Borders are oddly fluid matters, even with drawn maps, territorial and topographical realities, trenches and fences. The Jordan river has been at the heart of this fluid and often violent dispute for a long time, way before it was secured, as it is now, from both sides, with minefields and barbed wire.
In 1920 the Jordan river was designated by the British, who recently took over the region from the Ottoman Empire, as the natural border between what would one day be the Jewish homeland and the state of Israel - and its neighbor to the East, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Most early Zionist leaders and groups agreed with this practical solution but the more extreme right wing, headed by Jabotinsky, wanted control over both banks of the Jordan river, citing historical precedents including today’s chapter. “Both banks of the Jordan” became the rallying call for this faction, depicted on maps, and eventually adopted as the symbol for the Irgun-Etzel- the militant Jewish group that operated in the 1930’s and 1940’s to establish an independent Jewish state over as much as the territory as possible. Eventually Etzel became the Likkud - the party led by Jabotinksy’s followers like Mencham Begin and most recently - Netanyau. The symbol with both banks of the Jordan still hangs outside Likkud HQ in Tel Aviv, with an arm raised high with a gun marking the border - the river as a weapon. It’s not official party policy - but that expansive vision was never quite called off.
Why does this matter and how did this start?
It begins as two tribal leaders approach Moses with a proposal - Reuben and Gad don’t want to cross the Jordan to the western bank where the promised land awaits. They have cattle and want to keep herding it on the east side - the plains of Moab, recently taken over from the locals, fertile and closer:
Moses’ rage spills over several verses, echoing previous disputes and traumas, accusing them of defying God’s gift of the holy land and denying solidarity with the rest of the people. The negotiation continues and a settlement is reached - the men of those two tribes will settle their families and cattle on the eastern bank, then join the rest of Israel onto the west bank to help settle/colonize/conquer Canaan - and then return to their settlement on the east side. Somewhere along the story another group joins the project - half of the tribe of Menashe. And so it goes. In future chapters of the Bible this plot will continue, with leaders named from among these tribes and territorial continuity across both banks of the Jordan named as Isarelite. Even the famed Mesha Stele, dated to the 9th century BCE, recognized this arrangement - which was and still is a controversial concept -- where did this notion of settling both sides of the Jordan river come from?
What’s fascinating about chapter 32 is that it not only narrates at great length the negotiation and the evolution of this Promised Land expansion project - it seems to be composed as an attempt to legitimize this notion and convince the readers - us - of its authenticity. Whoever ends up authoring or editing this chapter places the final verdict in the hands of Moses himself despite that fact the previous maps did not include the eastern bank at all. Dr.Angela Roskop Erisman’s historical analysis of this chapter identified two origin texts, describing different possible approaches to the question of ‘transjordan’ and its occupation: “In one version, the Reubenites and Gadites settle there without incident. But another is harshly critical of Israelite settlement in Transjordan, to the point of rejecting the idea outright. Moses’s angry and judgmental speech.. let us witness a conversation—perhaps even something more like an argument—over the status of Transjordan as part of the Promised Land...History and ideology may come together here in a complex blend.”
Ideology, territorial disputes and fluid borders were and are still of the story - not just the border of the promised land but also the ever-evolving roadmap which is the biblical narrative. What I find fascinating in this chapter’s underbelly is that whoever wrote it wanted us to be in on the discussion, perhaps to be convinced, but at least to be swept by the narrative in which two opposing views negotiate for acceptance that is - still! - unresolved, thousands of years later.
Hundreds of Jews from all over the world gathered in Basel, Switzerland this week to mark the 125th anniversary of the First Zionist Congress in its original location, overlooking the Rhine River. I doubt they brought up the mostly dated ‘both banks of the Jordan’ as a topic of debate, but there’s plenty to discuss when it comes to the ever-fluid question of borders, boundaries, and how ideology, turned pragmatic, can help us all people, not just ‘our’ people, live more modest, meaningful and mindful lives - together.
Below the Bible Belt:
929 chapters, 42 months, daily reflections: Join Rabbi Amichai’s 3+ years interactive online quest to question, queer + re-read between the lines of the entire Hebrew Bible, with daily reflections, weekly videos and monthly learning sessions.
Hmm…wondering why Moses works this dispute out directly with the Gadites and Reubenites and does not consult God for a “ruling” on what is to be done, as he’s done in past situations (daughters of Zelophehad, et al).
Peter’s comment is a bit of a spoiler- tempting me to read ahead to Deuteronomy. East side of The Jordan seems like wiser choice.
Hmm…wondering why Moses works this dispute out directly with the Gadites and Reubenites and does not consult God for a “ruling” on what is to be done, as he’s done in past situations (daughters of Zelophehad, et al).