Singling Out Israel Isn’t Christian
Oct 26, 2010
William Doino Jr.
Several days ago, an article from the Associated Press appeared, with the provocative headline, “Vatican Meeting of Mideast Bishops Demands Israel End Occupation of Palestinian Lands.” Concerned that headline might be a little-one-sided, I read on, only to find this:
In a final joint communiqué, the bishops also told Israel it shouldn’t use the Bible to justify ‘injustices’ against the Palestinians. . . . While the bishops condemned terrorism and anti-Semitism, they laid much of the blame for the conflict squarely on Israel. They listed the ‘occupation’ of Palestinian lands, Israel’s separation barrier with the West Bank, its military checkpoints, political prisoners, demolition of homes and disturbance of Palestinians’ socio-economic lives as factors that have made life increasingly difficult for Palestinians.
Still alarmed, and unsatisfied, I read the Synod’s full statement but, alas, the AP story accurately summarized it. Although there are many fine Christian affirmations in it, the statement is damaged by an undue animus against Israel. No other country comes in for the kind of blame dished out against its policies. The bishops raise concerns about Iraq and Lebanon, but only in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, for which, they suggest, Israel bears almost sole responsibility.
Like many who proclaim the need for peace, the bishops naively believe that once the Palestinians have a homeland, Israel “will be able to enjoy peace and security” too, and many other conflicts in the region will disappear. In part, the statement reads like a utopian projection—its boundless faith in the United Nations being just one example. The statement does condemn fanaticism and intolerance, but in a generalized, politically-correct way:
We condemn violence and terrorism from wherever it may proceed as well as all religious extremism. We condemn all forms of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism and Islamophobia and we call upon the religions to assume their responsibility to promote dialogue between cultures and civilizations in our region and in the entire world.
Note that these condemnations do not specify exactly who might be guilty of these evils, and to what degree. Note also the moral equivalence. Is “Islamophobia,” for example, anywhere near as dangerous or intense as anti-Semitism, not to mention anti-Christianism, in the Middle East, and “the entire world”?
And if Israel should be criticized by name, for its failures and abuses, why not countries with far more horrendous records, like Iran and Syria? Why not organizations like the PLO and Hezbollah?
And have the bishops forgotten about al Qaeda? In a recent commentary on al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Thomas Joscelyn noted that “the ideology that fuels al Qaeda’s hate . . . relies on a paranoid and delusional view of the world in which an imaginary ‘Zionist-Crusader’ conspiracy seeks to impose its will on Muslims.” In this, he continues, “al Qaeda’s paranoia is not all that different from the insanity of Nazism or the anti-capitalist ranting of Communists. In each case, the ideologues pretend that a dastardly cabal threatens humanity and they are the last hope for redemption.”
Are the bishops aware of just how entrenched this poisonous world view is among Israel’s opponents (and actually part of indoctrination programs for the young); and if so, why were they not more explicit in describing and condemning it, and assigning specific blame to those who promote it?
If it is argued that the bishops, representing an endangered Christian minority in the Middle East, have to be very careful about what they say against extremist governments and movements, lest more Christians become targets themselves, fair enough. But isn’t the reverse also true: don’t the bishops need to be extremely careful about what they say about Israel, lest more Jews become targets?
Israel’s deadly enemies will surely exploit the Synod’s final declaration, using it as a propaganda weapon, giving it the widest possible publicity—which is not to say that’s what the bishops intended, at all. On the contrary, and to their credit, they cited Vatican II’s Nostra aetate, on the non-Christian religions, stressing Christianity’s bond with Judaism, and its abhorrence of religious prejudice. But the bishops should realize the power of words, and unintended consequences, especially in that part of the world.
It is right and proper for the Middle East’s bishops to stand on the side of those who are suffering—often desperately so—and it is natural that they would be particularly anxious about the quality of life for Christians in the Middle East. The Catholic Church is right not to be uncritical of everything Israel does in the name of security, any more than it should be about America’s war on terror.
But fair’s fair. Why has Israel applied some (admittedly debatable) security measures? Because Israelis have been under attack—fierce and fanatical attack—for years and years and years. Do the bishops have a better strategy which can guarantee peace and security for all, and if so, what is it? The Synod’s final declaration addresses these concerns only sparingly, and with idealistic platitudes—not with anything approaching a healthy Christian realism.
Ironically, the very fact the bishops are making these “bold” statements is a testament to Israel’s essential decency and humanity—the bishops know there will be no serious consequences or massive reprisals against Christians in Israel for “speaking out,” whereas any similar Christian criticism—or even questioning—of an Arab government in the region, or Islamic extremism, would—well, we all saw what happened after Regensburg.
In a statement meant to be fully and intensely Christian, Israel was singled out for blame and criticism. That’s not fair, much less Christian.
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. His annotated bibliography on Pius XII appears in The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII (Lexington Books, 2004). His most recent articles for "On the Square" were Pius XII and the Distorting Ellipsis and Pope Benedict Confounds His Critics.
RESOURCES
The AP report of the bishops' meeting.
Thomas Joscelyn's Al Qaeda Troubled by Helen Thomas's Firing.
David P. Goldman's Disappearing Middle East Christians, Disappointing Bishops.
The final statement of the Middle Eastern bishops' Synod, An Appeal to Safeguard the Faith.
Comments:
10.26.2010 | 12:42pm
Harold says:
Patty attributes a position to Doino that Doino does not take, namely that "Israel should not be criticized by the Church for her actions." Doino never even implies that Israel is above criticism. He's simply calling for a balanced approach, which neither Patty nor the Good Bishops advocate. Read the essay again, Patty, carefully this time, instead of dissolving into uncontrolled hysterics.
10.26.2010 | 12:52pm
Christine says:
Go to If Americans Knew.
Learn the FACTS.
Then you will not be making a biased judgment.
You will become an informed citizen.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Learn the FACTS.
Then you will not be making a biased judgment.
You will become an informed citizen.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
10.26.2010 | 12:53pm
Thaddeus says:
The state of Israel is being taken to task for its grave injustices, in this case, by the Catholic Church herself. Doino is taking the side of Israel, defending these grave injustices.
10.26.2010 | 1:10pm
William Doino says:
Dear Patty:
Please read my article again.
I very clearly state that that the Catholic Church is right not to be uncritical of everything Israel does in the name of security; and that the bishops should stand with those who are suffering. I don't believe Israel should be "above reproach" but do think it should be treated fairly, and it wasn't in the Synod's final document; it was unfairly singled out. That is the basis of my criticism.
I agree with you that Islamophobia, and all such prejudices, are indeed as evil and sinful as anti-Semitism and anti-Christianism--my question was whether it was as "dangerous or intense" as the latter two, in the geopolitical sense--a different question altogether. But regardless of how one answers that, Christians should of course fight genuine Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims where it exists.
I agree with you that the Sermon on the Mount has a lot to teach us.
Please read my article again.
I very clearly state that that the Catholic Church is right not to be uncritical of everything Israel does in the name of security; and that the bishops should stand with those who are suffering. I don't believe Israel should be "above reproach" but do think it should be treated fairly, and it wasn't in the Synod's final document; it was unfairly singled out. That is the basis of my criticism.
I agree with you that Islamophobia, and all such prejudices, are indeed as evil and sinful as anti-Semitism and anti-Christianism--my question was whether it was as "dangerous or intense" as the latter two, in the geopolitical sense--a different question altogether. But regardless of how one answers that, Christians should of course fight genuine Islamophobia and discrimination against Muslims where it exists.
I agree with you that the Sermon on the Mount has a lot to teach us.
10.26.2010 | 1:39pm
Fred says:
I don't know Patty, if you were living in a country constantly under seige from a collection of vicious knuckle-dragging savages who value innocent life, even that of their own people, so little that they would hide weapons in churches and orphanages, fire rockets from population centers just so their own people's deaths could be used as propaganda, target civilians with those rockets (not just accidentally kill civilians in defending themselves) and blew up buses full of school children, you might feel somewhat differently. There is no moral equivalency whatsoever between Israel and the motley assortment of stone-age barbarians arrayed against it.
