The Middle Eastern Synod's Finale

This blog post at Hot Air quotes a Melkite Greek bishop from Lebanon, Cyril Salim Bustros:

The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands… We Christians cannot speak of the ‘promised land’ as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people – all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people… Even if the head of the Israeli state is Jewish, the future is based on democracy… The Palestinian refugees will eventually come back and this problem will have to be solved.

The blogger, a protestant, then goes on to discuss the uproar over the quote and talk about about the Catholic Church's position. Go read it all. But this is an interesting paragraph where the blogger puts together some information on the Melkite Church:

Readers may remember that the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church was the individual issuing blessings for the “all-woman” flotilla planned throughout the summer to depart from Lebanon for a bout of anti-Israel blockade-busting. The Patriarch himself is located in Antioch, but there has been a very troubling trend of anti-Israel politicization in the recent appointments in Beirut and Galilee as well. Bustros’ selection for the metropolitan position in Beirut this year followed the selection in 2006 of Archbishop Elias Chacour for the diocesan seat in Galilee. As this French writer recounts (I apologize that this is only available in French), the 2006 choice amounted to a referendum within the Melkite Greek Catholic episcopate on the question of whether to promote clerics who take political stands against Israel, or to affirm that the church’s future lies with less politicized leaders who are more devoted to ministry, reconciliation, and service. The ultimate choice of Chacour produced a tireless campaigner for the active and urgent repudiation of Israel’s state policies by American and European churches.

Links are all from the original. In the very next paragraph, the blogger, Mr. Dyer, throws out this admonishment:

The Catholic Church’s high profile in much of the Middle East, and its organized connections with Middle Eastern Christians, give its policies a unique significance in defining the posture and role of Christianity there. The Church, of all entities, should be the first and most insistent in affirming that – at the very least – political opposition to Israel is not a condition of loving our neighbors as ourselves. No nation on earth is a principal in such a repellent contingency; singling out Israel in this regard is awful darn particular and obviously motivated by obsession.

The apostolic exhortation will most likely as the blogger hopes avoid any hostile statements toward Israel. The Williamson affair will ensure that (we hope). But it should always be remembered the... dislike the Secretariat of State has for Israel on the Palestinian issue. The Melkite hierarchy isn't alone in its thinking in Rome.

Off to the Holy Land

Sandro Magister has a new column out on the Pope's trip. In it, Magister determines that the biggest obstacle will be the local Christian population. By appearing evenhanded and not favoring Israel, the Pope has been attempting to earn their trust. Magister also claims that in recasting the conflict as a political one, the Pope hopes to return the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians back to its political origins...

Right.

This is one instance where I would say the Pope is flying blind. The Arab-Israeli conflict has many causes and origins. I would point out though that as my professor always reminded my class, politics and religion for the Muslims of the Middle East are one and the same given the fact that the Shariah handed down to Muhammad from God is their Law and the political Ummah (Muslim Community) was the religious and soclal Ummah. If the Christian West and the Pope want to delude themselves into thinking that politics and religion can be separated out, I hope they find their disillusionment sooner rather than later so that we can get on with it.

Let's face it. We've been reading about the alleged Palestinian majority that is tired of war and wants only peace for fifteen years and more, but it has yet to rise up to do anything against Hamas in Gaza. (The West Bank under Fatah has been flying under the radar lately.)

The US Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The average, moderate Palestinian is supposedly long past the point Jefferson set out, but Hamas is still in charge and lobbing rockets as Israel.

No Cross?

Western Wall rabbi says pope should not wear cross at site [Jerusalem Post]

The title basically sums it up.

"My position is that it is not fitting to enter the Western Wall area with religious symbols, including a cross," said Rabinovitch in a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post Monday. "I feel the same way about a Jew putting on a tallit and phylacteries and going into a church."

That's his preference and he's welcome to it. I myself would not care what a Jew was wearing if he were to come into a Catholic church. This is just nonsense.

Before 1967, when the Western Wall was under Jordanian rule, Jews were forbidden to pray there. In the Six Day War, Israel conquered east Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, from Jordan and prayer was opened to all religions.

If the wall is going to be open to all religions, then all religions should be able to show up in their usual garb and the garb of a Christian includes a cross.

