Neo-Conned! Again

by D Liam O'Huallachain

  The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what He accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of His incarnate Son.

  Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by Our Lord Himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian cat-echesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.4

  Consequently, and in sharp contradistinction to dispensational theology:

  Our aim should be to show the unity of biblical revelation (O.T. and N.T.) and of the divine plan, before speaking of each historical event, so as to stress that particular events have meaning when seen in history as a whole – from creation to fulfillment. This history concerns the whole human race and especially believers. Thus, the definitive meaning of the election of Israel does not become clear except in the light of the complete fulfillment (Rom. ix–xi) and election in Jesus Christ is still better understood with reference to the announcement and the promise (cf. Heb. iv:1–11).1

  Since the Old Covenant has never been revoked, abrogated, superseded or replaced, if the Old and New Covenants were separate, and the Old had not been fulfilled by the New, there would now be two alternative paths to salvation: one for Jews and one for Christians. Some Catholics believe that, after Auschwitz or after Nostra Aetate, this is now the case. But the truth remains that, although God has not rejected the Jews, there is only one path to salvation:

  It was in the awareness of the one universal gift of salvation offered by the Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit (cf. Eph 1:3–14), that the first Christians encountered the Jewish people, showing them the fulfillment of salvation that went beyond the Law ….

  It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.2

  “Anti-Zionism” and “Anti-Semitism”

  According to Shmuel (Samuel) Golding, of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, the very idea that Christians should invite Jews to enter the Church is “anti-Semitic”: “[Christian] fundamentalists are hindering and harming the progress that has been made in Christian-Jewish relationships. By their desire to convert the Jew, they prove themselves to be the most anti-Semitic of all Christian groups, for the whole idea of conversion is anti-Semitic.” Christians are commanded to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (St. Matt. xxviii:19). It turns out, however, that the New Testament itself is the source of anti-Semitism: “The roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie within the New Testament …. As long as the New Testament continues in print (at least in its present form) the Jew will be hated.”1 One item of evidence of New Testament anti-Semitism cited by Golding is St, Mark xvi:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Given this definition of “anti-Semitism,” Christians can avoid being anti-Semites only by ceasing to be Christians.

  The term “anti-Semitic,” like its cousins “fascist” and “homophobic,” is characterized more by the way it can be used than by its meaning. It has become a weapon to silence defenders of the Christian faith, as well as anyone else within its range. Hatred of Jews, just as hatred of any other person or group of persons, is a grave sin. To oppose attempts by certain Jews – whether secular or religious – to subvert the faith and morals of Christians, however, is not wrong (though it may be done in a manner that is wrong). Nevertheless, anyone who points out the incompatibility of Christianity and Judaism, or of Catholic moral teaching and the moral beliefs of many secular Jews, is tarred as “anti-Semitic.” We need to eliminate hatred of persons who disagree with us. At the same time, we are in need of clarity in understanding the points of disagreement.

  Although “anti-Zionist” does not have the firepower of “anti-Semitic,” it can also be defined and used in various ways. I have stated my profound disagreement with those Catholics who believe that anti-Zionism is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. In doing so, I do not deny that it is possible to define the two terms in such a way that the former is indeed a manifestation of the latter. If one were to define an “anti-Zionist” as one who believes that Israeli Jews should be deported to Europe or pushed into the Mediterranean, then it would be appropriate to regard anti-Zionism as a manifestation of anti-Semitism. But extremely few critics or opponents of Zionism believe that. I do not.

  For European Zionists to dispossess Palestinians of their land was an act of colossal injustice. Nevertheless, some might argue, most of the Jews living in Israel today were born there. If we were to say that all Israeli Jews with ancestors who misappropriated land must return to the countries where those ancestors were born, we would also have to say that most Americans must return to Europe, millions of Britons must return to Germany or France, etc. In fact, if we were to look back in time as far as the earliest human conquests, most members of the human race would have to leave the lands of their birth. To call upon them to do so would be silly, as well as unjust. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask whether, for example, present relations between Americans of European ancestry and the descendants of Native Americans whose land was taken from them are just. Furthermore, determining what justice requires today depends to some degree upon how far back in history the conquest took place, an extremely relevant consideration, in fact, when one compares the rights of long-established European or other countries to their terrorities, versus the right of an Israel (or another nation with similar history) to hold land which it seized a mere 50 years ago. Additionally, the fact that it is impossible – or even inappropriate – to “right” all of the wrongs of history does not justify the new wrongs of the present.

  Buber wrote to Gandhi in 1939 regarding the latter's “axiomatic statement that a land belongs to its population”: “In an epoch when nations are migrating, you would first support the right of ownership of the nation that is threatened with dispossession or extermination; but were this once achieved, you would be compelled, not at once, but after a suitable number of generations had elapsed, to admit that the land 'belongs' to the usurper.”1But, surely, the position Buber attributes to Gandhi is correct, or at least much closer to being correct than Buber's position that European Jews had a right to a share of the land belonging to Palestinians. It would be unjust today to require descendants of Jews who migrated from Europe sixty-five years ago to return to Europe (though justice does require acknowledging and respecting the rights of the descendants of Arabs whose land was dispossessed sixty-five years ago). But it was unjust sixty-five years ago to claim that Zionists had a right to dispossess Palestinians of their land. And it is unjust today to claim that Zionists have a right to dispossess Palestinians of additional land, to expand the borders of Israel, to treat Arabs as inferior to Jews, to make Israel's borders more secure by means of unjustified military actions, and to ignore the legitimate claims of Palestinians to justice in redressing the injustices of the past century.

  To be an anti-Zionist today is not to claim that the Jews must leave the Middle East or that the state of Israel has no right to exist. We may disagree with President Truman's decision to recognize the state of Israel in 1948 (as did many Americans at the time), but we cannot change the fact that it has been recognized by much of the world for more than half-a-century. To be an anti-Zionist today is to believe that our present and future actions regarding relations between Jews and Arabs must be just, and that we must seek appr
opriate restitution – an act of commutative justice – for the unjust actions of the past. Understood in this sense, anti-Zionism is not a manifestation of anti-Semitism. For the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee to say that it is, without explaining that it is using the terms in a manner contrary to their plain meaning, is irresponsible. It implies that Catholics should not be opposed to Zionism. And to fail to oppose Zionism today is to fail to oppose some profound injustices, including the unjust war of aggression against Iraq.

  Given the history of relations between Catholics and Jews, it is appropriate to seek improvement. Injustices have been committed by both sides. But it is inappropriate to let Jews dictate to Catholics the terms of the improvement, especially when doing so would mean subverting the Catholic tradition. Some Catholics have accepted the position of Golding that it is inappropriate for Christians to invite Jews to convert to Christianity. A 2002 document, which is unofficial but nevertheless represents the views of at least a few of the American Catholic Bishops, contains the following paragraphs:

  While the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted.

  However, it now recognizes that Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God's kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church's experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, “a blessing to one another” [John Paul II, “Address on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising,” April 6, 1993]. This is in accord with the divine promise expressed in the New Testament that Jews are called to “serve God without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God all [their] days” (Luke 1:74–75).1

  The writers of this document have clearly protected themselves against accusations of “anti-Semitism,” but they have done so at the cost of stepping outside the Catholic Tradition. One potential error of Catholics who dialogue with persons of other faiths or no faith is defending the Faith in a manner inconsistent with the virtue of charity. Another potential error is failing to defend the Faith in a manner consistent with the virtue of fortitude and the requirements of Truth. If the objective of the dialogue is conformity with the beliefs of the opponents of Catholicism, it isn't much of a dialogue. To misrepresent one's own position is to disrespect the other party.

  Concluding Reflections

  In response to Farah's ten points:

  1. Christians in America and elsewhere can read the Bible and see that the historic home of Egyptians is Egypt. Most of them understand that this does not give Egyptians living elsewhere a right to steal land belonging to non-Egyptians in Egypt.

  2. Of course, Jesus was a Jew. The question of what kind of state He lived in has little relevance to the question of justice in the Middle East today.

  3. Christians understand not only that God chose to reveal Himself to the Jewish people, but also that: “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. And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. iii:28–29).

