I just watched a news report about a the defacement of an Israeli memorial plaque by a Catholic Priest in Wellington, in protest at the events in Gaza. A member of the local Jewish community was interviewed, clearly upset by the ‘vandalism’ of the…

I am always interested when people conflate the two; as an atheist, I find the notion that anybody can claim a ‘God-given right’ to land preposterous, but by that same measure, one cannot deny the historicity of the Jewish connection to Israel.
As someone with Zionist, Orthodox family, formerly settled in Gaza (but now living in Australia), I find the implicit assumption that anti zionist=anti Israel=pro Palestine=antisemitic to be increasingly tedious, one dimensional, and false.

Actually in many ways I am now more appalled at the attitude of the Catholic hierarchy, than Burns. I can understand his reasoning whilst not accepting his action.

Further, he is correct that Rabin earlier in his career was not a dove.

I trust they will be so accepting if and when someone defaces a Catholic monument.

The Rabin memorial in Wellington is not a religious monument, it is a memorial to an Israeli politician.

If someone were to smear their blood onto a monument to Sir Joseph Ward in protest at the possible end of passenger services on the North Island main truck line I’m pretty sure the Catholic church would be silent.

I now note that Burns faces no censure from the Church for his actions in defacing the Rabin memorial.

That lack of censure from an organization that is so ready to lay down moral law as to right and wrong in all the minutiae of human life in normal circumstance is quite amazing.

I trust they will be so accepting if and when someone defaces a Catholic monument.

To my mind they have forfeited any claim to moral leadership through this action

I have not as yet been able to find the reference to Burn’s subsequent comments. Though I do note two Catholic bishops distancing themselves today from his remarks.

I think they’ve distanced themselves from his action not his remarks.

And in weirder news it appears that the apology of one of the Archbishops was a hoax.

But I think many people who are more correctly anti-Zionist seem, through their ignorance, to be anti-semitic.

I do think that anti-semitism is alive and well in sectors of New Zealand society as indeed anti-catholicism.

Outside the usual fringe lunatics, I don’t really agree. I think there’s a lot of lazy generalisation and a great deal of insensitive and foolish reference to the Holocaust and Naziism, but I think that’s the mainstream extent of it. Again, I think a lot of what people consider to be anti-semitism is just imprecise anti-Zionism or anti-Israeli sentiment.

As for anti-Catholicism, I agree even less. I think there’s a general fatigue with Christianity, but more of that is directed against the fundamentalist and and evangelical cults than against the Catholics. It’s a very far cry indeed from when my great-grandparents had to change their name from Kearns to Cairns and pretend to be Protestants in order to get work.

Not that it would excuse either of the above, I think there’s a lot more anti-Muslim sentiment than anything else.

Re. Templer and Malaya, we are in complete agreement.

L

I am not sure you are correct that the Palestinians crave stability more than “justice”.

Perhaps I should define my terminology a bit more closely. `Stability’ in this case would constitute being part of civil society again. `Justice’ is rather more than that. After a couple of generations worth of constant occupation and subjugation, some Palestinian groups have made clear that they would accept a return to the 1967 borders; others that they would simply settle for an end to armed occupation. My point is that it’s the ordinary people – noncombatants, those with young families or older relatives, or who formerly had successful farms or businesses who are least inclined to fight but are being driven into the arms of Hamas and other groups.

just which Palestinians do you mean? The Jordanian ones? The former Jordanian ones? The former Egyptian ones in Gaza?

They’re not a heterogeneous group, indeed. But I’d say my argument above applies to most everyone in the occupied territories whose mind hasn’t already been permanently hardened against Israel.

I disagree that it is a counterinsurgency. How can you maintain this when Hamas is the elected government and has made no secret of it’s aims.

Israel has refused to accept Hamas as the legitimate government You don’t get to have it both ways and claim that Hamas are a state actor when engaged in conflict and an illegitimate actor when engaged in other actions. And upon their election, Israel enforced a regime of sanctions which further radicalised Hamas and marginalised the other alternatives. I accept, however, that Hamas are by no means innocent in this themselves.

And what does “refusing to accept even the trivial of casualties” mean? Is this a rehash of the old “acceptable level of violence” rhetoric of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland?

To expect to win such a conflict as this without casualties is unrealistic. It’s not about an acceptable level of violence; it’s about an inevitable minimum of violence which might be tolerated for the short term in the interests of long-term peace.

When you then go on to add “in service to the project….” it begins to sound like you think a little human sacrifice might appease the angry “Palestinians”.

You’re twisting my meaning. The project is to convince the Palestinians that the extremists, not Israel, are the greater threat to their wellbeing.

L

I have not as yet been able to find the reference to Burn’s subsequent comments. Though I do note two Catholic bishops distancing themselves today from his remarks.

