-
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 11
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 24
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 25
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network 7
- Trauma begins at home 8
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s … 10
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 23
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 20
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 782
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 205
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 104
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 89
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 72
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 68
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- RT @MhamdG: Two friends (@WalaaGh & @MahaIghbaria ) meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem http://t.co/226bwrY48g via @Mondoweiss, 10 hours ago
- Story behind a photo - Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem http://t.co/0UZkQMevP1, 10 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network http://t.co/UPuEQQgkjI, 15 hours ago
- Trauma begins at home http://t.co/on36d4DzxP, 15 hours ago
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s survival as ‘a Jewish democracy’ http://t.co/GAK5ZiP9jt, 15 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (92)
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West Bank settlement (24)
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem (11)
- DICKERSON3870: P.S. Silly me, I forgot to include the musical score! ● Philip Glass: Metamorphosis (full album:...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “I can not fathom living like this. The lifestyle being imposed on Palestinians is a human...
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel (20)
- Talkback: “The Guatemalan regime had many supporters–the Reagan Administration, the Christian Right, and...
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (25)
- Shmuel: Susan believes that the word “Israeli” is synonymous with “Jewish Zionist Nakba denier”… What about...
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani (60)
- miriam6: ****************************** ***********************Mondo folks, this here is a small taste of what the...
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Marc H. Ellis
- Alex Kane
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Allison Deger
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
One Day We Shall Return
link to youtube.com
(⁀‵⁀,)♥ ♥ ♥
.`⋎´ ♥¸.•°*"˜˜"*°•. ♥
... ♥¸.•°*"˜˜"*°•. ♥ ♥
...•°*"˜˜"*°•♥
I remember what US mass media was portraying Al Jazeera as some kind of terrorist media network back in the early 2000's.
Good job in your encouraging report about the Church of Scotland document, Marc.
You bring up a good point in this article, too. There are alot of people, Palestinian-Americans, other non-Jews, and independent-minded Jews who are afraid to put themselves out there due to the network, fear that their pro-State employers will see them. Since you were able to overcome this and point to the prophetic, you are encouraging to me too. Thank you.
In light of this and purely from a Christian perspective, Judaism is no more or less correct than Islam, Buddhism, Hindu or any other religion.
I am doubtful about that, since they have the ancient scriptures.
Yes, there are certainly lessons we can learn from the Hebrew Bible and from the Jewish religion, but it isn’t getting anyone to Heaven from a Christian standpoint.
The ancient writings point to the Messiah and the redemption He brings, and this naturally helps get people into heaven. There are even rabbinical writings that agree with Christian ideas. Plus, Orthodox Christianity, to which the biggest group of Palestinian Christians belong, does not exclude the possibility of nonChristians (Jewish or otherwise) entering heaven, in contrast to the "Total Depravity" ideology in some protestant groups.
"You can choose to believe as you wish, as well as the Church of Scotland, BUT if they butt into Israel’s business..."
Western countries are funding the State over there. Thus, it has become their "business".
"if they butt into Israel’s business by denying Jews have any historical right to the Holy Land"
Do those Irish Americans expelled from Ireland have a "historical right" to it?
You are abundantly right.
Galatians 2:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink one Spirit.
Colossians 3:9-11
You... have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
But the new report adds the writing of Marc Ellis, the author and Mondoweiss contributor
It sounds like someone read Ellis' post. :)
I do not understand- what happened to the flag in the Guardian's photo on the topic:
link to guardian.co.uk
Thank you for your report, Ira!
What is in bold has been deleted.
'In the Bible, God’s promises extend in hope to all land and people. Focused as they are on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, these promises call for a commitment in every place to justice in a spirit of reconciliation.'
So the Church of Scotland no longer asserts that God's promises are based on Jesus' central experiences and redemption?
When he was young did Marc ever expect he would be a rabbinic scholar quoted as an authority in Church reports? LOL
Peace.
Dear Shmuel,
Can you please thank your friend in your second story on my behalf and encourage her to continue her activism?
