- Comforting the people of Israel for over 40 years
- 03 8001 6001
- Sign up for our newsletters
Your embassy in Jerusalem for over 40 years.
Complete the form below to contact ICEJ Australia. We look forward to hearing from you.
Please enter your details below to register your interest for our Australian Feast of Tabernacles 2024 Tour. We will be in touch when registrations are open.
Dividing The Promised Land
Irene Petrakis, ICEJ Australia
The two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state coexisting peacefully alongside Israel, has long been considered the dominant diplomatic framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, despite persistent efforts since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords, this vision remains unrealised.
The United Nations now seeks to revive this approach through the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, scheduled for June 17th-20th 2025, and co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France. While this initiative may appear constructive on the surface, its foundation in two anti-Israel UN resolutions – ES-10/24 and 79/81 – raises red flags. Notably, these resolutions endorsed the 19 July, 2024 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, which declared Israel’s presence in Gaza, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria illegal, and demanded Israel’s withdrawal from these areas.
Given the UN’s record of anti-Israel bias, there is a real risk the conference will seek a unilateral solution to the conflict, including recognition of a Palestinian state. Notably, French President Macron and the British Foreign Secretary recently signalled that they would pursue this avenue at the conference. This would undermine existing international law, including the Oslo Accords and successive UN Security Council resolutions, which established that peace must be negotiated, not imposed.
Christians should be deeply troubled by such developments. Any imposed solution that disregards Israel’s consent and security concerns risks legitimising terrorism and endangering Israeli lives. Even if such a solution was consented to, the current Palestinian political environment renders a two-state outcome not only impractical but morally dangerous. Given these realities, and in light of our calling to be agents of true peace and justice, it is difficult to justify Christian support for a two-state solution under present conditions. Instead, we should pursue lasting peace by encouraging genuine heart transformation and reconciliation between Jews and Arabs. These are far more effective than top-down political solutions and address the deeper, underlying issues at the root of the conflict.
Is A Palestinian State Morally Justifiable Today?
A just and moral solution to the conflict necessitates a Palestinian leadership that is genuinely committed to peace and ending its culture of incitement against the Jewish people. Anything less should not be supported by Christians, who are called to uphold morality and righteousness, especially in God’s land. Sadly, Palestinian political culture continues to glorify terrorism and denies Israel’s right to exist, which renders it unprepared for statehood.
The October 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre tragically exposed this reality. But the attack reflected more than Hamas’s barbarity – it highlighted a broader culture of indoctrination in Palestinian society. Hamas glorifies martyrdom, saturates education and media with antisemitic rhetoric and even recruits children to its cause. Summer camps, schools, and children’s programming normalise violence and portray Jews as enemies.
But the problem extends beyond Hamas and Gaza. The Palestinian Authority (PA), considered internationally as the legitimate peace partner, has also institutionalised violence and antisemitism. For instance, its notorious “pay-for-slay” policy rewards imprisoned terrorists and their families with financial compensation. PA media, textbooks and public institutions glorify terror and erase Jewish ties to the land, as has been meticulously documented by organisations like Palestinian Media Watch and the Middle East Media Research Institute. Additionally, despite it being considered Hamas’ secular counterpart, the PA often invokes radical Islamic rhetoric, such as the “Al-Aqsa Mosque is in danger” narrative, to incite religious violence and frame the land as Islamic territory that must remain under its control.
Due to this incitement and indoctrination, much of the Palestinian population has been conditioned to reject peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state, as consistently demonstrated through polling. In a post-Holocaust world, it is unconscionable to expect Israel to coexist alongside a culture so steeped in antisemitism. Christians who value justice and the sanctity of life should not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until these fundamental issues are addressed.
Practical Considerations: Stability and Security
Beyond moral concerns, a Palestinian state is currently unworkable on practical grounds. The PA is widely viewed by its own people as corrupt and illegitimate. President Mahmoud Abbas has ruled without elections since 2005 and has been consistently accused of misusing aid and resources, rather than using it to build the institutions needed for a functioning state.
Under a two-state solution, this vacuum of legitimacy could easily be filled by Hamas, other Iran-backed proxies and jihadists groups, as occurred in Gaza following Israel’s 2005 withdrawal. That move led directly to Hamas’s rise and ultimately the October 7 attacks. Similarly, under the Oslo Accords, Israel granted the PA autonomy in various areas, which soon became bases for terror. Hundreds of Israeli civilians have been killed in attacks originating from PA-controlled zones. This shows that when Israel withdraws its presence, further violence follows.
