A field-work analysis of my recent trip to Jerusalem। Monday, October 09, 2006 , फ्रॉम सम्स्य्रिअनी@ब्लागस्पाट.com

Monday, October 09, 2006
A field-work analysis of my recent trip to Jerusalem.
An account of a field-trip to Jerusalem during the period from July 25- August 21, 2006.Introduction.One thing that I realised from my field-trip was that I should have done this long ago. A field-trip gives you a great measure of confidence to face your subject and to drive into it. This is the account of a field-trip and my first that I took during the period July 21- August 21, 2006 for one month. It’s a simple presentation of my experiences and research findings. I’d like to ask the organisers to factor me in for a regular full-scale PP presentation in January or February, 2007, when I hope to give a presentation based on my work in progress. That will be just at the start of my writing up period, so it should be quite useful to me. I see this just as a means of laying before you what I saw as well as experienced in Jerusalem among the Christians there. I’ve interspersed my presentation with personal anecdotes just to spice it up, so don’t be afraid of being bored.First Impressions- What coloured my first impressions of Palestine.May I say that I went to Jerusalem both as a pilgrim as well as a research student. As a pilgrim, I was invariably influenced by the kind of religious upbringing that I had. My earliest memories go back to the time when my great-grandparents were still alive in the early eighties of the last century, when I used to see them without failure turn towards Jerusalem five times a day to pray, genuflecting in true Eastern Oriental Orthodox style. My parents, on the other hand, were out and out Bible evangelicals who were committed to the return of the Jewish people to Israel as a fact of biblical truth. It’s remarkable how religious practises can change within Christianity over the space of a hundred or so years. Living in Nigeria where there were no Orthodox Churches but only Pentecostals, American Baptists or Catholics to choose from in the area of religious congregations, certainly helped this trend in my family. And so I was raised much as any Christian kid in the West would be raised with rosy visions of the Holy Land as an exotic land of palm trees, fig trees, olive trees, turbaned people who in my child eyes were always Jews and not Arabs!Jerusalem at first glance.I was really interested in seeing the diversity of people in the old city of Jerusalem, There seemed to be every race on earth there as tourists, even people whom we don’t usually see in the Anglo-West in large numbers like French and Creole speaking Afro-Caribbeans as well as South Americans. I spent a lot of time just sitting in café’s either in the Jaffa Gate area or the Damascus Gate area and just watching life as it flowed by. The Turkish juice sellers in their colourful dresses and fezzes in the Damascus Gate area particularly caught my fancy. I also spent a remarkable amount of time in the courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre just studying the people who came there, monks, Priests, nuns as well as laity, their reactions as well as prayer rituals and the general goings on in what could well be argued to be the holiest spot in Christendom. Going to Israel-Palestine for the first time and seeing how the original landscape has been transformed into what I would call a huge building site, at least from my vision of Israel along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway was a huge shock. So was the sight of how mercilessly the beautiful hills and valleys of the Holy Land were being levelled by the present authorities in their seemingly endless quest to fill the erstwhile Palestine with American style suburbia. I was shocked to see the visible differences that are being maintained between East and West Jerusalem, between Jewish areas and Arab areas. These differences form the best arguments that Israelis can use to discriminate against the Arabs.Municipal Services.After travelling in Jerusalem and its environs as well as the rest of Palestine and seeing how you could know you were leaving a Jewish area and entering an Arab area just by spotting how rugged the urban landscape suddenly became as well as the water tanks on the tops of Arab houses, put there because of the fact that Palestinians are only allowed a certain fraction of the water allowed to Jews and that only at certain intervals, effectively depriving them of safe and clean running water. The municipality services were hopeless in Arab Jerusalem; I spent most of my time in the Damascus Gate area where by nightfall everyday, the roads would be strewn with garbage, making it necessary to pick one’s way across the street like a cat. Then the street cleaners would arrive and begin their mad race to clean up with rudimentary equipment, nothing in comparison to the polished and ‘green’ style of garbage disposal in the Jewish areas. You could just see how easy it would be for the Israelis to just convince their American and other ‘Western’ allies that you had to deal with a bunch of ‘uncivilised’ Palestinians here who did not know how to keep their own streets clean. You are talking of two people who are paying the same municipal taxes if not more for the Palestinians. The same experience can be attributed to the old city, where the Arab-Christian and Muslim areas as well as the Armenians sectors are basically been left as they were in Ottoman-Mandate times whereas the Jewish quarter has been renovated and resurfaced and populated with what from the language, one would judge to be mostly American Jews. This view was emphasized to me by many people in the Old quarters. In fact the whole experience brought to me the kind of experience in various colonised territories where living conditions would be progressively undermined for the native people’s just to make them vacate the territories where they lived, so that the new dominant group could take over and settle these areas.The Wall.I don’t mind confessing that I was one of those people who thought that the wall was for security just as the Israelis meant it to be thought. I mean, what you actually build a wall for, if not to protect one’s house, territory and turf against the imprecations of the ‘other’, so as to speak. It was only on seeing the wall for the first time and particularly the part around Bethlehem as well as parts of Jerusalem like Abu-Dis, el-Azzariyya and the Shuaffat refugee camp area that I realised what actually the wall was and what it was doing. During the conference travelling that we undertook thru mainly southern Palestine, we often passed the Wall, many checkpoints as well as that new feature of the West Bank landscape (tho it’s precious hard to find any of the original landscape left in the West Bank unless one travels deep into the South or North of the west Bank), the terminals that seemed to remind one that you were about to enter another country, foreign territory, etc. It’s again so obvious that each Palestinian city in the West Bank has been cantonised with checkpoints surrounding each and terminals strewn in between. It struck me with what clinical precision the Israelis had managed to disrupt and micro-manage the lives of Palestinians in the west Bank. An aid worker in Ramallah told me that they, that is, the expatriates as well as the local populace, had now accepted the wall as part and parcel of life in the West Bank and it took new arrivals to the territories to express fresh outrage and new views on this all-pervasive phenomenon in the OT’s. I remember looking with curiosity as well as appreciation at the quite good wall painting drawing of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi and appreciated by many people as the first modern practitioner