The Pope and Israel

Spengler is the pen name of the anonymous columnist for Asia Times Online. Even though he's not one of the Vaticanisti or even known to be Catholic, his writings are as astute as they come when it comes to analysis of the current pontificate.
------------------------------

Benedict's tragedy, and Israel's
By Spengler [atimes.com]

World history is the history of Israel, argued the great German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig - not the tiny Jewish nation as such, but the Jewish idea, embraced by billions in the form of Christianity, or parodied and rejected by additional billions in Islam. The trouble is that no one wants to actually be Israel, least of all the Jews, who recite with fervor the prayer of Sholom Aleichem's Tevye: "God of mercy, choose a different people!" Jealousy at Israel's Election has provoked the persecution of the Jews for millennia, and it is not surprising that many Jews look for safety in insignificance.

Like many Jewish prayers, Tevye's prayer to be un-chosen also has become popular among some Catholics. The Catholic Church holds itself to be Israel, the People of God descended from Abraham in the Spirit. But many Catholics, including some in leading positions in the Roman Curia, think it an affront to the sensibilities of other cultures to insist on the unique role of the Church. At the other extreme , misnamed traditionalists do not think that the mustard-seed of faith is sufficient, and that the Church cannot fulfill its function without returning to the bygone days of state religion. Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, has fought manfully against these prospective deserters within his ranks. The tawdry burlesque over the case of the paranoid Jew-hater and Holocaust denier Richard Williamson is a sad gauge of his degree of success.
[...]
------------------------------

Go and read the rest.

Feeling Good, Europe?

Bishop Williamson and his alleged Holocaust denial may be only the tip of the iceberg for a hypocritical Europe...
----------------------------------------

One-third of Europeans blame the economic collapse on ...
posted at 12:20 pm on February 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey [HotAir.com]

... the Joooooooos. Anti-Semitic attitudes have increased in the wake of the economic collapse, a study across seven European countries has found, with a third of Europeans blaming the Jews for the economy. Spain appears to have the highest levels of animosity towards Jews:

The Anti-Defamation League said Tuesday that a survey it commissioned found nearly a third of Europeans polled blame Jews for the global economic meltdown and that a greater number think Jews have too much power in the business world.

The organization, which says its aim is “to stop the defamation of Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment to all,” says the seven-nation survey confirms that anti-Semitism remains strong.

The poll included interviews with 3,500 people - 500 each in Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Spain.

It says that in Spain, 74 percent of those asked say they feel it is “probably true” that Jews hold too much sway over the global financial markets. That is the highest percentage in the survey.

Nearly two-thirds of Spanish respondents said Jews were more loyal to Israel than they were to their home countries.

Anti-Semitism is an old security blanket for people when they can’t get around to blaming themselves. It’s a superstition as old as two millenia, with no rationality to it at all. Europe indulges in this on a regular basis. When Germany collapsed in World War I, no one wanted to take responsibility for conducting an utterly destructive war that bankrupted their nation and killed millions. It was a lot easier to blame the Jews for their own failures — and it led to disastrous consequences.

America isn’t immune to this, either, nor the rest of the Anglosphere. In fact, one of Barack Obama’s appointees, Samantha Power, made an allusion to this a few years ago in an interview, and others in American political life have been less subtle. In Britain last year, 50% surveyed thought British Jews more loyal to Israel than the UK. At the same time, 31% of Americans thought the same about American Jews. Do people question the loyalties of Catholics, Anglicans, the Irish? Perhaps a fringe do, but nowhere near as mainstream as these numbers suggest.

Make no mistake about it; the Jews of the West are in danger of getting completely marginalized at a very bad time in history for it to happen. If those numbers continue to grow, we can expect pressure from these Western nations to abandon Israel, and more importantly, to abandon the fight against radical Islamist terrorism and Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

Waiting for peace

AsiaNews:

Rome (AsiaNews) - The 12 February issue of the influential weekly America, published by US Jesuits, carries an article (its cover article) titled "A New Treaty for the Holy Land?", written by Arieh Cohen, a frequent contributor to AsiaNews from Tel Aviv.

The article calls for consideration of the possibility of achieving legal security for the Church in the Holy Land through a multilateral treaty that would include a mechanism for "monitoring and enforcement," and which would apply to both Jerusalem and the two national States, Israel and the future Palestinian State.

