जेरुसलेम इन्तेर्विएव्स अगस्त-सेप्टेम्बर २००६, फ्रॉम सम्स्य्रिअनी blog

Friday, September 08, 2006
Interview with Fr. Antonios of the Coptic Orthodox Monastery , August 16, 2006.
Interview with Fr. Antonios, August 16, 2006.Fr. Antonios emphasized in his interview with me that the Holy Land is like a mosaic, with many traditions and many denominations. Fr. Antonios told me about guards being posted in Deir al-Sultan. There were definitely men in civilian dress there who were not religious people. Fr. Antonios alerted me that there were problems between the Armenians and the Israelis that neither side seem willing to dwell on. The main issue was the seminary and Armenian convent in Bethlehem that had been cut through and was on the verge of being annexed by the Israelis. He talked about the almost universal problems faced by the expatriate clergy in getting visas or even extending visas. The Israeli authorities always claimed security issues but this was all hogwash according to the Father. It seems there were many problems for foreign clergy in the Holy Land. When previously one could get an Israeli Id after 5 years of stay, now it took at least 15 years, to get one. Without Israeli id, no health insurance was available and health treatment was very expensive in Israel. There were inordinate delays in paperwork again all part of the process of making life as tough as possible for non-Jewish people. Visa renewals were the worst of all. He could personally sense a tactic to keep Christians from coming to the Holy Land. The Father could not hide his frustration when he said that after all, they (the Expat Church people) were not terror people but just people out to help others. One wonders whether the Israeli authorities distinguish between Orientals and Occidentals in this issue. The Father openly alleged that Israel did not like the official Christian communities and much preferred the new Christians such as the evangelical Zionists and their backers. The Father told me that there was a clear partiality in favour of churches like Jaffa Gate Christ Church. There was even talk of including a representative in the Israeli Knesset from the so-called ‘native’ Jewish Christians in Israel. The Father expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that there was no Palestinians who were willing to become priests or monks. All such people had to come from Egypt. Among the Latin’s, there were lots of expatriate priests and among the Greeks, the were only a few educated Arab priests and Bishops including Atallah Hanna. He again repeated the claim that it was a Coptic mutran that had given the Deir al-Sultan to the Ethiopians as a trust. The Israeli High Court had ordered the return of the Deir. The Israelis supported the Ethiopians and allegedly got military bases in Ethiopia in return to keep watch on the southern Arab world as well as the troublesome Horn of Africa. But the Father also emphasized how lucky Palestinian and Israeli Arab Copts were compared to the Egyptians. He emphasized how the situation was very difficult in Egypt. Compared to Israel, there was no old age insurance, pension, health insurance, etc. The Father felt that Palestinian Christians often did not know how lucky they were when compared to other societies in the ME. Another problem faced by Copts in Egypt was apostasy which was not faced to such an extent as in Egypt here in Israel. He felt that there was solid political will backing the Ethiopians which ensured that the Israeli high court ruling backing the return of the Deir to the Copts would not be possible without political pressure. He also emphasized that over the last three years, there had not been much problems between the Copts and the Ethiopians.
# posted by Sam @ 7:53 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Interview with Fr. Efrayim Elorashalimy on the 14 August, 2006.
Fr. Efrayim stated to me that for Copts, they were first Arabs and then Copts. He told me that as regards the problems within the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Copts as a community were independent from the Armenians, but the Syrians still had problems. The Jacobite Chapel and the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea adjacent to it are claimed by the Armenians. For the Copts, the main problem was the conflict with the Ethiopians in the Holy Sepulchre. At the same time, he also emphasized that in the complex world of Coptic identity politics; there was a universal understanding that the Arabs had conquered Egypt in the 7th century and as a result there had been an imposition of Arab culture onto the native Egyptian people. The basic Coptic heritage sprung from the Pharoanic roots of the Egyptian people. The Copts definitely have a feeling of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the Deir al-Sultan. The reason is obviously the feeling among the Copts based on historical evidence on their part which is contested by the Ethiopians and this is that the Deir belongs to them, has always done and was lent to the Ethiopians as a daughter church of the Copts. Fr. Efrayim traced the historical process by which the Ethiopians were gradually eliminated from the Holy Sepulchre. He thus agreed that the Ethiopians had legitimate reason for grievance. During the Turkish era, the Ethiopians were in a very poor condition financially and so the Greeks and Armenians bought up a lot of their historic properties in the HS as well as outside. In 1834, the Ethiopian monks returned to Ethiopia and later when they wanted to return to Jerusalem, they had to approach the Coptic Church in Alexandria as their mother Church and the Bishop directed the Copts in Jerusalem to grant access to the Ethiopians in the Deir. The Ethiopians on the contrary talked of the minor Deir and the major Deir, with the minor Deir being under their control and the major Deir which I take to mean all the rest of the Coptic monastery being contested by the Ethiopians. This was stated by Fr. Silassi