of the Tolstoyan concept of non-violence. This is situated just at the entrance to the Kalandia checkpoint from the Ramallah side, so I’m sure those of you who have not seen this will keep their eyes peeled next time they cross Kalandia.Identity PoliticsI could make use of my identity to good effect. I’m not saying that I did not know there was a Syriani community in Palestine. What struck me was that other allied communities tried to relate to me based on this fact. For example, to the Copts, I was a Malabarese Syrian who had once been part of the Coptic Church, before being poached by the Syrians sometime in the 15th century. It’s interesting how pivotal the 15th century is for Palestinian Christians. That century denoted the start of Ottoman rule in Palestine as well a the fall of Constantinople, effectively putting an end for almost half a millennia to any hopes of Eastern Orthodox Christians becoming part of a new Eastern Orthodox or Christian Empire.Palestinian and other expatriate’s misperceptions of my identity.Among educated Palestinian Christians, whether in their offices, workplaces or homes, I could sense a feeling of suspicion at first directed towards me. I was often questioned in a detailed fashion about my work before the interlocutor would unbend, obviously on deciding that I was worth his time or was relatively harmless. I could sense that this took place largely because the interlocutor was unfamiliar with somebody from, in their eyes, ‘untamed’ India interviewing him or her. This reaction could also be applied to quite a few of the expatriate ‘helpers’ that were attached to many of the Churches as well Christian NGO’s in the field. Having said this, I was also extremely pleased with the general positive attitude towards Indians and India that I got from common Palestinians as well as those on the street. I can still remember being called Hello India by little chaps in the by lanes of the Old City and been asked in Salah-ed-Din whether I knew Raj Kapoor and all those old generation of Bollywood film stars who belonged to the so called ‘Golden Generation’ of Indian cinema. It struck me that Palestinians were still familiar with the so-called ‘Golden Generation’ and they were not mentioning the present generation led by the redoubtable and very Muslim Shahrukh Khan.The Oriental Orthodox: The Armenians.Armenian misperceptions of myself as an ‘unfriendly’ Syrian Jacobite (Orthodox) spy.The Armenian Archbishop in charge of foreign relations questioned me especially about this. He wanted to know about my Oriental Orthodox credentials. I doubt if he would have been friendly, had I claimed allegiance to the Syrian faction within the Malabar Church. He even showed me the visiting card of the present Catholicos of the so-called Indian Orthodox Church of Malabar (non-Patriarchal head, theoretically often independent of the Patriarch, might not be in practise-for those of you who have wondered about the Syrian Church in India, it’s split down the middle into two opposing factions, again a common thing in Eastern Christendom, one that supports the present Damascus based Patriarch and the other that opposes him and has set up its own Catholicos as well as independent Church structure.) and asked me whether I recognised the name. He then told me that this Catholicos had visited the monastery of St. James and stayed there a while ago but within the last year, as this man has only been Patriarch since the last one year or so. Given the state of relations between the two factions in India, It seemed only natural that the Indian Catholicos should stay at St. James, definitely enemy territory for the other Syrian Archbishop. The enemy of one’s enemy is after all, one’s friend. Among the Armenians, I was asked whether I was an Armenian from India. The oldest functional Armenian Church in the East is now in India, in Calcutta. To come back, I found that it made a lot of sense to introduce myself as an Oriental Orthodox believer whether my interactions were with the Copts, Syrians or Armenians, but never mention Syrian Orthodox in the Armenian sector or vice-versa.Interview with Bishop Aris Shirvanian, August 8, 2006.Bishop Aris was cool, calculating and careful. He was obviously not willing to commit anything to me. The Armenian community gave me the impression of being deeply hand-in-glove with the Israelis, and this was corroborated by the views of many of other Christians that I talked to in Palestine. In fact, I was surprised by this as a comparatively widespread opinion among Palestinian Christians. A feeling that the Armenians were standing with their legs in two boats. This was particularly the impression among Palestinian Christians. I found the Anglo-phone educated class of Palestinians to be more sympathetic to the Armenians, probably because there were many people of Armenian or mixed Armenian origin in this society. Only the Ethiopians had a worse score card and this was because of their seemingly confused identity as Jewish-Christians. Of-course, this view would not be shared by the majority of the laity who generally had a feeling of being either neutral or on the Palestinian side of the conflict. From the Israeli side, off-course it was natural to favour the Armenians, as a non- Palestinian Europeanised group with significant property interests in Israel and Palestine and with an Armenian Quarter that formed the closest strategic neighbour to the revived Jewish Quarter. To my mind, this was a reflection of the same reason why the Israelis insisted in dealing with the Palestinians within the territory of former mandatory Palestine in four different ways (namely Israeli Arabs, Jerusalem residents, West Bankers and Gazans) as also the way in which Palestinians within the state of Israel were treated differently based on religious affiliation. The more divided the non-Jews were the greater security for Israel.He said that the Armenians had formal relations with both the Israelis as well as the PA. He referred to the responsibilities of the state, whether Israel, Palestine or Jordan to ensure recognition of the duly elected Patriarch of each church in the Holy Land. According to him, Armenians have no problem with the state of Israel. No land problems as well. I found this strange given the issue of Baron Der in Bethlehem. Baron Der was raised to me by other non-Armenian clerics. The Armenians seemed less interested in it now. He said that the Armenians had perfectly good relations with the state. He also commented that ecumenical relations were improving given the dwindling number of Christians in the Holy Land. I can stand for this comment as I personally saw Bishop Aris at most ecumenical meetings I attended. Bishop Aris openly, if not in so many words, confirmed my suspicions that the Armenians for all their circumspections are deeply frustrated by the situation on the ground in Israel-Palestine. He talked of Israelis having much bigger families as well as the inflow of immigrants into Israel meant that the pressure on non-Jewish residents of Israel was increasing daily. He openly stated that the law of return was discriminatory to non-Jews since it prevented people of non-Jewish heritage from migrating to the country as well as settling there. It was quite clear that the Israeli line was to create a state that was purely and only for the Jewish people. Bishop Aris acknowledged that the whole conflict was about land. He also stated that the official position of The Christian Churches in Jerusalem was that there should be two states side by side, Israel and Palestine with three religions co-existing together.Bishop Shirvanian said that the Israelis occupied more and more land and then made laws in their favour to annex the land. The Apartheid Wall could be sited as proof. He added that most