The history of words and places- a look at another article from Sabeel's Cornerstone

On October the first I posted an article, Laundering words, omitting words, both are lies. I was writing about an article titled, “The Laundering of Words and the Oppression of Palestinians.” It was written by the Rev. Naim Ateek Director of Sabeel in Jerusalem. In Sabeel’s magazine, Cornerstone, the summer 2009 edition, he is pointing to another article, “The Factory of Words,” by Gideon Levy. Picture the Western Wall of Jerusalem taken by en:User:Chmouel,

While Ateek often approaches his topics from a liberation theology point of view, Levy approaches his topics from a far left secular position. Ateek is a Christian, Levy a secular Jew. They both believe that there should not be a Jewish State and believe any such state would be a racist state.

Levy, like Ateek, is attempting to prove that Israel is using words in such a way that they will cover up the truth. And, like Ateek, he believes this was done from the beginning of the State of Israel and even before.

Levy starts his article with his own propaganda-like words. He writes of being a young teenager during and after the six day war. He writes, “At six o’clock after the war Israel was in a nationalistic and religious orgy. Almost everyone participated in this orgy – orthodox and secular, Ashkenazi and Sephardic, young and old. The Land of Israel was liberated and the people of Israel, the chosen people, were saved.” (emphasis mine)

Levy goes on to write about his interest as a teenager in seeing, after the war, “Abraham’s tomb in Hebron, Rachel’s tomb in Bethlehem” and “the Wailing Wall.” He later complains that now, they are “cursed places,” because there is “armed soldiers and policemen at the entrance of Abraham’s tomb and an apartheid wall that separates Rachel’s tomb from Bethlehem….”

As I have written over and over this is simply half a story. Before the Six-Day War the Israelites did not have access to these places at all. For a history of the Wailing Wall see Western Wall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In the years before the State of Israel was formed there was constant interference with the Jews in their attempts to worship there. They were even arrested for blowing the shofar on the Day of Atonement. After the birth of the State of Israel the wall came under Jordan’s control and the Jewish people could not go there, not even those Jews who were visiting Jordan from other countries.

The tomb of Abraham has a deeply violent history that faults both Islamic groups and radical Jewish groups. The Mideast and North Africa Encyclopedia gives the details:

“Although predominantly a town inhabited by Palestinian Arab Muslims, a small Jewish community lived in Hebron throughout the centuries. During British rule, the Jews left after the Arab-Jewish disturbances of August 1929 when sixty-four Jews were massacred. Hebron was annexed by Jordan in 1950 in the aftermath of the Arab-Israel War of 1948, and it was occupied by Israel during the Arab - Israel War of 1967. As a result, Jews were allowed to pray in the al-Haram, something formerly forbidden to them.” (Emphasis mine)

The article goes on to tell of a horrible massacre by a Jewish person after some militant settlers moved into the region. “Hebron's worst violence in decades occurred in February 1994 when Baruch Goldstein, a U.S.-born Jewish settler, entered the al-Haram al-Ibrahimi mosque and massacred twenty-nine Palestinian worshippers before he himself was killed.”

Rachel’s tomb, the third holiest site for the Jewish people, was also a forbidden place for the Jews after the 1948 war. Today it is surrounded by a wall because it had become such a dangerous place that no one would travel there. The story of Rachel’s tomb and the reason it is surrounded by walls and soldiers is told at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

All of these stories are to say that the problems in the Middle East are hard, complex and sad. They do not fit into an article that paints Israel with the brush that Levy has used. Levy complains that Israel cannot be a Democracy because she has occupied the Palestinian territories for so long. But what other Democracy does the modern world know whose neighbors are intent on destroying her.

This is not to excuse some of the actions of Israel; her people are sinners like all of humanity. But painting false pictures of Israel, as Levy has done is unacceptable. A.B. Yehoshua one of the great writers of Israel, a member of the peace movement in Israel, and a critic of the occupation wrote a letter criticizing Levy for his extreme views and his thoughts on the last conflict in Israel and Gaza. From his letter:

“The doleful thought sometimes crosses my mind that it is not the children of Gaza or of Israel that you are pining for, but only for your own private conscience. Because if you are truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs, you would understand the present war - not in order to uproot Hamas from Gaza but to induce its followers to understand, and regrettably in the only way they understand in the meantime, that they must stop the firing unilaterally, stop hoarding missiles for a bitter and hopeless war to destroy Israel, and above all for the sake of their children in the future, so they will not die in another pointless adventure.”

I believe God calls us, in our Christian walk, to honesty.

Laundering words, omitting words, both are lies

About Rev. Nain Ateek's article, "The laundering of words and the oppression of Palestinians."

