THIS BOOK IS VERY FAIR AND BALANCED. THOSE EUROPEAN JEWS THERE ARE NOT REAL JEWS ANYWAY, THEY ARE DESCENDED FROM THE KHAZARS. THEY ARE RECENT CONVERTS TO JUDAISM, HAVING CONVERTED TO AVOID THE WARS BETWEEN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY, THEY HAVE NO CLAIM TO ISRAEL. THAT HONOR GOES TO THE REAL JEWS WHO ARE BLACK IN ORIGIN. WITNESS SOLOMON'S STATEMENT "I AM BLACK, BUT COMELY". THESE EUROPEAN SETTLER COLONIES ARE IMPOSTOR JEWS, WORSE THAN THE SETTLER COLONIES IN SOUTH AFRICA. THE NOBEL PRIZE RECIPIENT ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU WAS BANNED FROM SPEAKING AT ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY IN MINNESOTA DUE TO HIS STATEMENT THAT ISRAELI TREATMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS IS WORSE THAN APARTHEID WAS IN SOUTH AFRICA (AZANIA). JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS PUT SEVERE PRESSURE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IF THEY ALLOWED HIM TO SPEAK. THESE TYPES OF WHITEMAIL TACTICS ARE PAR FOR THE COURSE FOR THE ADL AND OTHER POWERFUL JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS. JUST LOOK AT THEIR TREATMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS, AND EVEN THE NON-WHITE JEWS. THEY TRIED TO MAKE THE BLACK ETHIOPIAN FALASHA JEWS SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR EUROPEANIZED VERSION OF JUDAISM UNDER PENALTY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED AS JEWS. SOLOMON'S BLACK ANCESTORS ARE THE RIGHTFUL HEIRS TO THAT LAND, NOT WHITE PEOPLE, WHO WERE CAVE DWELLERS IN THE CAVES OF THE CAUCUSES MOUNTAINS DURING ISRAEL'S ANCIENT HISTORICAL PERIOD. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS CAUCASIANS. NONE OF THESE ANCIENT HISTORICAL EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN EUROPE, THEY TOOK PLACE IN WHAT IS NOW FICTITIOUSLY LABELED THE MIDDLE EAST (ACTUALLY THE LAND MASS IS PART OF AFRICA). THERE ARE ONLY 6 CONTINENTS & THE MIDDLE EAST IS NOT ONE OF THEM), NOR IS EUROPE AS IT IS ACTUALLY WESTERN ASIA. *REMEMBER ONE OF THE RULES FOR A CONTINENT IS THAT IT MUST BE A SEPARATE LAND MASS UNTO ITSELF, BUT DUE TO RACIST HISTORIANS WHITES MADE A NEW CONTINENT WHERE THERE WAS NONE BEFORE. TRUTH CRUSHED TO EARTH SHALL RISE AGAIN. AS-SALAAM ALAIKUM

THIS BOOK IS VERY FAIR AND BALANCED. THOSE EUROPEAN JEWS THERE ARE NOT REAL JEWS ANYWAY, THEY ARE DESCENDED FROM THE KHAZARS. THEY ARE RECENT CONVERTS TO JUDAISM, HAVING CONVERTED TO AVOID THE WARS BETWEEN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY, THEY HAVE NO CLAIM TO ISRAEL. THAT HONOR GOES TO THE REAL JEWS WHO ARE BLACK IN ORIGIN. WITNESS SOLOMON'S STATEMENT "I AM BLACK, BUT COMELY". THESE EUROPEAN SETTLER COLONIES ARE IMPOSTOR JEWS, WORSE THAN THE SETTLER COLONIES IN SOUTH AFRICA. THE NOBEL PRIZE RECIPIENT ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU WAS BANNED FROM SPEAKING AT ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY IN MINNESOTA DUE TO HIS STATEMENT THAT ISRAELI TREATMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS IS WORSE THAN APARTHEID WAS IN SOUTH AFRICA (AZANIA). JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS PUT SEVERE PRESSURE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IF THEY ALLOWED HIM TO SPEAK. THESE TYPES OF WHITEMAIL TACTICS ARE PAR FOR THE COURSE FOR THE ADL AND OTHER POWERFUL JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS. JUST LOOK AT THEIR TREATMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS, AND EVEN THE NON-WHITE JEWS. THEY TRIED TO MAKE THE BLACK ETHIOPIAN FALASHA JEWS SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR EUROPEANIZED VERSION OF JUDAISM UNDER PENALTY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED AS JEWS. SOLOMON'S BLACK ANCESTORS ARE THE RIGHTFUL HEIRS TO THAT LAND, NOT WHITE PEOPLE, WHO WERE CAVE DWELLERS IN THE CAVES OF THE CAUCUSES MOUNTAINS DURING ISRAEL'S ANCIENT HISTORICAL PERIOD. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS CAUCASIANS. NONE OF THESE ANCIENT HISTORICAL EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN EUROPE, THEY TOOK PLACE IN WHAT IS NOW FICTITIOUSLY LABELED THE MIDDLE EAST (ACTUALLY THE LAND MASS IS PART OF AFRICA). THERE ARE ONLY 6 CONTINENTS & THE MIDDLE EAST IS NOT ONE OF THEM), NOR IS EUROPE AS IT IS ACTUALLY WESTERN ASIA. *REMEMBER ONE OF THE RULES FOR A CONTINENT IS THAT IT MUST BE A SEPARATE LAND MASS UNTO ITSELF, BUT DUE TO RACIST HISTORIANS WHITES MADE A NEW CONTINENT WHERE THERE WAS NONE BEFORE. TRUTH CRUSHED TO EARTH SHALL RISE AGAIN. AS-SALAAM ALAIKUM