Christians believed that most or some of the Palestinian refugees should return. A few Armenian families still live in West Jerusalem and in Jaffa. Most Armenians did not own homes in Palestine and were living as rentiers.He added that Armenians have been in Jerusalem since the 4rth century and since when Armenian has been part of the Ottoman Empire and there fore one country with Ottoman Armenia. He also stated that Armenians are first Armenians and do not share any sort of identity with Jews or Muslims.According to Bishop Aris, most Armenians carried Israeli Ids while Palestinian Armenians carried Palestinian or Jordanian Identity. Bishop Aris was quite clear that East Jerusalem was occupied territory the future of which would have to be negotiated in any future peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Again according to him, the Vatican is a state and it conducts state to state relations. The Latin Church benefits from these negotiations. As regards taxes, the Vatican is negtiating with the state of Israel as regards taxation. No taxes are paid to Israel based on an old Ottoman law.Shirvanian, who is responsible for the church's external relations, said recent events highlight the need for international guarantees for the region's holy sites. "We are not looking for sovereignty over the holy places, just international guarantees. In a case like this, where there are no guarantees, the end result may be a disaster.”Bishop Shirvanian was quite clear that he did not want to involve the Armenian Patriarchate in any statement that was contrary to the conducive atmosphere that existed between the state of Israel and the Armenian Church. In this context, it might be interesting to note that the Armenian Church acted much as an independent nation in Jerusalem from the fact that they did not have ethnic alliance with either of the two states to the conflict in Jerusalem. He believed that in any future peace negotiations, all Christian Churches should take part as well as the Armenian Church and said that they as Armenians would be very interested in such a process. I got the impression of a community that was fighting to ensure its rights in the Holy Land. A church that was also quite confident of its role in the Holy Sepulcher as well as the Church of the Nativity and indeed in Jerusalem as a whole. The Bishop said that the Armenians were willing to accept whatever was struck up in a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. He said that there would be an acceptance by either side in any future negotiations between the Israelis as well as the Armenians. I got the impression of a Church in close collaboration with the Israelis to safeguard their positions within the Holy Land. During Camp David, the Jerusalem Christian Churches had moved heaven and earth in their determination to avoid the separation of the Armenian Quarter within the Jewish Quarter. But now The Bishop was saying that he would be quite willing to tolerate the placement of the Armenian Quarter within the Israeli sector or the Jewish Quarter. The Bishop spoke of formal relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Bishop did acknowledge that settlers were encroaching on other quarters though there were no problems in the Armenian quarter. This was again in contrast to George Hintlian who did take us around the borders of the Armenian quarter and showed us points of conflict with the Jewish settlers. He clearly indicated to us the points at which the Jewish sector was expanding thereby creating problems for the non-Jewish people in the old city. Shirvanian struck me as playing very safe, tho he could not hide his feelings of fear and apprehensions in general for the community as well as the future of Christians and Churches in the Holy Land.Shirvanian commented on the state of unsettled relations between the Ethiopians and Copts and the fact that the Israelis were supporting the Ethiopians for political purposes.Interview with Hagop Andreassian, the famous Armenian potter, August 8, 2006.For Hagop, his world-view was inevitably coloured by the financial hardships that he faced as an Armenian potter in the Old City very close to the Western Wall. He told me a story that was sort of standard among orthodox Christians in the old city of Jerusalem. They saw the conflict in the city and in the region from a perspective of distraction and displacement. They did not see this conflict as one they could fight or cared to fight at all. Last Easter, local Christians were blocked from entering the Holy Sepulchre. The Israeli authorities do not let young Muslims to enter the Mosque of Omar to pray for allegedly security reasons. Hagop felt that what was going on in Israel was part of plan to completely judaise the country as well as the city of Jerusalem. Hagop stated quite clearly that he was in no way associated with the state of Israel. He did not consider himself a citizen of the state even tho Israel had provided him with Jerusalem residency papers. He questioned the actual intentions of the state of Israel, which denied non-Jews the right to build, restore their old buildings and generally acted in a fashion that made it quite evident that they just wanted to encourage the majority of people to leave. He questioned from a secular perspective what was done by so-called ecumenical movements like Sabeel. What was the use of praying when the people were suffering and all that? Even though he was a world renowned Armenian potter, he had sold stuff for less than $100 in the last month. He did not feel that the Christians of the West really cared about Christians in the East, especially in Jerusalem. He felt that people like Bishop Atallah Hanna, while being very committed to their cause were still not sufficiently educated or motivated to act solely and disinterestedly for Palestine’s Christian communities. He could see the extent of right wing Christian evangelical support for Israel particularly in the project that he undertook to redevelop the Yardenit Baptism site on the upper Jordan near Tiberius. He was in charge of the designing of the Pater Noster Church with its all its beautiful murals in different languages. He could not understand why there were no renovations among the Churches in Palestine. He said that Jewish friends often asked him why the Armenians did not immigrate to Armenia. He felt that America supported Muslims more than Christians meaning the US support for the retrogade regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf regimes that were being projected and protected by the US.The Jacobite Syrians and CoptsThe Syrians are a relatively poor community, tho if you were to watch the 11AM Sunday after service promenade outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Syrian community before they proceed to St. Marks Church for tea and cakes, they seemed fairly well-to-do and sophisticated to me. The Syrians are quite happy now that Ms. Hind Khoury has been made PLO Ambassador to France, thus continuing a Palestinian tradition of naming influential Christians to important Ambassadorial posts in the Western world. The Archbishop, Maki Murad Sewerious was very happy about this, when I spoke to him. In the Armenian sector, I made sure I assumed my rightful role as a member of the splinter group of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India that had rebelled against the mother Church based in Damascus and set itself up as the Indian Orthodox Church of Malabar It particularly struck me about the similarity between the Copts and the Syrians as well as their mutual appreciation and cooperation as well as friendship. Their cooperation is quite evident in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where the Syrians and the Coptic chapels are situated next to each other. It was often difficult to distinguish Syrian priest from Copt, except that there seemed more Copts than Syrians in the Holy Land. Syrian vestments also seemed better tailored than the Copts.Interview with Bishop Sewerios Malki Murad, Bishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, August 8, 2006.