In the course of criticizing the Obama speech in Cairo, Father Khalil Samir SJ, a Vatican Islamologist quoted frequently and favorably on this blog, threw a bomb in Israel’s direction:
Another ambiguous element [in the Obama Cairo speech] concerns his placing on the same scale the legitimate desire of Palestinians and Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The legitimate desire of Jews in Europe was to live in peace where they were, not to have a homeland in the Middle East at all costs. This ambiguity is present in many in the West. But it also has to be said that now, Israel is in the Middle East and that we must live together, what remains important is that history is not manipulated.
This is a profoundly wrong and offensive formulation, the sort of thing one would have thought fell by the wayside decades ago. Criticism of Israel aside, it is an attack on the Jewish religion to allege that the desire of Jews for a homeland in Eretz Yisrael is not legitimate. A good deal of our ancient liturgy, recited thrice daily for the past two thousand years, is premised on precisely this desire for a homeland in Eretz Yisrael. It states:
And Jerusalem, Your city, return in mercy, and dwell therein as You have spoken; rebuild it soon in our days as an everlasting building, and speedily set up therein the throne of David. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who rebuilds Jerusalem.
And:
And let our eyes behold Your return in mercy to Zion. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restores Your divine presence to Zion.
Our desire for a homeland is embedded in our daily prayers; if this desire is not legitimate, than neither is our liturgy, nor Judaism as a religion. As a matter of fact, we have maintained a continuous presence in Israel, including periods when it was quite dangerous for Jews to live in that region, precisely because it was a sacred obligation. Every synagogue in Eastern Europe had a collection box to support the communities of Jews in Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem was a majority-Jewish city no later than 1846.
The Jewish homeland in Eretz Yisrael was affirmed by the League of Nations confirming the Balfour Declaration as a matter of international law in 1922 and established by the United Nations partition agreement in 1947. One can argue about that or that feature of the Jewish homeland, but its legitimacy under law is in question nowhere.
But that is not what Fr. Khalil writes: he claims that even the desire for homeland, not to mention the homeland itself, was illegitimate. Pope Benedict cannot possibly agree with this; his clearly-stated belief in the Biblical election of Israel includes the Jewish desire to live in Eretz Yisrael as God commanded us. It is very unfortunate when formulations like this creep in to the discussion. They open the door to some real misunderstandings.
June 14th, 2009 |
Father Khalil wrote:
“Another ambiguous element [in the Obama Cairo speech] concerns his placing on the same scale the legitimate desire of Palestinians and Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The legitimate desire of Jews in Europe was to live in peace where they were, not to have a homeland in the Middle East at all costs. This ambiguity is present in many in the West. But it also has to be said that now, Israel is in the Middle East and that we must live together, what remains important is that history is not manipulated.”
This shows the huge error, hopefully inadvertently, that President Obama made in his Cairo speech, one that he should correct as soon as possible.
The truth, of course, is that from a religious point of view, we have been wedded to Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) since the Covenant between G-d and Abraham.
Both religiously and secularly, we have had a continuing presence in the Land since the entry led by Joshua to the present day, and never gave up our hope and expectation of an eventual return and restoration. And supporting the Jewish communities of Eretz Yisrael in general and Jerusalem in particular, was a responsibility that all sectors of Jewry in the Exile took upon themselves for centuries.
What changed in the nineteenth century was a movement, Zionism, in which we actively sought to lead a return to the Land.
At the time, it seemed hopeless. The 2 imperiums which had alternated rule for well over a millenium, Islam and Christian states, were openly hostile to our efforts. Finally, in 1917 the British gave us an opening, confirmed by the League of Nations and later the United Nations, a chance for a “National Home” in our land. Since 1947, we have had to fight to establish and retain it.
What role did the Holocaust play in terms of fulfilling our aspirations? Simply put, it removed, at least temporarily the European/Christian hostility to our having a chance to return successfully. (Many Europeans seem recently to have reverted to past form.)
President Obama should make this absolutely clear, sooner rather than later, in his public speeches.
Pope Benedict should also make this clear as soon as possible. The turmoil over Bishop Williamson as a Holocaust-denier was a red herring, a truly false trail. The real problem was that the Society of Saint Pius X was (and I think still is) opposed to the People of Israel having sovereignty in any part of the Land of Israel, and also wanted a return to pre-modern ghettos for Jews living outside the Land of Israel. This was published in the Angelus, their official periodical, in 1997, and was on their website until they sanitized it by removing the articles a few weeks into the Williamson controversy.
Perhaps Father Khalil will also take a look at both Jewish history and Pope Benedict’s theology, which hopefully is the Catholic Church’s official theology, and revise his views.