of the Ethiopian Patriarchate. During Easter 1970, the Ethiopians and Israelis conspired to take over the Deir officially from the Copts by changing the locks on the door when the Copts were away at prayer. This was during the period of war between Egypt and Israel. Fr. Afrayem alleged that the Israelis always supported the Ethiopians, a fact of life that was mutually reciprocated. He told me that the Copts no longer ask for the Deir, the roof-top monastery back. Instead they demand that the two small chapels that are situated on the roof of the Holy Sepulchre be returned to the Copts. These chapels are as is evident from their iconostasis quite evidently Coptic Orthodox Churches. How could the Ethiopians claim these chapels in the view of the Coptic priest. In his view, the state by supporting the Ethiopians against the Copts broke the Status Quo. He stated other reasons for the lack of interest on the part of the Israelis to solving the Coptic-Ethiopian tangle. One reason was that Egypt was only concerned with solving the Palestinian issue and did not care particularly about solving the issue concerning the Copts in Jerusalem. Also Ethiopia was the source of the Nile and Egypt had to tread with care lest anything be done by Ethiopia which would put the flow of the Nile waters to Egypt in jeopardy. However the Father felt that eventually the situation would be discussed and solved. Pope Shenouda banned the Copts from coming to Egypt because of the Ethiopian issue. As per the remembrances of the Father, during the late Prime Minister Rabin’s times, lots of Copts and other Egyptians visited Jerusalem and Israel in general. According to the priests, Egypt’s Copts cannot divide themselves from their Muslim brethren. The two communities have to live together for better or for worse. Egyptian Copts see Jerusalem as their spiritual homeland. Infact, last Easter, something like 9000 people came across from Egypt. They mostly come by bus across the Sinai and cross into Israel at Taba. The father felt that both Israelis as well as Palestinians did not take the opinion of the Christians when they conducted their negotiations. This struck me a strange given the preponderance of Christian institutions in the Old City and it environs. As far as the Copts were concerned, they did not see any problem with life under the Palestinian Authority, but the priest could not hide his concern for some bad people within the Palestinian community. Fr. Ephraim could not hide his disgust as well as sorrow at the activities of Jewish fanatics. He had been spat at many times by orthodox Jews in the Old City. He insisted that a spirit of toleration must be found and that he personally did not believe in violence.
# posted by Sam @ 4:40 AM 0 comments links to this post
Historic Agreement between the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbis of Israel on the 5th , September, 2006.
Archbishop of Canterbury and Israel's Chief Rabbis sign historic agreement -05/09/06 The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger have signed a joint Declaration which sets out a framework for continuing dialogue between them. Dr Williams described the agreement as historic. "This is a most significant step in developing better mutual understanding and trust between the Anglican Communion and the Chief Rabbinate and worldwide Judaism" he said.The Archbishop was supported in the meeting by the Coadjutor Bishop in Jerusalem, The Rt Revd Suheil Dawani and by Bishops Michael Jackson and John Stroyan. The Chief Rabbis were supported by Rabbi David Rosen and by the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations, Sir Jonathan Sacks. The meeting however follows strained relations over the issue of disinvestment. The Church of England's General Synod ('Parliament') voted in favour of disinvesting "from companies profiting from the illegal occupation" by Israel of Palestinian territory. Rowan Williams was amongst those who voted in favour of the motion. However the vote brought criticism from amongst others, Britain's chief Rabbi, and some even branded the vote 'anti-Semitic'.The new agreement however adds to the growing network of bilateral and multilateral dialogues between religious leaders in the Middle East and in the wider world. Dr Williams said that the agreement would help to advance inter faith relations. "This is a potentially fruitful development for relations between Christians and Jews in general and for the peoples of the Holy Land in particular. What we've agreed today will provide a framework within which both practical and sometimes challenging issues can be discussed on the basis of mutual trust and respect" he said.The Archbishop and the Chief Rabbis also agreed on the need for a renewed sense of urgency in the search for long term peace, justice and security in the Middle East in general and in Israel and the Palestinian territories in particular. The Archbishop and Chief Rabbis called for the greatest possible response to the need now for reconstruction and rebuilding both of the physical infrastructure and of the emotional and psychological relations of Christian, Jewish and Muslim believers in the region. Dr Williams said he believed that the dialogue would make trust and cooperation easier to establish."We have acknowledged the tensions that shadow the present situation particularly the ongoing tragic conflicts in the Holy Land. But our hope has rested very firmly on this; that without friendship and mutual confidence, without the ability to speak to one another candidly and lovingly, we shall never be in a position where our relationship can change things and challenge things and move the situation forward."The full text of agreement:Joint declaration byThe Archbishop of CanterburyThe Most Revd Dr Rowan WilliamsandThe Chief Rabbis of IsraelChief Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger1. The Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger of Israel, met in friendship at Lambeth Palace on 