10.26.2010 | 2:02pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Given that the Catholic Churches of the Middle East are not entirely free agents, being under the domination of hostile Muslim governments in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, just what kind of a statement did you expect them to make? Would you expect the Russian Orthodox Church of the Soviet era to issue a ringing endorsement of multiparty democracy and free enterprise?
Sheesh!
Sheesh!
10.26.2010 | 3:21pm
Kari S says:
It would seem to me that if the Churches of the Middle East can't make a true and just statement in the name of Christ, it would be better for them to remain silent.
10.26.2010 | 3:23pm
michael Currie says:
I never thought that i would say this in public, the Catholic Church is flat wrong on this subject. Where is their proportionality. Israel is a small democratic country surrounded by autocrats,oligarchys, tyrants and a growing radicalized populace whose leaders for at least the last 60 years have spoken of driving the Israelis into the sea and when they haven't said it they have allowed therir proxys to say it. Jews have been spoken of in public forums all over the world as vermin and worse with nary a dissenting voice. They are 6 million people occupying land less than the state of Rhode Island. Surrounding them are approx. 350 million people on land a hundred times bigger which produces nothing but sand and oil, which if the west did not buy the oil then sand would be it. They have a grand history which for all intents ended 300 yrs. ago. Israel is a proxy for their own failures. Israel faces an existential threat, and has since its inception. This is a case of not seeing the log in the eye of their neighbors and fixating on the mote in Israels. In this case I am ashamed to be a Catholic if this passes as the Catholic view.
10.26.2010 | 4:09pm
eric sermon says:
disgusting to see jews posting the "israeli talking points" on a christian forum....google "jews spitting on american christians in israel" or jews burning new testaments in israel" and try to defend that.
10.26.2010 | 4:57pm
michael Currie says:
Eric,whose talking points are you representing, or do own your own fetid, fevered swamp? Do you think that your reasoned points relate to the Bishops pronouncement?
10.26.2010 | 5:00pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Christine - I have seen arguments similar to those on that site many times - they are not news, they are rejected as too one-sided to be of value. On virtually any issue one could name, it is trivially easy to state only one side, pretend that the other does not exist, and be amazed that all those stupid other people don't agree with one's conclusion. Replies are easily available in thousands of places across the internet. I might ask why you reject them, and choose instead to cling to fragments as if they prove something.
I am not attacking your facts but your logic, and ultimately calling into question whether there is something in you that destroys the ability to question your own conclusions. Put together with Patty's comment, I am agains struck by how much the shoe is on the other foot. It is not the general defenders of Israel that take either-or positions, refusing to grant even a 1% legitimacy to opposing claims, but her attackers which take this 100% attitude. Every mild defense of an Israeli action is described as defending her blindly in all circumstances. Bizarre.
Thought experiment: Start at the Adriatic Sea and move due east in a wide band of 500-700 miles tall. Pause frequently and consider what has been done in each place, and by whom, whether over a thousand years, or only in the 20th C. Continue all the way to the Pacific. Out of all this tribal genocide, retaliation, oppression, betrayal, and corruption - seldom absent for long in any place or era - why would the actions of Israel in particular, even if they were no better than anyone else in this swath, require especial mention? It is a region that has been cruel, barbaric, and bloodthirsty throughout, even when few Jews were in the picture.
You might keep a checklist of who seems to be causing the problems throughout that swath as well.
Then come back and explain to us how we are the ones who aren't seeing clearly.
I am not attacking your facts but your logic, and ultimately calling into question whether there is something in you that destroys the ability to question your own conclusions. Put together with Patty's comment, I am agains struck by how much the shoe is on the other foot. It is not the general defenders of Israel that take either-or positions, refusing to grant even a 1% legitimacy to opposing claims, but her attackers which take this 100% attitude. Every mild defense of an Israeli action is described as defending her blindly in all circumstances. Bizarre.
Thought experiment: Start at the Adriatic Sea and move due east in a wide band of 500-700 miles tall. Pause frequently and consider what has been done in each place, and by whom, whether over a thousand years, or only in the 20th C. Continue all the way to the Pacific. Out of all this tribal genocide, retaliation, oppression, betrayal, and corruption - seldom absent for long in any place or era - why would the actions of Israel in particular, even if they were no better than anyone else in this swath, require especial mention? It is a region that has been cruel, barbaric, and bloodthirsty throughout, even when few Jews were in the picture.
You might keep a checklist of who seems to be causing the problems throughout that swath as well.
Then come back and explain to us how we are the ones who aren't seeing clearly.
10.26.2010 | 6:00pm
Don Roberto says:
All "security measures" are debatable—after the fact. War is hell. (Avoid it if you can.)
There is prejudice and then there rational judgment based on demonstrable facts. In light of these facts, I am no fan of what Jewish philosophy or of what the atheistic decendants of Jews have done in the world (Hollywood and other venues); but, in fairness, Israel has been much more moral in its waging of war than its oponents, who have shown themselves reluctant to sincerely consider serious peace proposals and quite often in their methodology come across as relying on "Allah" to sort out the innocent from the guilty.
If the Jews do not "deserve" a secure state based on God's promise, then to my mind (and theirs) they deserve it for other reasons. It should be apparent to all then that, without a miracle, there will be no peace in our lifetimes. They cannot yield, lest they suffer a fate analogous to that of Marcantonio Bragadin, and their opponents have made it clear they will never leave the Isralies in peace, no matter what the price to themselves and their children.
†
There is prejudice and then there rational judgment based on demonstrable facts. In light of these facts, I am no fan of what Jewish philosophy or of what the atheistic decendants of Jews have done in the world (Hollywood and other venues); but, in fairness, Israel has been much more moral in its waging of war than its oponents, who have shown themselves reluctant to sincerely consider serious peace proposals and quite often in their methodology come across as relying on "Allah" to sort out the innocent from the guilty.
If the Jews do not "deserve" a secure state based on God's promise, then to my mind (and theirs) they deserve it for other reasons. It should be apparent to all then that, without a miracle, there will be no peace in our lifetimes. They cannot yield, lest they suffer a fate analogous to that of Marcantonio Bragadin, and their opponents have made it clear they will never leave the Isralies in peace, no matter what the price to themselves and their children.
†
10.26.2010 | 6:58pm
Chris Balducci says:
Don Roberto:
With what "Jewish philosophy" do you disagree?
With what "Jewish philosophy" do you disagree?
10.26.2010 | 8:53pm
Jay W says:
The Bishops of the Middle East should take a stronger stand or they run the risk of making the same bum-deal that the Chirstian Tribes of Arabia made with Mohammed all those years ago.
10.26.2010 | 9:45pm
glenn says:
If only the church and politicians took as strong and as vocal a position on the violation of rights and abuses in Saudi Arabia, Yeman, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. It's amazing that the most democratic country and biggest supporter of human rights in the middle east including the rights of the Arab citizens of Israel who make up 20% of the population is the one leaders are most critical of! Can someone explain this 2 me? Aren't we spending over a trillion taxpayer dollars supporting regimes that are far more corrupt and undemocratic in Iraq and Afghanistan?
10.26.2010 | 10:42pm
Dianne says:
I guess you could say I'm an "independant" Christian. I don't identify with any particular denomination. I just believe that Jesus is who He says He is and I've found His wisdom to be the most reliable.
I don't dislike Catholics, or think they are wrong, but I take issue with a Pope (John Paul), who was supposed to be the head of the Church of Christ, sucking up to idol worshipping pagans who want to take over the world (Caliphate anyone - the kaba stone at mecca - baal - ringing any bells)?
I don't see how the Pope could possibly be sympatico with Jesus when he was collaborating with the devil.
I don't dislike Catholics, or think they are wrong, but I take issue with a Pope (John Paul), who was supposed to be the head of the Church of Christ, sucking up to idol worshipping pagans who want to take over the world (Caliphate anyone - the kaba stone at mecca - baal - ringing any bells)?
I don't see how the Pope could possibly be sympatico with Jesus when he was collaborating with the devil.
10.27.2010 | 6:40am
Thomas R says:
Goldman's article left a bad taste in my mouth, too biased against Melkites, but this one strikes me as pretty valid criticism. For all Israel's flaws it's not at all reasonable to focus on it as the source of all problems with Mideast Christians. If they only chose it because it's "an easier target" that seems a bit gutless. Even if you have to tread light there are still issues with Egypt, with Iraq, etc that I think are more significant to the fate of Christians in the Mideast.
10.27.2010 | 7:20am
Maria V. says:
The disciples , esp. St.John , the 'son of thunder' who wanted to call down fire on the seemingly opposing village was rebuked by our Lord ...he, who may be had the most Fatherly love towards our Lord could have dwelt later , on why our Lord tolerated Judas ... washed his feet ..let Him be kissed ..instead his words 'love ' !
Pope John Paul 11 sacrficed much , for the sake of our Moslem brethren ..he was a chosen son, in more than one way , esp. in this regard ...accessing the Holy Spirit power , by trusting love in The Father when nature could rebel at same , in the midst of pain ...thus helping to soften hearts hardened through centuries of fear and division ...which in turn led to heaven's plans being set in motion , to make the promise happen ' you be one that the world may believe ' and thus partial steps in unity , by moving the Orthodox , in invting in our merciful help from The Father - The Woman that led to undreamed of changes with a miraculous pace and the whole world watched with amazement at the 'iron curtain ' being torn apart ..those with eyes of faith , with leaps of joy , seeing heaven's hands , the years of prayers for unity of the ( Sacramental ) Churches getting answered !
This has given us the reason to trust even more as to what would be the only way to deal with those who really do not believe in God's mercy , for even the enemy ..
Pope John Paul II is a powerful intercessor , more so now from heaven ..and can be trusted to answer genuine searhes for truth ....even most of the 'why's ...but esp. why all our Moslem bretheren are too part of the Family , children of our Mother and would have been worshipping with us , except for the workings of the enemy brought in centuries ago, through pride and rebellion , against The Father and His role, in The Family of The Church !
As to the title of this article , esp. on the amount being spent in seeming efforts to 'buy' peace where it may not be found ..and being not much aware of historical details , wondered if Germany , still mostly a Christian nation , has given much support to Israel - both as means of efforts at reparation , thus to even alleviate their own guilt as well as for sake of justice ..this to even include the Palestinians ...
Hopefully , more of our Moslem brethren would become more aware of the role of gratitude - from all Christians , to our Jewish roots , brothers and lands ..
and this even from them too , for things such as tolerating the Dome of Rock Mosque , on Temple Mount ...for all the ways their own children are being helped by many great advances and help brought into the world allover , through wisdom of Jewish people and most importantly , from the reverence owed to the Two Jewish Persons - Yeshua and Miriam ...
Pope John Paul 11 sacrficed much , for the sake of our Moslem brethren ..he was a chosen son, in more than one way , esp. in this regard ...accessing the Holy Spirit power , by trusting love in The Father when nature could rebel at same , in the midst of pain ...thus helping to soften hearts hardened through centuries of fear and division ...which in turn led to heaven's plans being set in motion , to make the promise happen ' you be one that the world may believe ' and thus partial steps in unity , by moving the Orthodox , in invting in our merciful help from The Father - The Woman that led to undreamed of changes with a miraculous pace and the whole world watched with amazement at the 'iron curtain ' being torn apart ..those with eyes of faith , with leaps of joy , seeing heaven's hands , the years of prayers for unity of the ( Sacramental ) Churches getting answered !
This has given us the reason to trust even more as to what would be the only way to deal with those who really do not believe in God's mercy , for even the enemy ..
Pope John Paul II is a powerful intercessor , more so now from heaven ..and can be trusted to answer genuine searhes for truth ....even most of the 'why's ...but esp. why all our Moslem bretheren are too part of the Family , children of our Mother and would have been worshipping with us , except for the workings of the enemy brought in centuries ago, through pride and rebellion , against The Father and His role, in The Family of The Church !
As to the title of this article , esp. on the amount being spent in seeming efforts to 'buy' peace where it may not be found ..and being not much aware of historical details , wondered if Germany , still mostly a Christian nation , has given much support to Israel - both as means of efforts at reparation , thus to even alleviate their own guilt as well as for sake of justice ..this to even include the Palestinians ...
Hopefully , more of our Moslem brethren would become more aware of the role of gratitude - from all Christians , to our Jewish roots , brothers and lands ..
and this even from them too , for things such as tolerating the Dome of Rock Mosque , on Temple Mount ...for all the ways their own children are being helped by many great advances and help brought into the world allover , through wisdom of Jewish people and most importantly , from the reverence owed to the Two Jewish Persons - Yeshua and Miriam ...
10.27.2010 | 7:21am
Stuart Koehl says:
"The Bishops of the Middle East should take a stronger stand or they run the risk of making the same bum-deal that the Chirstian Tribes of Arabia made with Mohammed all those years ago."
They've been at this for 1600 years; how long have you? The Christians of the Middle East long ago came to the conclusion--based on hard experience--that they can depend on absolutely no one but themselves for their survival. Seeing that the Crusaders, the French, the Israelis and the Americans are either incapable of unwilling to defend them from the depredations of the Muslim majority, they are trying to work out their own modus vivendi. You may not like their choices (I certainly think, in the long run, it will bite them), but it is their choice to make.
Furthermore, if the Christian community is not more overtly pro-Israel, the fault is largely that of the Israeli government, which has been notoriously ham-fisted in its dealings with the indigenous Christian Churches, seeing them not as potential allies, but as a potential fifth column. Caught in the middle, the Christians of the Middle East are regarded by the Israelis as enemies, and by the Muslims as infidel dhimmis.
It's not a comfortable place to be, which is why they are leaving. Being intelligent, well-educated, hard-working people, who also have communities scattered throughout the world, they can walk away from the nightmare any time they want, and begin life anew with much better prospects.
That's why the "Arab-American" community in the United States (predominantly Christian, hence not really ethnically "Arab") is one of the most successful immigrant groups in this country, with income levels as high or higher than native born white Americans.
They've been at this for 1600 years; how long have you? The Christians of the Middle East long ago came to the conclusion--based on hard experience--that they can depend on absolutely no one but themselves for their survival. Seeing that the Crusaders, the French, the Israelis and the Americans are either incapable of unwilling to defend them from the depredations of the Muslim majority, they are trying to work out their own modus vivendi. You may not like their choices (I certainly think, in the long run, it will bite them), but it is their choice to make.
Furthermore, if the Christian community is not more overtly pro-Israel, the fault is largely that of the Israeli government, which has been notoriously ham-fisted in its dealings with the indigenous Christian Churches, seeing them not as potential allies, but as a potential fifth column. Caught in the middle, the Christians of the Middle East are regarded by the Israelis as enemies, and by the Muslims as infidel dhimmis.
It's not a comfortable place to be, which is why they are leaving. Being intelligent, well-educated, hard-working people, who also have communities scattered throughout the world, they can walk away from the nightmare any time they want, and begin life anew with much better prospects.
That's why the "Arab-American" community in the United States (predominantly Christian, hence not really ethnically "Arab") is one of the most successful immigrant groups in this country, with income levels as high or higher than native born white Americans.
10.27.2010 | 8:17am
Maria V. says:
P.S - For the ordinary persons who struggle with a Christian's approach to Quran , the simpler approach may be that it gives reverence to our Lord Yeshua and considers Mother Miriam as The Woman most worthy of honor among all women ... and that these two things can somewhat make up for other aspects of it , atleast from our view !
10.27.2010 | 9:13am
jpa says:
JMJ
Can/May First Things post something that follows the simple, but straight-forward, laws of material AND formal logic?
Doino does a good job of warding off accusations that, if proven, would destroy his argument. However, the accusations, even if stated poorly, are spot on.
This is the second First Things article on this topic and both times the authors or their friends have told others to "re-read closely the article." Might there be another problem? Could it perhaps be the case ... that the articles themselves are worded in a way that allows no other conclusion: the Jews are the suffering "minority", the ... goyim, of whatever sort, are always at fault in this "war"? That is the impression given, at least. Either the authors should write more clearly, such that readers aren't required to re-read several times to understand the import, or First Things should allow a well-reasoned critique from the "other side": I am sure that's asking too much from this group, but it's worth a try, no?