When reading this book, one ought to be aware of the theological framework of the author - the tradition in which he writes that has contributed to shaping his personal beliefs and opinions. In Chapman's case, it is Replacement Theology, also called Supercessionism. This doctrine comes from the so-called "saint" Augustine who rejected the biblical concept of a thousand year Messianic reign of peace. He was thus an amillennialist as opposed to a post- or premillennialist. He also claimed that the church had superceded or replaced the Hebrew nation and that all the scriptural promises to Israel in the Old Testament thus belonged to the church. Augustine's ideas became Catholic orthodoxy and at the Reformation they were more or less accepted unchanged, entering the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.

The tragic history of Christian Antisemitism is well documented in books likeTHE CRUCIFIXION OF THE JEWS by Franklin Littell and Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate by William Nicholls. It is often called Anti-Judaism in the literature but it led to the same thing: oppression, expulsion and murder. In this regard, see The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism by David Kertzer. There is no doubt that the destructive effect of Replacement Theology has substantially contributed to these crimes and ultimately to the Holocaust.

Although it is not immediately apparent, Chapman's book falls squarely in this Antisemitic tradition. There is much hand-wringing about historical and Christian Antisemitism. The latter comes across as insincere, because one cannot criticize the attitudes of Augustine, Chrysostom and Luther without mentioning Replacement Theology.

What marks the Christian Antisemite? In the first place, a twisting of Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel, usurping every promise to make it applicable to "the Church" or to "Christ." In the second place, the refusal to make a distinction between the Abrahamic covenant regarding ownership of the land and the Mosaic covenant of laws. Thirdly, a fuzzy, ethereal view of mankind's ultimate destiny wherein no distinctive cultures survive, all become "one in Christ". Geddit? There is no multiculturalism in heaven! Finally, a cursory or dismissive treatment of the facts that led to the rebirth of Israel and of the subsequent wars against the Jewish State. All of these are evident in Whose Promised Land? to a greater or lesser degree.

There is a strong undercurrent of a denial of Israel's right to life although the author never explicitly states it. He quotes left, right and centre (though mainly Left) and presents a distorted view of the Middle East conflict. For example he implies that Israel is responsible for the formation of Hamas while including in an appendix the covenant of this terror group that includes statements like "Hamas aims for every inch of Palestine" and accuses the Jewish people of having been behind communism, capitalism, freemasonry, the Rotarians, etc. Oddly there is no mention of global warming, yet.

Chapman's interpretations serve only to support his preconceived opinion. For example he claims that the prophecies of Ezekiel 36 and 37 have no validity today. He plays word-games, denying in one passage that the church replaced Israel and then going on to assert that early Christians did not consider it "important for Jews to express their distinctive identity through ... a Jewish state." Oh and he replaces the concept of "replacement" with the idea of "fulfillment." Furthermore, he draws a false analogy between Joshua's conquest of Canaan and the history of the Jewish State by throwing around words like "ethnic cleansing". At present, approximately 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs and 16% of its citizens are Muslim. At last count its Arab citizens were represented by 10 members in the Israeli parliament belonging to three political parties: Balad, Hadash and the United Arab List - Ta'al.