5th September 2006/12th of Elul 5766, to commit themselves to a continuing relationship based on mutual trust and respect. They gave thanks to the Creator and Lord of the universe for their meeting. At the end of their meeting they made the following statement:2. "We meet today as religious leaders, Anglican Christians and Israeli Jews, each part of the wider world community of Christianity and Judaism. We seek a dialogue which draws both on our particularity and also on the universal nature of our respective communities and which makes its contribution to the wider dialogue of the religions of the world in which we share.3. Our meeting forms a further and hopeful chapter in the long story of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. It is a story in which Christianity emerges from within Judaism, but includes down the centuries all too many times of violence and persecution by Christians of Jews. It also includes significant signs of redemption and hope for a fruitful future together, not least in the United Kingdom where the resettlement of the Jewish communities after three and a half centuries of exile is being celebrated this year. The United Kingdom, encouraged by its Christian community, was involved in the origins of the State of Israel and the Church of England was instrumental in initiating the first Council of Christians and Jews in the dark days of 1942. Since those terrible times of the Holocaust a relationship between our communities, nationally and internationally, has grown from the steady work of encounter, discussion, reflection and reconciliation.4. This relationship has not been without setbacks and difficulties, but for the Church of England and the Anglican Communion this is a commitment that reflects a continued determination to honour the covenant made by God with Abraham. The outworking of this determination is found in many places: in our welcome for the foundational document 'Nostra Aetate' [1] of our sister Roman Catholic Church in 1965 which has happily led to her present relationship of dialogue with representatives of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel; in the recommendations of the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 and the document 'Sharing One Hope' [2 & 3]; in the joint declaration by the Presidents of the Council of Christians and Jews on anti-Semitism in 2001 [4]; in the work of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury towards the Alexandria declaration in 2002 [5]; in our strong support for the inauguration of a national Holocaust Memorial Day in the United Kingdom; and in the statements made by the Archbishop on those occasions [6]. Our prayer is that the Almighty will redeem our past and direct our future.5. The dialogue between religions is an essential need of our time and requires that all people of faith bend their best efforts to this common task. In this connection we are sensitive in particular to the importance of continuing to develop our relationships of trust with Islam, nationally in our two countries and internationally. For Christians and Jews, however, the task of building mutual relationship has a different and prior basis than our dialogue with any other religion. Our relationship is unique, not only historically and culturally, but also scripturally, and for both religions, is rooted in the one overarching covenant of God with Abraham to which God remains faithful through all time. It is unique historically through the interaction of the Christian and Jewish communities, especially in Europe down to the Holocaust; and it is unique in the contributions made through the arts, science and humanities to a common culture.6. Our meeting today builds also on the personal relationships which have grown between us from our previous occasions of personal meeting in Europe and in Israel and from our correspondence. We expect and intend that the friendship and respect that we hold for each other will continue to grow and provide an example to our communities.7. We consider that the purpose of this and future meetings is to provide new opportunities for dialogue between us. Dialogue has profound value in its own right and its purposes are mutual understanding and respect of each others' traditions and beliefs; the sharing of common concerns; the development of personal human relationships, and in all these things an openness to God's initiative. Neither evangelism nor conversion has a place amongst the purposes of the dialogue and we emphasise the importance of respect for each other's faith and of rejecting actions intended to undermine the integrity of the other.8. We recognise that we meet in the context of troubled times in many parts of a world where religious faith has an increasingly significant place in shaping the thoughts and actions of people and communities. We note both signs of hope and of concern and we seek to play our part in enabling mutual understanding between religions for the good of the world.9. Amongst our profound concerns is the rise of anti-semitism in Britain and the rest of Europe, in the Middle East and across the world at the present time. This is a scourge that we are committed to struggle against. Where it is fostered within communities of faith we have particular responsibilities which we will not shirk; where it is fostered by governments or political parties we will openly oppose it; at all times we will seek to educate the coming generations in the history of anti-semitism, recognising that there have been times when the Church has been complicit in it.10. The Holy Land has a very special place in our heritage, as it also has for Muslims. We long for the time of peace and justice spoken of by Isaiah: "I will make a new heavens and a new earth. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain", but we are also conscious that we are far from such a time. The Holy Land and its people, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, continue to suffer all forms of violence and its consequences. Terrorism remains rife. Governments and political and religious movements deny the very right to existence of the State of Israel. There is no agreement on the rights of the Palestinian people and the means to mutual wellbeing and flourishing.11. In these circumstances we commit ourselves afresh to the task of peace making in the Holy Land and we believe that our meeting today is both a sign and a potentially fruitful action to that end.12. We reaffirm for ourselves today the condemnations of violence made by our colleagues and predecessors such as in the 2002 Alexandria Declaration. We reaffirm our belief in the rights of the state of Israel to live within recognised and secure borders and to defend itself by all legal means against those who threaten its peace and security. We condemn without reserve those who deny a place for Israel and especially those who engage in the evil work of seeking to bring about its destruction. We warmly encourage all forms of constructive engagement, whether religious, humanitarian or economic, which seek to enable closer bonds between individuals and communities.13. In our meeting today, we have listened carefully to each other and have taken note of those aspects of our common experience and current situations which can form the basis for further discussion and reflection. In this connection we note in particular our respective relationships with national governance and the potential for good and for ill that this offers; our common hopes for the good of our societies; our concern to find ways in which our younger generations will understand and appreciate their faith; and in these times when worldwide the bonds of family and community are weakened, we hope to share the possibilities open to us to seek together ways to their strengthening.14. In all these matters we have at heart the imperative to seek ways to show the love of God to our fellow human beings and our communities with whom we share our times and places. Our hope is that by this dialogue we may allay some of the misunderstandings and anxieties in our countries by showing a mutual concern for peace, security and mutual respect.15. Conscious of the above, we express our mutual desire to begin a time of dialogue and conversation in the coming years. We affirm that this will be a dialogue of mutual respect in which we seek only to understand each other better and to strengthen our own communities and their affection and respect for each other. To this end we commit ourselves to further meetings in Jerusalem and at Lambeth and to invite others in our wider communities to join with us. We charge our colleagues together to put in hand the necessary arrangements which will make for further fruitful meetings.[1] 1965 "Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions"[2] 1988 and 1998 Lambeth Conferences. "Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue". Extract from the Report of the Dogmatic and Pastoral Section Lambeth Conference 1988[3] 2001 Sharing one Hope? The Church of England and Christian-Jewish Relations. Church House Publishing[4] Joint declaration by the Presidents of the Council of Christians and Jews on anti-Semitism in 2004. [5] Alexandria declaration in 2002.[6] 2006 Holocaust Memorial Day statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [Signed]Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar of IsraelChief Rabbi Yonah Metzger of IsraelThe Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
# posted by Sam @ 2:48 AM 0 comments links to this post
Historic interfaith agreement 'staged' to appease Israel
Historic interfaith agreement 'staged' to appease Israel -06/09/06 Arab Christians have said that they were not adequately involved in the 'historic' declaration signed this week by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbis of Israel. It has also been suggested that the event was aimed at appeasing Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.Anglican Bishop Riah Abu al-Assal of Jerusalem told the Jerusalem Post that neither he nor other Arab Christian leaders had been properly consulted. The meeting and the signing of the agreement followed strained relations between Israel and the Church of England over the issue of disinvestment. The Church of England's General Synod ('Parliament') voted in favour of disinvesting "from companies profiting from the illegal occupation" by Israel of Palestinian territory. Rowan Williams was amongst those who voted in favour of the motion. However the vote brought criticism from amongst others, Britain's chief Rabbi, and some even branded the vote 'anti-Semitic'."Senior people of the Church of England informed me that the whole event came to appease Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Israel and the Jewish lobby because of what happened at the Synod of the Church of England regarding the issue of divestment," Bishop Riah told the Jerusalem Post. "My personal opinion is that it is not the right time - given the events in Palestine and the Middle East at large."The agreement also comes at a time when Israel has been accused of 'suffocating Gaza in order to seize Jerusalem', issuing tenders for 690 new settlement units around occupied East Jerusalem. Rowan Williams however said that the agreement would help to advance inter faith relations.The "tragic conflicts in the Holy Land" necessitated dialogue, Williams said. "Without friendship and mutual confidence, without the ability to speak to one another candidly and lovingly, we shall never be in a position where our relationship can change things and challenge things and move the situation forward," he said."This is a potentially fruitful development for relations between Christians and Jews in general and for the peoples of the Holy Land in particular. What we've agreed today will provide a framework within which both practical and sometimes challenging issues can be discussed on the basis of mutual trust and respect."