The critiques offered by "the Vatican" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are from well-informed prelates who live in these regions. My support and sentiments lean in that direction, if for no other reason than that they may see the situation more clearly, because more closely, than we.
Can/May First Things post something that follows the simple, but straight-forward, laws of material AND formal logic?
Doino does a good job of warding off accusations that, if proven, would destroy his argument. However, the accusations, even if stated poorly, are spot on.
This is the second First Things article on this topic and both times the authors or their friends have told others to "re-read closely the article." Might there be another problem? Could it perhaps be the case ... that the articles themselves are worded in a way that allows no other conclusion: the Jews are the suffering "minority", the ... goyim, of whatever sort, are always at fault in this "war"? That is the impression given, at least. Either the authors should write more clearly, such that readers aren't required to re-read several times to understand the import, or First Things should allow a well-reasoned critique from the "other side": I am sure that's asking too much from this group, but it's worth a try, no?
The critiques offered by "the Vatican" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are from well-informed prelates who live in these regions. My support and sentiments lean in that direction, if for no other reason than that they may see the situation more clearly, because more closely, than we.
10.27.2010 | 10:39am
Maria V. says:
Dear Mr Koehl , please be more specific as to what is 'shallow and incoherent' since you have discerned that you have to deal with someone with those traits !
OTOH , if you feel that it is beyond hope to try to clarify, please feel free to ignore !
Thank you !
OTOH , if you feel that it is beyond hope to try to clarify, please feel free to ignore !
Thank you !
10.27.2010 | 12:52pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Dear Maria,
Your excessive use of elipses (. . . ) speaks for itself, does it not? Stringing together non-sequiturs does not a mystic make.
Your excessive use of elipses (. . . ) speaks for itself, does it not? Stringing together non-sequiturs does not a mystic make.
10.27.2010 | 2:48pm
Thaddeus says:
Obviously, the Middle Eastern Bishops are to be believed to be correct in their criticisms of Israel, far so many good reasons (such as they live there, and know who are the real enemies of the Church, and are dedicated to protecting their flocks), unless one dares to impugn their objectivity and good will.
So, it's unbelievable that the manifestly apartheid and racist state of Israel is knee-jerkingly believed to be more objective and truthful than the Middle Eastern Catholics! It is tragic how many Catholics believe the propaganda that comes out of Israel and its propaganda mouthpieces in the U .S. When educated, good-willed Catholics can't distinguish propaganda from truth, we have a big problem.
Just think: First Things is spinning the earnest and Holy Spirit filled Middle Eastern Bishops' statement as self-serving or paranoid or otherwise false propaganda, and the self-serving Israeli attack on the Bishops for telling the truth--as truth! I would hope that more Catholics would stand up to this spin and expose it for what it is.
So, it's unbelievable that the manifestly apartheid and racist state of Israel is knee-jerkingly believed to be more objective and truthful than the Middle Eastern Catholics! It is tragic how many Catholics believe the propaganda that comes out of Israel and its propaganda mouthpieces in the U .S. When educated, good-willed Catholics can't distinguish propaganda from truth, we have a big problem.
Just think: First Things is spinning the earnest and Holy Spirit filled Middle Eastern Bishops' statement as self-serving or paranoid or otherwise false propaganda, and the self-serving Israeli attack on the Bishops for telling the truth--as truth! I would hope that more Catholics would stand up to this spin and expose it for what it is.
10.27.2010 | 3:32pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl, your contributions on the eastern churches and your zeal for the gospel are very, very much appreciated, and even heart-warming. However, here,
"the 'Arab-American' community in the United States (predominantly Christian, hence not really ethnically 'Arab' "
The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab is not indicate an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance.
Arabs-by-blood had lived, both as bedouin and as townies, in the Levant and eastwards from before Christ and most of them had become Christian before Islam. There were Arab-by-blood, not just ethnic, Arabic-speaking Christians almost from at least the fourth century. (Acts 2:11, on the other hand, seems to refer to Arab Jews.) Many Palestinian Arab Christians originated from what is now Yemen and the central Arabian peninsula like to say that they rhetorically that they were "always Christian", before they ever encountered Greek Orthodoxy. Ever heard of the Ghassanid kingdom, for instance? There are settled Christian bedouin tribes in Jordan whose forbears were converted by a Jerusalem bishop the beginning of the fifth century, a bishop of whom was a signatory at the council of Ephesus. Thirdly, in ways not presumed by western opinionators in 2010, families changed their religious identity in earlier centuries, such that an Lebanese Shi'ite family now was a Maronite family 200 years ago and vice versa.
Given that so many writers and readers at First Things have so much ego- and career-investment in declaiming and agitprop regarding Arabs-by-blood, their nefarious essence and hellish religion--the ill-effects of which non-Arab-by-blood Muslims may escape by virtue of being non-Arabs--it's no wonder that they have spent no effort on a definition of the ethnic Arab as distinct from the native Arabic speaker. For those of you here who really pretend to worship, obey and emulate Jesus Christ, and those of you non-Christians who pretend to do the equivalent, should you continue in your calumnies against Arabs-by-blood, God will certainly not be pleased with you, and the penalty will be first in your own characters and secondly in your spiritual witness. This is not an sentimental religious matter; it's a matter of logic and morality.
"the 'Arab-American' community in the United States (predominantly Christian, hence not really ethnically 'Arab' "
The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab is not indicate an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance.
Arabs-by-blood had lived, both as bedouin and as townies, in the Levant and eastwards from before Christ and most of them had become Christian before Islam. There were Arab-by-blood, not just ethnic, Arabic-speaking Christians almost from at least the fourth century. (Acts 2:11, on the other hand, seems to refer to Arab Jews.) Many Palestinian Arab Christians originated from what is now Yemen and the central Arabian peninsula like to say that they rhetorically that they were "always Christian", before they ever encountered Greek Orthodoxy. Ever heard of the Ghassanid kingdom, for instance? There are settled Christian bedouin tribes in Jordan whose forbears were converted by a Jerusalem bishop the beginning of the fifth century, a bishop of whom was a signatory at the council of Ephesus. Thirdly, in ways not presumed by western opinionators in 2010, families changed their religious identity in earlier centuries, such that an Lebanese Shi'ite family now was a Maronite family 200 years ago and vice versa.
Given that so many writers and readers at First Things have so much ego- and career-investment in declaiming and agitprop regarding Arabs-by-blood, their nefarious essence and hellish religion--the ill-effects of which non-Arab-by-blood Muslims may escape by virtue of being non-Arabs--it's no wonder that they have spent no effort on a definition of the ethnic Arab as distinct from the native Arabic speaker. For those of you here who really pretend to worship, obey and emulate Jesus Christ, and those of you non-Christians who pretend to do the equivalent, should you continue in your calumnies against Arabs-by-blood, God will certainly not be pleased with you, and the penalty will be first in your own characters and secondly in your spiritual witness. This is not an sentimental religious matter; it's a matter of logic and morality.
10.27.2010 | 4:12pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Thaddeus - "...manifestly apartheid and racist state of Israel..."
Check out the actual meaning, rather than the rhetorical coolness of those words, eh? Credibility shot - I read no further.
General: Whenever the word "manifest" is used, doesn't it nearly always signify something that is (heh) manifestly not manifest? Manifest Destiny is a good example. Related constructions, such as "obviously," or "inarguably," are red flags that someone is trying to slip something by you without evidence.
Check out the actual meaning, rather than the rhetorical coolness of those words, eh? Credibility shot - I read no further.
General: Whenever the word "manifest" is used, doesn't it nearly always signify something that is (heh) manifestly not manifest? Manifest Destiny is a good example. Related constructions, such as "obviously," or "inarguably," are red flags that someone is trying to slip something by you without evidence.
10.27.2010 | 4:56pm
Maria V. says:
Thank you Dr.Koehl !
Looked up definition of 'mystic' as someone who tries to look at the world with a
diffrent lense ...would think that most persons of faith are so , trying to find the hand of God in events ...
If the sharing of such percieved truths, in efforts to 'build up and encourage ' the other , in a world that can seem too chaotic , is making some persons uncomfortable , hope that such persons would try to discern what is the real source of same !
