The latest shot across the bow in the global battle to capture religious sentiment regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes from the Synod of Bishops of the Middle East.
These kind fellows – and they are indeed all men – have just declared according to the JTA Wire service that the State of Israel cannot use the Bible to justify territorial claims to land in Israel. This came at the end of their recent two-week meeting in Rome. (For more of their narrishkeit check here: http://www.lpj.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414:le-synode-des-eveques-pour-le-moyen-orient-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=71&lang=en .)
Specifically, they rejected the use of the biblical position of the Promised Land to justify Jewish settlement of the West Bank. The statement called for a two-state solution to the conflict and to create a peaceful atmosphere that will prevent an exodus of Christians from the region. (No problem with that, but don’t Muslims have a say in what’s happening as well? Or is it just not as much fun to bash the followers of Mohammed?) Not surprisingly, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon – who hails from the hardline nationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party—rejected the statement.
Mind you, this is a well-known pro-Palestinian lot for two principle reasons: One, a number of them are in fact Palestinian and reside in East Jerusalem; and two they are locked in intense, long-term theological battle with Christian Zionists (a.k.a. Evangelical Protestants) who in the past few decades have been both the quickest growing Christian denomination and have numerically eclipsed what are known as “mainline Protestants” in many places (such as the United States).
Excuse the theologically twisted adage, but aren’t they mixing milk and meat? Is not their concern for the Holy Land principally – and understandably – because the New Testament says it is the birthplace of their savior, Jesus of Nazareth?
And by the way, I don’t seem to remember their declarations against the destruction of the Coptic Christian culture by the Egyptian government for decades, or the absolute political marginalization and even terrorism against Lebanese Christians, or the harassing (at best) of Iraqi Chaldeans and so on and so on and so on.
For sure, sane people are entitled to harshly criticize some Israeli policies. God knows I do. (Really, God does know that.) However, these folks could at least work a little harder to work within their theology to support their views instead of throwing out those of another legitimate people not willing to engage their hypocrisy and not afraid to call it for what it is.
Nice one, there is actually some great points on this post ugg ultra tall boots some of my associates will find this worthwhile, will send them a link, thanks
I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the ugg ultra boots next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks - you cleared up some things for me!
I am always fascinated to see what “these kind fellows” (the publisher and editors of The Jewish Times) – “and they are indeed all men” - write in their blogs, for the speed and immediacy of the blogging form of electronic publishing undoubtedly exposes what is truly on their minds.
And, what is usually on their minds entangles them in a form of hypocrisy that is, unfortunately, all-too-typical of contemporary American Jewish thinking about Israel (and, it should be added, the United States).
For example, in this entry by “Dr.” Rubin, we find that an action of a synod of the Catholic Church was…bad for the Jews. This is important, and I have no argument with it.
But it is worth noting that the rapidity with which Rubin wrote about this stands in stark contrast to his utter lack of interest this past June in the anti-Semitic ravings of Helen Thomas, who recommended that the Jews “get the hell out of Palestine,” by which she meant not merely the so-called “West Bank” but also what even a queasy Jew like Rubin must regard as Israel proper.
Neither Rubin nor his colleagues were in quite the same rush to write about Thomas as Rubin was to go after the Catholic Church.
Why not?
Interestingly, Alan Feiler wrote - not once but twice - last year about the Westboro Baptist Church, a family of cranks who represent no one but themselves and who crave exactly the kind of media coverage The Jewish Times afforded them. I emailed Mr. Feiler, asking why he wrote about Westboro and not Thomas, but he was unwilling or, more likely, unprepared to respond.
In fairness to Feiler, it should also be mentioned that no less an intellectual giant than Young Andrew Buerger, publisher, also wrote about the same Westboro outfit last year, yet was equally silent on Thomas’s comments.
So, why didn’t these deep thinkers atop The Jewish Times write about Helen Thomas in their blogs?
Simple:
The Jewish Times is, first and predominantly, a liberal-leftist publication. These men “see” only what they already “believe,” and thus what Helen Thomas said and, more importantly, what Helen Thomas represents, cannot possibly engender among them the same journalistic energy as the Catholic Church or the Westboro Baptist Church or John Hagee’s church or indeed any church – with the exception of the “church” of liberalism.
This leaves one important question beyond the obvious hypocrisy.
This ideologically-blinkered, liberal-leftist “journalism” of The Jewish Times, is it good for the Jews?
I have my doubts.
FEATURED JOBS
Comments (4)