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.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.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. Israel in his opinion was just out to get all the territory and property that it could get. The Bishop felt that the Armenians would be happy to stay with the Israelis as they were prime elements in any accusation of collaboration with the Israelis. Bishop referred to the ongoing negotiations between all the concerned parties over the future of the Holy City. He made a comment that the three main denominations of Greeks, Catholic-Franciscans and Armenians all had both their legs in both camps, Israeli as well as Arab-Palestinian or Jordanian.The Bishop confided in me that there were still negotiations going on as regards the future of Jerusalem.Mukhtar Sami Barsoum, of the Syriac Orthodox Community in Jerusalem. Interview on 11th August 2006.For the Mukhtar, Jerusalem is still divided with two consulates for East as well as West Jerusalem. He told of how the Israeli courts had just closed the St. John’s hospice case, thus enabling the settlers to basically take over the building for which they were paying no rent. He saw all this as part of a grand plan to judaise the Old City. The same may be said ultimately about the property at Jaffa Gate. He felt that Western Christians did not care sufficiently about Eastern Christians. There were once a 1000 Syrian families in Jerusalem. Now there were just 150 left. The total Christian population of Jerusalem numbered something like between 8-9000 and 1-2 % of the population. The status of Jerusalem was still undecided. He remembered how small the Jewish Quarter had been, just a few families used to live there. But now it had expanded after 1967 to include must of the adjacent quarters. He talked of his identity and the fact that he carried a Jordanian passport. He interestingly felt as a representative of an older generation in Palestine that there was never a Palestinian identity indeed. He referred to the former mayor of Jerusalem as a good man while the incumbent was a hopeless fellow. The Mukhtar referred to an interesting issue when he said that there were now no businesses in the West Bank during the Jordanian era. The Jordanians either from political compulsions or otherwise did not have the wherewithal to finance industrialization in The West bank. And as a result the Israeli occupation was almost welcomed as the Israelis promptly started to develop the region though from a Jewish point of view. The Mukhtar like most Christians supported an international Jerusalem where there would be protection for the Christians and their Holy Places. The Mukhtar acknowledged that emigration was a major drawback. He said that Catholics did much more for their people than the Orthodox. The Mukhtar shared with me his fears for his community.The Copts: Interview with Fr. Efrayim Elorashalimy, 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.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 seems 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 were 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, there 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.The Ethiopians.Fr. Gabre Silassi, Ethiopian Patriarchate, Interview on August 18, 2006.For the Ethiopians, I was an Indian Orthodox and almost their blood brother, at least by the colour of my skin. For a community that was naturally secretive and that kept to itself, I found their openness to me like a breath of fresh air. I was able to confute the views of quite a few people who said that I would not be able to get anything out of the Ethiopians. I could sense a feeling of resentment among other Christians in Jerusalem vis-à-vis the Ethiopians. No doubt their status as a group of Zionist Christians who have not been able to reconcile their identity whether as Christians or as Jews contributed to this. Personally, I found their obsession on Solomon and the Queen of Sheba quite claustrophobic. This was because I kept hearing it from cleric after cleric and it was amply illustrated from the murals in Ethiopian Churches. I was almost afraid that I would be treated to a description of their conjugal relationship as well; just to prove the point to the listener, being me that the Ethiopian people were actually the offspring of such a relationship. The views that I’ve detailed above were repeated to me by often two or more priests of each denomination, just to show the extent to which these views permeate their respective societies. I would interpret this as the dreams and obsessions of a community seemingly isolated in Jerusalem and looking to catch at whatever roots of legitimacy it could possibly make use of. The main Ethiopian Church is in Debra Gannet in the new city along a side lane of Mea Shearim called Ethiopia Street. According to the Ethiopians, the Deir al-Sultan is divided into a minor part and a major part. The major part is still claimed by the Ethiopians. The Ethiopian priest who I talked to said that he did not want to question the sanctity of the holy throne of St. Mark of Alexandria. The Abuna said that it was the Jordanian Govt. who had given the Ethiopians the door key. He also claimed that the Deir belonged to the Ethiopians before the 17th and 18th century. He also claimed that Abdel Nasser gave the chapel to the Ethiopians. The Ethiopians in general seem to have gone all out to emphasize their Semitic identity in coordination with the Israelis. What I would call the ‘Lion of Judah’ mentality. This overt identification with Judaism does not seem to have gone down well with the local Christian populations as well as the local Churches. The Ethiopians did not give an impression of having any solidarity with the local Arab population. Abuna Silassi wanted to give an impression of being open-minded as well as desire to be pleasing. This seemed interesting given the Ethiopian Church’s obvious position of close cooperation with the Israeli authorities. It was also obvious the the Israelis corresponded with this relationship, not least in the behaviour of the various tour guides who came to the Holy Sepulchre and showed Western tourists around as well as the large numbers of seemingly Jewish Ethiopians in Israel today. The center of the Ethiopians in Jerusalem is obviously Ethiopia Street in the new city with its impressive Church as well as monastery and other buildings as well as Ethiopian consulate close by. The Ethiopian fathers were not prepared to criticise the Israelis as the other Palestinian Christians would do. To my mind, the Ethiopians were a remarkably self-centered church. I guess one can trace this to their history as a church, isolated in Ethiopia, and surrounded by non-Christian tribes and nations that were constantly interested in conquering and subjugating them. They were also the last Christian group in Jerusalem that was holding out against the onslaught of English, I could meet only one priest that knew English. Almost all the people I saw in Ethiopian street were neo-Hebraic Ethiopians, obviously non-Anglophonic. They also seemed to have a hesitation in speaking Arabic in Jerusalem, atleast, there seemed a preference to speaking Hebrew to Arabic. The Ethiopians also seemed to be really unconcerned about maintaining a liaison with the Palestinian side. The position of their main monastery securely in West Jerusalem as well as their seemingly close ties and faith in the power of the Israelis to maintain indefinitely their occupation of East Jerusalem as well as the old city and thereby ‘protect’ them from the Palestinians as well as Palestinian sympathizing Copts, seemed to be the only reason for this aberration, which was not evident on the part of any other of the recognised comunities in the Holy Land.The LatinsFr. Peter Madros: Latin Patriarchate, August 20, 2006.For Peter Madros was reputedly the only Palestinian Christian priest who was also a member of the highly secretive Opus Dei society. Peter Madros felt that most Christians liked to participate in demagogy. They like to say what Muslims like to hear. In his opinion, there was nothing specifically Christian about the various declarations that the Christians brought out from time to time. Palestine has had to suffer two scourges, first that of colonialism, where you had certain people enjoying certain privileges because they were foreign occupiers of the territories. Then you had Nationalism which raised its head in Palestine in the mid-20s as it did across much of the Levantine Arab world. In the Palestinian hierarchy, the priests sometimes forgot their Christian identity. Some clergy in Palestine have become members of political parties, which is something that is intolerable for the people of Madros’s calibre.According to Madros, priests as per Vatican dictates are allowed to take position and action in humanitarian issues, for eg. Struggling for justice inside and outside the nation, priests should have a feeling of solidarity for their community. According to Madros, the three Bishops are also demagogic in the sense that many issues are not raised by them at all. Issues relating to causes that may pain the majority community are not raised by the Bishops. What was been done as regards the allegations of Muslims taking over Christian lands in the Bethlehem area? There were never any public statements on this issue which would create ripples of controversy within Palestinian society. The Palestinian national solidarity was united in telling lies. This was in order to protect the Palestinian national struggle in its resistance against the Israelis. Islamic transgressions against Christians were completely wiped over. According to Madros, for the last 14 centuries, there has been pressure against Christians. According to Madros, Protestants such as Baptists, free Christians, pro-Zionists get Israeli visas. Israel is not keen on having the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has never been pro-Israel. The Anglicans and Lutherans were once hysterically pro-Israel and are now the opposite. The Greek hierarchy is pro-Israel; Israel is buying a lot of property from the Greeks. So it’s mainly the Catholics, Arab Anglicans and Lutherans who are anti-Israeli now. Madros claims the last two Popes were weak men. Israel keeps insisting on taxes. In the 19th century, the Churches had an exemption from the Ottoman powers.The Fundamental AgreementAn act of stupidity on the part of the nuncios, it does not grant the Christians any significant powers at all. It was signed before the agreement with the Palestinian authority or the Israel-Palestine agreement. Israel was a state that was founded in violence. The Vatican should never have established relations with Israel without consulting with the Palestinian Authority. The Agreement disregarded the victim. The Agreement was signed in Jerusalem which meant that the Vatican recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The local Church did not get basic rights for the local clergy to move inside the country. The situation for Catholic priests has become worse even as the situation eased for Israelis. The visa issue was also not resolved. The Vatican entered into the agreement in good faith, but Israel chose not to respect the agreement. Many clergymen are wishing that the Vatican cuts its relations with Israel. He said that Christians always complain in the Holy Land. Israel has health insurance and old age benefits. Almost all Christian families are working in Jerusalem. At least 1/3 rd of the Christians in the Bethlehem area are working for the Church.Christian Persecution in the TerritoriesIsrael is the local problem for Christians in the Holy Land, but resurgent Islam is the world problem. The impression that I got from Fr. Madros was of a man deeply pained by the situation in the Holy Land. He talked of how the PA was victimising Christians. There was talk of Christian persecution in the territories. He referred to the resolution passed by the American House of Representatives regarding persecution of Christians and said that those who condemned the resolution, especially the Mayor of Bethlehem were actually being cowards and liars. The Palestinian Christian Community was now between the fire and the deep sea. The fire being Israel and the deep sea being the world-wide community of militant Islam. He talked of land confiscations by Muslims against local Christians and allegations of apostasy. Since 1994, Palestine under Israeli occupation has been going through problems of a political and religious nature. He listed the main dangers as dangers from the outside, namely land confiscations and Israeli pressure as well as the danger of apostasy as well as mixed marriages. In the opinion of Fr. Madros, Patriarch Sabbah has done a lot for the sake of the people, raising funds, creating a centre of development and always stressing his Palestinian Christian identity. He also convened a Synod of all the Catholic Churches of the Holy Land. In his view, the Palestinian Christians are constantly motivated by a sense of fear, selfishness, not a really big sense of belonging to the land as well as a perfectly defensive attitude. ‘Jews and Muslims put us to shame’-They are willing to fight and die for the Holy Land, not so the Christians who are selfish and care only for their own interests.’ Christians in the opinion of Fr. Madros are not fanatic enough. He made a comment about Mitri Raheb as being a consummate businessman.Fr. Rafiq Khoury, Interview August 17, 2006Fr. Rafiq Khoury is the secretary of the inter-Catholic committee of the Holy Land. Traditionally the different Catholic churches were competing between each other. Relations between all the different Catholic Churches were very difficult indeed. Each Church was against each other. Relations between the churches are not static but dynamic. According to Fr. Rafiq, it was the visit of Pope Paul VI in 1964 and his meeting with Pope Athenagoras on the Mount of Olives that broke the ice between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Since then, there have been more and more relations between the Churches. According to Fr. Rafiq, there has been an assembly of Catholic Churches of the Holy Land since the last 16 years. Fr. Rafiq is the Secretary-General of the Catholic Synod of the Holy Land. Fr. Rafiq has seen more and more cooperation between the different Catholc Churches as well as more and more cooperation between the Catholic and Orthodox. He felt that there was no real ecumenical movement in the Holy Land. In place of that, there were more relations and more meetings between the churches. Fr. Rafiq was quite clear that the most important Church in the Holy Land was the Orthodox. The parents of Rafiq Khoury were Orthodox. He insisted that there should be no more conversions for the sake of inter-Church amity. Traditionally the heads of the main Churches in the Holy Land have been foreigners. The Arabisation of the hierarchy of the Churches was a great development. The Anglicans, Lutherans and Latins are working very close together. The Orthodox Church feels that they are the mother Church. The Greek element is very strong in the Church. It is basically a Greek Church. The hierarchy of the Church is still Greek. Fr. Rafiq felt that there should be a change from within the Greek Church. The Greek element within the Church is not ecumenical. They are rather fanatical as well as not sufficiently educated in the ‘liberal’ tradition. Atallah Hanna is very oratorical. Israel will never allow him to become Patriarch. Fr. Rafiq felt that it was a tribute to the new spirit of cooperation within the Churches that Christian education within the Palestinian public school was now been jointly taught. On the issue of the future of Jerusalem, it’s true that there were negotiations between the Catholic Church and Israel. It is a political question between Israel and the Palestinians. The Greek Orthodox did not approve of the negotiations between the Catholics and the Israelis. They have always maintained that there are other Christians. Jerusalem is a political problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The solution according to Fr. Rafiq is to respect the different realities on the ground. Nobody has the right to say that Jerusalem was mine or theirs. There are three faiths in Jerusalem. Jerusalem has a universal character and a universal discussion in Jerusalem.Vatican’s treaty with IsraelIsrael was recognised by the Vatican. There is more pressure on the Arabs of Jerusalem as part of Israeli policy to Judaise Jerusalem. It is more a political problem than a security problem. As regards the question of visas, all Churches in Jerusalem have been facing the same problem. Fr. Rafiq told of a lady in the Latin Patriarchate who had to keep going to the ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as Internal Affairs everyday just to lobby about the visas of certain missionaries and foreign clergy affiliated with the Patriarchate. Franciscan ‘Custos’ of the Holy Land.-first Catholic presence in the Holy Land.-they are the Catholic Custodians of the Holy Places. In the 19th century, there were 4000 Christians of the Latin rite in Palestine, mainly people situated around the Franciscan convents and Churches. In 1857, the Latin Patriarchate was restored. There are some problems among the Churches, but generally relations are good conditioned by mutual respect. In Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, parish priests are generally from the Franciscan denomination. And in the Assembly of the Bishops, the Franciscan Custos is also included and he is considered as one of the Bishops. This meeting was even renamed for his benefit when it was called ‘Assemblies of the Ordinaries of the Holy Land’.Greek CatholicsThere has always been competition between the Greek Catholics and the Latin Patriarchate. The Greeks often used to work in Rome against the Latin’s. However since the Synod was started, the different churches have really started to cooperate with each other. Since the start of the synod, we have really started to cooperate with each other. Every year, we have a spiritual retreat for all the Catholic priests of the Holy Land of all denominations. Now 99 % of the Latin Church is Arabs from Israel, Jordan and the West Bank.Palestinian-Latin Politics.There is a so called Catholic Pastoral Committee of the Holy Land. The Latin Patriarchate has no problems with the Palestinian Authority. The channels of relations are always open. Traditionally, in the Galilee there have always been good relations between the Christians and Muslims. However Islamist movements create problems between Christians and Muslims. So there is a sort of tension between Christians and Muslims now in the Galilee. Israel has often adroitly manipulated the issue. Israel wants divide and rule, it tries to create divisions between the different sects. There is Islamic fundamentalism as fanaticism in the west Bank but generally Palestinian society is pluralistic. When the situation is troubled, the Islamic movements grow up. Personally speaking, Palestinian Islamist movements are completely local grown. Even in an Islamic regime, Christians are protected. Fr. Rafiq felt that Palestinian Christians should have a place in the past, present and future of Palestine. He felt that the main problem was the right wing evangelicals in the US for whom Islam was the bogeyman at all times. These right wing Protestants were the main obstacle in the face of peace among The Israelis and the Palestinians in any future peace agreement as they were staunchly opposed to peace.Interview with Bernard Sabella, August 15, 2006.Bernard Sabella told me of the two agreements between the Vatican and the PLO on the one hand and Israel on the other, the Basic Agreement and the Fundamental Agreement.An Open Jerusalem.The Holy See in Sabella’s opinion had always demanded an open Jerusalem; open Bethlehem and other open places. By this, they meant that they wanted open access to the Holy Places. Originally the Holy See had called for an open internationalised city. Now there was no demand for an international city, the Holy See is willing to wait for the results of the negotiations that take place on the future of the city. Access to the Holy Places must be guaranteed hopefully by international treaties. According to Sabella, local Palestinian Christians have been supporting the Palestinian Authority. The Churches have always supported the Palestinian refugees. The state of Israel will certainly never solve the refugee issue. The 14 November, 1994 statement of the Heads of Churches on Jerusalem was an important document as well as a turning point in inter-Church relations vis-à-vis the state of Israel as well as the Churches position on the Holy City. The Churches of Jerusalem have principal positions as well as practical and pragmatic relations with the State of Israel. According to Sabella, there were many people in all the denominations that were cooperating closely with the Israelis. This was especially in the case of the Armenians, as they were not ethnic Palestinians.The Palestinian draft constitution and Islamisation.He talked about the importance of having a secular constitution, one that was above all religions. Interestingly, Sabella felt that the islamisation of the constitution may not be a bad thing after all. It was not a question of Islamisation, but respect for the overall religious culture of the state. There is no doubt that there will be limits on the rights of women as well as the rights of groups like gays, etc. the right to choose abortion. Church leaders have the right to take what stand they want. Islamic parties are naturally against the occupation reflecting the mood among the people. This often does not suit the Anglo-Saxon world. He talked about the rise of Wahhabi Islam in the Arab world as well in Palestine. The main reason for this was the Occupation as Palestinians historically practised a form of Islam that was moderate and syncretic, to say the least. Interestingly, he said that a religious constitution would give him a level of manoeuvrability that a secular one would not. He was insistent that his freedom of choice and liberty should not be affected. He said that he was definitely worried by the future of Palestine as well as the creeping islamisation of the population.Christian (Church) Isolationalism.He was worried about how isolated the Churches were becoming with the question of the how important did they see a future Palestinian state coming to the fore. He referred to the process by which the Sharia code was unified for application by the different communities in Palestine in Muslim religious courts. He referred to how he had to keep talking to the different Patriarchs and Church leaders just to get some sort of response from them. Muslims could not often understand how such small communities could be so divided. Palestinian Christians were often subjected to a kind of ethnic cultural nationalism. He saw the future for Christians in Palestine to be very bleak indeed. As far as Sabella is concerned, the Patriarchs have always proceeded in their dealings with the state as well as each other and the ecumenical movement, according to their own selfish narrow communal interests.General Comments and advice by BSMost of the Churches have visa problems when allowing people into the country under their auspices. The position of the Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran Churches tends to be closer to the Palestinians than other Churches. The present Greek Catholic Bishop is an Egyptian and so is quite careful as of now, knowing that the eyes of the Israelis will be on him continually, given the history of the Greek Catholics as regards the national question. Church leaders in the Holy Land tend to be practical, pragmatic politicians. Most subscribe to Biblical statements on non-violence, decency, dignity, justice, etc. He exhorted me to study all the statements made by the heads of churches. He advised me that the best way to study would be to concentrate on national identity issues among Palestinian Christians. Sabella recommended doing a content-analysis of national identity issues among Palestinian Christians. He recommended interviewing in depth 20 prominent Palestinian Christians as part of my thesis.The Protestants-The Palestinian-German LutheransI’ve called this group so because, historically, it’s been the Lutherans as well as the Moravians of Germany that have provided much of the theological backing for Western Protestantism as well as what I would call, the spiritual base behind much of the 19th and early 20th century revivals of Protestant Christianity that powered the spread of the faith thru out the then European colonial world. In Palestine, it was quite evident that the highly educated Lutheran pastors (almost all have Ph. D’s) were behind a radically new interpretation of the Bible as well as the faith in the light of the Palestinian experience as well as the obvious need to evolve a faith based on one’s own culture and way of life.Interview with Bishop Munib Younan, August 15, 2006Munib Younan’s theology.To me, Munib Younan presented the image of being a real revolutionary. The Bishop was the author of the book ‘Witnessing for Peace’, which is a story of his life and work as Palestinian Christian. The Bishop felt that the whole message of liberation was similar to the message of liberation in the Bible. The whole message preached by the prophets was liberation, salvation and redemption. It was Palestine’s particular history of colonial occupation over the last 500 years that provided the fertile ground from which such theories sprang up. According to the Bishop, Liberation Theology starts from the poor, so that makes it a bottom-up approach. He quoted the Latin American context where successful people’s revolts against the entrenched authority of the Church as well as the ruling elite had served to change society to a remarkable degree though a lot was left to be done. He felt that believing in Christ was not enough. And it was clear that the Christian world was divided into two approaches, one dominated by the Western centred top-down approach with the elite centric approach as well as the new radical ‘people centric’ approach that gave importance to the common people.Three Bishop Initiative’sAgain the whole aim of the troika of Bishops, Munib Younan, Michel Sabbah as well as Riah Abu el-Assel, so as to speak, has been to give credence to this aspect of a Bishop’s life which is to give aid and succour to the poor and the needy. A good recent example can be the initiative of the three Bishops in visiting the five Churches that were damaged as a result of the recent wave of protests over the Pope’s alleged comments. Bishop Munib felt it was important to live with the poor and the needy. According to the Bishop, Jesus always moved with the needy. He talked about the total number of Christians in the Holy Land, something like 250,000-300,000. Though they were less than 2 % of the population, they believed in Jesus.Palestinian Christians Employment.The Bishop was very critical of those who criticised the Church despite all the Church did for those who lived in Palestine, Christian as well as Muslim. He calculated something like 7,000 Christian employees who should be ultimately feeding something like 35,000 people. This means that between 70-75 % of the Palestinian Christians are employed by the Church. The majority of the lay people actually want the Church to do more in my opinion and as a result of the lack of employment opportunities in Israel-Palestine. Bishop Munib told me about the initiative undertaken by the three Bishops of the Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic Churches to encourage the people to resist the occupying forces with courage.Palestinian LiberationThe Bishop talked about violence as an aspect of the Palestinian struggle. He talked about the inevitably of violence in any struggle. Non-violence was just a myth; there was no actual non-violence in any struggle in this world. He emphasized that the Palestinian people had to fight for their rights. Liberation Theology as such was non-violent. Bishop Munib talked of how all the Western dominated theological dialogue made such a great business of a man like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There were many men like Bonhoeffer in the East as well as in the South. According to the Bishop, Ecumenism was never static and always dynamic. The beauty of the ecumenical movement was the aspect of unity in diversity. The Bishop felt that the West was not really taking any notice of the struggle in Palestine and in the South in general over social justice issues as well as the importance of supporting political parties.Palestinian Ecumenism and Christian ZionismHe felt that the ecumenical movement was really catching steam with different Bishops really accepting each other as well as the importance of dialogue, etc. An example that was sited was the recent statement on Christian Zionism. The Armenians were notable for not being a party to this agreement. The Bishop felt that this was a landmark agreement that revealed the extent that the different churches felt threatened by the scourge of Christian Zionism. The Bishop accused many Christians of cooperating with the Israelis. He felt that the latest revival of Christian Zionism was the greatest challenge faced by the local Christians. The Christian right was started by the Anglicans. They had left their remnants in Israel with the so-called Free Churches, Baptists and Nazarenes.Palestinian Secularism.Bishop Younan hoped for a modern secular Palestinian state which had respect for the three monotheistic religions. Palestine was always secular. He did not want to see the Sharia as the main source or the Torah as the sources of theocracy. He wanted to be seen as a full member of civil society and not as a minority but as a full member with definitely more to contribute than most people. The Christians of Palestine have historically had more to contribute whether from a services point of view. The Christians dominate the hospital and health and education sector within Palestine. It was a result of pressure from the Christians as well as the moderate Palestinian lobby that the clause about equality between men and women under the new Palestinian draft constitution came into being. There was also the question of the unified curriculum which was recently set up in the Palestinian territories and which came up as a result of the joint efforts of a set of committed Churchmen and their desire to see a unified syllabus as regards Christian teaching in the territories. He talked of how Christians were able to influence issues as regards the new Palestinian Constitution and how the authorities were taking the Christians into