Here is a followup to last night’s post on the Church of Scotland withdrawing its report opposing the Israeli occupation after an outcry from Jewish leaders.
Here is a link to the “Inheritance of Abraham …” the original report by The Church and Society Council (a group from the Church of Scotland) meant to be presented to the upcoming General Assembly of the church.
Here is a link to a page at the church’s website explaining their meeting with the Jewish officials and their position on the paper. Notice that Rabbis for Human Rights listed as one of the participating groups in the discussions.
Here is a post from The Forum on the Forward website. The title is “Church of Scotland Insults Jews With Denial of Claim to Israel.” And this subtitle: “Orders Zionists to Repent For Finding Historic Home.” This subtitle in no way reflects anything contained in the report.
According to the Scottish paper, The Herald, church officials say:
A planned debate of the paper at the General Assembly on May 18 will go ahead, but “no party will be making any further statement on this issue” until that date.
I hope there is some media coverage of the May 18 debate along which the publication of the amended document. Who knows, maybe it will be streamed live.
Personal note: When I worked in Israel with a government-sponsored program in 1971 the justification for Israeli sovereignty was the modern settlement of the land. In other words, we settled it and built it and made the desert bloom. The biblical/historical, religious and Holocaust claims were very secondary if considered at all. This I believe continued to be true for decades. I am wondering about the reason for the change; my initial thoughts are that the Nakba was not widely known about and that there has been an increasing need to justify the taking of the West Bank.
As far as the Israeli myth of them making the desert bloom goes, the following link should clarify matters beyond any further doubts:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2010/03/palestinians-made-the-desert-bloom.html
“I am wondering about the reason for the change; my initial thoughts are that the Nakba was not widely know about and that there has been an increasing need to justify the taking of the West Bank.”
My guess would be this: that originally, the Zionists were honest settler-colonizers who saw no need for further justification than a “need” for a homeland and a determination/will power/military power to achieve it. Subsequently, a religious overlay occurred as more “religious” Jews decided to overcome their religious/Talmudic scruples AGAINST the creation of Israel as a “Jewish state” and went there to live AND as the need to gain international support became more clear (the Hasbara era is — to my thinking — post 1967, maybe later).
Compare this stance with Hawkin’s and the point is clear: if you’re looking for someone to call evil by its name, you’re better off looking to an atheist – even one who lost his voice decades ago – than to an organized Christian church.
Thanks for asking. It might not be a complete change. Maybe this was a significant part of the narrative then too, but not one shared by everyone due to the fact many people were not religious.
The importance of the Holocaust does seem to be a major incentive discussed evern back in the 1940’s, although not necessarily the “legal justification.”
As time passes they might get away from the founding impulses of settlers, just as people in Kentucky are not so much “pioneers” in their mentality like their fore-fathers, and this might be where your suggestion of a change comes in. But then again, Oren and Netanyahu had changed their last names to make them more “Israeli”. So there is still a movement of “change” in creating a new identity or settlement.
Ira,
Another thing is that the Rabbinical religious view was anti-Zionist 100 years ago. It may still be nonZionist, but now that they have a State, the anti-Zionist aspect of the beliefs would be played down naturally. 100 years ago the belief was that restoring the Statehood was a task for the Messiah, and in that was similar t Neturei Kartei.
This was a religious view, but did not equate with strong political movement to overcome Zionism. It’s possible that the oxymoronic Christian Zionist movement of more recent decades has also indirectly contributed to focusing on this. But in any case, it’s possible both of the trends you mentioned were already present in the thinking back when you were there. And that is certainly true of the Holocaust as an incentive.