CHURCHandWORLD linked yesterday, October 3, to a pdf file from the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. The file was the center’s publication, Cornerstone, summer edition 2009, the article was The laundering of words and the oppression of Palestinians.

The article is by Rev. Nain Ateek the Director of Sabeel. His article was pointing to another article by Gideon Levy, “The Factory of Words.”

Ateek uses the epistle of James to remind his readers that human words are capable of great evil. And they are. Some words become evil, as Ateek points out, because they are replacement words that tend to cover the reality of events. They whitewash and so become lies.

But there are other ways to use words to mislead and make lies. That is by omitting words, a whole string of words such as sentences and paragraphs. That is a way to lie about history and morality and even Christianity.

Ateek writes, “From the beginning of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the propaganda machine of the state of Israel has coined words, created myths, produced stereotypes, and crafted propaganda tools in order to justify and legitimize the Zionist narrative, while at the same time, it has managed to cast doubt upon and negate the Palestinian narrative.”

Note that Ateek says the propaganda started from the beginning of the Palestinian-Israel conflict. So when one reads this and knows the beginning history of the conflict, and yes, it goes back to the time of the Holocaust, but is mainly centered around 1947-1948, then one knows that vast amounts of words have been erased or omitted from the article. And only innuendo remains.

Ateek goes on to suggest that Israel from the beginning has smeared the Palestinians as warmongers and “innately violent.” But this is a double lie.

Israel’s beginning narrative is its conflict not so much with the Palestinians; it was that also, but mainly with at least five Arab nations who at that time and even today have misused the Palestinians. So the Israeli beginning narrative revolves mainly around the attack by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab nations of their new State. And that narrative does not hold that the Palestinians are “innately violent,” but rather that militant and radical Islam is innately violent.

And yes there was violence and destruction on both sides. That is the whole story without omitting words, or sentences or paragraphs.

Ateek implies that the Israelis are blaming the victim when they do not take responsibility for what the Palestinians call the Nakba (the catastrophe), that is the birth of the State of Israel and the displacement of about 750, 000 Palestinians from the new State.

Ateek sets up a simplified picture, insisting that while Israel denies any responsibility for the Palestinians leaving there is scientific and historical evidence coming from Jewish historians proving that movement of the Palestinians out of Israel was planned by the “Zionist leaders.” He cites both Benny Morris and Pappe.

But what does Morris say in his book, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War:

“the refugee problem was created by the war—which the Arabs had launched … And it was that war that propelled most of these displaced out of their houses and into refugeedom. Most fled when their villages and towns came under Jewish attack or out of fear of future attack. They wished to move out of harm’s way. … Most of the displaced likely expected to return to their homes within weeks or months, on the coattails of victorious Arab armies or on the back of UN decision or Great Power intervention."

Morris also wrote, after writing about any ideas that the Zionist leadership may have had about expulsion, “Nonetheless, transfer or expulsion was never adopted by the Zionist movement or its main political groupings as official policy at any state of the movement’s evolution—not even in the 1948 War.”[1]

Both Pappe and Morris are part of what is called the New Historians of Israel. Yet Morris has criticized Pappe’s historical accounts. Several other Jewish historians have as well. Historian Efraim Karsh quotes him in a review of his book, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples,

Pappe states, “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers.”

Ateek uses the verse, “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) He writes that Sabeel’s objective is, “to help discern the truth because the truth is capable of setting people free.” Yes, but Jesus was speaking of himself. He is the truth, the life and the way. He is the one that sets us all free. If we will let Him he will free us from telling lies either by laundering words or by omitting the words.

I will write about Gideon Levy’s article the following week.

[1] All of the Morris quotes are taken from, Alan Dershowitz, The Case Against Israel’s Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace, (John Wily & Sons 2008)

Empty history and anti-Semitism: stepping through a radical progressive door

I, just several hours ago, read what is supposedly information about the Palestinian and Israel conflict. It was written by Shanna O'Brien, who worked for Sabeel with Naim Ateek. I am not sure if it is a letter or simply an essay. The only place I found it was at Shuck & Jive. Act for Peace in Gaza Although it is linked to in at least one other spot. I am posting the first part, where she attempts to write about the history of Zionism, Israel and the Middle East conflict. I find it troubling and even at several points anti-Semitic. I will make comment in between her paragraphs.

“The "conflict" (which is in my opinion a very sanitized term for the situation) began at the end of the first World War. The Zionist movement itself started gaining strength at the end of the 19th Century. They set their sights on the historical lands of Israel. You could say the rest is history, but it is a dark history of manipulation, uprising, back-room deals, and false promises made to everyone involved by those in power.”