This risk is magnified in Judea and Samaria, which sits atop the high ground overlooking Israel’s coastal plain, home to over 70 per cent of Israel’s population. If Israel withdrew and jihadist groups gained a foothold there, they could easily threaten Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Ben Gurion Airport. This is an unthinkable situation that Christians cannot support, in light of our call to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9) and God’s concern for responsible stewardship of His land.
Biblical Considerations: God’s Warnings About Dividing The Land
Theologically, Christians should also be concerned about any attempt to impose a division of the land that defiles it and harms the Jewish people. Scripture is clear that God has assigned the land to Israel (Gen. 12:1–7; Ex. 6:8), and prophecy speaks of its full restoration (Jer. 30:1-3; Ezek. 36:24–28). Scripture also repeatedly warns against unjust division of God’s land. Joel 3:1–3 foretells judgment on nations that divide His land and mistreat His people, while Ezekiel 36:5 condemns nations that claim possession of Israel’s land with “utter contempt.” Furthermore, Numbers 35:33–34 warns against polluting the land through bloodshed – a consequence that any forced political solution risks incurring. Ultimately, God makes clear that the land belongs to Him (Lev. 25:23), and for this reason responsible stewardship of it is paramount.
These warnings pertain to forced divisions that harm Israel and may not necessarily preclude mutually agreed, temporary settlements that promote genuine peace, prior to the full restoration of the land promised to Abraham. Still, these passages warn about the consequences of treating God’s land haphazardly and in a way that leads to harm. As such, the current international push – especially if imposed rather than consented to – bears troubling resemblance to the scenarios Scripture warns against. It risks dividing the land in a way that harms the Jewish people, causing further violence within it, undermining Israel’s security and rewarding those who seek her destruction – actions that are contrary to God’s will for His land and echo the dangers warned about by the prophets.
Nonetheless, even if a mutual agreement was to eventuate, biblical warnings about false peace agreements should also be heeded. Daniel 9:27 warns of a deceptive covenant that brings destruction, Isaiah 28:15 condemns a “covenant with death,” and Jeremiah 6:14 warns against proclaiming “peace” when there is no peace. These passages underscore the importance of discernment when evaluating political agreements related to the land, especially with parties that have a history of deceit. This recalls Yasser Arafat’s conduct in the Oslo Accords, where he would state one thing to Western leaders and another to his Arab audience. Famously, he compared Oslo to the Treaty of Hudaybiya – a temporary truce which Muhammad broke once the strategic advantage shifted back in his favour. It is no surprise then that Oslo collapsed in favour of the Second Intifada. This demonstrates the imperative to be cautious of any solution under the current leadership, in light of the prophetic warnings.
Pikuach Nefesh
In his book, One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has also examined the theology of land division in light of the Jewish concept of pikuach nefesh, referring to the obligation to save life (Lev. 19:16). In Jewish tradition, this is said to take priority over other commandments, including settlement of the land (Num. 33:53). On this basis, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the former Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, initially deemed the Oslo Accords permissible provided the military and government leadership determined them necessary to avoid war and save lives. However, after recognising that territorial concessions did not lead to peace and preservation of life, Rabbi Yosef reversed his position.
Meanwhile, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson affirmed that speculative or long-term benefits did not justify concession – only clear, immediate preservation of life. Given this, Friedman concludes, “…The burden to justify land for peace is exceptionally high. It would require, literally, a military opinion that surrender will result in an immediate saving of human life. Longer-term political or economic benefits of such surrender are of no relevance to the determination”. Furthermore, “In the aftermath of October 7, now with certainty that surrendering land brings only violence and that such violence is endorsed by at least four of every five Palestinians, it is inconceivable that surrendering tangible territory for a naked and likely false promise of peace could satisfy the requirements of Jewish law.”
Friedman’s argument reinforces that land should only be conceded under circumstances where genuine peace will certainly be achieved, for God’s land should not be treated haphazardly. Based on this principle and Scripture’s warnings, it would be unconscionable for Christians to support an imposed division of God’s land if such action will likely fuel further conflict rather than peace, as the current moral and practical realities almost certainly guarantee.
Israel’s Legal And Historical Rights
Christians should also not support an imposed solution that denies Israel’s historical and legal rights to the land. The false claim that Israel is illegally occupying East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria has been used to justify such proposals, as is anticipated at this conference. As Christians committed to truth, we must stand for Israel’s legitimate claims, not back initiatives that distort reality and, worse, leave Israel exposed and vulnerable.
