Bible Study For Atheists interviewed David Plotz, Slate editor, about Good Book, his book on reading the Old Testament:
[Vast Left]: One thing I really wasn't prepared for was how explicit the OT was about how the Israelites were to barge into other people's land, kill them, and take it over. It seems to fulfill the worst perceptions that anti-Zionists have, no?
DP: That's an unfair conflation, because it merges an ancient religious text with modern geopolitics. There are, of course, lots and lots of Jews who justify their claims to Israel and the West Bank by using the Bible. But most Israelis don't and the Israeli government doesn't. One of the oddest realizations I had while reading the Bible is that modern Israel occupies land that was not generally Biblical Israel. Modern Israel is where ancient Israel's enemies lived. The Biblical demands to kill and occupy are horrifying, and probably the most troubling part of the Bible. (Book of Joshua is hands down the most disturbing Bible book.) But it's succumbing to the literalist fallacy to extrapolate from that that Jews inherently are genocidal and seeking to expel and murder everyone on "their" land.
I guess your question is about whether it reinforces anti-Zionist views, and I suppose you are right that it could. My answer suggests that I think that would be unfair, but it may happen anyway.
VL: I don't mean to claim a certain cause/effect. But it was striking, and IIR [if I recall correctly], you noted a time or two how the modern circumstances are reflected in the ancient text.
DP: Fair point.
I don't think it's an unfair conflation. Most of the dozen religious settlers I've met or heard speak, many of whom are subsidized by Americans, are forever citing the deed that Abraham has to Hebron, and other literalist moments. This behavior is tolerated by the Israeli gov't and has enormous geopolitical consequences: it's wrecked the 2-state solution.