# posted by Sam @ 2:36 AM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Aboriginal People's Liberation
[3]?Aboriginals Are Not Interested in Assimilation by Canadians,? BudWhiteye, Osprey Writers Group, September 5, 2006. Copyright 2006 SudburyStar. All Rights Reserved.[?There is a part of the Canadian discussion I've wanted to comment on.Most of this discussion is the result of the Tom Flanagan book, FirstNations; Second Thoughts. Despite his never having any relationship withthe First Nations, Flanagan was able to start a new Canadian thought: GetIndians off the reserves. The new thinking (and Flanagan's horse to flog)is that the Canadian government is keeping us on reserves and, thus,keeping us from being Canadians and enjoying the good life. Many whoadhere to this line of thought really want only to do away with the FirstNations, period. And some mean well, but are misguided. Has Canada beengiven the job of the Creator; to decide who should be a certain race? ?. Ihave asked as many Aboriginals as I could, ?Would you like to be madeCanadian against your will?? To an individual, they said ?no.? In the daysof the residential schools, many Indians did not know who they were.Today, most Aboriginals know who they are and why they are - Cree, Ojibwe,Lenni, Lenape or Lakota. The creator made me who I am. No man can make mesomething I'm not. Even if they make me Canadian I will still be brown andIndian. We are communities, not ghettos of the Canadian mosaic. Wehaven't adjusted as rapidly as the Flanagan thinkers want to the Europeanway, to European thinking. Even if, in large part (and I have no data tosay one way or another) we wanted to be European, how fast can a peoplerecover from 150 years of imprisonment??]This comment is particularly relevant to our Indian aboriginals as well. They too were exploited and suppressed to an amazing degree.
# posted by Sam @ 9:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
A talk with Salim Tamari in Ramallah
Salim Tamari is the director of the Institute of Jerusalem Studies. I interviewed him on the 14 August, 2006. As a secular Greek Orthodox Christian, Salim Tamari emphasized that property sales were the main talking point of his community. He referred to men like Marwan Tubaisi and Atallah Hanna who were leaders of the Arab Orthodox community in their own right. He urged me to explore the role that Christians had historically played in the leftist political scene in Palestine. At one time, in mandate Palestine, something like almost all of the members of the Palestinian Communist Party had been Greek Orthodox Christians. This struck me as being unique. He attributed this to the fact that most of the Arab Orthodox in Palestine went to Russian Seminaries where they were taught by Russians who had come under the influence of Marxist-Leninist views back home. A majority of the pre-Mandate Palestine Communist party were Greek Orthodox. Indeed Czarist seminaries worked with the native Arabs against the Greeks. The Russians were always confrontational. The Russians tried to instill pride in the Arabs. Refer to Derek Hopwood's book for more contacts on this. Salim asked me a rhetorical question whether I could answer why the Greek Orthodox who were the most docile politically among the Palestinian people should have the most volatile intelligentsia. Arab Nationalism was historically concentrated in the hands of the Lebanese Maronites. And in the second half of the twentieth century, this role was appropriated by the Greek Catholics. The Maronites completely reversed their role in the twentieth century. Infact, The only possible reason for this was the rise of Sunni and Shia Nationalism in the Lebanon which threatened the Maronites. The situation in Palestine was different as the Christians there were always in a minority of at the most between 12-14 %. At the moment, they were less than 2 %. In Israel, between 15-20 % of Arabs are Christians which is an artificial creation as a result of the selective ethnic cleansing procedures of the Israeli army. Palestinian Christians often dominated the militant Palestinian movements in the 1960s and 1970s. Salim was quite right to point out the newly emergent leadership within Palestinian Christians embodied by Naim Ateek, Riah Abu-el Assel and Mitri Raheb. He mentioned these people as being the new nationalists among the Palestinian Christian community. He mentioned the Palestinian Christian evangelical community which consisted of the Nazarenes, Baptists and Quakers. Infact in his opinion, the local Jehovah's Witnesses were actually pro-Zionist. The Nazarenes could in fact be called Arab Zionists. He defined my problem which was to define the relationship of Christians with the National Movement as well as with the state. He also referred me to the relatively new phenomenon of Christian Zionism which was redefining the presence of the Christian communities in the Holy Land. He identified three phases of Christian involvement with the Arab nation and state. The first phase involved the late Ottoman period was the formative part of the national movement where the Christians played a very important part. The second phase involved the creation of the modern Arab state. How Christians defined themselves in the formation of the state. Challenge of Islamic fundamentalism as well as Christian Zionism and where the Christians stand. The third phase involved the new hegemony of Islamic domination. Salim raised the point that during the British era, it was the Orthodox who were always favoured over the Catholics and the Protestants figured last of all, especially within the Holy Sepulchre, a procedure that forced the Protestants to establish centres of prayer and pilgrimage away from the Holy Sepulchre. This was behaviour that was not really appreciated by many Protestant groups including the Lutherans forcing them to invest in a huge Church and property adjacent to the Holy Sepulchre. Lutheran Pastors have told me that they preferred this system now since they were protected from the controversies within the Holy Sepulchre. For Salim, national issues among Palestinians Christians seemed to be the best option as far as I was concerned. Each Church had a host of issues that it would want to deal with on a national basis. Salim raised the issue of Armageddon and the fact that Christian Zionism is serving to redefine the role of Christian communities in the Holy Land. Christian Zionism was redefining the Christian picture in Israel-Palestine. In Salim's opinion, the Christians in Palestine were decreasing because of outmigration and a poor birth rate. Both Muslims and Jews increased from the opposite process.