The Jewish connection to the land is ancient and well-documented. The term “Jew” derives from “Judea,” a central region of Israel. Scripture, archaeological evidence and an enduring Jewish presence – even during exile – affirm this bond. After crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, Rome renamed Judea “Palestina” after the Philistines to mock the Jews. “Palestine” referred to a geographic region at the time, not a distinct national identity.
In modern times, as the Zionist movement grew and Jews desperately fled European antisemitism to return to their ancestral homeland, the League of Nations ratified the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. This followed the 1920 San Remo Conference, where the Allied powers met to decide the future of former Ottoman territories and agreed to incorporate the Balfour Declaration – a 1917 British statement supporting the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine – into the post–war legal framework via the Mandate system. The Mandate gave this commitment legal force, including support for Jewish settlement in what is now Israel, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
However, as international commitment wavered, the UN later proposed a partition plan in 1947 that granted the Jews a much smaller portion of this territory. The partition plan was non-binding, and in any case rejected by the Arabs, so it did not legally supersede the Mandate.
Under international law, the principle of uti possidetis juris affirms that new states inherit the borders of former administrative units – in this case, the British Mandate. Since no prior sovereign existed before Israel’s Declaration of Independence in 1948 (noting the Ottomans and British had relinquished their claims), and since the Mandate designated this territory for Jewish settlement, Israel’s claim to East Jerusalem, Gaza, Judea, and Samaria remained legally grounded.
However, following Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence, multiple Arab armies illegally invaded. The war ended with armistice lines, not legally binding recognised borders. Jordan illegally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem; Egypt took Gaza. Importantly, no Palestinian state was established during this time by the Arab world. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel recaptured these territories in a war of self-defence and reunified Jerusalem, reclaiming areas it was already legally entitled to under the Palestine Mandate. The Oslo Accords also implicitly recognised Israel’s rights to settle in these territories, affirming that issues such as settlements and final borders are final status issues that must be resolved through negotiation, not external imposition, as this Conference seeks to do.
Any unilateral solution that declares Israel’s presence in these territories illegal and calls for immediate withdrawal – such as that risked by this Conference – denies Israel’s historical and legal rights, and should be rejected by Christians committed to truth
A Call To Prayer And Action
In its current form, a Palestinian state would pose a threat to peace and endanger Israel – a situation which Christians cannot accept. Rather than pressuring Israel and promoting a one-sided agenda, Christians should pray that the conference upholds truth, security, and genuine reconciliation. While peace is a noble goal, it must be rooted in justice, mutual respect and truth, or it will inevitably crumble. Ultimately, a lasting solution requires deep reform and transformation of Palestinian society. As such, Christians can more effectively promote peace by supporting grassroots initiatives that foster cultural transformation and meaningful relationships between Jews and Arabs in Israel – such as the numerous initiatives supported by the ICEJ. Such a bottom-up approach addresses the root causes of the conflict and offers the most promising path to genuine, lasting peace, in contrast to imposed political solutions or rushed divisions of the land.
As Christians, we are called to be a voice of warning, but just as importantly, to be agents of true reconciliation. This is the only path to lasting peace – not a political solution imposed from above, but a transformation that reaches the heart of the issue. Genesis 33:4, which portrays reconciliation between Jacob and Esau, offers a powerful prophetic image of hope. It reminds us that even those once divided by jealousy and hostility can be brought together by the grace of God. Our prayer is that we see such reconciliation in our time and that we may be instruments of that healing.
Other Great Resources
Words that Deceive
Words are powerful, and they can distort the truth. We encourage you to not accept the “normal” use of words, and instead discover the truth about common words and phrases that relate to Israel & the current political discourse.
Jesus and the Palestinians
For many decades, Evangelical support for Israel seemed rock solid. Today, however, many younger Christians in Western churches are hesitant to give Israel the same unconditional support that their parents did.
Share this post
Featured Posts
Support Israel! The Spiritual Imperative
To support Israel doesn’t mean supporting everything their government does. So, what does it actually mean? Explore what it really means here…
The Lie of Replacement Theology & God’s Plan for Israel
Israel and the church have a mixed and at times saddening history. Many churches unfortunately teach a ‘Replacement Theology’ doctrine. Teri Kempe discusses the dangers of this, and a way forward for Australian churches.
What is Christian Zionism?
The term “Zionism” has been turned into a negative word by Israel’s enemies, “Christian Zionism” is also under attack and often misrepresented in the media and in much public discourse.
The Restoration of Israel
Israel today is a remarkable country. Yet the land of Israel was not always so fruitful. God promised that one day He would come and find His people, no matter how far they had been scattered, and return them to the land promised to Abraham and his descendants as an “everlasting possession.”