The World According to Sabeel
By Shelley Neese, The Jerusalem Connection
Perspectives. There are those who wear rose-colored glasses and those who see only gray. There are the “glass-half-full” and “glass-half-empty” types. But what type of lense must one wear to look at the situation of the world and determine that America is a power-hungry empire, Israel is an apartheid state, Christian Zionists are delusional militants, and Palestinians are peaceful advocates for justice? Welcome to Sabeel’s International Conference on Challenging Christian Zionism.
Sabeel is the Jerusalem-based “Palestinian Liberation Theology Center.” Sabeel (Arabic for “the way”) is an ecumenical grassroots movement operating under the leadership of Palestinian Anglican Revd. Canon Naim Ateek. The most familiar example of activities Sabeel spearheads is the divestment campaign to punish companies “profiting” from Israel’s takeover of the West Bank and Gaza (i.e. Caterpillar, Motorola, etc.).
In April 2004, Sabeel hosted its Fifth International Conference to address what it perceives as one of the world’s biggest threats: Christian Zionism. One product of the conference was a published book of collected papers by the conference speakers—an array of international scholars, peace activists, and clergy. One of the recurring themes in the book, Challenging Christian Zionism, is their charge of an apparent lack of “public criticisms of Israel’s political policies” from Christian Zionists. Sabeel says that in the face of perceived wrongdoings by Israel, a “profound silence” emanates from the pro-Israel Christian camp.
Indeed, part of what it means to be a Christian Zionist is to believe in Israel’s divine claims to the land and to support the Jewish state’s policies to fight terror and protect its citizens. In that respect, Christian friends of Israel do not question its right to exist or protest its defensive measures. However, Christian Zionists are more than willing to criticize actions of the Israeli government that run counter to God’s promises and covenants or violate Judeo-Christian moral values. For example, The Jerusalem Connection and other Christian Zionist organizations have roundly criticized withdrawal from Gaza, Olmert’s realignment plan, and the plans for this fall’s international gay parade in Jerusalem.
There is certain hypocrisy though to Sabeel’s accusations against Christian Zionists for turning a blind eye. While reading Challenging Christian Zionism, it does not take long to notice the apparent censorship of criticism for Palestinian terrorism. Excluding one lecture by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in 328 pages of enumerating the problems that plague the region, terrorism is mentioned only four times. To be sure, counting those four references, totaling fifteen lines, is being very generous because at no point is Palestinian violence ever referred to as terrorism. “Resistance” is the term of choice and “suicide bombings” are never named. Also, Palestinian violence is never actually denounced. Instead, it is excused in subsequent sentences as an understandable reaction to the ills of “occupation.”
In Prof. Marc H. Ellis’s lecture he says, “Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam contains elements of both beauty and violence.” There is no further elaboration of what is Islamic violence, just a general acknowledgment of its existence. The Rt. Revd. Edmond L. Browning blames the terrible situation in the region on Israeli and Palestinian fanaticism and says “both the oppressor and the oppressed suffer damage.” Browning goes on, however, to call on Israel to end the “occupation” because he says, “the occupation is the root cause of all the violence today.” He makes no effort to ask Palestinians to end terror. Sabeel board member Zoughbi E. Zoughbi says there are four types of violence: “insurgent violence, structural violence, environmental violence, and state-sponsored violence.” According to Zoughbi, the Israeli government and settlers are the perpetrators of the last three types of violence while Palestinians have used “insurgent violence” to “revolt against the occupation, siege, and oppression inflicted upon them for more than 37 years.” Zoughbi even calls on Palestinians “to continue their proactive struggle to get rid of the Israeli occupation.” Out of the four speakers who mention terror, Revd. Dr. Elias Chacour is the only one to say “we cannot agree with terror” and to acknowledge the fact that there are Israeli civilians who have died. Immediately after this disclaimer, however, he refers to terrorists as martyrs.
Only one of the conference’s thirty-one speakers denounced terrorism for its ugliness or acknowledged the holocaust and centuries of Jewish persecution. In any other setting Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams would not be considered a pro-Israel sympathizer, but in the company of the other self-censoring speakers Williams was accused of what in Sabeel’s opinion is the worst of crimes—being “a kind of Christian Zionist.” This label was forced on him because he made due reference to Scripture as proof that Jews do have a special place under God. His speech provoked so much “outrage” and “disappointment” that the last three chapters of the book are critical responses to his address.
While the conference speakers’ refuse to acknowledge the horrible effects of terrorism, there are literally countless instances where America, Christian evangelicals, and Jewish leadership are defined as the “root of all evil.” To offer just a brief glimpse into Sabeel’s view of the world, here are a few highlighted quotes:
Ø “Zionism is responsible for the last 56 years of dispossession, dispersion, and humiliation of the Arab population of Palestine.”
Ø “This is the most dangerous regime ever to ascend to power in the history of the United States of America. It is dangerous because they want war; they want to bully nations.”
Ø “There is too much contempt and there are too many evil words-and evil deeds—emanating from the Jewish leadership.”
As opposed to four short references to Palestinian “resistance,” one-quarter of the book describes activities of Palestinian nonviolent movements. Sadly, the emphasis on Palestinian peaceful resistance is exaggerated at best. Sabeel pathologically ignores the prevalence, or even existence, of Palestinian homicidal ideologies. Ignoring the corruption, despotism, and fanaticism prevalent in the West Bank and Gaza, Sabeel presents nonviolence as the current principal strategy of “resistance.” Zoughbi says the difference between Israelis and Palestinians is that Palestinians “believe violence dehumanizes human beings” and Israelis are “racist and deal with [their] fear and anger through violence.” Revd. Dr. Bishara Awad regrettably notes, “To my delight, nonviolent struggle has also become the talk of the Palestinian Authority.”
In Challenging Christian Zionism, the reasons given for why Christian Zionists are allegedly uncritical of Israel are ignorance, heresy, and militancy. Enduring the onslaught of these accusations, reading the book becomes an exercise in trying to diagnose Sabeel’s duplicity. Their claims of Palestinian preference for nonviolence are not supported by Palestinian polls or history, the continuance of suicide bombings, or the democratic election of a terrorist government. Considering this, there are only two ways to explain why all the conference speakers, with the exception of Williams, refused to discuss terrorism, preferring to promote the myth of a Palestinian moderate majority and lament the evils of the American administration and Christian Zionism. They either understand the truth about the problem of terrorism and culture of violence in Palestinian society but are censoring the conference speakers in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent reality and avert blame. Or their vision is truly so distorted that this is their perception of the conflict. To assume it is only a difference in perceptions, however, is to grant them the courtesy of ignorance
In Israel, like in other democratic Western nations freedom of speech is a cherished value, if not enshrined as a matter of law.
As noxious and offensive as the Sabeel Foundations’ preachings and teachings are, it appears they have found a safe haven in Jerusalem to spread their poison.
No doubt the Israeli government would give their eye teeth if they could get rid of Sabeel, but it appears they can’t so Sabeel is able to engage in their malordorous rhetoric and propaganda right under the noses of all Israelis.
There perhaps is something that can be done and I wonder whether it has been considered.
An example is what the Americans did with the Holy Land Foundation, the terrorist front that raised money for terrorism.
How different is it for a group to raise money as a means to support terrorism and another that ideologically supports, promotes and inspires people to to join the ranks of the terrorists to take action or whose words and deeds encourage and justify terrorists in continuing their efforts.
Such group is the Sabeel Foundation.
There are those Israeli civil libertarians and those from other Western nations that deem it their right to meddle in Israeli affairs, who would trot out the slippery slope argument that shutting down and booting out the Sabeel Foundation from Israel could result in further infrignements leading to curbing freedom of speech to the point that Israel would shut down all speech critical of Israel.
Slippery slope arguments have their place and should serve as a grave caution as to the dangers inherent in seeking to restrict the freedom of speech of one, ultimately leading to unfairly and improperly resticting freedom of speech for many.
One however cannot turn their back on taking such actions simply out of fear that Israel will set itself on that slippery slope and will not be able to legislate appropriate brakes to keep it from sliding down to the abyss.
As with all problems that demand solutions, it is imperative that one considers the pluses and minuses of action to be taken or not and if action taken, what action is to be taken.
Israel would do itself a big favour if it would confront the problem of the Sabeel Foundation head on, instead of sweeping it under the rug and hoping it will not do much if any damage to Israeli interests.
As an aside, Shelley Neese’s following mention of one of the Conference Lecturers, Prof. Marc H. Ellis, caught my eye:
So many times we read such comments that are stated without more.
From what has been specifically been written about Islam including many quotes from the Koran and Hadith by those who support Israel and are against all Muslim terrorism and Islamic radicalism, finding it all inexcusable coupled with the horrors of Muslim terrorism in the name of Islam that the West has borne witness to, it is fair to say that one must look long and hard to find beauty in Islam, but it is a no brainer to find the ugliness of violence.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— July 3, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
Bill Narvey wrote:
There aren’t any legal constraints here that would prevent them from getting rid of him, except that he’s on the left, so he can say whatever he wants. If a similar character on the right behaved in the same manner, it would be a different story - it would be prosecuted under incitement statutes. The incitement statutes only apply to the right - they’ve never been applied to the left.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 3, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
I fully agree with your statements and hopefully on Wednesday evening I will have some answers to the problems of those who believe in the principals of Judeo-Christian beliefs and morals. I will be at a session meeting with Senator McCain of Arizona, to ask the important questions concerning Israel.
I will ask why, when 9/11 occured, President Bush immediately activated our troops to destroy our enemies, for which I approve though I do not agree with his prosecution of the war.
This action is permissible for any nation to declare war on any terrorist groups or terrorist nation. He did everything but declare the war with the approval of Congress, since Congress is the only body that may declare a state of war.