# posted by Sam @ 7:26 AM 0 comments links to this post
Bethlehem Interlude
I met Ben in a restaurant in Bethlehem. Introduced him to Johnny. He gave a graphic description of how the israelis are slowly encircling the West bank by building settlements all along the West Bank strategic areas as well as the Jordan Valley barrier. The West Bank would be divided into two parts or even three, all of which would be strictly controlled by the Israelis. Ben showed us the course of the barrier as it snaked around Rachel's Tomb between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. He took us to a spot in the Aida refugee Camp where we could clearly see the Wall snaking along. The terminal that we had to pass to enter into Bethlehem from Jerusalem was like something out of all ordinary. A piece of martian landscape in the land of Palestine. The impersonal way in which everything was automised so as to let the Palestinians in and out like cattle has to be seen to be believed. I was passport checked three times on my way in and out of Bethlehem. The discrimination and racism is so blatant and acknowledged that one has to see to believe it.
# posted by Sam @ 6:49 AM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, September 04, 2006
The Syriani Church in Palestine, Jerusalem
St. Marks, the Syriani Church is situated in a really precarious situation. Its surrounded on all three sides by the expanded jewish Quarter, really fanatic people who seem willing to put up with a lot to want to stay in such cramped quarters. Before the 1967 war, there were only Arab families around the Church compound, and those were mainly Syrian Orthodox families. Now today and mainly as a result of the war, all the Syrians around the Church had left and all that was left were a few shop, like the shop of Mr. Sami Bardoun, the Mukhtar of the Syrian community. Bishop Swereious often complained that the neighbouring Jewish Orthodox kids would often come and create trouble by throwing dirt and garbage at their door. A garbage dump was quite evident at the entrance to St. Marks street. It seems starnge that inspite of all these evident signs of impending peril as regards St. Marks, the Syrian Bishop should feel that there were more problems from the Armenian side than from the jewish side. When I was in Palestine, I remember an incident at the Holy Sepulchre where the door to the poor little chapel that the Syrians use was broken down tho nothing was stolen. Nobody I spoke to were willing to blame the Armenians for what happened tho the fact that the chapel was under dispute was widely acknowledged. One thing that must be stated is that within the so-called Christian quarter, the different sects have appropriated their own areas of control and domination. so we can say that there is a separate Latin quarter, plus a Greek Quarter plus a Coptic Quarter plus an Armenians Quarter. I wish I had met representatives of the WCC and the MECC in Jerusalem.The Syrian Bishop was particularly indignant against the big three among the Christians in the Holy Land, namely the Franciscans, Greeks and Armenians. He accused these people of slowing buying and gobbling up all the land and property in the Old City’s Christian Quarter. The lesser Churches like the Syrians, Ethiopians and Copts have been progressively sidelined in the process. Even now Armenia, Greece and the Catholics have powerful Western backers to support them; the poor Syrians have nobody at all except their own communitarians. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was being used as a place of battle and rivalry between all the sects in Palestine. After 1948, more than half of the Syrians of Palestine left Israel for Jordan and then the US. The Bishop was particularly critical of the Israeli settler regime which he felt was just out to drive the Palestinians to desperation and to leave. Everything was a case of permits; the whole West Bank was closeted and blockaded. People were not allowed to travel from place to place, from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, etc. The Bishop was quite clear that the Armenians were enemy no. 1. It’s interesting to note how the different Oriental Orthodox Churches actually feel about each other. In particular, I could sense that there was a lot of bad blood between the Syrians and the Armenians. I never expected the Bishop to openly state what he stated to me. For he was quite vindictive of the Armenians as well as Orthodox Jews and some fanatic Muslims in Palestine who questioned the nationalistic credentials of the Palestinian Christians solely based on their performance in the national struggle in Palestine. The Bishop was quite clear in his feeling that the Armenians were the bigger threat than the Israelis or even the Muslims as far as relations between the Oriental Christians were concerned. For him, the Armenians as the bigger, more prosperous and influential group had always taken property that did not belong to them to add to their own. Armenians had long had contacts within the Ottoman Empire as well as within the greater European world that abutted the OE. These contacts were often powerful men. The Armenians controlled the money markets in Constantinople along with the Greeks. There would often be competition between the different sects for firmans granting authority or rights over various properties in Jerusalem to rival sects. By the time the Bishop in Jerusalem had made his journey from Constantinople to Jerusalem, the Armenians would already have got another firman transferring power again. The Bishop appeared to me as if he would willingly have suspected the Armenians of being guilty of any crime. One could almost sense the animosity between Syrian and Armenian in the Holy Land. Bishop Malki referred to the fact that the Status Quo had frozen all relations between the Churches in the Holy Sepulchre over the last years since 1967.He said that there had been cooperation between churches before the start of the first Intifada. He also said that there was something like 1% of the Christians of Palestine that were radicalized and wanting to fight the Israelis using the gun. He talked of how the Christians of Israel-Palestine were largely peaceful, but the present events were all pushing them all to emigrate. His reply was that the Christians preferred to invest in services like hospitals and schools for all Palestinians. He talked about the 13 main recognized churches and their meetings in Jerusalem as well as the good work being done by the WCC and the MECC. HE talked of how the Churches had all gone to meet Colin Powell at the residence of the US ambassador during Sharon’s incursions into the west bank with the aim of destroying the PNA and how they had submitted a letter to him. They told him that nothing was going to work out without some sort of balanced approach on the part of the Americans towards the conflict. As long as the Americans sided with the Israelis there would be no solution to the vexed ME conflict. The Bishop himself asked about the Golan and when it would be returned as there had already been something like 30 years of peace there. The Bishop said that a solution to the conflict could be had only through the implementation of UN resolutions. Peace with Syria was particularly important for the Syrian Church as its headquarters was in Damascus, Syria. It seems that he could get no favorable answer from Colin Powell over this issue
# posted by Sam @ 7:57 AM 0 comments links to this post
Christian popular culture in Palestine.
I had a wonderfult time studying the different sects in Palestine and Israel. really enjoyed the different colourful groups in palestine. Wonderful experience to watch the different groups and how they interact. They definitely have a colour prejudice in Jerusalem. Well, that's understandable I guess. I enjoyed the different scout truops and how proud the Church leaders were to encourage scouting and Church activities in Jerusalem. It was definitely a means to add colour to the various ceremonies and instill pride in the people. The uniform of the scouts in Jerusalem, particularly the Coptic scouts had me very interested, a potent mix of jean and khaki with an Israeli IDF style green beret, one could almost understand the significance of this attire. you could again see and visionise the position of these Churches as semi autonomous nation-states in what for them must be a potentially hostile and challenging atmosphere for them. In particular, the Copts struck me as being te most Greek of all the Oriental Orthodox churches. At the prayer meeting I was at, I was particularly struck by the way in which the chants were conducted. I had it on record from the Copts that I was acquainted with that there was no knowledge of Coptic anymore among the local people anymore, infact only the clergy knew Coptic. In that case, why keep chanting and boring everybody with Greek! I found the chants particularly emotive, just ongoing with no end, struck me as very monastic and older indeed than what passes as Greek now. Copts in general seemed proud of their language, tracing its roots and their blood and mentality back to the Pharoanic roots and ancient antiquity. The prayer meeting was unique to me in that it seemed as if the priests were also trying to score a point in inter-Church diplomacy by their co-option of Syriac as well as Armenian prayers into their schedule but leaving out Ethiopian which as well as being a fellow African language was the Church most related to the Copts as far as language, culture and ethnicity are concerned. Obviously the conflict with the Ethiopians was the primary motivating factor in this anomaly as nobody came from the Ethiopian Church to attend the meeting at the Coptic Patriarchate. Again Bishop Aris's presence was very interesting. He as the official representative of the Armenian Church's foreign relations wing seems to take a lot of interest in fostering inter-Church dialogue and connections. As I went through the text of the prayer meeting and the various prayers that had been incorporated, I could not fail to notice the reference to 'martyrs' which was a comment that was confusing to say the least. Who are they refering to, is it to the Lebanese martyrs. The term is so controversial in the current conflict that one wonders whether the Copts were actually passing on a message, especially given the fact that the Coptic Church, again as a result of their sitiation in Egypt have always been more on the radical side of all the Christian communities in Jerusalem and indeed in the ME. The way the term is used, one cannot but help think that the reference is to the families of the Hezbollah fighters who have been killed and therefore martyred, tho the cause is indeed debatable. However when one places the Coptic Church within the framework of the Arab ME and their known positions as regards the present conflict, then the use of the term does not seem so debatable. Agan, there is no mention in the prayer of Israel, even tho many Israelis lost their lives, both civilian and military lost their lives in the conflict, and indeed about 15 israeli Arabs were killed as well, deaths that do not seeme to have been acknowledged at all in Israeli media or indeed in public discourse about the conflict.