I would make a beneficial suggestion to her to put herself in the shoes of the "other". It can be advantageous for her to do this without agreeing with what he said. If you are a caseworker in the inner city, you meet people who are hurting alot, and they may not say the right things at a meeting with you when you come to help them.
Ultimately, you have sympathy for the person and want to show them that you care about him or her. Sometimes it can make a big difference if, you are courageous- not to hurt people- but to heal them, and later on quietly say that you love them, feel sympathy for them, and this is why you are speaking out. You can also ask them: "How can I do this better?"
It is about being strong, overcoming boundaries, showing love and care, and does not mean you have to agree with every reaction.
Yes, Palestinian inclusiveness is an asset.
When will we be comfortable with men with beards and women in veils addressing Christian congregations?
Actually Palestinian priests, nuns, and women who follow indigenous Christian practices could typically do those things.
However, I cannot help but feel tokenized and used as an example of a "civilized" Palestinian. It is as if they want to say, "Look, she's a modern and educated Palestinian. Isn't she deserving of rights?" In the end, it’s not personal, it’s political.
I know what you mean but you can't get your coat hooked on thorns like that. It's helpful to have an audience and you could even talk about people who seem uncivilized because they have been denied education, and that you feel there are alot of misconceptions. You can challenge them to see what your culture really is! (with no expectation on my part the liberal Zionist actually will- but a hope for that one person who does nonetheless)
You may note nonetheless that with the Churches you may get more than that one person. Mark Braverman is Jewish and specifically devotes his work to churches for that reason!
Furthermore, I think you have a special, strong ability to raise awareness and movement in your own community, where alot of us are weaker. Go where you are inspired most!
Maggie,
You asked: "I don’t see why anyone expects people who identify religiously to make their motivating animus “universal” political principles…why does it matter? There has been a lot of discussion and argument in some groups I’m in around these issues and I really feel like I’m missing something. So someone please reply."
What do you think about my post above dated May 16, 2013, 3:19 pm?
Heike,
You have a significant article and I agree with Mondoweiss that this is an important topic.
It's helpful to think of analogies. Missionaries can talk about the importance of Christian values in giving charity to poor nonChristian Asian peoples. And we all can talk about American values in helping the urban poor in America. But wouldn't it become more difficult when we talk about the importance of American Christian values in helping poor Asian peoples?
And doesn't emphasizing American Christian values become even more difficult if the situation was not just any nonChristian country, but one in which America had a conflict with?
And on top of that Heike, you have a situation where many Americans (like many people with Jewish nationality) would say they have universal humanitarian values (or even Church of Scotland ones. LOL)
On the other hand, I think it's very important to say "Not in Our Name", and to undermine the thinking of conquerors (Protestant or otherwise) by showing that the religion's underlying moral philosophy actually opposes abusing people.
Rather my point is that you are touching on an important and challenging topic!
Israel is not listed because it is not a racist nation.
To undergo the study, you would need participants. Perhaps the potential participants are not interested in answering questions about this topic?
Anyway, why are there whole communities there that exclude people from other ethnicities in joining their community?
The Washington Post, which publicized the map itself above, has found it worthy enough to discuss Israeli racism.
Allegations of racism and questions about a town's character
link to washingtonpost.com
"area rabbis issued a religious ruling several months ago forbidding residents to rent apartments to Israeli Arab students from the local community college."
I appreciate your excellent report, Annie.
Is it worth discussing Haaretz's commentary on the Church of Scotland Report?
You can find the text here:
link to members5.boardhost.com
Sometimes it's the thought that counts. Send a message that imprisoning an entire people is not something I want to be part of.
Good article and analysis, Marc.
Apparently everyone but the right wing of the pro-Israeli movement agrees that the settlements are bad and destroying "Peace", Palestinian independence, J Street's "Two State Solution" etc, so it's only logical that people shouldn't want to buy from the settlement project.
What do you think about this article proposing that the US government supported the Israeli attack on Syria?
link to socialistaction.org
Since you are interested in Latin America, you may be interested as well in this report by NALCA about the 1980's:
Israel's Proxy War in Guatemala
link to nacla.org
Thanks for you, Joe.
THE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS REPORTS:
In a report issued on December 20, Human Rights Watch said it found no evidence to show that Salama and al-Kumi had been Hamas operatives or had engaged in any military activity. The group said the killings of the two cameramen and the attacks on the Gaza media centers were violations of the laws of war.
In the Bible, the people look at the snake lifted up on a stick and it heals them: this is an uplifting poetic image of putting an end to sin.
I have no idea why in modern times they copied this image ($) and put it on their money. People metaphorically bow to money, and it is tragically having the opposite effect that it did in the Bible, because it is not leading people to have compassion for the many people who have been struck down. None of this makes sense to me.
The same thing ran through my head, as I posted below.
Allison,
You made an insightful report. You may recall in passing that since its inception even the Socialist left there has been like this. The country's Socialist left came out of the European left of the early 20th century, which divided along national lines and fought itself in WWI. Israeli Socialists apparently turned out to be even more nationalist than the European ones of the era, considering attacks by Socialist kibbutzes on peaceful villages. A case in point is Chomsky, who planned to seek cooperation with Palestinians and joined a far-left Hatzomair kibbutz, which a few years before had expelled the neighboring friendly village.
Even if you equate true Christian ethics with progressive social ethics, this remained a strain in Christianity continuously, based on the ethics being contained in the central writings.
Abolitionists in the pre-civil war era found the idea of salvation and repentance as promoting the idea of freeing the slaves.
The monasteries and convents even in the dark ages shared wealth in a form of communism, took in orphans and cared for the poor. The idea of the Maryknoll sisterhood was continuing this strain of charity, even when it developed in a more radical direction than before.
Marxism developed out the "utopian Socialist" movement a few centuries ago, which was laid out to a big extent by St. Thomas More, in his book Utopia- hence the name. In that economic sense, Communism and Marxism are Christian ethical movements (although this is not concerning every political party's stance on religion).
A movie came out in Russia not long ago called Tsar. It was about the standoff between Ivan the Terrible and the Metropolitan of Moscow, who was killed by the Tsar for defending people against repression. The Christian leader became a saint.
Maryknoll brings to mind the Franciscans, following after St. Francis with his care for animals. It also brings to mind that some of the main things saints are valued for is their ethical life, such as their humility, voluntary poverty, generosity to the poor, help for the sick, etc. Rather than being an exception, Mother Theresa was a typical example of the ethical tradition in Christianity.
Obviously you can think of plenty of examples where the Christian ethical tradition was contradicted, eg. by abuse of the poor, or by instances where Crusaders attacked civilians. But in any case, the ethical traditional was not lost, but rather preserved in Christianity, even when not practiced or recognized by a lot of people.
Maher basically takes the view that the Arab Spring is bad and that the Middle Eastern countries are rampant with intolerant Islamic theocracies. His idea is that regime change means theocracy.
He presents a stereotypical, and only negative view of their peoples. The Arab spring appears to be a series of movements against Middle Eastern governments in the last few years.
In some cases like Egypt it was headed by liberal, pro-democracy activists, with likely some indirect support from US NGOs. Once people got the right to vote, they often voted for parties with a religious trend in them. However, if someone actually cares about Egypt's people and values democracy, one should take the view that the Arab spring there was a positive there, whether or not one views the party elected into power favorably. For example, you might not like Obama, but if you care about Americans, you must view their holding of an election in 2008 favorably.
In other cases like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, it appears there might have actually been anti-theocratic aspects to the Arab Spring there. Again, Maher's one-sided negative portrayal of movements for change and reform do not even favor his own disagreement with theocracy and Iran's government.
Finally, in cases like Libya and Syria, Maher's criticism of the Arab Spring are right on the mark! In those instances, the "spring" is really a "winter" for democratic forces and tolerance, since in those instances it means an attempt to bring intolerant fundamentalist groups into power and brutalize secular governments and minorities. It is actually a continuation of the "regime change" experienced in Iraq, in a different form. But guess what, a key feature of the Spring there is that like in Iraq, it is being promoted by Maher's government. Were it not for the government and its allies, those intolerant examples of change would not occur. Does Maher do his job as a critical commentator and point this out?
