Israel and Archbishops
Last night I posted an abbreviated exchange between Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister and Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros:
Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros: There is no longer a chosen people — all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon: We call on the Vatican to distant themselves from Archbishop Boutros’ comments which are a libel against the Jewish People and the State of Israel …
I should probably have given a bit of context. The Archbishop is saying that while he (as a Catholic) believed that the Jewish people at one point had an Exodus-style, divinely-ordained claim to the Holy Land, Catholics no longer believe that God wants the Holy Land to belong exclusively to the Jewish people. To phrase it differently, the Archbishop said that he didn’t believe that “Because God said so” is a sufficient justification for Israel’s actions. I didn’t see this as a particularly radical statement.
But Israel’s Deputy Foreign minister seems to disagree. Apparently it’s “libel” to suggest that Israel shouldn’t get a divinely granted pass be held to the same standard as any other country?
yellowbricks writes:
How intriguing. Of course I understand why Catholics (or anyone who isn’t Jewish) might feel the need to point out that the idea of a “chosen people” is fairly passe and I can understand why Jews would have a problem with such a declaration and why they don’t really buy the “that promise was nullified by Christ” argument. On the one hand, the Archbishop’s statement makes me cringe because I know how terribly offensive that statement must be to the Jewish population in general and Israelis in particular. As far as the nomenclature of religion goes, it’s quite a big deal to say that Jews aren’t a “chosen people.” On the other hand, it’s also kind of a big deal to say, “No, no, but we are the chosen people. Not you. Us.” I only have my Protestant Christian perspective, you understand, but I’ve learned that it’s normally considered pretty un-PC to imply that your religious group is superior to any other group. I also know, however, that it sucks to have any other group attack such fundamental tenets of your faith. Very interesting, this. I don’t know where to put my emotion.
I can see why Mr. Ayalon might be sensitive about something he construes as undermining Israel’s case for its own legitimacy. But … could I get a showing of hands for who believes that Israel’s right to exist in its current form derives directly from a millenia old divine mandate? Could you keep your hand up if you think that mandate gives Israel carte blanc on the human rights front? Of those who still have their hand in the air, who thinks that this reasoning should be persuasive to people of other faiths?
I can’t see most of you—but I’m going to guess that there aren’t a lot of hands in the air. Except … I think there is a signficant and influential population in Israel that does believe all of those things. That’s the part that’s concerning.
