields and hostages. The Israeli army first claimed that Hamas uses civilians as human shields without providing any evidence, and the West has repeated the charge at length. Even if this claim were true, would it justify the killing of children sheltering in a school or families in a hospital? If a serial killer were to escape police custody in Dallas, for example, and take a hundred children as hostages while hiding out in a school, would the United States argue for bombing the school to kill this serial killer? (p. 122)
This was one of the things I wanted to see Isaac address, because I have heard the charge about the human shields many times, and the charge seems very plausible to me. But I think Isaac's example about the serial killer was helpful.
A couple paragraphs later:
Responding to a question about the high number of Gazan civilians killed by Israeli airstrikes, US president Joe Biden said that he had "no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." This remark, which can be characterized as racist, minimizes the scale of death of Palestinians in Gaza and discredits the ability for Palestinians to report on the scale of catastrophe they are experiencing. (p. 123)
The remark quoted from President Biden is cited by Isaac from a Reuters story dated to October 25, 2023. I suppose it's true that Biden's remark "can be characterized as racist," but I'm not sure that that's the most helpful way of characterizing the remark. I do recall in the early days of the war that many westerners were questioning the numbers of casualties reported by the ... uh, wasn't it the Ministry of Health in Palestine? And the reason given for questioning the credibility of these numbers was because this organization was run by Hamas, which had an interest in inflating the numbers, in order to win sympathy to their cause. I'm not sure whether the numbers provided by that Ministry of Health have been fully validated by this point, but at any rate I hear less questioning of their credibility. But I don't think Biden's remark gives very good evidence for Isaac's thesis about racism, or I would like to see more argumentation substantiating the link Isaac is claiming between racism and this statement.
That gives you some idea of the type of material you'll find in this book, and my reaction to it. Some of it I would describe as helpful (e.g., the serial killer example), some less helpful (the characterization of Biden's remark as racist), and some presenting a mindset that is different from mine and that I need to consider (thinking here of the first point about the land).
