• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Promised Land,
Then and Now

Biblical Parallels to the Gaza Conflict

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

The Hebrew Bible recounts a foundational episode in Jewish history: the granting of the Promised Land to the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt and desert wanderings. In the Book of Joshua and related texts, the Israelites enter Canaan under divine mandate, instructed to dispossess—or in some cases annihilate—the inhabitants who were living there. This narrative of conquest has long been interpreted as a religious justification for territorial possession. Today, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many observers have drawn parallels between these biblical episodes and Israel's policies in Gaza and the broader occupied territories.

The Old Testament Conquest of Canaan

According to the Old Testament, God promised the land of Canaan to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The conquest under Joshua is depicted as a divinely sanctioned war. The Israelites were instructed to destroy entire populations of Canaanite cities, sparing neither men, women, nor children, in order to secure the land for themselves (e.g., Jericho, Ai). The logic of this warfare was framed as religious necessity: eliminating idolatry, purifying the land, and ensuring the survival of Israel's covenantal community.

Casualties in these biblical accounts were immense, though they are presented less as human tragedies than as fulfillment of divine will. For the Israelites, the justification was absolute: God had given them the land, and divine command overrode any moral objection to violence.

Modern Israel and Gaza

In today's conflict, Israel also frames its territorial and military policies in terms of necessity—though the justifications are couched in the language of national security rather than explicit divine command. Since Hamas's October 7, 2023 attacks, Israel's war in Gaza has led to catastrophic human costs: tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, including large numbers of civilians and children; widespread destruction of infrastructure; and the displacement of over a million people. Israel argues that these actions are necessary to eliminate Hamas, protect its citizens, and secure its borders.

Here too, we see a familiar pattern: large-scale casualties justified by an overriding imperative. Just as the biblical Israelites believed that conquest was necessary for their covenantal survival, modern Israel claims that its campaign in Gaza is indispensable for its national survival.

Justifications and Counterarguments

Divine vs. Security Mandate

In the Old Testament, divine promise legitimized conquest.

In the present, security concerns and self-defense legitimize military action. Both frames treat survival and sovereignty as higher goods that justify extraordinary violence.

Casualties as Collateral vs. Commanded

In Joshua's narrative, mass killing was not collateral—it was the goal.

In Gaza, Israel argues civilian deaths are unintended but unavoidable given Hamas's tactics. In both cases, opponents question whether this distinction genuinely mitigates the moral burden.

Dispossession and Displacement

Ancient Canaanites were destroyed or driven out.

Modern Palestinians in Gaza live under siege conditions, with recurrent displacement. The continuity lies in the structural imbalance: one people asserting the right to land and security at the expense of another's survival.

Criticism from Within and Without

Even in the biblical period, prophets later critiqued Israel for bloodshed and failure to uphold justice.

Today, Israeli and international critics accuse the state of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or disproportionate force.

Biblical Imagery in Contemporary Israeli Politics

While Israel as a state presents itself as a modern democracy, its leaders—especially those on the right—often draw upon biblical imagery to frame political and military action. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly invoked biblical precedents to justify Israeli resilience and territorial claims. In speeches, he has likened Israel's struggle against Hamas and other adversaries to the battles of Joshua, David, and the Maccabees. By situating the Gaza war within this ancient lineage, Netanyahu appeals both to Jewish historical memory and to evangelical Christian allies abroad who view Israel's survival as part of a divine plan.

Other rightwing politicians have gone further, portraying Palestinians as contemporary “Amalekites”—the archetypal biblical enemy whom God commanded Israel to utterly destroy. This invocation, while not official state doctrine, circulates in settler and nationalist circles, where it lends sacred sanction to uncompromising policies. For these groups, Gaza is not merely a territorial or security problem but a spiritual battlefield echoing Israel's earliest wars of conquest.

Such rhetoric blurs the line between secular justifications of security and religious claims of chosenness. It reinforces the parallel with the Old Testament conquest: just as the Israelites of Joshua's day were told to expel or annihilate Canaanite inhabitants, today's political right in Israel suggests that Palestinians in Gaza are obstacles to be subdued or removed in the fulfillment of Jewish destiny.

Ethical Reflections

Drawing direct equivalence between the biblical conquest and the Gaza war is risky, since the contexts differ in time, religion, and political frameworks. Yet the resonance is undeniable. Both episodes involve a people who see themselves as uniquely chosen or threatened, responding with extreme violence to secure their existence. Both involve the suffering of another population whose humanity is often overshadowed by the narrative of survival.

The haunting question is whether ancient myths of conquest still echo in modern justifications of war and dispossession. For Palestinians, Israel's actions can feel like a reenactment of the biblical conquest—a struggle where they are cast as the expendable “others” whose removal secures someone else's promised destiny. For many Jews and Israelis, however, Gaza is not about myth but about survival in a hostile region, where restraint might invite annihilation.

Conclusion

The Old Testament conquest of the Promised Land and Israel's current war in Gaza share a structural similarity: both frame large-scale violence as necessary to secure the existence of a people. Both involve mass casualties and displacement. And both rest on a higher justification—whether divine promise or national security—that seeks to outweigh the moral cost. When modern leaders deliberately invoke biblical imagery, the parallel becomes all the more striking, raising the unsettling possibility that ancient conquest narratives are not merely stories of the past but scripts that still shape the politics of the present.