Rabbi Chaim Frazer
June 14th, 2009 |
Fr. Samir also said the Palestinians suffer because of the Israelis and the West. That’s not true, the Palestinians suffer because they choose war with Israel.
History will soon tell us if the United States will turn away from Israel. Then we will see if Rome abandons Israel to the barbarians.
I am reminded of Golda M.’s words; There will be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate us.
June 14th, 2009 |
Rabbi Frazer,
There are many things I could add about Fr. Samir, but I think it best to state the obvious theologically and hope that he thinks better of his statements. He is a brilliant scholar and has a keen understanding of Islam.
June 14th, 2009 |
One more set of facts needs to be clarified. Those who advocate a “2 state” solution seem to insist that it is Israeli opposition that has prevented this.l
In fact, it is Palestinian opposition that has prevented such a settlement and continues to do so.
The original Mandate was divided in 1922 between an all Arab Trans-Jordan (literally “across the Jordan”, now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and the western part of Eretz Yisrael in which the Jewish National Home would be realized. So for almost 90 years, there have in fact been 2 states.
If we confine ourselves to western Eretz Yisrael, then the Peel Commission in the 1930′s proposed 2 states. The Jews accepted, the Arabs refused.
Then in 1947 the United Nations proposed a division. Again, the Jews accepted and the Arabs refused.
In 2000, Ehud Barak proposed a 2 state solution which was endorsed by President Bill Clinton. Arafat refused.
In 2009. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s immediate past Prime Minister, proposed a 2 state solution which Abbas rejected.
Now, just today, current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has proposed a form of a 2 state solution. Again, the Palestinian Authority has refused-not to mention Hamas, which formally calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Indeed, the Ambassador of the Palestinian Authority to Lebanon has also recently stated the the point of the 2 state solution to which the PA would agree would be to serve as the first stage in destroying the State of Israel.
This record is crystal clear in terms of its intentions.
We should, however, also take the opportunity to acknowledge a small everyday miracle. Jimmy Carter stated today that he believes that the Gush Etzion “West Bank” settlements should and will be retained by Israel permanently.
(“Gush Etzion” means the “Etzion Bloc”, a group of Jewish communities south of Jerusalem and north of Hebron. “Etzion”, although it might seem to be a Zionist term, is actually the surname of the person who bought land in that area during the Mandate for Jewish settlement. These communities were wiped out in the 1948 War of Independence by the Jordanian Arab Legion, and were resettled after the 1967 Six Day War. Full disclosure-my son and daughter in law live there with their children.)
So as Carter has realized and stated that one bloc of Jewish communities in Judea are not an obstacle to peace, may he come to realize that the same is true of others in Judea and Samaria.
And may President Obama, who heretofore has seemed to conform his policy to Carter’s post-presidential views, come to the same conclusions.
Rabbi Chaim Frazer
June 14th, 2009 |
Also part of the daily liturgy:
Ps 137:
[5] If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill!
[6] Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!
June 15th, 2009 |
I like Melanie Phillips’ Razor (cf. Occam’s Razor) on these issues: If a pundit, pol (or cleric) gets Israel wrong, s/he gets a lot of other things wrong when it comes to Middle East geopolitics and theopolitics, as well as the West vs. the Umma. Simple, elegant, and, unfortunately, all too terrifyingly accurate.
June 16th, 2009 |
“The legitimate desire of Jews in Europe was to live in peace where they were, not to have a homeland in the Middle East at all costs.”
People like Father Samir forget that about half of Israeli Jews immigrated from elsewhere in the Middle East (North Africa, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Turkey) or are descendants of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries.
I would add that, being an American, I don’t think there’s anything particularly great about ethnic nationalism of any variety, but it is a fact of life that national governments outside the English-speaking world and Western Europe (and perhaps Latin America) have ethnic identities. It is difficult to see any rational basis for branding the Jewish national movement as illegitimate while celebrating every other ethnic-national movement.
June 16th, 2009 |
Further, perhaps I’m imaging things, but describing the “desire of Jews in Europe . . . to live in peace where they were” as “legitimate” seems a rather lukewarm endorsement of the aspiration – as if opposing views may also have been “legitimate.”
June 16th, 2009 |
I am not sure if this is the forum to post a comment likes, but I don’t get Zionism. I understand the argument that Jews are still tied to the land by the covenant with Abraham and Moses. But, what about from an orthodox Christian perspective. What do the Jews think of the destruction of the temple by the Romans?
I am no expert on Judaism or the Bible. I am a practicing Catholic though, and every time the Jews transgress against God something bad happens like Babylonian exile, a plauge or two, invaders, etc.