The need to consider this, the article says, arises from the observation that, while the "question of Jerusalem" remains unresolved, the pioneering attempts to secure the freedoms and rights of the Church in the two national States through bilateral Agreements have not yet given practical results. The Palestinian State is not yet in existence, and the Holy See's 1993 Fundamental Agreement with Israel has not yet been written into that State's laws, making it in practice unenforceable in Israel.

But a proposal for a multilateral treaty for Jerusalem does exist, and was discussed in the late 1990's by diplomats of several countries, and it could be enlarged to cover religious freedom and respect for the Church's historic rights in the two national States as well. This does not mean that the ongoing efforts to perfect the bilateral Agreements should or could be given up, the writer observes, but that it might be useful to study a multilateral alternative.

This suggestion is an interesting one. If it is meant as a final completion of the process going on now, it would certainly be worth pursuing.

An atmosphere of cordiality?

AsiaNews:

Holy See- State of Israel: “Some progress” in today’s meeting
by Arieh Cohen

Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) - The Bilateral Permanent Working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel has met today, 29 January, for the first time since 13 December last year.
At the end of the three hour meeting, it issued a Joint Communiqué, which spoke of the negotiations as taking place "in an atmosphere of great cordiality," and of having made "some progress" in the attempt to work out the long-awaited agreement on tax and property issues between the Church and the State. The Communiqué further says that the next meeting of the Bilateral Commission will take place at the "Plenary" level, and "at the Vatican". The last meeting of the Plenary Commission took place as long ago as 12 March 2002, also at the Vatican, after two previous meetings (in 1995 and in 1998) held in Israel.

I read this and I see words like 'cordiality' and phrases like 'some progress' and I think... They're still deadlocked on the big questions.

Israeli law is weird

From Asia News (bolding is all mine):
Holy See-Israel accords are elements of international law

Jerusalem (AsiaNews) – The Catholic perspective is understanding more and more that Israel’s difficulties to realize and to fulfil – through enactment of laws –the 1993 Fundamental Agreement hinge on the Israeli government’s conception of this agreement and its ensuing unwillingness to recognize it as an international treaty.

A source of the Israeli Catholic Church and expert in international law, told AsiaNews: “Any student of international law, even first-year students, will immediately see that the Fundamental Agreement is an international treaty and thus a juridical and totally binding agreement. After all, it was negotiated, signed and ratified in this form before the whole world. Whether it should be transferred to Israeli law in all its details is up to the State, but the Israeli government cannot describe the treaty as ‘non-binding’ before courts and the Supreme Court just because it has not been translated into law.”

As for defending the Status Quo for the Catholic Church, several ecclesial personalities in Israel have clarified that the Church is not asking for privileges but simply for the recognition of rights granted by the UN itself when the state of Israel was born (1948) with Resolution 181 and which Israel has promised other nations and churches several times over that it would observe. “The State of Israel should adapt its laws to the stipulations of international law. Besides, over the years, Catholic representatives have often consulted the most prominent Israeli law experts and all of them confirmed that there is no reason to think that an Accord as desired by the Church risks being de-legitimized by Israel’s domestic judicial powers.”
[...]

Pretty straightforward assessments and statements there. The Israeli ambassador to the Holy See in an interview had a different view of things, making lots of references to the 'nature of Israeli law' without really spelling out what that nature is that makes it so difficult to bring the treaty into Israel law.

Holy See-Israel: painstaking resumption of negotiations

[Said the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See:]
Yes, certainly, they were thus before the birth of the state of Israel and before the establishment of diplomatic ties. Now we are trying to find a way to formalize matters, a way that recognizes these ancient rights while coexisting with Israeli law without problems. However, what the Church is asking for today is contrary to Israeli law. Ultimately, it is in the interests of the Vatican itself not to do something that tomorrow could be rejected or cancelled by parliament. It would be an invitation to failure.
[...]

A) In this Accord, signed in 1993, there is the basis, the framework, the parameters for future accords between Israel and the Holy See. There are clauses that tackle the necessity of tending to religious freedom, the fight against anti-Semitism and anti-Christianity, all matters regarding freedom, as well as an appeal to collaborate in the academic and cultural world. This is a non-binding part because it is worded in generic language and is a sort of infrastructure on which to base relations.