# posted by Sam @ 3:12 AM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, September 01, 2006
Christian dissatisfaction in Jerusalem and Bethlehem
It was a recurrent thot in my discussions in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. People kept referring to the situation in the Holy Land for Christians and the majority opinion was that there was need for some sort of international guarantees or protection for the local Christians of Israel-Palestine. The general feeling was that the Christians of Jerusalem and the West bank in general needed foreign aid and protection as they were being persecuted and silently being forced out of the Holy Land by the concerted tho disparate activities of the Jewish state as well as the Palestinian Muslim majority. An interesting point made was to put pressure on the Israelis by closing The churches of Jerusalem and maybe Bethlehem indefinitely. This would bring the state down to its knees in desperation as the Holy Sepulchre was one of the prime pullers of tourists to the Holy Land. In my opinion, if the present population growth continues there will be definitely 25% less Christians in the old city of Jerusalem and 25 % more orthodox jews.
# posted by Sam @ 5:57 AM 0 comments links to this post
The Deir al-Sultan in Jerusalem
From a personal perspective, my visit to Jerusalem was also a journey of self-discovery. I was able to meet all the Oriental Churches and talk to their priests. it was grand experience for me. Particularly eloquent was my frequent visits to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The competition between the different Churches as well as the different sects within the Holy Sepulchre have to be seen to be fully understood. I was particularly enamoured by the reactions of the various Oriental Orthodox sects in their reactions to me as a fellow Oriental Orthodox and their mutual competition to secure the loyalty of me in their competing visions of nationalism. I was also struck by the stories I heard about the Israeli police actually striving to limit the number of people who were wanting to enter the Holy sepulchre. Two local Christians told me about the fights that had broken out in the Church between the locals and the Israeli police over rights of entry to the Church. When I was in Jerusalem, there was some problem with the Syrian chapel within the Holy Sepulchre with a case of somebody actually breaking into the chapel which is kept in a very poor state due to lack of agreement and conflict between the Armenians and the Syrians. Apparently the Armenians claim the little chapel as their own. The Ethiopian Chapels were the most remarkable. Apparently at least from the Coptic side, there were claims about the true rights and origins of these chapels. The Copts claimed that the Chapels belong to them as well as the Deir al-Sultan rooftop monastery next to the Coptic Quarter right on the top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Infact the whole position of the two churches on this issue is entirely contradictory. I'm only happy that I managed to locate the Ethiopian Patriarchate in the Old City so that I will be able to question them in detail later.
# posted by Sam @ 3:51 AM 0 comments links to this post
Trip to Jerusalem
Trip to JerusalemMy trip to Jerusalem from the 25th july - 20 August was like an eye opener as far as I'm concerned. Iwas never so scandalised by the state of affairs in Jerusalem as such. East Jewrusalem is such a contrast as compared to the West or even the new city. In the new city, Mea Shearim area, you have the Orthodox Jews living as though they are still in Russia with long woolen dresses and Kaftans, etc. It brought to my mind a recent newsreport I read about the new laws in Teheran as regards women covering up and I thot about these people and the fact that nobody seems to mind how they walk as long as they don't intrude with others. Again what came to my mind was a statement by a young Israeli soldier again in yesterday's BBC website who reported that the reason for the existence of the state of Israel was to teach the rest of the world about God. I found that to be particularly condescending and imposing a world-view. but it was so evident in my travels there over the last month or two. You got the impression of a Judaism on the march allied with fundamentalit neo-Zionist Christianity and confronting moderate as well as radical Islam and mainstream Christians. The Christian I could see there were really on the defensive. I was surprised by the amount of segregation in Jewish society, it was as if there would never be any integration between Jews and Arabs. The settlements themselves stood out a sore thumbs in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem landscape. From my sights and trip into the Armenian sector, I got the impression that it would be only a matter of time before the Armenian quarter became completely subsumed within the Jewish Quarter. Already Orthodox Jews from the New City as well as neighbourhoods of West Jerusalem used the road thru Jaffa Gate to enter the Old City and thereby go on to the Western Wall. When I was first taken around the Old City, I went in the company of George Hintlian who must the foremost authority on the history and politics of the old city of Jerusalem. We went walking along the seams of the Christian, Muslim and Armenian Quarters, especially the points of contention and where the quarters met the Jewish quarter and where there were Jewish settlements right in the middle of the Muslim Quarter. A very pressure filled atmosphere indeed. We saw the famous house bought by Sharon and now draped with an Israeli flag from all sides. We saw a family the top part of whose house had been taken over by Jewish settlers and the problems that they faced daily in dealing with the settlers who were openly racist. We personally saw how the jewish settlers discriminated between people when we met a settler man who greeted Ian, the Swedish guy in our midst but ignored all the rest. Some part of the city were very tense indeed, I can remember the chap who challenged me at the Ottoman inscription. And the soldiers who acted to block me at almost all entrances to the Holy Mosques.
# posted by Sam @ 2:02 AM 0 comments links to this post