What was the transgression against God that caused the destruction of the temple? How do the Jews view this destruction? Do they view it as a punishment? How could they not view it as a punishment? The first temple, if I remember correctly, was destroyed by the Babylonians.
I’ve also heard the argument of JP II that the first covenant was not revoked when Christ died. So, there are two covenants? One for Jews and one for Gentiles? But, I thought, Jesus was the fulfillment of the old covenant. If, he is not what is he then? Why do the Jews hold adamantly to the beliefs of Zionism, and not animal sacrifices, legalism, etc.
Please help a confused reader. The answer probably cannot fit onto a post. Point a book or two out to me?
June 16th, 2009 |
Father Samir also forgot that Israeli Jews aka The Chosen People make up one of the most ethnic, racial, cultural and linguistic polities on earth, second only to the most multiethnic nation of all time, America aka “the almost-chosen people.” Israeli Jews are united by Jewish VALUES, as Americans are united by Judeo-Christian (hence, Jewish!) VALUES. Most other nation-states, including European ones, are based on common blood lineage and geographical ethnicity. The success of the Jews in their midst in so many spheres sticks in the craw of Arab Muslims, who are cultural, linguistic and religious supremacists bar none, and, as Spengler has pointed out, feel they are Allah’s Chosen People (“chosen” to them meaning not as a preistly nation to be a lamp unto the nations, but chosen to dominate the world). They are also what Westerners would nowadays consider racists: E.G., Mohammed himself referred to Blacks as “raisin heads”. (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256).
June 17th, 2009 |
Gabriel,
If you’re confused, you’re on the right track.
Please see the following First Things essay which I wrote under a pseudonym, “David Shushon.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/05/001-zionism-for-christians-1
and see also an early post on this blog:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/04/24/impassioned-dialogue/
There is also a German-language article by Karl-Heinz Menke in the current issue of the German-language edition of Communio, on the pope’s theology of Judaism. I can’t publish it in English, though, because Communio has translation rights.
June 17th, 2009 |
Gabriel wrote:
“I am not sure if this is the forum to post a comment likes, but I don’t get Zionism. I understand the argument that Jews are still tied to the land by the covenant with Abraham and Moses. But, what about from an orthodox Christian perspective. What do the Jews think of the destruction of the temple by the Romans?
“Please help a confused reader. The answer probably cannot fit onto a post. Point a book or two out to me?”
Actually, the core answer is relatively short. The destruction of the First Temple is attributed by our Sages primarily to idolatry, with the Temple itself transformed into a magical talisman of protection rather than the presence of a transcendent and morally transcendent G-d.
The destruction of the Second Temple, in the Sages’ predominant view, happened because of deeply-embedded and senseless hatreds among the Jewish people, who were in many ways exemplary in their ritual behavior. (The Hebrew term is “sinat chinam”, which translates literally as “causeless hatred”, more idiomatically as “hatred for the fun of it”.
Please note that in this case, as in many others, although idolatry is the more serious theological sin, Jewish thought views interpersonal and social sins as having longer and deeper consequences (a first 70-year Exile vs. a 1900-year one).
In both cases, G-d chooses to destroy “sticks and stones”, ie the Temples, rather than to destroy the people. That was a supreme act of mercy both times.
Orthodox Jews regard our legal processes and structures as fundamental to our religious experience, and the basis from which more speculative thought arises-as did the Sages at the beginning of Christianity. That is not “legalism”, but a different way of founding and structuring religious experience and mission. We see ourselves as the heirs of those earlier Sages, and following faithfully in their footsteps and their methods.
As for animal sacrifices, Orthodox Jews pray daily for their return in a rebuilt Temple, whereas most non-Orthodox Jews view them as a stage of religious practice that is no longer valuable.
Finally, Zionism has 2 principal dimensions: religious and national, with the 2 often interwoven, and sometimes polarized. The religious dimension focuses on fulfilling G-d’s charge to us to build an exemplary nation, both our own fulfillment and as example for others. The national dimension focuses on providing a haven for Jews and a “normal life”. Interestingly, both dimensions, including a great many totally secular and even anti-religious Israelis on the “national” side, retain a strong emphasis of the importance of moral principles and values in social life as well as personal life.
Rabbi Chaim Frazer
June 20th, 2009 |
DAVID LETTERMAN’S HATE, ETC. !
David Letterman’s hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it’s Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who’ve gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It’s the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that’ll outdo even Hitler’s by stating that “Judah hath dealt treacherously” and “the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this” and asks “Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?”
Haven’t evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin’s continuing “crucifixion”!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in “Separation of Raunch and State” and “Bible Verses Obama Avoids.”)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact