Israel’s worsening relationship with the Vatican took another hit earlier this week with the release of a church report that in large measure blames the perilous situation of Christians in the Middle East on Israel and the Middle East conflict.
The report, issued two days after the pope’s visit to a Rome synagogue, which sought to better relations between Catholics and Jews, was prepared in advance of a planned church conference of Middle East Christians to take place later this year. It claims that the Iraq war and Israel’s presence in the West Bank have worsened conditions for minority Christians in the Muslim-dominated region. Written by Arab bishops, the document takes the point of view that Israel’s occupation fuels Islamic radicalism, which in turn makes it hard for Christians to live.
Even worse than that, the report states: “The solution to conflicts rests in the hands of the stronger country in its occupying and inflicting wars on another country.” Thus, it apparently takes the point of view that the solution to the conflict lies principally with Israel, not its Arab antagonists. It goes on to claim that “violence is in the hands of the strong and weak alike, the latter resorting to whatever violence is within reach in order to be free,” which seems to justify anti-Israel terrorism by groups such as Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah.
The fallacious nature of this document is more than apparent to anyone who has been paying attention to the actual situation on the ground for Christians in Arab lands. The pressure on Christians to leave their traditional homes has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the spirit of Islamist jihadism, which views all non-Muslim minorities as threats to their hegemony. The plight of Christians in Bethlehem since it came under the rule of the Palestinian Authority illustrates this process. Once the town was in the hands of Yasser Arafat and Fatah, the once large Christian community there dwindled as a result of the coercion practiced by the ruling Muslims. But rather than blame the Muslims, Christian Arabs have spent the last century trying to prove their loyalty to the Arab world by blaming their troubles on the Jews and Israel, in effect becoming some of the most strident advocates of Arab nationalist causes.
The church’s role in this sorry syndrome is compounded by the Vatican’s worry that any statements on its part that would properly place the blame for discrimination and violence against Christians by Muslim populations would only make the situation worse. Thus, for decades the church has acquiesced in this effort to deflect the blame for Christian suffering in Arab countries away from the true culprits and on to the always convenient scapegoat of the Jews. There can be little doubt that this document and the conference that will follow will help fuel anti-Israel and anti-American propaganda. Unmentioned in the document is the fact that the one country in the Middle East where true religious freedom is enjoyed by all faiths is the State of Israel.
Around three months ago two of my comments, on these boards, mentioned Sayyid Imam al-Sharif and even offered a link to a Le Figaro column which discussed the change of heart of this key Islamist.
But the problem with Dr. Fadl’s attack on Al Qaeda is that its was written while its author is in an Egyptian prison. Zawahiri’s response began by asking his readers not to believe anything he should say or write in the event that he is ever captured.
great news. it doesn’t at all mean they will accept israel or us hegemeny though. most muslilms are neither pro al queda or pro us
My only comment is that if Lester wishes to be taken seriously, he should start using capitalization and proper sentence structure in his posts. This isn’t dailykos after all…
ah more israeli propaganda. your day is coming israel. deal with it.
Capitalization or not, Lester is right when he says most Muslims are neither pro AQ or US. The vast, vast majority aren’t radical, but thats been a unfortunate side effect of 9/11.. They aren’t turning away from extremism because most never were in favor in the first place, as anyone who as been to a Muslim nation is aware.
Large segments may have (or have had) anti-American views, but that doesn’t constitute extremism. Radical Islamists are a rarity, but the society is often weak compared to the state, (and when there is, much revolves around religious life that may be more prone to extremist views), so radicals often go unchallenged. Hopefully, this trend Mr. Wright writes of continues in the future.
grammar police- point taken bro (or sis)
I have found that most muslims I talk to, and it’s mainly shias, share the same modern way of life as americans and the same general religion as al queda, islam, but want nothing to do with either.
I think al queda and america both take this as a slap in the face. you are either with them or against them. but it’s not true
If only folks like Tim would ask for help with the big words.
This IS an interesting development to follow, and thanks to Peter Wehner for the link to the Wright article, and his own excellent comments. Interestingly, although I didn’t see the post oao refers to, someone else did cue me to the Le Figaro piece (I assume it was the same one).
We’ll have to see where it goes. There’s a bit of an echo of “socialism in one country” in all this, and we have to remember that wahhabism goes back centuries further than Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Its standard can be taken up at any time, and the well-known elasticity of the Qur’an will never preclude renewals of bloody radicalism.
It’s always worth pointing out, further, that the current turning of the tide against jihadism has emerged concurrent with the most proactive and preemptive American-led policy against it in the last half century. I’m sure there are those who would deny any cause and effect here. But what we can’t pretend is that the tide has begun to turn against jihadism in the ABSENCE of a vigorous, aggressive Western policy of attacking and suppressing it. At the very least, we can observe that acting on such a policy has not deterred key Islamic leaders from rethinking jihad.