When considering the options for peace, Chapman looks at the various scenarios like the possible defeat of Israel or its opponents, options like the One-State (Rwanda) and the Two-State solution, concluding that the last is the best. In discussing the history of the conflict, he does not have much to say about the Arab attempt to strangle Israel at its birth in 1948, the open calls for genocide by Arab leaders then and now or the co-operation of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Nazi Germany which is well document in the book The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini by Chuck Morse.

The antagonism towards Israel is more insidious in this book, less overt than in the work of Chapman's associates like Stephen Sizer and Naim Ateek. Christians must put the Discern-ometer on max when exposed to these Leftist theologians, as well as of course to those Rightwing Christian Antisemites like Pat Buchanan. For more information on replacement theology and its contemporary manifestations, I recommend Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged by Barry Horner. Paul Charles Merkley's illuminating Christian Attitudes Towards the State of Israel provides the facts on where various denominations stand today on the issue of the Jewish State.

Why does this book use a Christian Bible for the "Old Testament" parts? Could've used a Jewish Bible y'know!

This book is a good introduction to arguments of both sides in Palestine/Israel. The reader will enjoy the abundance of "quotes" from significant figures on key issues in a single book, instead of tirelessly searching and sourcing them on him/her own.

The second half of the book is more theology and theory than history and facts. In here, some readers might feel less secure than in the earlier pages. In this part, Chapman offers another Christian interpretation of the Holy Bible which is less literal and (according to him) more progressive, at least so far as finding a lasting peaceful solution to the conflict in the Holy Land is concerned. I think Chapman deserves to be listened to especially in a time when more unyielding religious views are not so scanty.

Colin Chapman's book is sprinkled with quotes from both 'sides', warns of the danger of older forms of anti-Semitism and focuses on some of the hardships Jews have suffered. It urges caution in forming judgement and maintains an appearance of objectivity and balance, including an interesting, if ironic, quote from Edward Said on the need for intellectual honesty.



However the foundation of his section examining the justice of the dispute is a favourable citation of Naeem Ateek, who himself part justifies suicide terrorism. In the quote Ateek claims biblical Naboth's murder and the theft of his property by the vile Ahab, 'has been re-enacted thousands of times since the creation of the State of Israel'. This fabricated accusation lies at the heart of the book's case.



Chapman almost completely ignores the defensive character of the 1948 and 1967 wars (almost as though the Poles and Czechs were responsible for Dresden or Hitler's 'murder' in 1945), the repeated calls for Israel's annihilation by Arab leaders and their media, the sharp difference in Arab and Jewish murder rates before 1948, and extremely oppressive British policies in handling refugees frm the Holocaust. Not surprisingly he also neglects to mention the Palestinian Grand Mufti's close association with the Nazis, meeting with Hitler and shared genocidal intentions.



His quotes are highly selective and I suspect many are sourced from the partisan Middle East Council of Churches, as well as some rather one-sided historians (Gentile and Jewish).



Let the reader beware of a carefully concealed but highly virulent bias against Israel!

Colin Chapman's book is sprinkled with quotes from both 'sides', warns of the danger of older forms of anti-Semitism and focuses on some of the hardships Jews have suffered. It urges caution in forming judgement and maintains an appearance of objectivity and balance, including an interesting, if ironic, quote from Edward Said on the need for intellectual honesty.

However the foundation of his section examining the justice of the dispute is a favourable citation of Naeem Ateek, who himself part justifies suicide terrorism. In the quote Ateek claims biblical Naboth's murder and the theft of his property by the vile Ahab, 'has been re-enacted thousands of times since the creation of the State of Israel'. This fabricated accusation lies at the heart of the book's case.

Chapman almost completely ignores the defensive character of the 1948 and 1967 wars (almost as though the Poles and Czechs were responsible for Dresden or Hitler's 'murder' in 1945), the repeated calls for Israel's annihilation by Arab leaders and their media, the sharp difference in Arab and Jewish murder rates before 1948, and extremely oppressive British policies in handling refugees frm the Holocaust. Not surprisingly he also neglects to mention the Palestinian Grand Mufti's close association with the Nazis, meeting with Hitler and shared genocidal intentions.