B) Another part stipulated that within one or two years, a financial and economic agreement would be reached to establish rights and duties of Catholic communities in Israel. This should have become law and we are working for this to come about.

From our viewpoint, the transfer of the Fundamental Agreement into law was not foreseen. It was just an agreement that should not have been enshrined into law. On the other hand, more practical things, like the judicial system, taxes and so on, these should have become law.
[...]

There is truly understanding and awareness of feasibility. It is not as it was in the past; we are not faced with a wall or an abyss to fill. On the other hand, we cannot accept what the Vatican wants due to the structure of Israeli law. This is another reason why several months have passed to find a path, an opening. We want to arrive at something lasting.

The ambassador makes a decent point about generic clauses in the original framework that are more guideline than actual specific directives for the relationship. If he had just stuck with that and elaborated, I think that is an understandable point. The framework provides guidelines and successive, more specific agreements on certain policy areas would get down to details. But the comments in the first excerpts and then by the ambassador about Israeli law and its structure... Does this mean that in its history, Israel has never signed a treaty with anyone that has had the force of law? The ambassador makes no effort to explain how treaties and Israeli law relate beyond his murky comments.

Cordial ‘atmosphere’ at the Bilateral Holy See-Israel Commission

Jerusalem (AsiaNews) – The Bilateral Permanent working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel met this morning at the seat of the Foreign Ministry of Israel. At the end of the meeting, the delegations approved a joint communiqué, in which they spoke, in an “atmosphere of great cordiality”, of “progress” in the talks, expressed a “share commitment to speed up the negotiations”, and noted that the next meeting will take place on the 29th of January.

Negotiations aim at finalising the economic component of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement to protect the Church’s tax status in Israel and protect Catholic holy sites and properties.

The Pope met with Prime Minister Olmert and they talked for a bit before Olmert went off to see Cardinal Bertone and the Relations with States crowd.

The Fundamental Agreement itself.

They really want him to come

From Zenit:

ROME, NOV. 28, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A delegation of the Israeli government visited the Holy See to renew its invitation to Benedict XVI to visit Israel and to establish an agenda of negotiations.

In this connection, Aaron Abramovich, director general of foreign affairs, and Oded Ben-Hur, Israel's ambassador to the Holy See, were received by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, and Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Vatican secretary for relations with states.

At a press conference, organized by the Israeli Embassy to the Holy See on Monday in Rome, Abramovich explained that the meeting took place in a very cordial atmosphere.

The Israeli representative added that during the meeting, an agenda entailing two meetings was established to overcome the present divergences in the implementation of the Fundamental Treaty between the Holy See and the state of Israel.

The first meeting will take place in December, and will be attended by experts from the Vatican and Israel. The second will be held in January, at the level of interlocutors with the rank of ministers.

South of Turkey

Asia News has an update on the Israeli situation:

Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) – In Israel, confirmation is available of the surprise statement of Israeli diplomats, at a press conference they convened in Rome yesterday (Monday, 27 November), that Israel and the Holy See have agreed to hold negotiating sessions of their "Bilateral Permanent Working Commission" in December and in January - after the Olmert Government had, in effect, declined to do so ever since taking office last spring. The officials of Israel's Foreign Ministry, led by the Director General, had just concluded a previously unannounced visit to the Holy See's Secretariat of State, at the Vatican Palace. The news is being received with relief, and with cautious optimism, in Church circles. Ever since the incoming Israeli Government cancelled the negotiating sessions that had been planned for May this year, there were apprehensions that the protracted negotiations ( begun on 11 March 1999) required by the 1993 Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, might be suspended indefinitely - with incalculable consequences, both for the Catholic institutions in Israel and for the bilateral relationship, which is entirely founded on the Fundamental Agreement and its implementation.

The article goes on to describe the discreet diplomatic efforts of the Vatican along with pressure from the US Church, the US Government and an organization (Church and Israel Public Education Initiative) headed by one of the negotiators of the original 1993 agreement, Father Jaeger.