Lew

I do not conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I do think that anti-semitism is alive and well in sectors of New Zealand society as indeed anti-catholicism.

Israel are in grave danger of winning miltarily and losing as you suggest.

This is indeed in part due to their failure, like the Americans in Vietnam and probably in Iraq and Afghanistan to learn from the experience of the British in Malaya. General Sir Gerald Templer was of course the High Commissioner for Malaya, effectively head of government.

Templer, was the author of the famous remark:-

“The answer [to the uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people.”

It probably also helped that templer had been Director of Military Government in post war Germany and his head of defence had been in the Chindits in WWII.

Key though was the fact that Templer a gifted soldier knew that the solution was not military in the long term, but political and thus planned and implemented to that end.

This where I think Israel has failed. By their actions they have not learned from the past.

Lew, I am not sure you are correct that the Palestinians crave stability more than “justice”. And just which Palestinians do you mean? The Jordanian ones? The former Jordanian ones? The former Egyptian ones in Gaza? A friend of mine who was born in Nazareth says he was always told he was Jordanian, and his father had a Jordanian Passport.

I disagree that it is a counterinsurgency. How can you maintain this when Hamas is the elected government and has made no secret of it’s aims. Just a few weeks ago they held a war mongering rally at which there were at least 10,000 people. No exactly marginal. And what does
“refusing to accept even the trivial of casualties” mean? Is this a rehash of the old “acceptable level of violence” rhetoric of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland?

When you then go on to add “in service to the project….” it begins to sound like you think a little human sacrifice might appease the angry “Palestinians”.

I do know a bit about this sort of thing. In my view, Israel’s actions are reckless because they’re treating this like open warfare when in fact it’s an insurgency born of marginalisation and disenfranchisement. Treating it like open warfare will eventually turn it into open warfare, and cynics already think that this is the end-game – establish free-fire zones and conduct legitimised ethnic cleansing by labelling all non-IDF personnel as enemy combatants.

Counter-insurgency is hard to win, and the best strategy for victory is to prevent the insurgency from emerging in the first place. Israel have repeatedly failed to do this, although it’s a strong argument that the way Israel was established from the Palestinian Mandate made it impossible. Failing prevention, however, counter-insurgency is best conducted with thorough intelligence, careful and patient target-selection and boots on the ground, establishing rapport and relationships with non-aligned or sympathetic civilian groups upon whom insurgents rely for supplies and succor. This is how Malaya was (eventually) won, and its failure was the reason Viet Nam was eventually lost. Israel states in every public forum that it is not at war with the Palestinian people, but with Hamas and the other insurgent groups among them. However Israel’s strategic fault here is in refusing to accept even the most trivial casualties in service of the project of turning the allegiance of the Ordinary Palestinian against conflict and toward peace – instead, by responding with hundred-fold force they turn those who could be part of the solution into part of the problem.

I think Israel has shown amazing restraint, and considering this is an actual war, not a TV show, the casualties are low.

I think Israel has shown hesitancy, not restraint. Restraint would be the patient application of a strategy with demonstrable and achievable end of solving the core problem of the conflict. Israel’s actions and doctrine are and have been mixed, and this promotes confusion and uncertainty as to their true intentions, alternately raising and dashing the hopes of Palestinians who by now crave stability more than they do justice. If they want to embrace peace, reconciliation and reconstruction, they should do so wholeheartedly. Until they do, it will never be so.

L

Why? Do you consider you have a better grasp of the issues in play here when speaking from a position of dogmatic ignorance than you might if you had a broader understanding? It seems to me that that attitude is the font of all enmity between the various semitic faiths.

Reading and understanding the Quran doesn’t imply belief in it – and indeed, it grants basis for critique. The Quran itself admonishes its readers to be cognisant of the Talmud and Christian Gospels (though it claims to supercede their teachings); why should Christians be any less open?

L

Peres’ and Rabin’s roles in the Oslo accords were different. Peres was, if you’ll excuse the crass metaphor, the `trigger man’ – who could advocate with a degree of freedom which Rabin, having to hold together a fragile coalition of parties mostly opposed in principle to the peace process, could not. His was a tough course to steer.

You cannot look at Rabin’s record as a soldier and the settlements when he was in power and think of him as a man of peace anymore than calling Napoleon the prince of peace. Rabin was a soldier and always remained so.

The comparison to a megalomaniac who spread his empire across most of Europe by fire and steel is most absurd, and you do your credibility no favours by making it. By your `soldier’ logic there have never been any good Israeli leaders, since they’re all soldiers at heart and all have been responsible for military actions taken in the name of Israel. This is the nature of counter-insurgency warfare – none are innocent. Like most such conflicts it appears black and white from afar, but it’s actually a lurid technicolour in close.