His quotes are highly selective and I suspect many are sourced from the partisan Middle East Council of Churches, as well as some rather one-sided historians (Gentile and Jewish).

Let the reader beware of a carefully concealed but highly virulent bias against Israel!

Colin Chapman's book is sprinkled with quotes from both 'sides', warns of the danger of older forms of anti-Semitism and focuses on some of the hardships Jews have suffered. It urges caution in forming judgement and maintains an appearance of objectivity and balance, including an interesting, if ironic, quote from Edward Said on the need for intellectual honesty.

However the foundation of his section examining the justice of the dispute is a favourable citation of Naeem Ateek, who himself part justifies suicide terrorism. In the quote Ateek claims biblical Naboth's murder and the theft of his property by the vile Ahab, 'has been re-enacted thousands of times since the creation of the State of Israel'. This fabricated accusation lies at the heart of the book's case.

Chapman almost completely ignores the defensive character of the 1948 and 1967 wars (almost as though the Poles and Czechs were responsible for Dresden or Hitler's 'murder' in 1945), the repeated calls for Israel's annihilation by Arab leaders and their media, the sharp difference in Arab and Jewish murder rates before 1948, and extremely oppressive British policies in handling refugees frm the Holocaust. Not surprisingly he also neglects to mention the Palestinian Grand Mufti's close association with the Nazis, meeting with Hitler and shared genocidal intentions.

His quotes are highly selective and I suspect many are sourced from the partisan Middle East Council of Churches, as well as some rather one-sided historians (Gentile and Jewish).

Let the reader beware of a carefully concealed but highly virulent bias against Israel!

I picked up this book as the result of hearing an interview of Mr. Chapman on Hank Hanigraff(sp?)s program. I found it alarming that Mr. Hanigraff endorsed this book. I also found it alarming that one reviewer at this web-site was so swayed by Mr. Hanigraff's endorsement that he commented accordingly. That reviewer is guilty of a transgression of which surely his "mentor" Mr. Hanigraff, would accuse him... namely neglect of a "Berean" (or critical) look at Mr. Chapman's work.

I did not look at Mr. Chapman's historical overview prior to writing this review so I have no right to comment on that section. However, I did read through his "Biblical" overview. I must say that his hermeneutics is not atypical of what one would find with classical anti-Semitic replacement theology which can be summarized as "If something good is said about Israel, it's really talking about the church and if something bad is said about Israel, it's really talking about the Jews."

Mr. Chapman replaces what God says with a human twist on what God "really meant". In essence, he is not biblical but humanistic. For instance, he says "... if you happen to be an Arab Christian, and find that you are identified in the minds of Israeli Jews with the ancient Canaanites and all the other tribes which Joshua defeated in the thirteenth century BC? How are you likely to think about the book which seems to give the Jews a divine right to take away your land in the twentieth century AD?" By making such a statement, therefore, according to Chapman, this must mean that God did not really promise the land to the Jewish people. On the contrary, it stands to reason that God would not make such a promise because He wouldn't want to slight other people (e.g. the Arabs) and have them reject his book.

This is utterly ridiculous (aside from the fact that wealthy Arabs sold the land to Israel and, contrary to popular opinion, the Arabs were not 'dispossessed' e.g. see full quotes of Moshe Dayan)! Scripture overwhelmingly supports the promised inheritance of the land by the Jewish people. Undoubtedly, however, the way that it will be governed according to the eschatological providence of God in the future will be far different than the way it is governed today. The fruits of this governance will be earmarked by the humility of its citizenry and visitors alike, with shared mutual respect. Scripture promises that "all the nations will flock to Jerusalem" to learn about the one true God of ISRAEL... the God who superintended the writing of the Bible. It promises that in that time, the world will be blessed in ways unfathomable because they are outside of our present realm of experience.