As to style..grammar , well , in efforts to defend good name of holy people and truth about The Church , even imperfect attempts , in one's best capacity , would be considered as better than negligent silence , AFIK !
Looked up definition of 'mystic' as someone who tries to look at the world with a
diffrent lense ...would think that most persons of faith are so , trying to find the hand of God in events ...
If the sharing of such percieved truths, in efforts to 'build up and encourage ' the other , in a world that can seem too chaotic , is making some persons uncomfortable , hope that such persons would try to discern what is the real source of same !
As to style..grammar , well , in efforts to defend good name of holy people and truth about The Church , even imperfect attempts , in one's best capacity , would be considered as better than negligent silence , AFIK !
10.27.2010 | 6:33pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Arabs-by-blood had lived, both as bedouin and as townies, in the Levant and eastwards from before Christ and most of them had become Christian before Islam. "
DNA says otherwise.
DNA says otherwise.
10.27.2010 | 7:07pm
Robert says:
For any Christian to ignore the injustice to Palestine and to the millions of Palestinians done by Israel is shameful. Aipac be damned. Remember Deir Yassin, Kfar Kassem, Sabra, Shatila, Lebanon, Gaza, the USS Liberty, etc., etc. Shame on this auther. REL, Tucson
10.27.2010 | 7:23pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl,
Correction of,
"The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab is not indicate an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance."
to,
"The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab who is a Christian is not an Arab-by-blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance."
Really, really uninformed.
Correction of,
"The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab is not indicate an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance."
to,
"The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab who is a Christian is not an Arab-by-blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance."
Really, really uninformed.
10.27.2010 | 7:29pm
Thaddeus says:
The State of Israel is racist and practices apartheid, and manifestly so (I use that word more deliberately now), that is, it is out in the open. It's just that brainwashed victims of Israeli and American Zionist propaganda can not see what is manifest to all the rest of humanity.
10.27.2010 | 8:26pm
Thomas R says:
If Mideast Catholics "know that they are on their own" than perhaps Goldman was right and they should secede to be their own churches. I'd like to think as fellow Catholics we are with them and I've tried to be supportive to Chaldeans and others. If they distrust this, and other Catholics or Orthodox, so much than I think they/you should try again to reach us instead of just smacking us as not helpful.
As to Thaddeus I'm certainly far from being "brainwashed by Israel." I think the US should give far less military aid to Israel and I'm not even sure Israel should have been created. However I feel it's there now, it's not going away, and there is no real evidence it's a human-rights violator on the level of Syria or Saudi. So the Arab peoples, Christian and Muslim, are going to have to learn to deal with it as a nation instead of hoping it will go away somehow.
As to Thaddeus I'm certainly far from being "brainwashed by Israel." I think the US should give far less military aid to Israel and I'm not even sure Israel should have been created. However I feel it's there now, it's not going away, and there is no real evidence it's a human-rights violator on the level of Syria or Saudi. So the Arab peoples, Christian and Muslim, are going to have to learn to deal with it as a nation instead of hoping it will go away somehow.
10.27.2010 | 10:37pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"For any Christian to ignore the injustice to Palestine and to the millions of Palestinians done by Israel is shameful. "
What would that injustice be? Be specific, and, if at all possible, FACTUAL.
What would that injustice be? Be specific, and, if at all possible, FACTUAL.
10.27.2010 | 10:39pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"If Mideast Catholics "know that they are on their own" than perhaps Goldman was right and they should secede to be their own churches"
They ARE their own Churches. it is quite amazing how many people--even Catholics--do not know the ecclesiology of their own Church. The Melkites, Syrians, Maronites, Copts, Chaldeans and Armenians all have their own legitimate "particular Churches" (Ecclesiae sui juris). They are not mere ritual extensions of the Roman Church.
They ARE their own Churches. it is quite amazing how many people--even Catholics--do not know the ecclesiology of their own Church. The Melkites, Syrians, Maronites, Copts, Chaldeans and Armenians all have their own legitimate "particular Churches" (Ecclesiae sui juris). They are not mere ritual extensions of the Roman Church.
10.28.2010 | 1:25am
NFL Jerseys says:
Just needed you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks NFL Jerseys because of your extraordinary blog layout. But seriously, I think your site has one of the freshest theme I've came across.
10.28.2010 | 2:55am
Robert Edward says:
Mr. Wm. Doino, Jr. has it all wrong. So do some of the commentators here. The Palestinians are not "knuckledragging" subhumans (does this and other descriptions here remind you of something?, i.e., Nazi dehumanizing of the jews!). He should educate himself about the war-weary world turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the massacre and expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes and farms beginning in 1948 on the UN resolution (which did not allow what the jewish terrorists did to them). Deir Yassin; Kfar Kassem; Sabra; Shatilla; Lebanon; Gaza; the USS Liberty, etc., etc. The extremist zionists are as dangerous to world peace as are the extremist muslims. Remember Ytzhak Rabin, one of my heroes--murdered by an illegal "settler", who is now treated as a national hero. We should guarantee Israel's pre-'67 war borders, and force them to give up this nonsensical, theft-of-land driven "biblical imperative" (newspeak for we're going to take as much as we want).
10.28.2010 | 3:12am
Robert says:
PS to Stuart Koehl: Read the works of N. Finklestein. You demand facts--Americans have been denied the facts by our media which, insofar as the middleast, is controlled by zionist interests, the threats of AIPAC, and those prominent Americans w/ dual citizenship, or dual allegiances. The truth will set you free. If one wants peace, work for justice. Justice begins w/ the truth in the hands of men and women of good will. Why does Israel deny the world the truth about what it is doing? Why does it not allow news coverage of the illlegally occupied "territories"? Facts? If the American people knew the "facts" about Palestine, they would not allow our tax money and weapons to go to the most unjust, racist country on earth. Robert PS: Remember the USS Liberty--39 murdered Marines and Sailors, about 190 maimed for life, so Israel could conquer the Golan Heights before we could say "enough!" The zionists are fooling no one anymore. America is getting hip.
10.28.2010 | 6:01am
Stuart Koehl says:
Finkelstein falls into the "minimalist" school, which is as much in error as the so-called "maximalist" or "literalist" school of Middle Eastern archaeology. As is frequently the case, the discipline has been corrupted by political considerations--in Finkelstein's case, the desire to prove that Israel was not on the land as a distinct political entity before the 6th century BC (which in turn sustains Finkelstein's political opinions on the israeli-Palestinian issue). Unfortunately for him, continuing archaeological discoveries keep proving him wrong.
As an anodyne to Finkelstein, try the works of William G. Dever.
As an anodyne to Finkelstein, try the works of William G. Dever.
10.28.2010 | 6:04am
Stuart Koehl says:
I do not believe that Palestinians are knuckledragging subhumans. I reserve judgment on those who express opinions such as:
"The extremist zionists are as dangerous to world peace as are the extremist muslims. Remember Ytzhak Rabin, one of my heroes--murdered by an illegal "settler", who is now treated as a national hero. We should guarantee Israel's pre-'67 war borders, and force them to give up this nonsensical, theft-of-land driven "biblical imperative" (newspeak for we're going to take as much as we want)."
who use their ostensible sympathy for the Palestinians as a figleaf to cover their underlying antisemitic bias.
"The extremist zionists are as dangerous to world peace as are the extremist muslims. Remember Ytzhak Rabin, one of my heroes--murdered by an illegal "settler", who is now treated as a national hero. We should guarantee Israel's pre-'67 war borders, and force them to give up this nonsensical, theft-of-land driven "biblical imperative" (newspeak for we're going to take as much as we want)."
who use their ostensible sympathy for the Palestinians as a figleaf to cover their underlying antisemitic bias.
10.28.2010 | 10:56am
John Cummins says:
Robert,
"the most unjust, racist country on earth"
Please, it provides no excuse or exoneration for Israel to say this just isn't true, and that is has company in a rich assortment of injustice and racism to be sampled in, for instance, the cases of: China & Tibet, Burma and the Karen, Turkey and the Kurds, Russian and the Chechens (well over a century old), East Timor, Hindu fundamentalists and Indian Muslims.