"The announced resumption of the negotiations is very important, and gives reason for renewed hope," says its President, Franciscan Father David-Maria A. Jaeger, who admits happily that he is "delighted" with Israel's own announcement of the imminent re-starting of the talks. "Whatever the difficulties," says Father Jaeger - himself an experienced negotiator, who is much respected in Israel, and elsewhere, for his role in helping to shape the historic accord of 1993 - "everything can always be resolved by negotiating, while nothing can be resolved by not negotiating...".

This is a positive sign, though there have been plenty of false starts before. I get the feeling sometimes that Israel wants to hold the Catholic Church hostage much the same way it does the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. The Pope has no battalions, but he has the political action of a billion Catholics on his side.

Thoughts on the war

Crisis, no.

War, yes.

The State of Israel has made it plain that it is going to neutralize Hezbollah one way or another. If that means violating what is technically Lebanese territory, then so be it. Of course, it's not /really/ Lebanese sovereign territory if the Lebanese government can't defend it. A government is only /truly/ sovereign when it has a monopoly of force within its borders. And the Lebanese ain't got that at all.

So the Israelis will pound Hezbollah and see about getting its soldiers back before they get sent to Iran via Syria. This leads to the question of if Syria or Iran will get drawn in. It's important to note that a level of aiding and abetting, they're both neck-deep in this affair already. Hezbollah would be just a little militia making some noise along the Israeli border now and then if it had no funding and no material aid from Syria or Iran. The question is if Israel will be content to focus its efforts on Hezbollah in Lebanon only or if it will consider striking targets in Syria or Iran?

If Israel attacked either one, it would not be the end of the world for Israel. As the Arab-Israeli wars taught the region, Israel can wipe the floor with any Arab military force, even if they all attack simultaneously. The Arabs came close in 1973, but Israel still pulled it out. Attacks on Syria and Iran would not lead to a full-scale military confrontation. And let's acknowledge another fact. Israel has the best domestic security in the world as far as identifying and weeding out terrorists who might want to blow themselves up in the middle of a market. Retaliation of that sort would not be a terrible burden on Israel as it could certainly deal with it and cope.

Escalation would take the form of instability around the region as hardcore Arab nationalists/Islamists make a lot of noise and stir up trouble. The principal theater for such trouble to make itself known is of course Iraq.

I don't want to guess how things will play out in that kind of situation.

The Holy See had its usual announcement on the situation:

VATICAN CITY, JUL 14, 2006 (VIS) - Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano today made the following declaration on Vatican Radio:

"The news we are receiving from the Middle East is certainly worrying.

"The Holy Father Benedict XVI and all his collaborators are following with great attention the latest dramatic episodes, which risk degenerating into a conflict with international repercussions.

"As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other. Indeed, a State's right to self-defense does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations.

"In particular, the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and gives assurances of its closeness to those people who have suffered so much in the defense of their own independence.

"Once again, it appears obvious that the only path worthy of our civilization is that of sincere dialogue between the contending parties."

When Cardinal B. comes into office, I sure hope he can come up with some statements that are a bit more interesting than that. The Middle East is going to hell in a handbasket and the Holy See can only reiterate its condemnation of terrorist attacks and military reprisals along with other filler before and after. I don't see any mention of the fact that the Holy See stands with Israel in defending its sovereign borders and independence when terrorists cross the border to attack Israeli soldiers and then kidnap two of them to haul back to Lebanon. Fair is fair, right?

Other newsy items

Jerusalem Church leaders urge int’l community not to boycott Palestinians

Jerusalem, Apr. 13, 2006 (CNA) - The 13 patriarchs and heads of Christian Churches in Jerusalem launched in their joint Easter message a powerful appeal for reconciliation between Israel and Palestine and called on the international community not to boycott the Palestinian people by stopping aid, reported AsiaNews.

The Christian churches in the Holy Land—Orthodox, Armenian, Latin Catholic, Copt, Syriac, Anglican and Lutheran—will celebrate Easter on April 16 or 23. Their leaders call on their faithful to see the proximity in dates as a sign of the need for greater solidarity and shared witness of the resurrection of Jesus.

“It seems nowadays that we face an unknown path or impasse in political life (sic) between the new Israeli government and the new Palestinian government,” they said in their message.