The Bible says "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring the Gospel of Good News who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, 'Your God Reigns!'.(Isa. 52:7). Mr. Chapman calls for "Peacemakers". He proceeds to describe them. However, again, his description of a peacemaker is not the Biblical view of a peacemaker. A Biblical peacemaker is someone who not only practices the presence of God but preaches the Gospel of peace. Biblically speaking, the fundamental problem in the Middle East is not land. It's the fact that two warring people groups, en masse, do not know the love of God and His Gospel. From a Biblical standpoint, they have a misunderstanding of the nature of God, how He is to be worshipped and of His Messiah. If Mr. Chapman (and Mr. Hanigraff for that matter) claims to be Biblical then he must fundamentally accept that premise. If he did hold to that premise, his emphasis would not be a political discussion about the land, but the eschatological blessing that will ultimately come out of that land and more importantly, a call to challenge these people groups over the veracity of their world views by preaching the gospel of the Prince of Peace... Jesus the Messiah of the Jews and redeemer of all mankind including the Arabs. No where, in Mr. Chapman's Book is this even an issue of discussion!

Mr. Chapman makes many claims including a claim to being a "Christian" but a claim to being biblical ought not to be one of them.

I found this book to be both fair and balanced in its presentation of the evidence from both sides of the issue. Chapman relies much more on quoting historical sources than he does on giving his own opinion. He presents a very brief, readable, balanced history of the conflict from both sides. I have learned a lot from the book; it has definitely changed my opinion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what the Christian response should be. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to gain an overall understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict quickly without a lot of extra verbiage and interpretation thrown in.

I found this book to be both fair and balanced in its presentation of the evidence from both sides of the issue. Chapman relies much more on quoting historical sources than he does on giving his own opinion. He presents a very brief, readable, balanced history of the conflict from both sides. I have learned a lot from the book; it has definitely changed my opinion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what the Christian response should be. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to gain an overall understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict quickly without a lot of extra verbiage and interpretation thrown in.

I have read the reviews that people have left here. Many of them do not sound like people have read the book. No doubt this is a passionate issue, but it seems that people have passed personal judgement according to their political perspectives.

From reading numerous books on the subject, I have noticed that this book is very unbias. Because of such heated politcal agendas that are fueling propaganda in this day and age, I was surprised to read such a matter-of-fact book.

This book is a good intoduction to understanding the basis for conflict in Israel and the middle-east. I enjoyed reading how the motives for the Gulf War in 91 had a lot to do with the Israeli state. This is an aspect not generally noted in similar publications.

This is an intelligent read. Though, easy enough for the layman, this book is a scholarly source. It is something you will most likely find in a University library and not on the shelves of Chapters or Indigo.

I reccommend it!

Should people be allowed to have the human rights of life, liberty, and property? Does that mean they ought to be allowed to bid for land? And acquire it if they are high bidders? And live on that land without getting murdered, robbed, or evicted? I think so!

Well, that's all the Zionists did. They bought some land at high prices and improved it. Some racists who were stunned by the emancipation of the despised Jews tried to steal it back and assert their Superiority to mere Jews. But so far, these people have not succeeded in swiping the land back.

Of course, one can ask if the Zionists were a little too greedy. They did wind up with around ten thousand square miles of land, for a mere 5 million people. But anyone who looks at the sizes of other nations will realize that whether the Zionists are greedy or not, Israel is amazingly land-poor. Meanwhile, the Arabs have 5,500,000 square miles!

This author seems to want to find excuses that will support a conclusion that the Jews ought not be entitled to human rights or land in the Levant. Oh, he's willing to be practical and allow them to exist there, as if making a concession to Evil. But I think he really wants them to falsely confess that they have no right to do so.

Still, this book is not entirely unbalanced. It mentions a number of historical facts about the conflict, and it often gets some of them right. And it does admit that there has been such a phenomenon as anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, Chapman then goes on to paint a completely preposterous picture of the conflict. He does so by quoting many well-known people, but then appearing to agree with some of the most racist and mendacious opponents of Jewish rights the world has seen, such as Hanan Ashrawi, Naim Ateek, Norman Finkelstein, David Hirst, and Ed Said.

Well, what possible solutions are there to the conflict? Chapman discusses some of them:

1) There might be a "one-state" solution. Chapman says this is no good, as the Arabs would quickly outnumber the Jews, just by having more children. While that may be true, I think we ought to be careful to remember that Israel is land-poor. I can't believe we ought to restrict five million Jews to a little Bantustan, especially on the grounds that such a Bantustan is too large!

2) There might also be a single secular state. But that idea was tried before, and it did not work.

3) The Levantine Arabs might be defeated. Chapman scoffs at this idea, implying that one would need to kill every Arab to do that. But the Japanese were defeated in World War Two, and not every Japanese was killed. The Sudeten Germans were defeated in World War Two, and while it did entail defeating Germany, not all Germans were killed (nor were all Sudeten Germans killed).

4) Israel might be annihilated, but Chapman doesn't like it. Too bloody! I agree with him about that, and I have a couple of other problems with it. For one thing, Israel has not been the problem, so getting rid of it will not solve anything. In addition, it's usually a bad precedent to let aggression, lies, and destruction triumph.

Chapman says that all this leaves the two-state solution, which is, after all, is considered by many to be a reasonable idea. I don't like this idea because one of the states would almost surely be an anti-state, committed not to serving its citizens but to hurting and destroying a neighboring and genuine nation. In addition, Chapman wants to ethnically cleanse as many Jews as possible from the disputed West Bank. I think that would be a horrible precedent, and one day we'd see all sorts of people evicted from all sorts of areas, for equally absurd reasons. Only this time, they might not be Jews, so more people might realize the problem!

Oh yes, whose land is it? Chapman says it belongs to God. I disagree very strongly. First of all, I am a Pagan, and I recognize only real Gods and Goddesses, not the monotheist god. And second, as Jefferson said, the land belongs to the living. We living humans are the ones who live on the land and improve it or run it down. And we need to take responsibility for what we do to it. Claiming that we do not own it relieves us from that responsibility.

Christians own land, and they're sovereign over some of it. Muslims own land, and they're sovereign over some of it. Let's allow Jews to own land and be sovereign over some of it as well. And let's reject arbitrary and ad hoc excuses to make the Jews special people who are somehow not entitled to such rights.

Very well balanced study of this central problem facing the world today. Chapman first presents a historical view of the problem, then looks at biblical claims to the Land.

I heard the author, Colin Chapman, being interviewed on Hank Hanegraaff's "Bible Answer Man" radio program and was impressed by his thoughtful, balanced and theologically sound viewpoint, so I went and bought the book.

Chapman's book is broken into three sections:

The first offers an historical overview (in FAQ format) of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, covering the time period from 2000 B.C. to the present.

The second section looks at the conflict from a Biblical/theological angle. I was pleasantly surprised to find numerous quotes from Anglican theologian and author N.T. Wright.

The third section brings the historical and theological components together and examines how they apply to the present circumstances in the Middle East.

As you can see by some of the negative reviews here on Amazon, this book may challenge you, especially if you're locked into a "Zionist" or "Dispensationalist" position regarding Israel. If, however, you are honestly seeking a balanced viewpoint, and aren't afraid to examine some of your own presuppositions, you'll find this to be a very rewarding book.

I heard the author, Colin Chapman, being interviewed on Hank Hanegraaff's "Bible Answer Man" radio program and was impressed by his thoughtful, balanced and theologically sound viewpoint, so I went and bought the book.

Chapman's book is broken into three sections:

The first offers an historical overview (in FAQ format) of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, covering the time period from 2000 B.C. to the present.

The second section looks at the conflict from a Biblical/theological angle. I was pleasantly surprised to find numerous quotes from Anglican theologian and author N.T. Wright.

The third section brings the historical and theological components together and examines how they apply to the present circumstances in the Middle East.

As you can see by some of the negative reviews here on Amazon, this book may challenge you, especially if you're locked into a "Zionist" or "Dispensationalist" position regarding Israel. If, however, you are honestly seeking a balanced viewpoint, and aren't afraid to examine some of your own presuppositions, you'll find this to be a very rewarding book.

Prior to the 1967 War Against Isreal there were no Palestinians, the West Bank was under Jordan's control. Palestianians weren't agitating for their own state independent from Jordan. This is just another form of Islamic revisionism, claiming title to cultures that preceded them in time.

An excellant book; theologically sound; rooted in the real history or the region. It will not please those sold on fundamentalist, dispensational theology. It will please those open to Biblical interpretation that makes sense and that is consistent with New Testament teachings on the Kingdom of God and the people of God. It will give the reader a balanced view of the real history of the confict. It will in the words of each side give their story and rationale for the conflict. It is one of the best books I have ever read cataloging each side's perspective of the problems.

Anyone who rejects the rejuvination of the land of Israel today as a clear sign that God has returned to complete His prophetic revelations to the nation of Israel is ignoring massive chunks of scripture. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the prophets are not the least bit vague in this land sign. Vagueness only manifests itself when people like the author here decide to turn the declared promises of God to Israelinside-out to suit their own human goals...whatever those may be.