It doesn't help to go over the top.
"the most unjust, racist country on earth"
Please, it provides no excuse or exoneration for Israel to say this just isn't true, and that is has company in a rich assortment of injustice and racism to be sampled in, for instance, the cases of: China & Tibet, Burma and the Karen, Turkey and the Kurds, Russian and the Chechens (well over a century old), East Timor, Hindu fundamentalists and Indian Muslims.
It doesn't help to go over the top.
10.28.2010 | 12:43pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"It doesn't help to go over the top."
But it does provide a degree of absolution for the Holocaust, for if the Israelis are just like the Nazis, then maybe there is no reason to feel bad about what the Nazis did. And, of course, it does present a respectable veneer for the latent anti-semitism that abides in far too many people. Those who say being anti-Israel is not the same thing as being anti-semitic are either naive or disingenuous.
But it does provide a degree of absolution for the Holocaust, for if the Israelis are just like the Nazis, then maybe there is no reason to feel bad about what the Nazis did. And, of course, it does present a respectable veneer for the latent anti-semitism that abides in far too many people. Those who say being anti-Israel is not the same thing as being anti-semitic are either naive or disingenuous.
10.28.2010 | 3:40pm
Chris Balducci says:
Some people think that all the trouble started in the Middle East when Israel was formed. Were things better there in the days of the Ottoman Empire?
10.28.2010 | 4:37pm
Dovid K says:
I've formulated my response to the Synod:
Well it’s time for action, no more time for talk
It's time to pack my bags, It's time to leave New York
Dear Pope Benedict
I'm going to move to a settlement
I’m going to pack up my bags
Yes I’m leaving for the Jewish State.
I'll take the train to the plane, right out to J-F-K
And when I get to the gate, I'll turn around and say,
"Shalom everybody and l'hitraot
Now I've got to get home, to tend my sheep and my goat!" *
I’m going to move to a settlement
I’m leaving for the Promised Land.
Maybe I’ll set up my throne, down old Chevron
Maybe I’ll dig my well, up in Ariel
Maybe my garden spot, is waiting down in Efrat
Maybe the house of my dreams, is right in Adumim ...
Well Middle East peace – who is right and who is wrong?
I say, “Stop! - why can’t we all just get along?”
Let the Muslims build homes, let the Christians build too
And in the land of the Bible don’t be keepin’ out the Jews
Yes I'm moving to a settlement
I’m leaving for the Holy Land.
I'll check out Sheelo, Yereecho
How happy I will bee-o
Elkana, Tekoa
Taking life a little slow-a
Yes, I'll be content
I'll be livin' on a settlement ...
Yes it’s time for action, no more time for talk
It's time to pack my bags, It's time to leave New York
Dear Pope Benedict
I'm going to move to a settlement
All my bags are packed
Yes I’m leaving for the Jewish State.
Well it’s time for action, no more time for talk
It's time to pack my bags, It's time to leave New York
Dear Pope Benedict
I'm going to move to a settlement
I’m going to pack up my bags
Yes I’m leaving for the Jewish State.
I'll take the train to the plane, right out to J-F-K
And when I get to the gate, I'll turn around and say,
"Shalom everybody and l'hitraot
Now I've got to get home, to tend my sheep and my goat!" *
I’m going to move to a settlement
I’m leaving for the Promised Land.
Maybe I’ll set up my throne, down old Chevron
Maybe I’ll dig my well, up in Ariel
Maybe my garden spot, is waiting down in Efrat
Maybe the house of my dreams, is right in Adumim ...
Well Middle East peace – who is right and who is wrong?
I say, “Stop! - why can’t we all just get along?”
Let the Muslims build homes, let the Christians build too
And in the land of the Bible don’t be keepin’ out the Jews
Yes I'm moving to a settlement
I’m leaving for the Holy Land.
I'll check out Sheelo, Yereecho
How happy I will bee-o
Elkana, Tekoa
Taking life a little slow-a
Yes, I'll be content
I'll be livin' on a settlement ...
Yes it’s time for action, no more time for talk
It's time to pack my bags, It's time to leave New York
Dear Pope Benedict
I'm going to move to a settlement
All my bags are packed
Yes I’m leaving for the Jewish State.
10.28.2010 | 4:54pm
Joseph C says:
I am always amazed at the lack of discernment when conversation about the Middle East, Christians-Muslim-Jews, Israel vs. Arabs, Zionists and fanaticism takes place. Suddenly conversations becomes like a shouting match. Each claiming to be the more informed. I read Goldman’s article and was infuriated, then read Doino and the same feeling gripped me. As an Eastern Catholic Christian who lived in the Middle East I continually recall and will always use the statement of Patriarch Maximos IV Sayegh during Vatican II session deliberating Nostra Aetate: “the one on the receiving end of the flogger is not the same as the one counting the hits (Arabic proverb)”. That statement is perhaps the most accurate description of those who live under these regimes with whatever names you wish to call them, and those who sit in the comfort of their leather arm chairs pontificating and condemning or condoning the Bishops, the Muslims and the Israelis.
When I was researching Vatican II back in my scholastic years, I was amazed to find out that by the end of the Council most bishops have not even read the documents or the decrees. For heaven sake, you will still here in some Catholic Latin Rite Churches the priest saying things like: “After Vatican II the priest has to turn and face the people” and my response is where did it say that?? No wonder Catholicism in the West has been so diluted and Mass became more of a recitation of a contract, and less of a “liturgia”.
My point is this, to express a personal opinion is one thing, but to attributed to a Synod of Bishops and to read more than what is in the text is another thing. So for those who got their information from AP and Washington Post and other media outlet, please read the Concluding Statement. Heck, I keep reading it and see nothing wrong, derogatory or inflammatory in it! Then wonder what is all the world gone wild over?
Just in case you are not going to read the whole document (5pages total) here is the actual text that pertains to Jewish-Eastern Catholic relations:
Section IV: Cooperation and Dialogue with Our Fellow-Citizens, the Jews
8. The same Scriptures unite us; the Old Testament, the Word of God is for both you and us. We believe all that God revealed there, since he called Abraham, our common father in the faith, Father of Jews, of Christians and of Muslims. We believe in the promises of God and his covenant given to Abraham and to you. We believe that the Word of God is eternal.
The Second Vatican Council published the document Nostra aetate which treats interreligious dialogue with Judaism, Islam and the other religions. Other documents have subsequently clarified and developed the relationship with Judaism. On-going dialogue is taking place between the Church and the representatives of Judaism. We hope that this dialogue can bring us to work together to press those in authority to put and end to the political conflict which results in separating us and disrupting everyday life in our countries.
It is time for us to commit ourselves together to a sincere, just and permanent peace. Both Christians and Jews are called to this task by the Word of God. In his Word, we are invited us to listen to the voice of God “who speaks of peace”: “Let me hear what God the Lord will speak, for he will speak peace to his people, to his holy ones” (Ps 85:9). Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable. On the contrary, recourse to religion must lead every person to see the face of God in others and to treat them according to their God-given prerogatives and God’s commandments, namely, according to God's bountiful goodness, mercy, justice and love for us.
Then you also may want to read the section VII Appeal to the International Community.
For the full article the Last Resource listed in Doino’s article is the actual statement.
The desire to live in peace and the hope for such a peace between all parties in the Middle-East, albeit may remain just a hope, but it can never be quenched on the expense of suppressing one active ethnicity/religion/nationality by the other.
When I was researching Vatican II back in my scholastic years, I was amazed to find out that by the end of the Council most bishops have not even read the documents or the decrees. For heaven sake, you will still here in some Catholic Latin Rite Churches the priest saying things like: “After Vatican II the priest has to turn and face the people” and my response is where did it say that?? No wonder Catholicism in the West has been so diluted and Mass became more of a recitation of a contract, and less of a “liturgia”.
My point is this, to express a personal opinion is one thing, but to attributed to a Synod of Bishops and to read more than what is in the text is another thing. So for those who got their information from AP and Washington Post and other media outlet, please read the Concluding Statement. Heck, I keep reading it and see nothing wrong, derogatory or inflammatory in it! Then wonder what is all the world gone wild over?
