The Deed to Palestine: A Higher Authority?

A newly published book, Illuminating Scriptural Connections, from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), brings together British interfaith activist Rick Sopher and Emirati scholar Abdulla Galadari in an exploration of the sacred texts of Judaism and Islam. Their aim is to encourage dialogue by examining the scriptural connections between two great religious traditions.

An intriguing idea, certainly. But hardly a new one.

Nearly eighty years ago, a remarkably similar approach surfaced in an extraordinary appeal to the United Nations as it struggled to determine the future of Palestine. And at the heart of that appeal was something rather unexpected.

A deed.

The year was 1947. The newly established United Nations faced an enormous challenge: determining the future of Palestine, a land claimed by two peoples whose histories reached back thousands of years.

The diplomats brought their maps, the politicians their proposals, and the committees their reports. But one man brought something rather different.

Not the kind recorded in a courthouse, but one he believed had been written thousands of years earlier in the pages of the Bible.

His proposition was audacious: Before deciding the future of Palestine, shouldn’t the United Nations examine what the original covenant actually said?

The man was David Horowitz, an American journalist, UN correspondent, and founder of the United Israel World Union. On June 4 of that year, he submitted a formal memorandum to the UN Special Committee on Palestine, urging consideration of the Bible and the Koran as evidence bearing upon the historical and religious claims to the land.

Nearly eighty years later, his forgotten proposal raises an intriguing question: Could the oldest document in the Palestine controversy contain something modern diplomacy has failed to appreciate?

A Family Affair

The story begins not in the halls of the United Nations, but in the household of Abraham.

According to Genesis, God promised Abraham descendants and a land that would become their inheritance. But Abraham had two sons: Ishmael, born to Hagar, and Isaac, born to Sarah.

Both sons received divine blessings, but the biblical account draws an important distinction.

In Genesis 17:20–21, God promises to bless Ishmael, multiply his descendants, and make him a great nation. Yet the covenant concerning the promised land is established with Isaac, reaffirmed in Genesis 26, and subsequently passed to Jacob, renamed Israel, in Genesis 28.

Nor does the biblical account leave other branches of Abraham’s extended family without an inheritance. Deuteronomy 2 recognizes separate territorial possessions associated with Esau and the descendants of Lot.

Horowitz argued that these provisions reflected a divine allocation of lands among related peoples, while the covenant concerning Palestine remained with Israel.

There, he maintained, was the original deed—and a distinction that generations of political negotiations had failed to resolve.

And here was the extraordinary feature of this ancient inheritance. According to the biblical account, the deed had not been issued by a king, a government, or a conquering army.

The grantor was God Himself.

For those who accept the biblical covenant as divine revelation, that raises a question no diplomatic committee could easily answer: By what authority could earthly governments amend a promise attributed to Heaven?

But Horowitz’s argument had another, unexpected witness.

The Koran Takes the Stand

Why would a Jewish advocate turn to Islam’s sacred book to support a biblical claim?

Because Horowitz believed the Koran itself acknowledged the authority of earlier Hebrew revelation.

Islam reveres Abraham and recognizes Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other biblical figures as prophets. Surah 2:136 affirms belief in revelations given to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus. Surah 46:12 refers to the Book of Moses and describes the Koran as confirming earlier revelation.

Even Surah 5:21 records Moses instructing his people to enter the Holy Land that God had assigned to them.

There was a remarkable irony here. Horowitz was not asking the United Nations to accept the Hebrew Bible on Jewish testimony alone. He was calling upon the sacred book of Islam as a witness to an ancient Jewish claim.

Of course, Jewish and Muslim scholars interpret these passages differently. Acknowledgment of earlier revelation does not necessarily mean agreement about the covenant’s meaning, much less its implications for modern political sovereignty.

Yet Horowitz’s challenge remained: If the Koran acknowledges earlier scriptures, should their covenantal promises not receive serious consideration?

It was a question he believed the United Nations could not afford to overlook.

A Question for Our Time

Horowitz submitted his memorandum months before the historic partition vote, while the future of Palestine was still under consideration.

He was not asking history to reconsider its verdict. He was asking the diplomats to examine the evidence before delivering one.

The United Nations proceeded along another course. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, recommending the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

The UN had considered the religious interests of the communities involved, but it did not adopt Horowitz’s interpretation of the biblical covenant as the basis for political sovereignty.

History followed. Israel declared independence in 1948, war erupted, and generations of Jews and Palestinians inherited a conflict that diplomacy has yet to resolve.

Yet the religious foundations of the controversy remain.

The biblical covenant is not a modern legal title, and ancient religious promises cannot simply erase the rights, histories, and aspirations of people living on the land today.

But neither can the ancient Jewish attachment to Israel be dismissed as a recent political invention.

Nearly eighty years ago, David Horowitz placed an extraordinary argument before the United Nations. The diplomats debated, the politicians negotiated, and history followed its course.

But the ancient covenant remained.

For those who revere the Bible and the Koran as divine revelation, his challenge reaches beyond politics. What do these sacred texts teach about the inheritance of the land—and what responsibilities of justice, compassion, and human dignity accompany those claims?

After all, if God was the original grantor, shouldn’t we at least examine the deed before arguing over the inheritance?

Author’s Note: A companion document, “The Deed to Palestine: Historical Sources and Scriptural References,” containing the principal historical documents, biblical and Quranic references, and supporting sources for this article, is available from the author upon request.