Ultimately, if someone cares about people in the Middle East (and thus indirectly America's relations with those countries), the person should want to promote reform and democratic movements, recognize both good and bad tendencies where they exist, and be willing to recognize his or her society's own good and bad involvement in that process.
I have a sense the IP conflict/struggle for rights and the political implications and resulting socio-religious analysis and reflections are going to be longstanding issues....
In your reply you focus on differences between the Christian and rabbinical communities on theology. However, the main question was whether Christianity "corrected" the Hebrew scriptures. The Christian view is not that the scriptures themselves were wrong. It was that the scriptures were correct, but that there were common misunderstandings about them. For example, people expected a Messiah who would not undergo an earthly defeat, but Christ saw that the scriptures did (eg. Psalm 22)
However, I am not sure that the Christian view is that the Jewish understanding of the question of the land in particular was wrong. Rather, the recipients of the promise expanded. I thought the commentor Hostage did an excellent job explaining how the Christian and Jewish views on this question were theoretically compatible, but rather the Rabbinical community does not consider that this land blessing has been opened up as of yet to the nations.
So for example you commented:
In fact, the Christian view is that the Hebrew Bible had it right and Jesus did too. The new direction is predicted in the Bible itself. It is not a new direction that means the old way was wrong in ancient times.
So: the Bible recorded the promise to the people for land, in Joshua's time people enjoyed the benefits of it, and in Jesus' time there was a new direction to this that opened the benefits up to the multitude, as also predicted.
link to scribd.com
Denis, please see Ira's discussion below.
Woody,
Your comment was:
" 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."
Isn't Atheism much higher among Israelis than Palestinians and Eastern Europeans? And yet Europeans, who are Christian in background, are much more likely to disagree with Israeli policies.
Further, as has come up on this board you can contrast the views of Sam Harris and Bill Maher on the Atheist end, with the 20 Christian Church leaders who wrote to Obama recently.
My point is not whether American Christians on average are more likely to use strong rhetoric against Israeli abuses, but rather that as Braverman pointed out, it can be surprising to see a significant portion of Christians willing to see the abuses as a social justice issue. This again comes out in the divestment resolutions in churches, even though the churches often did not go far enough, while others (eg. the Mennonites) did.
You can find similar examples with the slavery issue. Yes, you really can find some of the strongest rhetoric coming from Christian abolitionists (or in today's world Kovel and also a Greek bishop a few years ago), even if there is a counterpoint from other "Christians". Again one only need contrast Israeli atheism with the faith and stance of the churches in the Holy Land.
You wrote:
"I am not all that comfortable with the section of the report that explains how the Hebrew Bible was corrected or superceded by the New Testament."
Where does it say that the Hebrew Bible was "corrected"?
Just because Christianity brought something new doesn't mean what was already there was "incorrect."
"I am in total agreement with your suggestion that the passage of the report you have highlighted is offensive to Jews."
As Ira explained below, he did not consider this passage offensive, only that it might incur strong opposition by the State's supporters.
This is at least partly true: the policy for Palestinian refugees is that they are just "Arabs" and should assimilate into the neighboring Arab countries outside of Palestine.
The Scotland Analogy
Scotland is outside both Ireland and Israel.
Scotland's report did not demand withdrawal of British troops from Ulster or Israeli troops/all western support from Tel Aviv no matter what.
Scotland's Church at some point presumably approved British troops leaving the Catholic part of Ireland for a two state solution there.
Scotland's Church report wants to see the occupation end of the part of the Holy Land where the population is basically Palestinian.
The One State Issue
To understand this correctly, you support a one state solution for Ireland, which would "dissolve" Northern Ireland as a "separate" entity, making protestants there a minority in a tense conflicted situation?
Why not support democracy and pluralism as the ideal for Israel/Palestine too?
In both cases, people can overcome their strife and see peace and plurality as an ideal, even if they cannot make it instantly. In case it is not possible, they at least can have a two state solution so that Irish Catholics/Palestinians in the rest of Ireland/the Holy Land can be free of brutal domination.
Woody,
Your comment matched a key focus in commentors' responses to two of Kovel's articles, particularly his reference to Dark Satanic Mills in W.Blake's poetry:
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
Regarding the response by Christians themselves, you can consider Braverman's comparison of responses to his message by religious communities: link to c-spanvideo.org
One can also notice the response by Maryknoll, the Quakers, the letter of 15 major US Christian leaders, etc.
This is not to dismiss your perception that the response by Christian communities has often not been as strong as it should- on this and other human rights issues.
What is the LON?
Anyway, StandWithUs makes it a strong point that the people were never forcibly exiled from the whole Holy Land
Their website has about a dozen articles on the continuous presence, such as:
link to standwithus.com
Their campaign to that effect was discussed even on Mondoweiss:
link to mondoweiss.net
So I am confused why others are making such a strong point to the contrary in denying the BBC film, except that the BBC takes a negative attitude, probably using this historical fact to implicitly go against the system. The StandWithUs campaign on the other hand takes the same simple fact and uses it to further the system.
Ira,
I appreciate your discussion of the Church of Scotland's original report. Since I am interested in Christianity and Judaism, I find it important to have an accurate review of their beliefs on this topic, rather than simply what people might want those religions to say. Those reviews can mention if within those religions there are opposing views on certain questions.
A good review does not mean someone from another religion cannot disagree with some of the views expressed. In fact, it gives that person a better understanding of what the religion teaches. Plus, the person can change their own beliefs to find better ones, or else strengthen their own ideas.
If the report denied other groups' own political or civil rights that might be another matter. But I believe that nowhere does it say that there is no political right to a single-ethnic State, only that their own religious belief does not demand this as the exclusive answer to the IP conflict.
Thank you and I look forward to more reports from you!
P.S. If Rabbinical Judaism was correct and Christianity was not, wouldn't the Messianic era still create the same issue- many nations wanting to accept Judaism thereby becoming Jewish, and thus the territory would belong to more than one ethnicity? Along with that, the territory of many nations would become Jewish too, thus expanding the territory far beyond the ancient "Land of Canaan"?
Ira,
"Would anyone care to add or substitute another category of claim to the above list?"
Another one they say is that the British government gave it to them and the UN approved it. It's debatable whether the British had the right to give it to them, and whether it fulfilled the UN requirements.
Regarding the part you put in bold:
I understand that it's important to respect the ancient promises. If the whole world praises God (Psalms), Abraham becomes the father of many nations (the Pentateuch says this), Christians are Abraham's descendants (Galatians), and Jesus sent his followers to the four corners of the world, isn't the "special area of land" the whole world given to God's people - all believers?
So when you think about it, the part in bold is standard Christian thinking. The Jewish nation gets the land and so does everyone else. Just as the spiritual wall between peoples is broken down, why must there be an earthly political wall of division separating nations? I understand there can be practical reasons for national borders in today's world, but I am talking about an ideal world where the lion lays down with the lamb.
Peace. ☮
Wow, Kalki!
Up to now I had simply assumed that there must have been some truth to this kind of talk, but it is surprising how miniscule their impact was.
MHughes,
I think it was at least an element. Although the Zionist movement saw itself as separate from the religious institutions and sometimes I think disagreed with them, their Declaration of Independence makes Biblical reference(s) that read as implicit justification(s) in my mind.
Isn't it 4 Bn now?
Harry,
By "the right to exist" the State's supporters must have in mind the "right to exist" of the State's System, not just the State itself. Otherwise, what would it mean to them if the State existed but was shared by everyone democratically and there was a Palestinian majority?
Yet how can a traditional Church say that it supports the "right" of a one-sided System to exist over two groups?
Do you favor the withdrawal of British support for Northern Ireland and the possibility of a one state solution for Ireland?
It's easier for an individual to come out with statements like this than a whole organization. For example, it might be very hard for an atheist "religious" organization to make such a statement too.
On another note, your use of the term "evil" reminds me of the use of a synonym in one of Joel Kovel's articles on Mondoweiss.