The Church leaders reproached the international community for withholding aid from the Palestinian people. “It is not permitted to boycott a people on whom oppressions and injustices were and are imposed, while the international community remained so far paralyzed in putting an end to these oppressions, and therefore this paralysis gave birth to violence, terrorism and the humiliation of the human person [sic],” they said.

“Instead of boycotting, we appeal to the International Community to seize the opportunity of this phase in history of the conflict in order to try seriously to put an end to the suffering,” they said.
[...]

"The Church leaders reproached the international community for withholding aid from the Palestinian people."

Actually, its more like withholding money from a terror organization whose stated goal is to see the State of Iarael and all of its citizens wiped off the face of the Earth...

But hey, who cares about being correct. The patriarchs are making bold statements for peace!
----------

Papal preacher lambasts Dan Brown

Gospel of Judas also dismissed as money-making venture

(ANSA) - Vatican City, April 14 - The pope's personal preacher railed on Friday against Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and the recently published Gospel of Judas, saying they amounted to a fresh betrayal of Christ .
[...]

What more needs to be said?

Israel voting today

The Israelis are at the polls voting today. Kadima, the centrist party founded last year by the stroke-felled Ariel Sharon, is expected to win 34 seats in the Knesset. Mr. Olmert, the current prime minister who succeeded Sharon as both PM and head of Kadima, has suggested that 40 seats for his party are needed to form a stable government. There are 31 parties vying for seats.

Story at BBC News

Olmert needs this. According to a CNN report yesterday, it was Olmert who was aggressively persuading Sharon to pull out of Gaza and the West Bank. The job is only half done and if Olmert is going to pull it off, he needs a stable government. Labor is expected to come in second and would be the most obvious candidate for a coalition depending on how things turn out. Netanyahu and Likud are projected to come in third.

We'll see how this turns out.

What the voters want

"They want what every first-term administration wants: A second term."

Jerusalem (AsiaNews) -- “Hamas will enter into the peace process because there’s no other choice”. The Palestinian people voted for Hamas to punish Fatah for its foolishness and errors. But the people, at least 78%, want peace with Israel and improved economic conditions. Hamas cannot ignore the people’s will.” This in the words of Nabil Kukali, director and founder of the Palestinian Centre for Palestine Opinion, which has been studying Palestinian public opinion since 1994. Kukali, a Christian, is also a professor at Hebron University, in one of the most heated areas of the West Bank and what is held to be a Hamas stronghold.

Professor Kukali is about to release a survey on the reasons for the Palestinian vote, following Hamas’ victory in parliamentary elections. Survey results show that if Hamas wants to maintain popular support, it must change tactics and program. “As long as Hamas was not in power, it could ‘resist’, but if it takes on government it can’t enter into dialogue and ‘resist’ at the same time.”

As for the worries expressed by Christians and moderate Muslims that the legislature might go off on a fundamentalist tangent, Prof Kukali is straightforward. “We Christians have lived here since the time of Christ and they cannot throw us out. We shall see how things evolve over the next few months. But I think the main perception among Palestinians is that we are a single people, Muslims and Christians, Hamas and Fatah supporters.”
[...]

Read the complete article Electors want peace with Israel: the constraint on Hamas from AsiaNews.it.

Catholic professor says not to worry

An online friend of mine wrote at his blog the other day about how the election of Hamas has absolutely no positives. A Fatah professor who is Catholic was elected and thinks differently.

Jerusalem (AsiaNews) – Within the new Palestinian government there are some who still have faith in dialogue between Hamas and Israel. Prof. Bernard Sabela, a Catholic member of Fatah elected to parliament is “optimistic” : if Hamas wants to avoid disappointing voters then it will have to continue the peace process, Palestinians want stability. Then he reassures Christians : it’s premature to speak of sharia.

Sabela, who is also a professor at the Pontifical University in Bethlehem, won one of the two seats assigned to Christians in Jerusalem. The politician holds the January 25th poll “ a victory for Hamas and for democracy”. “People decided – he says- and now Hamas must respond to the peoples demands and needs and they must do so quickly”. “If the leaders are sincere in their intent in to help the population, then Hamas must answer the calls of the people who voted them into power”. For this reason Sabela says he “hopeful” that a path to peace is still possible: “The government cannot separate the political plan from the social need and to ensure stability education , employment , to fight the economic crisis, they will have to have an agenda which foresees the end of occupation and progress in the peace process”. “If you lead the political process in your nation and the people are in need of basic services, and stability you must make that political process work”, he adds.
[...]