That being said, I will then ask why Israel has terrorists act daily through suicide bombers and rockets, Israel is prevented by Bush and Rice from doing the very same thing that the US has done to protect themselves. Though these citizens are killed in small numbers when compared to the US population which is 50 times more than Israel’s, a massacre of 25 people in Israel is equal to 1250 in the US.
The American citizens would become enraged if this happened again and demand the destruction of the terrorists. In my opinion, we know the reason that Bush and Rice have taken this action of pulling the strings attached to Israel and that is so as not to make angry the OIL barons in the Mideast. As you possibly know, Bush and Cheney are both oil men and Rice is the chosen one for James Baker, who once was the ambassador to Arabia. I just want someone to say it out loud. Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians from that point will be able, in both countries, to more selectfully elect politicians.
I will keep you informed.
Ed Katz
Prescott, Arizona
Comment by Ed D
— July 3, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
Mr Narvey summed it up pretty good, the only thing I would add is that Speech of that kind in my country is easy to ridicule, I also suggest a strong monitoring of Where Sabeel gets its funding, It’s easier to eliminate them for Terrorist funding than what they preach….
Happy Fourth of July
Comment by The City Troll
— July 3, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
However, the difference at this time is that Jews and Christians do not see the two as being the same thing.
Comment by RandyTexas
— July 3, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Peretz,
I have read similar comments that Israeli authorities have used the anti-incitement legislation to only prosectute those on the right, while the left is given a pass.
That seems,without specific examples and further information, too facile an explanation. Surely there must be more to it than that.
Perhaps you, or others knowledgeable about how Israeli justice works, can answer the obvious questions of who, what, when, where and why that need to be addressed in giving a full contextual report to better explain the situation.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— July 3, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
I don’t consider myself to be the world’s biggest threat. This man obviously is afraid of millions of proactive Christian believers who love Israel and respect the Jewish people as G-d’s children, chosen as the messengers of His perfect law and the rightful heirs to the land of Israel as promised to Abraham. The combined numbers of Christians and Jews who are Zionists are a threat to him. So he feels he needs to vilify us. I don’t care. When you are on the right side of an issue the opinion of those on the wrong side is irrelevant.
I am very proud to be a Christian Zionist. The fact that he sees me as a threat is empowering.
I completely agree with this statement and I see nothing wrong with it. I pray for wisdom and G-d’s guidance for Olmert. I do not want to see him give up an inch of land. It is not my inheritance so I don’t really feel my opinion is valid but I do support the settlers who are qualified to stand up for their rights. It is their devine inheritance and don’t want to relinquish their rights. Christians should support them. It is completely Biblical.
I think it is great that he is out there telling people we LOVE Israel. That should make Jews happy. We are with you not against you. All publicity is publicity even if we don’t like the source.
Christian Zionists are Black and White people. There is G-d’s way and the wrong way. G-d said the land belongs to Israel. End of story.
Comment by RReneeThompson
— July 4, 2006 @ 2:01 am
Bill, perhaps I will take up such an effort in the future and meticulously document my assertion. For now, I’ll just have to respond with a counter-challenge. Find me one instance, ever, where these laws have been used to squelch the left.
They are used over and over again to squelch the right - take a current example of Nadia Matar of Women in Green having to defend herself in court for insulting the head of the “Disengagement Authority”. She is charged under the lesser charge of the statute (Insulting a Public Official), but it is still part of the overall incitement law. On the other hand, there are protests by leftists and Arabs who call for “death to Israel” and “make peace, kill a settler”, but they get police protection instead of interference. The right plans a protest of some sort, and the leaders are arrested and put in administrative detention for an “intent” to incite.
But you’re right, it’s a worthwhile project to document. I think I’ll take that up soon.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 4, 2006 @ 2:21 am
So are Jewish Zionists.
There is no grey. Those who see grey just have blurred vision.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 4, 2006 @ 2:25 am
Pardon me for digressing, but can anyone enlighten me on the difference between Jewish and Christian Zionism?
And perhaps recommend selected articles that address either type of Zionism? I would appreciate it tremendously.
Comment by harrison
— July 5, 2006 @ 7:51 am
Harrison
read this article carefully. It fully describes what Christian Zionism means in practice. Above and beyond the reasons stated for supporting Israel is a belief that Jesus will only have his second coming after the Jews have returned to Israel at which time the Jews will welcome him or something to that effect. But Sabeel focuses on the present reality and effect of Chriostian support for Israel.
“Jewish Zionism” or Zionism to Jews really is a political movement to create a homeland for Jews in part out of necessity because of anti-semitism. This movement would not have succeeded had the idea of Israel and Jerusalem not been central to Judaism. Jerusalem and what it stands for religiously is at the heart of Judaism. They are inseparable. For two thousand years, Jews have prayed for a return to Jerusalem.
Comment by Ted Belman
— July 5, 2006 @ 8:07 am