  4. Christians don't see a nation of USA mentioned in the Old Testament or New. Most also understand that not much follows from this. The name “Palestine” (derived from “Philistine,” which is mentioned in the Old Testament) has been used as the name of a province of various empires, from the Roman to the Ottoman. The British Mandate of 1923–48 was named “Palestine-Eretz Israel.” Justice requires helping the Palestinian people to establish a sovereign state of their own, whatever they decide to call it.

  5. Most Christians believe that God made certain promises to the Israelites, and that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of those promises.

  6. Most Christians understand that when God said he would bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel, He wasn't talking about the secular Jewish state that was established by Zionists in 1948. Christians can read the words of St. John the Baptist: “Bear fruit that befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (St. Matt. iii:8–10; St. Luke iii:8–9). They don't want to place themselves on the wrong side of this “spiritual equation” by supporting the sinful policies of the secular state of Israel and citing Sacred Scripture to justify doing so.

  7. Christians also understand, “To the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life” (Acts xi:18).

  8. Many Christians grasp that it isn't true that the Jewish Zionists took possession of a barren desert. Much of the land that they appropriated had been cultivated by Palestinians for centuries.

  9. Most Christians comprehend that “the only democracy in the Middle East” is far from free. There is severe discrimination against Arabs by Jews, and against Sephardic (Iberian), Mizrahi (North African and Middle Eastern), and Ethiopian Jews by Ashkenazi (Germanic and Eastern European) Jews.

  10. Many Christians are able to see that American support of Israeli terrorism against Arabs is the root provocation of the recent series of terrorist attacks against the United States. They see no reason to doubt that Osama bin Laden means what he says: “Our terrorism against the United States is blessed, aimed at repelling the oppressor so that America stops its support for Israel.”1

  The road to Jerusalem does not run through Baghdad – if that is understood to mean that removing Saddam Hussein from power and forcing Iraqis to hold elections will improve relations between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The road to peace in the Middle East runs through justice, both justice for the Palestinian people whose human rights have been violated and justice in the use of military force by all parties with an interest in the region.

  Although Christian Zionism was not the most central issue in the process of my conversion from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, it did fit into a larger picture of rejecting irrational beliefs. My beliefs about Israelis and Palestinians began to change ten years ago, five years before I finally converted. I presented a paper at an academic conference in Jerusalem (on “Ethics in the Public Service”) and also spent a few days on a whirlwind sight-seeing tour of Israel. The greatest impression of my only visit to the Holy Land was that most of the Jews I met there did not believe in God and hated Palestinians. I began to wonder why I was such a strong supporter of such people.

  I skipped one day of the conference in order to visit the Old City. As I was walking back to the hotel on an East Jerusalem side street, I met a Palestinian man. As we approached one another, he stopped, spat on the pavement, and then walked past me. I said nothing, but regretted later that I had not told him I didn't hate him. Then I realized that – as an American citizen, former U.S. Army officer, and evangelical Protestant – I would have been hard-pressed to provide him any evidence that I did not.

  Although that trip to Israel did not lead immediately to my conversion, it did spur me to question another piece of the puzzle of my Protestant beliefs. I invite Protestants who are inclined towards Zionist political theology to ask themselves whether it or just-war theory is more consistent with living a Christian life. And I challenge American Catholics – a majority of whom supported our war of aggression against Iraq – to ask themselves whether they hav
e been influenced by Protestant or Jewish thinking (or both) to adopt a position inconsistent with their own Tradition.

  1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (henceforth ST), Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans., II, ii, Q. 40, A. 1.

  1. According to the U.S. Constitution, “the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” but “the Congress shall have Power to declare War.” This is one of the “checks and balances” between the three branches of government. But the last time the U.S. Congress declared war against another country was immediately after Pearl Harbor, sixty-four years ago. The precedent of going to war without declaring war was established by President Truman in 1950. General MacArthur commented: “I could not help being amazed at the manner in which this great decision was being made. With no submission to Congress, whose duty it is to declare war, and without even consulting the field commander involved, the members of the executive branch of the government agreed to enter the Korean War” (Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964)).