I can't recommend this book unless you are very familiar with those promises mentioned above. If you are familiar with the promises, then I might consider a recommendation because some history is worthwhile reading.

This is a subject which I have devoted a considerable amount of study to for many years. This book appeared to promise so much in it's title, yet failed to deliver on virtually every level.

The author holds the view that there is no theological significance to the present state of Israel, and that the re-birth of the Jewish state is not the fulfilment, or even a preliminary stage in the fulfilment, of what God promised and predicted in the Old Testament.

The tone of this book feels slanted towards the doctrine of Replacement Theology in my estimation and the references and interpretations of Scriptures are erroneous and flawed, with the writer trying to separate the spiritual dimensions of the Gospel of Christ from the material dimensions of the Gospel which are intrinsically part of the Old Testament. This is unbiblical and inevitably leads to incorrect conclusions.

I find the references and use of prophetic Scriptures in this book to be inconsistent and very selective.

The Old Testament Divine promises in relation to the People (Jews) and Land of Israel by God were explicitly eternal and irrevocable. The Holy Scriptures directly and conclusively declare that the Land being discussed here belonged to the Lord Himself, yet he had promised it to none other, absolutely no other, than the descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob (Israel), as an eternal possession.

The Divine prophetic promises relating to the heritage, diaspora, regathering and re-birth of the Jewish state are clear and unquestionable. (Genesis 15; v18, Genesis 17; v7-19, Genesis 35; v9-12, Ezekiel 11;v17, Jeremiah 30;v3, Jeremiah 31;v35, Isaiah 11; v10, Zechariah 14; v2...to mention just a few references, which are also dealt with in the New Testament).

To pick and choose, and selectively interpret which sections of Scripture are relevant to an agenda is dangerous and can only have disastrous results. The Bible is either the whole Word of God and absolute truth or it is not worth the paper it is written on. If God states that His promises and covenants are eternal and everlasting, then that is exactly what they are. If He makes promises in relation to a Land, then to describe the Land as something spiritual or anything else is a distortion and misinterpretation.

The author is rightly concerned about some of Israel's actions in relation to the Palestinians at this time, yet even these have to be taken in their correct, true and entire context in both the political and Scriptural arenas. Matters which are not in any way suitably addressed in this book. The Israeli victims and Palestinian terrorism/violence being sidestepped.

Unfortunately, furthermore due to the interpretations expressed in this book, current events and their significance in relation to the end times are not dealt with in the manner deserving of their critical importance.

The writer does not correctly address the dispersal of the Jewish people in antiquity which was described Scripturally as being due to their sinfulness and rebellion. Neither does the book address the re-gathering and re-birth of Israel as a nation as not being in any way conditional upon repentance, which itself is declared in Scripture to only occur during the prophetic events of the end times and the Tribulation when the Messiah returns again and is recognised. (Zechariah 12; v1-11).

This is an extensive discussion which cannot be satisfied within the confines of a review. This book poorly covers the subject and there is a wealth of excellent material out there which commendably covers this topic.
Might I respectfully suggested some other recommended reading which clarifies many of the issues that have become unfortunatley clouded in this particular work;-
"Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith" by Marvin Wilson.
"Unholy War" and"Jerusalem In Prophecy" both by Randall Price
"Israel at the Crossroads: Fifty Years and Counting" by David Dolan.

Colin Chapman does an excellent job of summarizing the history of Palestine and the biblical texts related to the promise of the Land. His answers to these questions are not the standard dispensationalist line and will make many who live and breathe dispensationalism very uncomfortable. His history is thouroughly documented as is his biblical exposition. He devotes a minimal amount of time to editorializing, choosing instead to let the major players through history (Scripture, Lord Balfour, Theodor Herzel, Chiam Wietzmann, Yassar Arafat, David Ben-Gurion and a host of others) speak for themselves. The inevitable conclusions drawn are both historical and thoroughly biblical. Because this book is more of a survey it is short particularly on theological detail, so there is no textual analysis or in-depth discussion of differences in translation (for example). The book is particularly helpful for understanding the history of the region and for its appendices which include a primer on expositing biblical prophecy as well as a summary of the Covenant of Hamas.