Hillel Luncheons Discuss History of Israel
Professor Matthew Chalmers focused on ancient identity and modern history to help understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

“Israel — a complicated name with a long history. The nation state — a complicated history around a single name.”

This is how Matthew Chalmers, an adjunct professor of history at Washington and Lee University, concluded his talk in Hillel House on Wednesday, January 24, 2024. 

One week later, on Wednesday, January 31, Chalmers continued the lesson, this time focusing on the modern nation state and the history of Arab-Israeli conflict.

Chalmers’ research focuses on ancient identities, namely the representations of Samaritans in Jewish and Christian texts. Last year he taught a course on race and ethnicity in the ancient Mediterranean. This semester, he is teaching two history courses: one on middle eastern empires and another on Israel.

Chalmers restructured the latter class given the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, which has exceeded 25,000 Palestinian casualties since Hamas’ October 7 attack killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

“Recent events have made it incumbent that in actually forming political opinions…it makes sense to know a little more about the history of Israel,” Chalmers said in his first lecture.

He challenged the idea that you “need to check your morality at the door” when discussing weighty topics like the current conflict. “Your judgments belong here, but we don’t snap to judgements,” he said. Rather, one’s “tempo of judgment [should be] driven by an underlying rhythm of understanding.”

That in mind, Chalmers facilitated a neutral position throughout his talk. “Ultimately, there are lots of more questions than answers,” he said. “And I don’t have anything to say to you if there is an ultimate answer you’re looking for.”

His first talk asked several true-or-false questions of the audience: Israel and Palestine are ancient names (true); the two have always been discrete regions (false); and that the first Jews came to Palestine in the 1880s (false, many arrived decades before). 

Exploring the earliest references to Israel, Chalmers cited Genesis 32:28-29 and 35:9-10 in the Hebrew Bible. “Israel is the name for a kingdom and a people,” he said.

Chalmers placed the Hebrew Bible among other works of the Iron Age (1200-550 BC) and discussed several extrabiblical references to Israel. 

The oldest reference is the Merneptah Stele, dated to the late 13th century BC. During this period, Egypt controlled the land of modern-day Israel and Palestine. According to Chalmers, hieroglyphics state that “Israel is laid waste and his seed is not.” 

Chalmers also discussed the Tel Dan inscription from between 870-750 BC, which references both Israel and the “House of David,” and the Mesha Stele of the 9th century.

Jumping to modern history, Chalmer listed “four concepts that help explain how we got the nation state in the first place” — antisemitism, colonialism, zionism, and palestinian nationalism.

These concepts emphasize the nation state’s reliance on British and international influence. Rising antisemitism, for example, had forced many Jews out of their communities and fueled Zionist calls for a national Jewish homeland beginning in the late 19th century and especially after the Holocaust. 

But Jewish calls for a homeland depended on British colonial support, which ebbed and flowed throughout the first-half of the 20th century. Ultimately, Chalmers said, “the forced displacement of Palestinians created huge unresolved crises in that region.”

Chalmers focused more on those crises in his second talk.

He began by discussing the United Nation’s recent verdict that Israel should “take all measures in its power” to prevent genocide.  “This verdict will please absolutely no one,” Chalmers said.

He then segwayed into three questions which guided his discussion of the current conflict. 

The first was what role antisemitism has played in the conflict and its reception. After discussing the early-Christian origins of antisemitism and more modern examples — like the 1903 Kishinev Pogrom — Chalmers said that “Quite a bit of criticism of Israel, as well as the heightened focus on Israel, I think we can track to the function of antisemitism.” 

“That said,” he continued, “it is not the case that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic.”

The second question asked why Hamas would do what they did. Although he condemned “the worst killing of Jews since the Holocaust,” Chalmers listed several humanitarian neglects in Gaza that could encourage radical militias like Hamas. “Hamas exists because they perceive themselves as a response to the unsustainable situation of Palestinians, in large part caused by or enforced by Israel.” He maintained, nevertheless, that “explanation is not justification.”

The third question asked why, before October 7, Israel did not seek a more diplomatic solution with their Palestinian neighbors.

“The answer to that lies in a little of Israeli domestic policy,” Chalmers said. He then described the longstanding divide between Revisionist Zionism and Socialist/Labor Zionism and predicted that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be forced out of power once the war ends due to his “authoritarian” and “uncompromising stance.”

Chalmers prefaced that, “I’m not the solutions guy.” But he said that “you would see support for militia groups evaporate” if Israel demilitarized, and equalized Gazan infrastructure, water supply, and internet.

Audience members in support of both Israel and Palestine asked questions throughout both lectures. Everyone The Spectator spoke to expressed appreciation for how Chalmers thoughtfully approached such a sensitive topic.