Read the complete article Palestine, Catholic Fatah member elected to parliament; a path to peace is still possible from AsiaNews.it.

I just don't believe that the election of Hamas is a completely bad thing. The terrorist activities of Hamas must end before it can be a legitimate partner for peace. However, the Palestinians since the creation of the Palestinian Authority have lacked internal security. The Fatah-staffed security agencies have up to this point been either powerless or simply apathetic. Hamas is in a position to seriously clean up the security services, end corruption and enforce order within the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territories.

After watching the Palestinians self-destruct over and over again over the last decade, a serious effort at efficient government that works for the people will open a lot of eyes as long as it is done fairly.

Coming home to roost

The Palestinian Fatah prime minister has resigned. Early results are giving 70 seats out of 132 to Hamas.

Israeli reaction is of course expected:

Speaking on election night, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel could not deal with a Palestinian Authority which included Hamas.

"Israel can't accept a situation in which Hamas, in its present form as a terror group calling for the destruction of Israel, will be part of the Palestinian Authority without disarming," Mr Olmert's office reported him as saying.

"I won't hold negotiations with a government that does not stick to its most basic obligation of fighting terror."

The United States and the State of Israel may be adamantly opposed to dealing with a Palestinian Authority government led by a Hamas prime minister and parliamentary majority, but both are going to have to make a decision.

Since the early nineties, when Clinton was busy with Rabin and Arafat, the US and Israel hung their hopes on Arafat and the PLO/Fatah faction as 'moderates' and 'secularists' who were essentially Palestinian nationalists. Unfortunately, Arafat and his cohorts were also self-serving and hardly interested in securing a peace that would benefit the poor souls of Gaza and the West Bank.

Despite this corruption of the PLO/Fatah, the US (Israel gave up on Arafat, but then came back once Abbas took over) took its chances in the hope that Fatah would somehow come around, getting itself cleaned up and able to govern. This never happened.

In the meantime, Hamas may be a terrorist organization beyond the Occupied Territories, but in places like Gaza, Hamas maintains order, it runs medical clinics and schools, it provides the basic needs for living for a lot of poor people who have nowhere else to turn.

Now honestly. You're poor, you're hungry, you and your kids are living in a refugee camp. Are you going to vote for the guys who've been lining their pockets with aid money for over a decade or are you going to vote for the guys who've built the school and the clinic and provided clean drinking water?

So we have the decision. The US and Israel can either shut down all negotiations and completely ignore Hamas. Or they can figure out a way of communicating because I am willing to guess that the same thing that happens all the time around the world after elections is what may very well happen to Hamas. People start to actually govern for the first time and suddenly the whole worldview changes.

They played the game with Arafat and this is how it turned out; the US and Israel have to find a way to go forward.

Negotiating is good

Israel and the Holy See are moving forward with their talks. There is some concern about the situation of Ariel Sharon.

Tel Aviv (AsiaNews) – Negotiations continue between Israel and the Holy See to reach a comprehensive bilateral accord, despite the difficult political situation in Israel following Ariel Sharon’s illness. Delegations of the Holy See and the State of Israel have continued today, Wednesday, January 11, their negotiations aimed at reaching the "comprehensive agreement" mandated by the 1993 Fundamental Agreement, on the fiscal status of the Church in Israel, and on safeguarding ecclesiastical property, especially Holy Sites. [...]

[...] Franciscan Father David-Maria A. Jaeger, is not unduly preoccupied: "As is often mentioned these days, the State endures and, with it, endure its obligations, and its need to fulfil treaty obligations in particular. It matters not what the precise composition is of the council of ministers at any one time, the relationship other Sovereign entities, such as the Holy See, have is with the State as such, and there has never been, nor will there be, a time when the State is without legitimate representation on the international plane."

Apart from these impeccable juridical considerations, the fact remains that the future outcome of negotiations could also depend on political factors. Knowledgeable sources close to negotiations say that decisive factors are, nevertheless, situated in Washington, in the United States. It was Washington that persuaded Sharon of the importance of paying due attention to the Catholic Church, and it will fall to Washington to continue to press this matter on his successors, both before and after elections in Israel.