Just in case you are not going to read the whole document (5pages total) here is the actual text that pertains to Jewish-Eastern Catholic relations:
Section IV: Cooperation and Dialogue with Our Fellow-Citizens, the Jews
8. The same Scriptures unite us; the Old Testament, the Word of God is for both you and us. We believe all that God revealed there, since he called Abraham, our common father in the faith, Father of Jews, of Christians and of Muslims. We believe in the promises of God and his covenant given to Abraham and to you. We believe that the Word of God is eternal.
The Second Vatican Council published the document Nostra aetate which treats interreligious dialogue with Judaism, Islam and the other religions. Other documents have subsequently clarified and developed the relationship with Judaism. On-going dialogue is taking place between the Church and the representatives of Judaism. We hope that this dialogue can bring us to work together to press those in authority to put and end to the political conflict which results in separating us and disrupting everyday life in our countries.
It is time for us to commit ourselves together to a sincere, just and permanent peace. Both Christians and Jews are called to this task by the Word of God. In his Word, we are invited us to listen to the voice of God “who speaks of peace”: “Let me hear what God the Lord will speak, for he will speak peace to his people, to his holy ones” (Ps 85:9). Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable. On the contrary, recourse to religion must lead every person to see the face of God in others and to treat them according to their God-given prerogatives and God’s commandments, namely, according to God's bountiful goodness, mercy, justice and love for us.
Then you also may want to read the section VII Appeal to the International Community.
For the full article the Last Resource listed in Doino’s article is the actual statement.
The desire to live in peace and the hope for such a peace between all parties in the Middle-East, albeit may remain just a hope, but it can never be quenched on the expense of suppressing one active ethnicity/religion/nationality by the other.
10.28.2010 | 6:30pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl,
You're confusing your Finkelsteins; Robert indicated "N" for Norman. He did not indicate Israel Finkelstein. But continue on your tear and careening.
You and others may be mistaken about the Palestinians not being knuckle-dragging subhumans.
The full article is here http://tinyurl.com/22ovjad
An excerpt is below.
-------------------------------
"The idea that there is something uniquely "different" about Arabs has been roiling conservative think-tanks and intellectual circles for some years. An internal paper circulated at the American Enterprise Institute in 1997 posed the question bluntly: Is it prejudice that leads so many people with long experience and intimate knowledge of the Arab world -- Americans, British, French, and Israelis -- to think of Arabs as animals? Or simply that they are perceiving at a non-cognitive level what is biologically the case?
"The Coors Center launched several lines of research to explore this question. They ranged from the socio-political, assembling statistics on why Arab populations resist progressive opportunities in favor of self-destructive behaviors (supporting oppressive governments, voluntarily adopting barbaric laws and medieval social structures, embracing "martyrdom," etc.), to the archeological. One provocative Pepperdine monograph demonstrated radical differences in ancient embodiments of divinity as conceived by pre-European BCE populations and BCE precursors of Arab populations. Greco-Roman, Celtic, Indo-Aryan, and Nordic divinities were predominantly anthropomorphic, while the divinities of ancient pre-Arabic peoples of North Africa and the Levant -- with the sole exception of Israel -- were predominantly animal (e.g., the myriad half-animal gods of the Egyptians). If ancient peoples projected an idealized version of themselves into their deities, would not a pantheon of half-human, half-animal deities suggests a population that was at best only half-human?
"But it was the Charles Murray Institute that provided the clincher, thanks to huge advances in one particular application of DNA research: population genetics. Population genetics has incontrovertibly established a Homo sapiens family tree of relatively recent origin -- beginning about 60,000 years ago in Ethiopia -- by reading mutations (or polymorphisms) on the Y (or male) chromosome. Both the approximate dates and the destinations of migrations out of northeast Africa into Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Europe can be tracked by these genetic markers. The admirable implication is that racial and ethnic categories are meaningless: We are all descended from the same distinct individuals and -- whether black, white, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim -- constitute one human family.
"Except, say the DNA experts of the Charles Murray Institute, the Arabs. According to their research results (which have been subjected to peer review by Dinesh D'Souza), Arab male DNA does not carry the common polymorphisms of Homo sapiens. Instead it carries DNA markers from another hominid species altogether, Homo erectus."
You're confusing your Finkelsteins; Robert indicated "N" for Norman. He did not indicate Israel Finkelstein. But continue on your tear and careening.
You and others may be mistaken about the Palestinians not being knuckle-dragging subhumans.
The full article is here http://tinyurl.com/22ovjad
An excerpt is below.
-------------------------------
"The idea that there is something uniquely "different" about Arabs has been roiling conservative think-tanks and intellectual circles for some years. An internal paper circulated at the American Enterprise Institute in 1997 posed the question bluntly: Is it prejudice that leads so many people with long experience and intimate knowledge of the Arab world -- Americans, British, French, and Israelis -- to think of Arabs as animals? Or simply that they are perceiving at a non-cognitive level what is biologically the case?
"The Coors Center launched several lines of research to explore this question. They ranged from the socio-political, assembling statistics on why Arab populations resist progressive opportunities in favor of self-destructive behaviors (supporting oppressive governments, voluntarily adopting barbaric laws and medieval social structures, embracing "martyrdom," etc.), to the archeological. One provocative Pepperdine monograph demonstrated radical differences in ancient embodiments of divinity as conceived by pre-European BCE populations and BCE precursors of Arab populations. Greco-Roman, Celtic, Indo-Aryan, and Nordic divinities were predominantly anthropomorphic, while the divinities of ancient pre-Arabic peoples of North Africa and the Levant -- with the sole exception of Israel -- were predominantly animal (e.g., the myriad half-animal gods of the Egyptians). If ancient peoples projected an idealized version of themselves into their deities, would not a pantheon of half-human, half-animal deities suggests a population that was at best only half-human?
"But it was the Charles Murray Institute that provided the clincher, thanks to huge advances in one particular application of DNA research: population genetics. Population genetics has incontrovertibly established a Homo sapiens family tree of relatively recent origin -- beginning about 60,000 years ago in Ethiopia -- by reading mutations (or polymorphisms) on the Y (or male) chromosome. Both the approximate dates and the destinations of migrations out of northeast Africa into Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Europe can be tracked by these genetic markers. The admirable implication is that racial and ethnic categories are meaningless: We are all descended from the same distinct individuals and -- whether black, white, brown, yellow, Jew, Christian, Hindu, or Muslim -- constitute one human family.
"Except, say the DNA experts of the Charles Murray Institute, the Arabs. According to their research results (which have been subjected to peer review by Dinesh D'Souza), Arab male DNA does not carry the common polymorphisms of Homo sapiens. Instead it carries DNA markers from another hominid species altogether, Homo erectus."
10.29.2010 | 4:59am
Thomas R says:
"They ARE their own Churches."
Become their own denominations then, whatever. My point is that as it stands Roman or Eastern Churches are all in communion together with the Pope as head. We are in some way "together." So if they/you really see the Roman-rite as disinterested, or as people who "leave you alone" even to die, than maybe you should just formally separate because it's hard to see how that kind of stand-offish quality serves being in communion.
Become their own denominations then, whatever. My point is that as it stands Roman or Eastern Churches are all in communion together with the Pope as head. We are in some way "together." So if they/you really see the Roman-rite as disinterested, or as people who "leave you alone" even to die, than maybe you should just formally separate because it's hard to see how that kind of stand-offish quality serves being in communion.
10.29.2010 | 6:04am
Stuart Koehl says:
Cummins apparently has trouble distinguishing between research and parody, though I do admit of late that it is hard to distinguish between Scientific American and The Onion.
10.29.2010 | 12:50pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Become their own denominations then, whatever. My point is that as it stands Roman or Eastern Churches are all in communion together with the Pope as head. "
That doesn't mean we have to march in lockstep. Communion does not imply uniformity, or subordination, or assimilation. It implies a shared faith and a mystical unity through sharing in the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.
That doesn't mean we have to march in lockstep. Communion does not imply uniformity, or subordination, or assimilation. It implies a shared faith and a mystical unity through sharing in the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.
10.31.2010 | 5:06pm
phil appel says:
eric sermon--watch out for this anti semite --regarding burning new testiments. He is referring to intensely evil messianic conversion practices toward Jews in Israel.