My fundamental point against Burn is not that Rabin is above reproach, but that there are other Israeli leaders against whom his protest would be better directed – the incumbents Peres and Olmert, for instance. Targeting a the leader who died for peace rather than the leaders who are currently commanding the war simply because his monument was handy was a cheap stunt, disrespectful to boot.

Moreover, Israel’s supporters have a pretext upon which to cry anti-semitism when people who should know better blatantly conflate Jew’ with `Zionist’ and `Israeli’ with `Oppressor of Palestinians’. A wise protest is clear and direct about what and whom are its targets – Burn’s protest was neither, and on that basis it was foolish and misguided.

L

I saw your respons and will look for the reference, it was in something I read, probably in print not on-line so will see if I can find it

Adam

I’m thankful I don’t have any suras to quote back to you, and,the Lord willing, I never will.

The reasons I took the time to learn a little about the Quran include:

1) Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a shared heritage and entangled cultural and religious roots.

2) Many of today’s conflicts are described as religious conflict between those faiths. By knowing something about each and their religious texts it becomes clear that the conflicts are not between faiths; look a little further and you see that they are all about power and land and resources.

3) The Quran is, as are many religious texts, a fascinating and beautiful piece of writing.

But its all very convenient to point accusing fingers at Israel, whilst ignoring a host of other much more vile regimes who don’t have the PR the palestinians have.

I am talking about Israel’s action because they are current and in the news. I’m happy to write about other things going on in the world that upset me, but I suspect people only care about the ones in the news. You may have inspired me to write the post about Sri Lanka I’ve been thinking about though – thanks!!

One the Holy Tagger was reported as saying various anti-Jewish statements.

I looked for some and couldn’t find any, they would change my mind about his actions.

Could you link to them and change my mind?

I think Israel has shown amazing restraint, and considering this is an actual war, not a TV show, the casualties are low. Looking at images of dead children is extremely distressing to all of us, but I might add, that most of the civilized world wouldn’t parade its dead before the cameras.

I wish there was no such thing as war, just like you. But its all very convenient to point accusing fingers at Israel, whilst ignoring a host of other much more vile regimes who don’t have the PR the palestinians have.

I’m not sure if I understand how “an eye for an eye” translates into “vandalism is okay”. Or is that “Vandalism is okay as long as it’s for a cause I believe in”.

As far as I can see, Father Burn had at least a dozen different ways he could have legitimately, effectively protested without defacing public property

BTW. Jesus exhorted us to go the extra mile with our enemies. He envisaged defusing hatred by doing good to your enemies, even in the face of their hatred and abuse. That is a VERY long way from the actions of our priestly tagger.

It would probably be good if Father Burns actually did look into the words of scripture and act on them.

I accept that there are many Jews who criticize the actions of the Israeli government. Indeed there are many Jews who are secular and others who are both secular and non-zionist. There are practising Jews who are not Zionists also.

One the Holy Tagger was reported as saying various anti-Jewish statements.

Two there are a number of reports of increasing anti-semitism in Europe and we regularly see skinheads active in NZ

Three There was the desecration of the Jewish graves here in Wellington

Four Hamas is dedicated to the eradication of the Israeli State and the Jews living there unless they and also Christians accept the supremacy of islam and abide by their laws

see the Hamas charter
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm. therefore I would suggest Hamas is both anti-zionist and anti-semitic

Five To my way of thinking, although I am far from supporting much of what Israel is currently doing because I think their approach is misguided as I referred to in an earlier comment and I am not pro Zionist as such, neither am I blind to the fact that many who say they are anti-zionist are also anti-semitic.

Six, I did not say they were anti-semitic for criticizing Israel, I said they were anti-semitic for attacking Jews.

First of all you have all bought into the Palestinian PR.

Where have you seen me defend or condone Hamas’ actions? Firing missiles into Israel is totally unacceptable.

Israel’s actions are also indefensible and unacceptable; they have escalated the conflict and attacked Hamas with a reckless disregard for the lives of innocents.

Now on to this reprehensible priest. I am only thankful he isn’t posted to my parish!

May I, respectfully, suggest you consider Ex 21:23-27 which counsels you (and all Christian and Jews, Sura 5:45 is provides the same guidance to Muslims) to restrict retribution to no more than mirror retaliation. Then consider Jesus’ exhortation in Matt 5:38-39.

Can you find in those the teachings something which may have inspired the “reprehensible priest”? How can you take these teachings and bear witness to both Israel and Palestine?

I don’t mean to lecture you on faith or biblical teachings, but I think that many Christians see in those words messages which are wholly relevant today.

Personally I am thankful for every priest that looks into the words of God and acts on them.