In a recent address in Westminster Cathedral, London, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Fouad Twal, drew attention to the emigration of Christians from the Holy Land and Jerusalem and principally blamed Israel for the trend. “Ongoing discrimination within Israel threatens Christians and Muslims alike,” the Patriarch said in his Sept. 8th address. “From limiting movement and ignoring housing needs to taxation burdens and infringing on residency rights, Palestinian Christians do not know where to turn.”However, the alternative to Israeli occupation would probably be much worse, according to some commentators. One of them is Jewish writer David P. Goldman, a veteran observer of the Holy Land and an associate editor of the respected American Catholic journal, First Things. He spoke recently to Terrasanta.net about why he believes the situation is more complex than it might appear, and why he believes the real danger to Arab Christians comes not so much from Israel as from Islamic militants backed by Iran and Syria.
Mr. Goldman, you’ve said the situation is more complex than the Patriarch and others believe. Could you tell us why you think this situation is more multifaceted than it can appear?
On the one hand, it’s obviously extremely unpleasant for anyone to live in conditions of occupation with many checkpoints and security searches and barriers that restrict movement between parts of one’s neighbourhood. This must be enormously frustrating for people on the West Bank. But on the other hand, the tragic fact is that the West Bank, as well as Gaza, has become a theatre for what you might call a proxy war which is making a tragically difficult for people there to live. Hamas is not only an indigenous Islamist force with quite strong views about Islamic supremacy; it has also been a proxy for Iranian power. So the problem is that in the absence of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), keeping Hamas at bay would become the ambition of other powers in the region, for example Iran and Syria, which would make things even worse for Christians in the West Bank. I don’t think the [London] presentation of the Patriarch takes all these complexities into account. I don’t mean to exonerate in all cases the behaviour of the Israeli authorities, but simply to indicate that this little land bridge between Europe, Asia and Africa has always accompanied the ambitions of large powers, and has been where they’ve been played out. The sad fact that the population of the West Bank has really been made hostage to the kind of warfare of different external powers is not something that the Israelis, by themselves, no matter what they were to do, could unilaterally solve.
Some say the Palestinians blame outside influences, such as Israel, too much for their hardships rather take a stand themselves to improve their wellbeing. What do you say to this view?
At this point it’s very difficult for them to take a stand. A generation ago, things certainly might have been done which could have changed the outcome retrospectively. The fact is, relevant to the surrounding Muslim populations, Arab Christians have had much higher rates of emigration partly because they can emigrate. Arab Christian communities are highly successful almost everywhere they’ve gone. [But] historically, it’s certainly true that Arab Christians were in a position to take things into their own hands. At this point their numbers are so small that they really are hostage to other forces. Whether they’re hostage to the Israelis or hostage to Hamas in the West Bank is something one can argue respectively, but I think the Patriarch really should have addressed the danger of an Islamist/Hamas takeover of the West Bank as an alternative to the Israeli occupation.
In Lebanon, there’s absolutely no question that the Maronites are so weakened relative to Hezbollah. They don’t have the military capacity to defend themselves and I think that part of the reason that the Holy See has been exceptionally cautious in its dealings with Iran is because it feels a profound responsibility for the security of the Christians in Beirut, and elsewhere in Lebanon, and is very keen not to provoke the Iranians. To some extent the Iranians have turned the Maronite population in Lebanon into hostages in a very cynical and brutal way in order to gain diplomatic leverage. And that, again, is a terribly tragic situation.
So what could Western policy-makers do to try to ameliorate this situation?
I think a tougher attitude on the part of the West on Iran and Syria is the only thing that logically seems suitable as a measure and support of the physical security of the Christians populations. If there were to be a peace settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, it would clearly require the neutralizing of the extremist, Islamist factions among the Palestinians. The reason the Israelis have the West Bank under occupation, as you can read in any of the pro-Israeli sources, is the fear that, if they withdrew, what you would get are Hamas rockets in the West Bank able to hit the Israeli airports. That’s been stated by every Israeli official and analyst and there’s no question that’s not a delusional concern. It’s also the case that, from the standpoint of Arab Christians, the prospect of having a radical Islamic government in the West Bank could not be a happy one. The danger would be going from the frying pan of Israeli occupation into the fire of Hamas.
Do you think the Hebrew-speaking Catholics should be better supported by the Israeli authorities?
Absolutely. The Israeli government should do more to make life easier for the Hebrew-speaking Catholic population, not only because it’s simply a matter of Israeli self interest, but because it’s the right thing to do as a matter of religious tolerance and free expression. Even from a cynical Israeli point of view, having a thriving Hebrew-speaking population would certainly improve Israel’s relations with Catholics around the world, and that’s something that Israel should certainly wish to happen. So I think the Israelis have tended to be a little short sighted about that.
What is your view on the difficult issue of the Holy Places?
One of the difficulties which doesn’t always get mentioned with regard to the Holy Places, which is probably the most tested issue, is that the Catholic Church is not the only claimant for the Holy Places. It’s difficult for the Israelis in many cases to make concessions to the Catholic Church without offending the Orthodox. And, as we’ve seen from recent newspaper reports, Israel’s relationship with Russia is a very important one, as one would expect. Russia is a very important country and there are many Russian-speaking Israeli Jews. My understanding is that one of the difficulties Israel has is the fear of offending the Orthodox side. For example, I think it would be natural for the Israeli government to give the cenacle to the Franciscan Order. That’s a gesture which would be exactly the kind of thing that would build a great deal of good will, at no cost. But there is, among many Israelis, particularly religious Jews, a lot of bad feeling towards the Church because of the past. There are many issues regarding the Holy Places on which the Israeli government could show more cooperation and a lot comes down to short sightedness, prejudice and, particularly among the ultra orthodox parties, never quite an acknowledgement of how much the Church has changed in ridding itself of historical elements of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately the ultra orthodox have a long memory and been very unresponsive. As a Jew, I consider Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, to be great friends of the Jewish people though unfortunately that view is not universally held. But I see that view changing a great deal. Over time, the ultra orthodox Jewish community is coming to terms with the fact that a hand of friendship has been offered by the last two popes to the Jewish people, so over time the tendency is in the right direction on the Jewish side. |
 |
|
|