The caricature above includes so many dark insinuations about Jewish history and the events of those times that I am beginning to think that anti-Semitism is growing unbounded in the hearts of too many people. The statement, “They set their sight on the historical lands of Israel” implies what?

Rather, they were Jewish people connected to that land which had never been devoid of Jews in all of its history. And a fact unknown to so many today is that in 1945 before the 1948 War at least one million Jews lived in all the Arab nations. Today there is only several thousand because Arab leaders and riots sent them into exile. (see the movie, The Forgotten Refugees: a film about the mass exodus of Jews from Arab Countries and Iran in the 20th Century.)

O’Brien writes:

“Basically the British made deals with the Zionists (because they were all European and had $), promising them land in the British Mandate of Palestine for a homeland for Jews. The Zionists took that promise and ran, trying to take over all of the land they could. The Arabs (Palestinians) who were already living there clearly had a problem with this idea. The British promised them that they would have autonomy after the Mandate ended.”

And where is this great serpent head of a statement coming from, “the British made deals with the Zionists (because they were all European and had $)." The history of Zionism is so complex that it took Walter Laqueur 599 pages in small print to write his A History of Zionism. O'Brien doesn’t even mention the great father of Zionism Theodor Herzl. And the idea that the early Zionists wanted “to take over all of the land they could,” is a piece of propaganda pushed by Arabs in leadership at the time.

The fact is the early Zionists were pacifists who did desire to found a state of some sort but they were not seeking to “extend to the Nile and the Euphrates “ as some Arabs were insisting.1 O’Brien is using very old propaganda.

O’Brien writes:

“Unfortunately though, WWII came along and the British couldn't control the conflicts in the Mandate and the war in Europe so they basically handed the Mandate over to the Zionist authorities (European Jews) who began systematically trying to clear the land they wanted of Arabs. Israel was established in 1948 and they have been trying to systematically clear the land they want (all of historic Israel, including Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights--which are part of Syria ) of Arabs ever since.”

What happened to the history of the Jewish disaster during World War II? There is so, so much more to be said about World War II and the Middle East and the Jewish people than this bit of nonsense. The Jews were facing destruction in Europe and at the same time many countries including the United States were limiting the number of Jews who could come to this country.

Laqueur writes, “The United States in 1935 accepted 6,252 Jewish immigrants, Argentine 3,159, Brazil 1, 758, South Africa 1, 078, Canada 624. In the same year the number of legal Jewish immigrants into Palestine was 61, 854." Where else could they go but back to their ancient homeland.

O’Brien writes:

“This ‘conflict’ has been going on for over 100 years. The Occupation had been going on for more than 40 years. The siege of Gaza has been going on for over 13 months. The massacre of Gaza, this time, has been going on for one week today.This is not a "conflict". The Israelis are attempting to annihilate an entire people. This particular attack will end with more Palestinians dead and the entire world buying the justification that their deaths were for Israeli security, and that they were within their rights to kill them.”

The answer to this is simple, after giving an erroneous history because it is an empty history, O’Brien proceeds to use her errors to make the Israelis look totally in the wrong. She writes that the “Israelis are trying to annihilate an entire people”! No, simply put, they are trying to defend themselves against the thousands of rockets being launched against their land.

To make matters worse in the comment section once again the commenter who advocates violence toward Evangelicals, states,

“Sad. Israel has become a monster.PCUSA once had a strong divestment movement. Now, after terrorist threats aimed at the church from Radical Zionism, that voice seems to cower.We should divest from Israel 100% and not let one penny of our tithes and offerings go to support Israeli terrorism.”

To easily radical progressive theology opens the flood gates for anti-Semitism. Karl Barth wrote about how anti-Semitism is the ultimate rejection of Jesus Christ the Jew. That it happens because others cannot accept that God chooses. He writes:

"Why do we so dislike to be told that the Jews are the chosen people? Why does Christendom continually search for fresh proof that this is no longer true? In a word, because we do not enjoy being told that the sun of free grace, by which alone we can live, shines not upon us, but upon the Jews, that it is the Jews who are elect and not the Germans, the French or the Swiss,[or Americans or Arabs] and that in order to be chosen we must for good or ill, either be Jews or else be heart and soul on the side of the Jews.

'Salvation is of the Jews.' It is in their existence that we non-Jews come up against the rock of divine choice, which first passing over us is primarily made by Another, a choice which can concern us only in that it first concerns Him and cannot affect us except in Him and through Him. in the 'lost-ness ' and in the persistence of the Jews that Other One looks down on us; the Jew on the Cross, in whom is salvation for every man." (in Against the Stream I have broken up the paragraph for easier reading)

1.
# Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel, 233.