10.31.2010 | 7:28pm
Robert says:
To Mr. Stuart Koehl--Your comments in this blog betray your intellectual dishonesty. I am not "anti-semitic". 1. I have an ancestor in 17th century Sweden who was a jew. (Hitler would have condemned me, yet I could not vote if I moved to Israel.) 2. Palestinians are semites. 3. Justice to humans should not be dependant upon their religion, nor ethnicity. Perhaps the "most racist on earth" comment was over the top, but Israel is in the same club as the others. Zionism is as dangerous as extremist islam, and America is starting to wake up. Apologists such as you have damned N. Finklestein (a world renowned jewish scholar whose works are meticulously supported w/ references) ever since he first had the courage to point out that the "emperor" (Israel) has no clothes. Have you actually ever read any of his works? Robert.
11.1.2010 | 12:46pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Silly, silly Robert.
"1. I have an ancestor in 17th century Sweden who was a jew. (Hitler would have condemned me, yet I could not vote if I moved to Israel.) "
Yadda, yadda. I was born a Jew. Hitler would have overlooked your great-great-great whatever, but nothing, not even my conversion, would have saved me.
"2. Palestinians are semites."
Not in their minds. And you are splitting hairs.
"3. Justice to humans should not be dependant upon their religion, nor ethnicity."
Indeed, so why pick on the Jews, when there are other ethnicities and nationalities that daily commit real atrocities of a magnitude beyond even what the most vile spokeman for the Palestinian Authority or Hamas has to say about Israel, yet without a peep of protest from the world community, which is, of course, highly selective in its outrage? For that matter, when I hear you condemn the Palestinians for their violence not only against Jews, but against each other, then I will give perhaps a smidgen of credibility to your claims of impartiality.
"Zionism is as dangerous as extremist islam, and America is starting to wake up."
So, the idea that perhaps the Jews, having been treated like dirt across the globe, and driven to the brink of extinction, might be entitled to a small piece of land--land with no natural resources and no strategic importance, but with a deep ancestral connection to the Jews--is somehow on par with an ideology that has global pretensions and which desires nothing less than the subjugation of the entire world to a seventh century Arabian code of conduct? You are seriously bent, Robert.
As for Finkelstein, he is merely the Israeli Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, and about as credible as an historian. Already the counter-revision is taking place.
"1. I have an ancestor in 17th century Sweden who was a jew. (Hitler would have condemned me, yet I could not vote if I moved to Israel.) "
Yadda, yadda. I was born a Jew. Hitler would have overlooked your great-great-great whatever, but nothing, not even my conversion, would have saved me.
"2. Palestinians are semites."
Not in their minds. And you are splitting hairs.
"3. Justice to humans should not be dependant upon their religion, nor ethnicity."
Indeed, so why pick on the Jews, when there are other ethnicities and nationalities that daily commit real atrocities of a magnitude beyond even what the most vile spokeman for the Palestinian Authority or Hamas has to say about Israel, yet without a peep of protest from the world community, which is, of course, highly selective in its outrage? For that matter, when I hear you condemn the Palestinians for their violence not only against Jews, but against each other, then I will give perhaps a smidgen of credibility to your claims of impartiality.
"Zionism is as dangerous as extremist islam, and America is starting to wake up."
So, the idea that perhaps the Jews, having been treated like dirt across the globe, and driven to the brink of extinction, might be entitled to a small piece of land--land with no natural resources and no strategic importance, but with a deep ancestral connection to the Jews--is somehow on par with an ideology that has global pretensions and which desires nothing less than the subjugation of the entire world to a seventh century Arabian code of conduct? You are seriously bent, Robert.
As for Finkelstein, he is merely the Israeli Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, and about as credible as an historian. Already the counter-revision is taking place.
11.1.2010 | 6:16pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl wrote,
"Cummins apparently has trouble distinguishing between research and parody"
That's an awfully feeble retort, evidence that Stuart Koehl apparently took it seriously for long enough (did he get it at "Coors", or not til "Dinesh D'Souza"?) to burn with shame.
"though I do admit of late that it is hard to distinguish between Scientific American and The Onion."
Said like he heard it at a cocktail party. At this point, Stuart Koehl has spent his substantive resources, has realized the futility of pretending to ignore the balls he can't catch and needs a breather. But SA-like-Onion fails to prop him up as au courant, leaving him only snarky. Plus the he's confusing that with parody; rather off-keel! Have a drink or stop as the case may be.
"...a shared faith and a mystical unity through sharing in the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ."
"Many will say to me...'Lord, Lord'...but". Actions are louder than words. "Whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed". Share the gospel wherever you go, Stuart Koehl, but don't try to use words.
"Cummins apparently has trouble distinguishing between research and parody"
That's an awfully feeble retort, evidence that Stuart Koehl apparently took it seriously for long enough (did he get it at "Coors", or not til "Dinesh D'Souza"?) to burn with shame.
"though I do admit of late that it is hard to distinguish between Scientific American and The Onion."
Said like he heard it at a cocktail party. At this point, Stuart Koehl has spent his substantive resources, has realized the futility of pretending to ignore the balls he can't catch and needs a breather. But SA-like-Onion fails to prop him up as au courant, leaving him only snarky. Plus the he's confusing that with parody; rather off-keel! Have a drink or stop as the case may be.
"...a shared faith and a mystical unity through sharing in the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ."
"Many will say to me...'Lord, Lord'...but". Actions are louder than words. "Whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed". Share the gospel wherever you go, Stuart Koehl, but don't try to use words.
11.1.2010 | 11:59pm
jhubers says:
In any other context an argument of this nature would be immediately discounted for its poor logic, vilified as a weak attempt to make its point by linking disparate issues together. Uncritical support for Israel, according to this piece, is necessary because Muslims are bad people. This, in effect, is akin to the logic used to justify our invasion of Iraq - we should bomb Iraq because Gulf Arabs attacked the World Trade Center. They were bad people, so we need to kill Iraqis. That makes sense, right? As much sense as this.
Unfortunately, as is evident from many posts here, the illogical nature of this argument is not evident to those whose starting position is "Arabs and Muslims are bad," which is essentially the illogic of prejudice which often has such a blinding effect.
And I thought "First Things" was about applying the discipline of the mind to Christian perspectives. Obviously in this case I was wrong.
Unfortunately, as is evident from many posts here, the illogical nature of this argument is not evident to those whose starting position is "Arabs and Muslims are bad," which is essentially the illogic of prejudice which often has such a blinding effect.
And I thought "First Things" was about applying the discipline of the mind to Christian perspectives. Obviously in this case I was wrong.
2.26.2011 | 1:08am
Sulema Strobl says:
Patty attributes a position to Doino that Doino does not take, namely that "Israel should not be criticized by the Church for her actions." Doino never even implies that Israel is above criticism. He's simply calling for a balanced approach, which neither Patty nor the Good Bishops advocate. Read the essay again, Patty, carefully this time, instead of dissolving into uncontrolled hysterics. When I was researching Vatican II back in my scholastic years, I was amazed to find out that by the end of the Council most bishops have not even read the documents or the decrees. For heaven sake, you will still here in some Catholic Latin Rite Churches the priest saying things like: After Vatican II the priest has to turn and face the people and my response is where did it say that?? No wonder Catholicism in the West has been so diluted and Mass became more of a recitation of a contract, and less of a liturgia.
Your position in this op-ed here seems to be that Israel is justified in her actions. Also, you add that Israel should not be criticized by the Church for her actions, because others others are far worse. So then, because others are worse- how does this justify?
"Undue animus towards Israel?" Why do you feel that one governments actions are above reproach? Why Israel?
You seem like a nice enough fellow. I am sorry your Christian values do not extend to the injustices of this world regardless of religion or nationality.
We all have our biases, you are not recognizing your own. It is hard to do , I understand.
My understanding of Christs teachings are that you should love your brother, pray for those who spitefully use you, make peace with your nieghbor. War and siezing terratory are not his way Peace Brother, take that beam out- read the sermon on the Mount again, and listen closely this time!
Patty, [a Jesus freak Agnostic who doesn't believe that the STATE of Israel is above reproach}