Read the complete article Talks continue between Israel and the Holy See, in the post-Sharon crisis from AsiaNews.it.

The first line of the third paragraph of my excerpt above is amusing. Any political science major who has spent some time studying international relations or constitutional law will eventually hear or read about the 'no person is bigger than the office' idea. Don't shower the kudos too heavily on Father Jaeger for stating the obvious.

Sharon's departure

Jan 6, 2006 — JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's centrist Kadima party would easily win a March 28 general election even without the incapacitated leader at its helm, two newspaper polls published on Friday showed.
[...]

A poll published in the Haaretz daily found that Kadima led by Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would win 40 seats in the 120-member parliament, well ahead of the right-wing Likud party and the centre-left Labor Party.

Labor and Likud would win 18 and 13 seats respectively, the survey said. It noted that respondents' support for Kadima might have been influenced by a sympathy vote over Sharon's illness.

The Yedioth Ahronoth daily published similar results in its poll. It found that Kadima under Olmert would win 39 seats, but would win 42 if led by veteran Israeli statesman Shimon Peres who recently left Labor for Kadima.
[...]

Read the complete article Kadima would win election even without Sharon: poll from ABC News.

An editorial from The Jerusalem Post makes the point that for Sharon's Kadima party, his stroke has occurred at a fortune time, as the elections are soon enough for Sharon's illness to still be in the minds of Israelis, but far enough away for the party to get itself organized now that its founder has departed.

While the timing may be fortunate for Kadima, it's not so fortunate for Israel overall. Sharon leaves mighty large shoes to fill and if his successors are not willing or able to step into the breach and do their utmost to see his policies through, it's going to be a long few years coming up, with Hamas gaining influence in Gaza while Fatah gunmen bulldoze their way into Egypt.

For your prayer intentions

A British friend of mine is a good friend of the young woman, Kate Burton, who has been kidnapped in Gaza along with her parents.

Please pray for them.

According to the Foreign Office, Israel and the Occupied Territories aren't very safe.

We advise against all travel to the Gaza strip because of the security situation and continuing threat of kidnap of foreign nationals. Three British Nationals were kidnapped in Gaza on 28 December 2005. Urgent enquiries are being made. British nationals have also been kidnapped in previous incidents.

Sharon is the Christian's best friend

At the bottom of an Asia News piece on Perez leaving Labor for Sharon's new center-right party in Israel are two interesting paragraphs on the place of Christian Israelis in the general electorate.

All of this is of little direct significance to Israel's tiny Christian community. The great majority of Israel's Christian citizens belong to the Arab national minority, and their overriding concern - civil rights and equality - is shared with the much more numerous Muslim Arab citizens There has never been a "Christian vote", much less a "Catholic vote" in Israel. There is also no agreement where precisely the "Christian interest" lies. In principle, the Christian interest would appear to be in having as secularist and as left-wing a government as possible, since in Israel it is the secularist left wing that is normally most committed to civil rights and religious freedom.

Nonetheless, in concrete political terms, Israel has never had a Prime Minister more attentive to the Catholic Church than Ariel Sharon. It was the last Labour Party government (of Ehud Barak) that had decided to build a mosque for Islamist extremists right in front of the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth, and it was Ariel Sharon who later cancelled this decision.

Read the complete article The new alliance Peres- Sharon , a “post-modern tragedy” from AsiaNews.it.

A tangent
It's little snippets like this that lead me back to pondering questions I've raised before regarding the State of Israel. Is it 'the Jewish State' or 'the beacon of liberty and secularism' in a Middle East of Muslim states.

If you all recall the tension over the removal of the previous Patriarch of Jerusalem and the election of his successor over the illicit transfer of land from the Patriarchate to Israeli developers, also consider the response in Israel to the trade between the Holy See and Israel, the Toledo ex-synagogue for the house with the Upper Room in Jerusalem. Basically, it comes down to the issue of property rights. In a 'Jewish State', can any land be held by non-Jews and not come under scrutiny as some kind of bid to deprive the Jews of their land? If Israel retains ultimate sovereignty over its land, is it doubly required that every single square inch of Israeli territory has to be privately owned by Jews as well?