Jay Sekulow. Jerusalem. Tustin CA: Trilogy, 2018. Print.
Psalm 44:13-14 laments the way the rest of the world sees the nation of Israel:
You have made us the taunt of our neighbors,
the derision and scorn of those around us.
You have made us a byword among the nations,
a laughingstock among the peoples.
In the 1960s, satirist Tom Lehrer sang:
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
The Catholics hate the Protestants,
The Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews. (“National Brotherhood Week”)
It seems as if over the course of three millennia things have not changed much. Still, since 1948 the Jewish people have had an independent homeland, Israel.
Jerusalem makes a case that the region known as Israel or Palestine has been occupied, if not ruled, by Jewish people since the middle of the second millennium B.C. Since the time of King David, Jerusalem has been acknowledged as its capital.
Even though the book is subtitled A Biblical and Historical Case for the Jewish Capital, it looks at the issue of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel largely from a legal perspective. Sekulow is best known as a lawyer.
Nevertheless, the author does begin with a scriptural case. He does refer to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. What is perhaps most striking are the number of verses in the Quran which calls Israel “the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto” the Jews.
The book briefly explains the meaning of covenant and how Israel’s stewardship is based on a covenant relationship with God—as asserted in the scriptures of all three of those monotheistic or Abrahamic religions.
Sekulow then makes a fairly quick overview of the historical and archaeological record. Even at times when they were persecuted whether by Romans, Crusaders, or Turks, Jews still inhabited that area of real estate and some even survived in or around Jerusalem during those hard times for them.
Finally, nearly half the book details the legal record in the last century since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Technically, the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations is still in effect because it was taken over by the United Nations and has never been altered. In 1917 the Balfour Declaration went into effect as Britain took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks whom they were fighting in World War I. (Remember Lawrence of Arabia?)
After the war, the Palestine Mandate which went under England’s control included what is today both Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza Strip) and Jordan. The British prohibited Jewish settlements east of the Jordan River. That became the de facto boundary between the Jewish and Arab portions of the mandate.
Even before the mandate was finalized, Feisal ibn Hussein and Chaim Weizmann agreed to this division. Sekulow notes that the Jews only got 23% of the area but the agreement was made “by the most cordial good will and understanding” (159, original wording) between these two parties. Feisal recognized the legitimacy of the Balfour Declaration as well. Feisal would become the first King of Iraq, and at this meeting was representing his father, the Sharif of Mecca. In between, he was declared King of Greater Syria (today’s Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) till he was overthrown by the French.
Sekulow points out that even though today the media often refer to “the occupied West Bank,” the only time in the twentieth century that it was occupied in opposition to the various international treaties and documents in place was between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan occupied it contrary to the 1919 agreement.
During that time, Jordan refused any Jew access to East Jerusalem. Since 1967 Jerusalem in its entirety has under Israeli control, and Muslims and Christians are permitted in all parts.
There is a lot more in Sekulow’s case for Jewish territory in Israel and Jerusalem as its capital. For example, he goes in to some detail about the background and motivation of the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement which has become popular in academia.
Sekulow may have left out what are a few germane details at least to this reviewer. The term Palestinian until the mid- to late sixties usually referred to a resident of Palestine and more often than not, it meant a Jew who lived there. In the late sixties the Communists began a “national liberation” movement in Israel with Arabs as they had in many other parts of the world with other groups. The P.L.O. was a Communist organization supported by the U.S.S.R. and to a lesser degree by China.
When I was in college, I recall listening to Abba Eban speak to an assembly there. He was a former foreign minister of Israel and spoke eloquently about Israel’s survival. At the time, it was all about the Arabs. This was less than two years after the 1967 war in which Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab nations.
About a year later, around 1970, the Maoist wing of the campus student radicals put up posters about the Palestinians. They read, “Who are the Palestinians?” It was one of the first times I recall the term Palestinian used to refer to Arabs living in Israel.
Although Jerusalem cites scriptures, it avoids any discussion of the prophetic significance of the modern state of Israel or Jerusalem. That would be a different approach. Still, as theologians call it, the mystery of iniquity is still alive and popular with many when it comes to Israel and its capital.
Many years ago I read Collins and LaPierre’s O Jerusalem when I was visiting a friend. (See also Psalm 137:5) It was such a gripping story, I stayed up most of the night reading the book. Jerusalem is much drier than that book because it deals with legal issues. It is a set of essays and briefs rather than a narrative, but anyone interested in this topic would learn some things by reading it.
Even though the copyright date is this year, the book went to press before the United States finally decided to implement an act its Congress had passed in 1995 and move its embassy to Jerusalem. As Sekulow points out several times, it is universally recognized that any sovereign nation can establish its capital within its boundaries wherever it deems appropriate. The single exception in practice are the many nations that do not recognize this for Israel. There is still truth in what the Psalmist and Tom Lehrer wrote…