Doc's Talk: A Liberationist Baby Jesus for the Palestinians

Thursday, December 27, 2007

A Liberationist Baby Jesus for the Palestinians

Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com
12/26/2007

Most Christians celebrate Christmas as their Savior’s birthday. But the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Center in Jerusalem proposes a Baby Jesus who is fighting for a Palestinians state. Sabeel describes itself as “an ecumenical grassroots liberation theology movement among Palestinian Christians” that is “inspired by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ,” and whose “liberation theology seeks to deepen the faith of Palestinian Christians, promote unity among them, and lead them to social action.” Even among most Christians of the Left, “Liberation Theology” became mostly passé with the Cold War’s conclusion, and the collapse of most Third World Marxist “liberation” movements. But it still lives among a segment of the small Palestinian Christian community, and more widely among anti-Israel church activists in the West, who eagerly promote Sabeel.

This brand of Palestinian-focused Liberation Theology is obliquely described in Sabeel’s recent Christmas greetings to its supporters, which portrays the Christmas story as liberation struggle against the Roman Empire. “Rome” for Sabeel is implicitly the U.S. and its Israeli ally. Entitled “Bethlehem not Annapolis,” the holiday greeting from Sabeel began: “During this Christmas season as we reflect on the message of the angels, ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace...’ we can only understand it against the peace which Caesar gives.” The Sabeel Christmas message inveighed against the “might” of Caesar’s empire, where “occupied people” are forced to honor Caesar, pay Roman taxes, and accept the empire’s “unquestioned domination.” For people “living under occupation or oppression, Caesar has become a symbol of the evil that crushes and enslaves.”

Sabeel described the angels who heralded the birth of Baby Jesus as standing for God’s Kingdom, which contrasts with Caesar’s “violence and military might,” and whose empire “enslaves and humiliates.” While God’s empire “liberates and restores dignity to the oppressed,” Caesar “builds walls to separate people” and establishes a peace “exclusive for a chosen few.” God's message of peace comes “not from Annapolis [which] represents empire, but from the small town of Bethlehem, Palestine that still suffers under occupation.” Caesar’s peace is “largely false and deceptive,” while God’s peace is based on “justice and truth.” Sabeel concluded its Christmas card by exhorting, “let us continue the struggle together for the achievement of God's peace for all the people of Palestine-Israel.”

This liberationist version of Christmas from Sabeel, like most versions of Liberation Theology, seeks to reduce Christianity to a political creed, in which Western powers are “Caesar” and Third World opposition to Western “domination” is somehow “God’s Kingdom” of justice. In fact, orthodox Christianity rejects this political reductionism. For most Christians across the centuries, the Baby Jesus was God Incarnate offering salvation and hope to a fallen world. The adult Jesus would not directly challenge Caesar, instead pointing to a transcendent, eternal Kingdom of God. This Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed made claims on human souls that would trouble tyrants of every stripe, not just “Caesar,” but also the faux, usually Marxist heroes of Liberation Theology. The current Palestinian factions, whether the “moderate” Fatah, or the radical Islamist Hamas, hardly model Christian justice and mercy. But Sabeel somehow believes that the angels who announced the birth of Baby Jesus are also heralding the urgency of a Palestinian state.

Far less oblique than Sabeel’s parody of a Christmas card was a conference earlier this Fall that Friends of Sabeel hosted in Boston, where Israel was repeatedly likened not to “Caeser” but to apartheid South Africa. “Today the government of Israel is obsessed with domination and by a deep desire to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and force them to leave their territory,” insisted Sabeel President he Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, as reported by my colleague Jeff Walton. “This [Israeli] racism is a crime against God and our fellow human beings,” Ateek asserted.

Echoing Ateek, Muslim American Society’s Freedom Foundation Director Imam Madhi Bray insisted that he understood Israel’s supposed brand of apartheid, having himself survived a racist firebombing in the 1950’s era segregated U.S. South. Author Leila Farsakh of the University of Massachusetts alleged, “Israel did not intend to be an apartheid state, but in de facto created one,” by creating Palestinian territories similar to old South African “bantustans” that corralled blacks into dependent enclaves. Like other speakers at the Friends of Sabeel event in Boston, she endorsed a one-state solution that would effectively dissolve Israel as a Jewish nation.

Also like other speakers in Boston, Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions denied any “false equivalency” between Israel and the Palestinians, since “Israel in fact is the strong party in this occupation” and “more culpable than the groups we call the terrorists.” Halper dismissed Palestiniain suicide attacks as a “symptom” of Israel’s occupation. “There is a correlation between violence and resistance and what we call terrorism [and the policies of Israel],” he claimed. “People have a right to resist oppression and occupation.”

Joining in the anti-Israel rally in Boston, John Dugard, a Special Rapporteur to the U.N. Human Rights Council on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, reiterated the Israel equals old racist South Africa theme. “Israel is practicing apartheid in a very dishonest, concealed manner,” he claimed, surmising that Israel might even be worse. “At least South Africa was honest about apartheid.”

Probably modern Israel is also worse than the ancient Roman Empire, in Sabeel’s eyes. Sabeel claims to champion the cause of Palestinian Christians, of whom there are only 60,000 remaining, comprising less than two percent of Palestinians. Like Christian populations nearly everywhere in the Middle East, the Palestinian Christians are dwindling, often understandably preferring refuge in the West to their ancient homelands. Sabeel and its friends would like to fault Israel exclusively for the exodus of Christians. But Christian populations in the Middle East have been shrinking for the last century, thanks more to radical Islam than Zionism. Unmentioned by Sabeel is that there are now twice as many Christians now living within Israel as live on the Palestinian controlled West Bank.

Unlike the truncated Christmas story of Sabeel and other Liberation Theologists, the Baby Jesus to whom most Christians look came to save a lost world, not create a political liberation movement. The angels announcing His birth presumably envisioned a far loftier Kingdom than a Palestine governed by Fatah or Hamas.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk