Norway’s Middle East Hypocrisy.

 

by Ben Cohen

 

Norway FM Jonas Gahr Støre toured the Middle East between January 16^th-20^th, visiting Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Israel, Egypt and UAE. The topics of Støre's meetings in the different countries as well as the manner in which he was received shows us a Norwegian foreign policy bathed in the gold sheen of hypocrisy. The manner in which the Norwegian media reports on Støre's tour reveals how this hypocrisy is rooted in a bedrock of popular denial.

Criticizing Israel on human rights

Of the countries Støre visited we find Israel at the far end of the spectrum. Freedom House ranks the little nation as a "Free". The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index for 2008 ranks Israel at no.38. The nation is a vibrant affair, producing writers, film-makers, and scientists amidst a strong entrepreneurial culture. It is by far the state in which most Norwegians would settle, if they were to live in the Middle East.

In spite of this, Israel has reluctantly come to realize that what goodwill she enjoyed with Norwegian Labor has, after the failure of the Oslo accords, mutated into a seething resentment of failed expectations and dashed hopes. Merged with the traditional anti-Zionism of the Norwegian left-of-centre, this resentment has made criticism of Israel the very core of the Norwegian debate on the Middle East. In this debate Hamas and Hezbollah appear as symptoms of a problem which in itself consists solely of Israeli politics. The main obstacle to peace, Norwegian pundits muse, appears to be Israel in itself. The solution is obvious. It is from this core understanding that we see its outgrowths; the boycott-proposal at NTNU, the divestment from Elbit, the attacks on the synagogue and graveyards, the demonstrations against the embassy and the perpetual kangaroo-courts of the mass media. This is the culture which allows Ingrid Fiskaa, deputy minister of Development, to say that she wants the UN to precision-bomb Israeli targets.

It was therefore highly appropriate of the Jerusalem Post to greet Støre with an article stating that the Norwegian government was"rabidly hostile" to Israel, while Haaretz published an article quoting a member of the Norwegian opposition on how Støre ought to "listen to the Israelis" more carefully.

Støre poo-pooed the criticism, which he ensured Norwegian newspapers had nothing to do with Norway whatsoever, but rather was a product of the domestic scene in Israel. In an interview with Haaretz  he changed tack and suggested that Norway was being smeared by unnamed forces. He gave Israel "a clear message" regarding the situation in Gaza, insisted that Israel negotiate with the genocidal Hamas, bemoaned the restrictions placed upon Mordechai Vanunu and thumped the table on the issue of human rights for stop-the-wall activists. He then jumped on the plane to the United Arab Emirates, where he was wined and dined to his heart's delight.

"Opening doors for Statoil in Abu Dhabi"

Abu Dhabi is one of the fiefdoms making up UAE, which Freedom House rates as "Not Free". On the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index for 2008 we find UAE near the bottom of the pile at no.147, two notches down from Iran. As this week's Economist reports, UAE is where a prince has just been acquitted for torturing a grain dealer (see the torture clip on Youtube) and a foreign national is facing six years in prison for having reported that she was raped. Here, Støre partook in a conference on renewable energy. As Norwegians newspapers were to report, he was "opening doors for Statoil". Not a mention of human rights. Not a critical word regarding the freedoms which Støre is so adamant should be respected by Israel.

A state of denial

Støre's recent tour is a perfect illustration of how Norway attempts to ride two horses at once. One the one hand Norway desire to be a humanitarian superstar and a force for good, which makes it necessary to criticize countries which violate human rights. On the other hand Norway has a great thirst for oil, which makes it necessary to stay on good terms with states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

The result of this is that Norway has managed to develop a strained  relationship with the most democratic society in the Middle East - Israel, while simultaneously being on cordial terms with the region's most authoritarian societies  - such as  the United Arab Emirates. Moreover this glaringly obvious fact, which is as remarkable as it is unpalatable, in commented upon by neither the media nor the intellectuals. Like a modern day Houdini slipping from his chains by throwing a joint, Støre escapes criticism by virtue of his popularity, yet a statesman needs to be more than dextrous at public relations. He needs a sense of integrity and a moral courage - assets which Støre fails to bring to the table.

In her pragmatic search for oil, Norway is developing a talent for hypocrisy which is irreconcilable with her yearning of being a "humanitarian superpower". The only solution to such a contradiction in terms lies in denying that the problem exists at all, which is exactly what Norway lets Støre get away with. The man is opening doors for Statoil in Abu Dhabi - what more can you ask?

Hence, Norway's criticism of Israel is just. Israel's criticism of Norway however, is either a smear-campaign or a domestic Israeli affair. As for Norway's ambitions of straddling oil platforms over the swollen deposits of the United Arab Emirates, that is another matter altogether. It has nothing to do with human rights in Israel. Tear down the wall. End apartheid rule. Such is the nature of the logic ruling the Norwegian Middle East debate - it has been reduced to dogma.

A matter of values

Whatever challenge Norwegian hypocrisy might present for Israel it is but a shadow of the problem facing Norway herself. A nation cannot, just as a man cannot, remain at full health while deceiving himself about the nature of his own actions. As Robin Shepherd suggests in his recently published "State beyond the pale", Europe's criticism of Israel is not a matter of putting Israel to the test, but a matter of Europe testing her own soul. Do we believe in our freedom, our equality, our liberty? Will we assist others in achieving the same? And will we fight to preserve them or will we surrender them out of fear and sloth?

Judging by Støre's recent tour of UAE and Israel, the soul of Norway is a barrel of crude oil.

 

Ben Cohen

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Obama chasing rainbows with two-state solution.

 

by Moshe Arens

 

"I'll be honest with you, this is just really hard. This is as intractable a problem as you get ... We overestimated our ability to persuade them ... If we had anticipated some of these problems, we might not have raised expectations as high," U.S. President Barack Obama confided to Time magazine last week, regarding his efforts to advance the peace process in the Middle East. He is clearly disappointed, but insists he will continue to work on a two-state solution.

It is not just that, during this past year, Obama has learned what old Middle East hands have known all along - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an intractable problem - but also that intractable problems do not easily get solved, if they are at all soluble, even when the president of the United States weighs in with full force.

It is hard to be optimistic regarding the continuing U.S. efforts in this matter, since the president seems to have his mind set on the two-state solution, "in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty." That aim has been pursued by many ever since the ill-fated Oslo Accords signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat in Washington, D.C. almost 17 years ago. Whereas there might have been some reason to expect at the time that Arafat, who seemed to enjoy the support of most of the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as in much of the Arab world, would be able to implement any peace agreement he might eventually sign with Israel - it turned out that he had no intentions of reaching such an agreement, and those who knew the Palestinian leader realized even then that he had no such intentions. It was another case of wishful thinking being applied to attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

There were many more to follow over the years. The continuing infatuation with the idea of a two-state solution is at the bottom of most of these naive dreams. The idea seems eminently appealing: In a Solomonic move, western Palestine is to be divided between Israel and the Palestinians, and Jews and Arabs will live peacefully ever after.

However, people who engage in wishful thinking prefer to neglect the difficulties imposed by the lack of symmetry between the State of Israel and the Palestinians in their present condition. Israel is a nation-state, with a democratically elected government empowered to negotiate an international agreement and enforce its provisions. The Palestinians are divided between the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, ruled by Hamas, who have no intention of reaching a peace agreement with Israel, and the inhabitants of Judea

does not exercise full control. Abbas, who is vainly being asked by Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel, is in no position to implement any such agreement he might sign, and is probably not even in a position to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to Israel. So how can you reach a two-state solution?

And who will tell Obama that in seeking a two-state solution, he is chasing the rainbow? Where is the person who - like the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's tale who saw the emperor was not wearing any clothes - will tell the U.S. president that the two-state solution, at least for now, is an impossible dream, and that if he continues to pursue this dream he is in for more disappointment? It is not going to be any of his advisers, who urged him to demand a total freeze on building in Judea and Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem - thus making it possible for Abbas to stall on any negotiations with Israel. It is not going to be Obama's friends at J Street. And Netanyahu has evidently decided to play along, rather than confront Obama with alternate ideas.

What might these ideas be? The grain of an idea appeared the other day when Abbas suggested that the United States negotiate with Israel in his place. That, of course, won't lead anywhere. But how about Jordan negotiating in Abbas' stead? That would return some symmetry to the intractable problem, and correct the present asymmetry that continues to haunt the situation.

 

Moshe Arens

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Is Israel’s Safety No Longer a Western Interest?

 

by Evelyn Gordon

A senior Hamas leader reportedly told a British emissary yesterday that Hamas is ready to amend its charter calling for Israel's destruction and recognize Israel's right to exist. A breakthrough? Unfortunately, no. But the real bad news is the emissary's response.

What Palestinian parliament speaker Aziz Dwaik told major Labour Party donor David Martin Abrahams is clearly eyebrow-raising. Just last month, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told a rally in Gaza that "our goal is Palestine, all of Palestine" — which, in Palestinian parlance, includes all of Israel. So was Dwaik speaking without authorization, or has Hamas's stance really shifted radically since December?

Actually, neither, as the Jerusalem Post's report makes clear: Dwaik said he was merely reiterating Hamas's well-known support for a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 lines. What he neglected to mention is that this support has always come with two caveats: first, Israel must agree to absorb millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees, thereby eradicating the Jewish state demographically; and second, in exchange, Israel would get not a peace agreement, but a long-term truce — meaning that if death by demography failed to materialize, Hamas reserved the right to resume trying to finish Israel off militarily.

Needless to say, none of this bothered Abrahams, who is scheduled to brief British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on his meeting this weekend. He said he would urge Miliband to "consider the implications of Hamas's positive overtures" and was "very excited" about facilitating dialogue between Hamas and the international community. "I'm prepared to give them [Hamas] a chance because I've got faith and confidence in Dwaik and Haniyeh," he gushed. "We can't allow 1.5 million to be festering in the Gaza Strip while the majority of them are good and well-educated."

Dialogue with the European Union is, as Dwaik acknowledged, precisely what Hamas wants. As long, of course, as it can be achieved by mouthing slogans that useful idiots like Abrahams willfully misconstrue as moderate, without actually having to stop launching rockets at Israel or otherwise working toward Israel's destruction. Certainly, it's hard to find any explanation other than willful idiocy for why, if Abrahams has "confidence" in Haniyeh, he so readily assumes Haniyeh is lying when he publicly proclaims his goal as "all of Palestine." Or why he views "well-educated" as apparently synonymous with "good," given that most leaders of terrorist organizations are extremely well-educated: think physicians Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas or Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al-Qaeda.

But the truly chilling part was his conclusion. "Hamas is different from Al-Qaida," Abrahams asserted. "Hamas is no threat to Western interests."

Yet even Abrahams would presumably admit that, currently, Hamas is still a threat to Israel. So if Hamas is no threat to Western interests, then Israel's safety is evidently not a Western interest.

Many Europeans may think this, but public statements to this effect have so far been confined to the fringes. That a mainstream, highly influential (and, of course, Jewish) member of Britain's ruling party is now willing to say it openly is a development that should keep Israel supporters awake at night.

 

Evelyn Gordon

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

As the Islamic curtain descends.

 

by Mark Silverberg

  
In December, 2008, according to the London-based Arab daily Al Hayat, the Hamas parliament in Gaza voted in favor of a law allowing courts to mete out sentences in accordance with Shari'a law. According to the bill, if approved, courts will be able to condemn offenders to a series of violent punitive measures that include whipping, severing hands, crucifixion and hanging. The bill reserves death sentences to people who negotiate with a foreign government "against Palestinian interests" and engage in any activity that can "hurt Palestinian morale." According to the Al Hayat report, any Palestinian caught drinking or selling wine would suffer forty lashes at the whipping post, and convicted thieves would have their right hand amputated.

Whether such a law passes or not, the shadow of Shari'a law is descending on Gaza. In November 2009, Shin Bet (Israel's internal security service) issued a Report describing how Hamas has begun instituting Islamic law and thought in all areas of Gaza life since its violent takeover of the area in June 2007. Should Israeli security forces withdraw from Judea and Samaria, it is a safe bet that the implementation of Shari'a law would follow a Hamas take-over there as well.

The Report's main points include...

• the enforcement of a dress code for women on the street, in schools and in the courts;
• the expulsion of female students from schools who do not wear a head covering and wide dresses;
• instructions to judges not to hold sessions if female lawyers do not appear in Islamic garb;
• a requirement on official Hamas TV (Al-Aqsa) that women announcers must wear a veil, and that Islamic content must be featured in its TV programs;
• men not being allowed to swim in the ocean without a shirt;
• a prohibition against female mannequins being exhibited in shop windows;
• a prohibition against mixed-gender public ceremonies;
• a prohibition against men teaching in girls' schools
• (Efforts are also being made by Hamas to separate boys and girls in the UN-run schools);
• Fatah-identified teachers being replaced by Hamas members;
• Hamas police arresting immodestly clad women and enforcing gender separation;
• unmarried couples being prohibited from appearing in public;
• married couples being required to produce a marriage certificate upon demand;
• religious studies classes being added to schools, mosques and prisons with the stipulation that prisoners who become more religious can have their sentences shortened;
• an across-the-board 1% public sector pay-cut imposed during the summer months to pay for summer camps for reviewing the Koran;
• increased construction of mosques, madrasses and Islamic Shari'a courts;
• the establishment of an Islamic National Bank and an Islamic insurance company; and
• a new criminal code based on Shari'a law (In June 2009, the Legislative Council passed amendments to the criminal code for the purpose of "preventing immoral incidents in public.")

In addition, according to the Jerusalem Post, every Gaza mosque now has an Amir al-jamia or "head of the community" who functions as a kind of political commissar on behalf of the authorities, observing the prayer habits of all members of the mosque, and intervening and offering help "where insufficient devotion is diagnosed".

Similarly, Islamic charitable organizations are increasingly replacing elected local governments as the providers of social services. The result has been to establish "channels of material dependence between the public and the Hamas organization".

The imposition of strict Shari'a law by Hamas comes as a direct result of significant challenges to its religious authority. At the Ibn-Tamiya mosque in the Gaza town of Rafah, Salafi-jihadi preacher-physician Sheikh Abdel-Latif Moussa, known as Abul-Nur al-Maqdisi, and his Jund Ansar Allah ("Warriors of the Companions of God") followers recently challenged Hamas's Islamic credentials claiming that it had not gone far enough in imposing Shari'a law in Gaza. They maintained, among other things, that Hamas had joined a democratic political process thereby violating Islam. In the process, they declared an Islamic Emirate in Gaza, posted statements supportive of Osama bin Laden, hosted terrorist training videos on their website, and (according to Hamas) acted against Israel without Hamas authorization. On August 14th, the group's challenge to Hamas's religious authority was ruthlessly crushed in a bloody confrontation - and this may only be the beginning.

The challenge raised by Salafi-jihadist groups in Gaza will no doubt continue to threaten the ideological foundations upon which Hamas has established its rule. Gaza Salafi-jihadists say Hamas surrendered its credentials as an Islamic resistance group when it declared a unilateral cease-fire after a 22-day war with the Jewish state that ended Jan. 18. Internet cafes have been bombed, institutions with Christian affiliations burned down, foreign schools and wedding parties (due to music and dancing) have been attacked, and a new Salafi-jihadist group called the Brigade of Swords of Righteousness has already declared its obedience to the Warriors of God, and has warned Gazans to stay away from government buildings, security headquarters, mosques attended by Hamas leaders, and other official buildings. The group now considers these legitimate targets.

Thus, Hamas hesitation at firing missiles at Israel in the wake of the Gaza war has become ammunition for the Salafi-jihadists; every effort made by Hamas to interfere with Salafi-jihadist actions against Israel from Gaza is deemed a betrayal of Islam, and any negotiations between Hamas and the Israelis on opening Gaza's borders or facilitating prisoner exchanges exposes Hamas to Salafi-jihadist condemnation. There is also widespread Palestinian criticism of Hamas's consent to major concessions in the deal for trading Israeli soldier-hostage Gilad Shalit for nearly a thousand Palestinian terrorists who would be banished from the country upon their release from Israeli prisons. For many Palestinians, these terrorists are seen as "resistance leaders." In short, these Islamists believe that Hamas has been neutralized and has given up the fight.

Until now, Hamas's dilemma has centered on how to translate its religious rhetoric (Shari'a law) into actual policies without alienating either its religious or secular supporters. There is a vast difference between religious theory and religious practice. In Gaza, while opinion polls calling for the implementation of Shari'a law tend to be popular, actual implementation of Shari'a law has not been so well-received. In Jordan, after the Muslim Brotherhood did well in the 1989 election, the organization discovered very quickly that limiting the interaction between males and females in public places, especially at sporting events involving their children, was less than popular amongst the general population. Eventually, that law was overturned.

Hamas may find that Gazans will react much the same way to the imposition of strict Shari'a law. It is possible that the more Shari'a law is implemented in Gaza, the more divided that society will become. Hamas's traditional religious supporters who continue to demand greater implementation of Shari'a law are becoming more alienated and are beginning to seek more radical Salafi-jihadist movements willing to apply the full force of Shari'a throughout Palestinian society, while Hamas's more moderate supporters (that is, those who voted primarily against Fatah corruption rather than for Hamas) favor Shari'a theory over its actual implementation. Thus, the rising Salafi-jihadi presence represents a significant religious threat for Hamas.

This dilemma was borne out by a recent poll undertaken by Stan Greenberg of Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research. The poll suggests that (as of September, 2009) 58% of Gazans disapprove of Hamas' performance (42% strongly disapprove) including its implementation of Shari'a law. While Hamas won the January 2006 Gaza election largely due to Fatah's corruption and its rejection of the peace process, Gazans are discovering that the reality of Hamas rule in implementing Shari'a law is affecting their lives just as profoundly as the two other issues.

The recent Gaza War only served to underscore that realization. Hama's firing missiles at Israel's civilian population centers, together with its use of Palestinian civilians, schools, ambulances and mosques as shields have deepened these divisions. Constant war and destruction combined with a repressive religious Shari'a system that affects their everyday life is not the desired outcome for most Palestinians. Moreover, on the matter of corruption, there is a significant body of evidence showing that Hamas diverted UN relief aid and food supplies from the general Palestinian population in favor of its supporters in the wake of the Gaza War, so the corruption argument has become a two-edged sword.

Hamas requires Islamic legitimacy, and as such, it is vulnerable to claims from Salafi-jihadist groups in Gaza that it is merely a nationalistic Palestinian organization waving an Islamic flag as opposed to a true global Salafi-jihadist organization seeking to impose an Islamic caliphate. For these reasons, in order to counter the argument that it has betrayed Islam and the "resistance", top Hamas leadership is seeking the blessing of Hezbollah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah to the proposed prisoner swap with Israel, and Egyptian and Israeli intelligence and security services recently foiled Hamas-inspired plans to conduct a wave of Mumbai-type suicide attacks in southern and central Israel in the aftermath of the prisoner exchange.

In effect, while Hamas jealously guards its political power, it is committed to "proving" its Islamic credentials. The Shabak Report suggests that an Islamic mini-state is emerging in Gaza. For reasons of survival (or so it believes), Hamas appears to have made its choice.
 

Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters and the New Media Journal and a member of Hadassah's National Academic Advisory Board.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Hezbollah's delusions.

 

by Jonathan Spyer

The latest events in Lebanon offer an image in miniature of larger regional developments. The Iranian-backed Shi'ite Islamist movement Hezbollah is pursuing a long-term strategy intended to eventually deliver Lebanon into its hands. In the short term, the greater commitment of the movement's cadres and its public is delivering impressive results. But at the core of the strategic thinking of Hezbollah and its patrons lie a series of delusions, which are likely to bring about the defeat of the movement over time. Between that point and the present, however, further strife and conflict are likely.

The pro-Western March 14 movement won an unexpected victory in elections in Lebanon in June. But the subsequent protracted coalition negotiations succeeded in emptying that victory of most of its content. The composition of the new Lebanese government will enable the Hezbollah-led opposition to block any legislation not to its liking. More important, the new government's official mission statement will include a commitment to maintain Hezbollah's independent, Iran-facilitated military capacity.

Supporters of March 14 had little choice but to concede to the demands of the "losing" side in the election. The violence of May 2008 proved conclusively that they are incapable of resisting the armed might of Hezbollah. Hezbollah may have paid a price in terms of its legitimacy in the eyes of non-Shi'ite Lebanese for demonstrating its power, but it acquired the ability to silence any further dissent on issues it deems of cardinal importance.

But the foundation of the new Lebanese government is ultimately only one small element within a larger process taking place in Lebanon. This is the way the power of Hezbollah and its constituency is growing in all areas of life in the country. The organization recently released a new manifesto. A particularly notable aspect of the document was the call for an end to "sectarianism" in Lebanon and the expression of the desire for rule by an "elected majority." This demand reflects the self-confidence of the movement, rather than a newfound appreciation for democratic principles.

While it is impossible to carry out accurate demographic surveys in Lebanon, Hezbollah certainly believes that the Shi'ites are on the rise demographically, due to their high birthrate and low(er) emigration rate. Senior Israeli officials who are knowledgeable about the country concur with this assessment. They also note the growing strength of Shi'ite officers in the Lebanese Armed Forces, particularly at mid-level. This development, alongside the latest political moves, is slowly blurring the borders between the official Lebanese state and the parallel state maintained by Hezbollah.

The slow, full-spectrum advance of the Shi'ite Islamist camp in Lebanon resembles developments elsewhere. No one situation is exactly like any other, of course, but it is not hard to detect the common elements in the steady advancement of Islamic politics in Turkey, the rise of Islamist radicals within the Iranian clerical regime, the onward march of Hezbollah and the strides made in recent years by Palestinian Islamism. In all cases, this is not the delusional, apocalyptic Islamism of Al-Qaida and its ilk. The rising Islamic forces in the region do not go in for violence-as-gesture, nor do they envisage the triumph of the rule of righteousness in the immediate future.

The significant differences between these rising forces and the delusional Salafi fringe has led many in the West to believe that "pragmatic," localized Islamism can be accommodated rather than confronted. Such a belief ignores a large part of the picture. Certainly in the case of the regime in Iran - in particular in the form it has assumed since the disputed election of last June - and its ally in Lebanon, the political methods may at times be slow and cumulative, but the ends are serious and sincere, and note should be taken.

Hezbollah's new manifesto condemns the United States as the "root of all terror," and a "danger that threatens the whole world." The document also reiterates the call for the destruction of Israel, describing the need to "liberate Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa" as a "religious duty" for all Muslims. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that these sentiments are intended for the printed page only. Indeed, recent visitors to Lebanon speak of a high, almost delusional state of morale among circles affiliated with Hezbollah. In the closed world around the movement, it is sincerely believed that the next war between Israel and Hezbollah will be part of a greater conflict in which Israel will be destroyed.

The true balance of power is rather different, of course. And as Hezbollah slowly swallows other elements of the Lebanese system, the conclusion being reached in Israel is that any differentiation between the movement and the nest it has taken over is increasingly artificial - and will not be maintained in a future conflict.

The history of the region shows that anti-Western ideological waves can indeed eventually be accommodated and dealt with pragmatically - but this cannot be achieved at the moment of their rise. The examples of pan-Arabism and Palestinian nationalism suggest that only following military defeat and socioeconomic failure are flexibility and pragmatism likely to make an appearance. Political Islam has not yet reached this stage. Current events in Lebanon show its local Shi'ite manifestation to be in a state of rude health. It is brushing aside local foes, marching through the institutions, as tactically agile as it is strategically deluded. Yet its latest manifesto suggests that it remains the prisoner of its ideological perceptions. The recent history of the Middle East, meanwhile, indicates that gaps between reality and perception tend to be decided - eventually - in favor of the former.
 

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Church leaders remain silent while Palestinian Christian Arabs suffer at the hands of Muslims.

 

by Alex Grobman

On December 11, 2009, a group of Palestinian Christian leaders issued a 13 page document known as "Kairos Palestine-2009: A moment of truth." Having "reached a dead end" because of the "Israeli military occupation," the leaders appealed to churches worldwide to treat Israel as they had apartheid South Africa by divestment and economic boycott.[1]

Given that the authors of this document include Patriarch Emeritus Michel Sabbah from the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Lutheran Bishop of Jerusalem Munib Younan, Archbishop of Sebastia Atallah Hanna from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, we should not be surprised with this distorted description of the plight of Christian Arabs in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

Justus Reid Weiner, an international human rights lawyer, warns that the present Christian Arab leadership is not telling the truth about the real conditions in these areas, and who is really responsible for perpetuating the anguish of Arab Christians. The "patriarchs and archbishops of Christian Arab denominations," he says, "who are currently deceiving the international community, are self-interested people. They collaborate with the Muslim perpetrators of intimidation and violence. Against all evidence they claim that the Christians Arabs are living comfortable and prosperous lives. In fact the present situation is growing worse by the day."[2]

Though these false accusations are not new, there is a danger they could change the way some of Israel's Christian supporters view the Arab/Israeli conflict.[3] That is why we need to examine what is really transpiring in these areas.

Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station in Beit-Shahur, warned that, "15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here."[4] Population increases in the West Bank have been generally flat. In 1967 there were 40,000 Christians in the area; in 2006 there were approximately 45,800.[5]

The cause for the concern is the Islamic success at the municipal elections, [6] and the Muslim campaign of "intimidation" to force Christians to leave their homes and relinquish their land. After the Palestinian Authority (PA) took control of Bethlehem in 1994, they altered the municipal boundaries of the city and the predominately Christian suburbs of Beit Jallah and Beit Sahour to incorporate the 30,000 Muslims residing in the nearby refugee camps of Dehaisheh, El-Ayda and El-Azeh, and thousands of residents living near the Ta'amarah Bedouin tribe. These boundary modifications created sweeping changes in the demographic balance of Bethlehem.[7]

At the same time, Muslims were persuaded to move from nearby Hebron to Bethlehem where large-scale Muslim housing was being planned. In 1990, Christians comprised 60 percent of the population of Bethlehem.

By 2001 they were 20 percent of the population, resulting in a significant effect on local elections. As a result, PA chairman Yasser Arafat appointed a Muslim as Governor for the Bethlehem District, and the bureaucratic, security and political apparatus was purged of Christians.[8]

Muslims boycotted Christian businesses in Bethlehem's Nativity Square forcing many of them out of business. Approximately ten percent remained by paying extortion money to Muslim terrorists. When a Christian owner of a café in Manger Square refused to be extorted, he was charged with collaborating with the Israelis, then later shot in the eye, and eventually had to escape from the country after having lived in Bethlehem for 30 years. Refusal to pay was often fatal. Furthermore, at the PA-controlled Voice of Palestine, Christian names are not permitted to be mentioned in the obituaries read on air. [9]

Those who sell land to Jews are subject to the death penalty according to the Palestinian Land Law, a clear violation of two international rulings. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948), states that everyone has the right to own property. Part III, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil And Political Rights states, "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentences of death may be imposed for only the most serious of crimes. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court."[10]

In this environment of "officially sanctioned intimidation," Christians have considerable trouble buying land or selling their own property to other Christians. There is even the perception that selling to any non-Muslim is prohibited. The PA does not recognize Christian property rights as sacrosanct, including holy sites on the West Bank. As early as 1997, the PA Ministry of Information claimed that the Palestinian people "have assumed their natural right to of controlling parts of the Palestinian land, the most important of which under Palestinian national sovereignty is in the Palestinian city of the birthplace of Jesus Christ---Bethlehem."[11]

Palestinian protection means little when Christian cemeteries and symbols are desecrated, property wrecked, monasteries robbed of gold and precious objects, and parishioners hindered from attending services. An atmosphere of intimidation and trepidation is created, especially since the perpetrators can buy their way out from serving time.[12]

Of all the abuses Christians are forced to endure, the treatment of their women is the most egregious. They are subjected to verbal sexual harassment and rape "perhaps the most blatant denial of basic human rights of religious identity." Compounding the problem is that in the Middle East, a female who has been violated is regarded as having been sullied and "unfit for marriage." Rather than bring shame to the victim, the rape is not openly acknowledged. Furthermore the victim must prove she has been raped. If not, a court can convict her of having had extra-marital relations.[13]

Raping a Christian woman often has fewer consequences than raping a Muslim one. The rapist knows that under a Muslim- controlled PA there is a greater chance of not being prosecuted. If the victim is Muslim, the perpetrator has to contend with members of her extended family, [14] who are obligated to obtain compensation or revenge. Each member is responsible for the welfare of individuals in the group. When one member is attacked, the group unites to protect themselves. They do not expect government agencies, officials, police, courts or any other institutions or persons to intervene on their behalf. [15]

Raping of Christian women is also used to reduce the Christian population by ensuring that Christian men will not marry these women and have children. Another method to lower the Christian populace is to force Christian women to marry Muslim men in violation of Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, "Marriage shall be entered in only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."[16]

Those willing to speak out openly about this bullying are subjected to death threats. Samir Qumsiyeh documented 160 attacks against Christians, including physical harassment, home robberies, and illegal seizure of land during the past several years. In response to Qumsiyeh's own public statements, his home was fire-bombed.[17]

The 3,000 Christians living in Gaza among 1.2 million Muslims are also anxious and quite concerned about their future. Archimandrite Artemios, the Greek Orthodox priest who heads the St. Porphyrius church in Gaza, observed that Christians never felt so "endangered" as they do now. He did not know whether they were even still considered "part" of the Gaza community.[18]

A rash of attacks has raised the level of their apprehension. On February 15, 2008, a library managed by the Young Men's Christian Association was firebombed, resulting in the destruction of 10,000 books. The previous Fall a Christian book store owner was kidnapped and murdered. His shop was bombed twice. A Catholic church and a school were vandalized in August 2007. These incidents lead Artemios to conclude, "the edifice of tolerance is crashing down over our heads."[19] Before dawn on May 16, 2008 a bomb exploded outside the Zahwa Rosary School, a Christian school in Gaza city, operated by nuns primarily for Muslim students.[20]

Writing in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Hussein Shubakshi, a Saudi columnist complains about Christian emigration from the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Syria which "has reached astonishing proportions." In Gaza and the West Bank, there is "a plan to eradicate the entire deeply-rooted Christian presence from its territories." There are 70,000 Palestinian Christian émigrés living in Chile, particularly in Santiago, the capital. Arabs from other areas emigrate to Europe, Australia, the U.S. and Canada.

That they are "openly and collectively" leaving by the thousands from Arab countries out of "fear, worry" and "society's failures," should be of grave concern, Shubakshi asserts. Failure to address the spread of extremism will be at a high price to all concerned.[21]

What is particularly discouraging is that many church leaders throughout the world are aware of the myriad human rights abuses perpetrated by the PA against the Christian Arabs according to Justus Reid Weiner.[22]

Yet despite the beatings, theft of land, kidnappings, torture, firebombing of churches, forced marriages, rape, extortion, and sexual harassment, these church leaders "remain silent." Others, "rather than identify the true Palestinian perpetrators of crimes against their people, take the politically correct path" by accusing Israel of being responsible for the strife and misery in the area. They do not even concede or criticize Muslim aggression. Church leaders often blame Israel for the decline of the Arab Christian population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and for the suffering they experience under Hamas and Fatah rule.[23]

The Western Christian leaders involved in this anti-Israel activity are from the American Episcopalian and Presbyterian movements.[24] Those taking comfort in evangelical backing for the Jewish state should think again. Jim Fletcher, publisher of the pro-Israel Balfour Books and an evangelical Christian, observes that there is an increasing erosion of evangelical support for Israel that is being influenced in part by the constant attacks against Israel in the Western media.[25] Until there is a concerted effort to counter the lies and distortions within the Christian community, this erosion will continue.
 

Endnotes

1. "Palestinian Christians urge boycott," Al-Ahram (17-23 December 2009).

2. Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs and Their Manipulation against Israel: Interview with Justus Reid Weiner," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs No. 72. (September 1, 2008).

3. "Remember the Palestinian Christians," Charisma Magazine (December 22, 2008) and Rev. Alex Awad, Dean of Students at Bethlehem Bible College, www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=58373227616.; Jim Fletcher, "Cold Winds Blowing." onenewsnow.com

4. Khaled Abu Toameh, "Bethlehem Christians fear neighbors." Jerusalem Post (January 25, 2007), Online; Holy lands' Only Christian TV Station to Shut Down." Christian Post (October 30, 2007), Online; for the situation in other areas of Palestinian controlled areas, please see David Raab, "The Beleaguered Christians of the Palestinian-Controlled Areas." Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Number 490, (January 1-15, 2003).

5. Daniel Williams, "'Endangered'" Gaza Christians Mull Flight Amid Deaths, Firebombs." Bloomberg.com (February 25, 2008); Etgar Berkovits, "Expert: ג€˜Christian groups in PA to disappear." The Jerusalem Post (December 4, 2007); Daphne Tsimhoni, "Israel and the Territories-Disappearing Christians of the Middle East." Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2001); "Christians Are Leaving the Middle East," voanews (January 17, 2006); David Pryce-Jones, "Christians in the Holy Land," Nation Review Online (March 20, 2008).

6. Julie Stahl, "Bethlehem Christians Worry About Islamic Takeover in Jesus' Birthplace," CNSNews.com. (May 19, 2005).

7. Khaled Abu Toameh, "Church official, wife beaten and robbed in Gaza," Jerusalem Post (July 23, 2009); "PCHR (Palestinian Centre for Human Rights LTD) Strongly Condemns Desecration of Cemeteries of the Orthodox and Latin Churches in Jafna Village North of Ramallah," IMRA (May 24, 2009); "Persecution of Palestinian Christians: Cruelty and silence in Gaza," IMRA (December 11, 2008); "Palestinian Columnist: Muslims Are Harming Christian Culture," MEMRI Special Dispatch no, 2112 (November 12, 2008); Justus Reid Weiner, "Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (2005):10.

8. Weiner, op.cit. 10-11.

9. Ibid. 11-12.

10. Ibid.13.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.13-14.

13. Ibid.14-15.

14. Ibid.13.

15. Philip Carl Salzman, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East. (Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 2008), 66-67.

16. Weiner, "Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society" 15-16.

17. Abu Toameh, op cit; Uriya Shavit and Jalal Bana, "The secret exodus — Palestinian Emigration." Haaretz (Magazine section) (October 5, 2001).

18. Williams, op.cit.

19. Ibid.

20. Gaza: Bomb explodes at Christian school." Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2008); "Middle East: The Other Christmas Rush Is Christians Fleeing Arabia." Newsweek (January 5, 2008).

21. "Saudi Columnist laments Expulsion of Christians from Arab Countries." MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1850 (February 21, 2008).

22. Gerstenfeld, "Palestinian Crimes against Christian Arabs and Their Manipulation against Israel: Interview with Justus Reid Weiner," op.cit.; For persecution of Christians in other Muslim countries, please see Paul Marshall and Lela Gilbert, Their Blood Cries Out (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1997); Nina Shea, In the Lion's Den: A Shocking Account of Persecuted and Martyrdom of Christians Today and How We Should Respond (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2007).

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Jim Fletcher email to author December 8, 2009. For examples of how some evangelicals view Israel, please see Brian McLaren a Christian "activist" and author, is part of the so-called Emergency Community, liberal Christians who count activism for the Palestinians as one of their callings. www.brianclaren.net. His blogs often discuss "justice for the Palestinians; Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of American evangelicals. The CT staff contains many anti-Israel Christians.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com.ctliveblog/archive; Janet Parshall, www.christianpost.com/article/20070331/prominent-evangelical-leader- opposes-blind-support-forIsrael/index.html; General Council of the Assemblies of God, www.ag.org/top/beliefs/sptlissues Israel.cfm; Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA) works in the United States and Canada to support the vision of Jerusalem-based Sabeel, a Christian liberation-theology organization. FOSNA cultivates the support of American churches through cosponsored regional educational conferences, alternative pilgrimage, witness trips, and international gatherings in the Holy Land (www.fosna.org); 2007 letter to President George Bush, from prominent evangelicals who support a two-state solution: www.christianpost.com/20070731/ u-s-evangelicals-shatter-christian-zionist-misconception/index.html
 

Dr. Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.