dialogue.Mitri Raheb: Pastor, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Bethlehem, August 16, 2006.Mitri Raheb’s Political Theology.According to the Rev. Mitri Raheb, there were two main streams of theology in Palestine. One was the Liberation Theology approach favoured by Rev. Naim Ateek at Sabeel and the other was the Contextual Theology approach favoured by men like Mitri Raheb. According to Raheb, Christianity should be fashioned according to the Palestinian context. Contextual Theology seeks to place the culture and traditions of the nation first. It is not enough to accept a faith that has been imposed from above. Each nation should seek to evolve its own traditions as regards its faith and seek to practise this. Liberation Theology focuses mainly on political liberation, which is sometimes a drawback. Issues dealing with other religions, cultures, etc were often not taken seriously. Palestinian Contextual theology tries to put religion within the context of their own culture. Within liberation theology, the way the Bible is read is mainly a Western, mainline way of reading the Bible. Contextual Theology is basically a way to relate one’s own faith to one’s own culture. Mitri Raheb was quite adamant that the Bible was written by his own Hebrew, Aramaic speaking Semitic, Greco-Roman ancestors. On the contrary, in the West, the Bible is seen as mainly a Hebrew Bible and the Bible of the Hebrew people alone. Mitri Raheb maintains that Christians in the West are mainly conservative while Palestinian Christians are progressive. And of-course, one of the main challenges facing Palestinian Christians is emigration. Sabeel’s viewpoint about the settlements is that they can remain as long as they are under a Palestinian political authority. Contextual theology needs a clarification as to whether one is talking about a binational state or a uninational state, etc. Apartheid cannot be supported theologically, culturally and politically. Raheb emphasized the importance of living under the law, the law of God and of the present temporal authority. He felt that any future agreement would depend on the context of the Agreement. Mitri again like the Bishop emphasized that the strength of the Lutheran Church is that it was not part of the Status Quo that governed regular Church relations in the Holy Land. One gets the impression that he Lutheran Church is in good hands. They have a bunch of talented and good pastors. Mitri believed that the future of Christians in the Holy Land was both as spectators and actors. What was the future of Christians in the Holy Land? Mitri believed that we created the future for ourselves. Nobody else would do so. We would have to do so ourselves. We would have to seed the future. We should also be able to read the future. Islamisation of the Palestinian Authority was the greater threat. The occupation was the main reason for the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism in the territories. When people give up hope in the world community helping them, then they turn to God. Fundamentalism is a deep rooted problem. In 20 years, fundamentalism will be less but different. The occupation made people helpless, and they gave up hope in a political solution. According to Mitri, the old generation of leaders are mainly sycophants who would always run to Arafat whenever they had a problem. Mitri felt that this was against the rule of law and all fair play. It was not democratic. The new ones are those who are prepared to run affairs on their own. According to Mitri, Palestinians get only a small fraction of the aid that Israel gets. Israel gets something like 10 Billion Dollars in aid from all quarters per month. Palestine receives something like half a Billion Dollars may be all told in governmental as well as private aid. According to him, Europe and America give aid because they have a bad conscience. Mitri Raheb seemed to be a highly philosophical parson among the realist parsons of the West Bank and Jerusalem.Interview with Kathy Bergen, Program Coordinator, Friends International Peace Center, Ramallah, Palestine, August 17, 2006.My talk with the Quaker representative was very enlightening. Kathy told me that to be a Christian in Palestine was more a political statement than a religious one. According to her, 85 members of the Ramallah Quakers had immigrated mainly to the US and Canada. She told me how she discouraged members of her circle of Ramallah friends to emigrate. As of now, there were only five active Members of Ramallah Quakers present in Ramallah. Of these one had died in the past 2 weeks so there were just 4 left. She said that lots of people were just sojourners passing through the valley of the Church. She told me an interesting story of how Arafat refused to allow the meeting house to be closed. This was evidently one of his quirks about not having the Christians visual presence depart from Ramallah. She showed me how the Quaker meeting House in Ramallah was renovated for 2 years before the present Friends International Center in Ramallah was commissioned with Kathy becoming the new program coordinator. She told about he different programs that she was organising with a lecture series as well as inviting different speakers and organising symposia as well as conferences and one day retreats at the camp site. The situation is so hard for people in the Territories. There is no future for Christians. She remarked that what Mitri is actually doing is limited. She felt that what the Orthodox as well as Catholic Churches were doing was not sufficient as regards the welfare of the people. So that was where the Quakers had a voice as they sought to speak to the spiritual base from which people could go out from. Kathy referred to the US Congress law which she referred to as bullshit. She said that there was no systematic discrimination towards Palestinian Christians. It was the Israelis who love to divide and rule. The minister, Ahmed Khalidi of the PA agreed that there were problems between Christians and Muslims in the territories. But there was no systematic discrimination as the minister concerned had shown her the laws. She was the first person to tell me the striking fact that Hamas ministers many of whom were elected with Christian support in the triangle, went to all the Churches, the Sunday after the election victory earlier this year and thanked and promised all the Christians that they would take their interests into consideration when in power. They wanted to assure them that they as Hamas were not against the Christians. She referred to Don Wagner as well as the organisation known as Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding. She felt that there could be no reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians without justice. The Quakers were not interested in stealing members from other Churches. She talked about how Church and other religious institutions in the territories did not have to pay taxes as the Israelis taxed or were trying to tax in their territory. She referred to the historical fact that social issues and employment was historically not the fortress of the Churches. The fact that the Church had taken up these issues here in Palestine showed that there was a real need for such provisioning and she felt that the Palestinian Christians should consider themselves lucky that they had responsible Churches that provided for the people. The fact that they still complained was a typical human reaction. She recommended me to try the Mennonite Central Committee which was also active in tax negotiations with the Israelis. Kathy was a very sensitive woman and she struck me as a particularly apt person to look after the Quaker Hall in Ramallah, not the most sensitive of places.In general, I could get more constructive analysis about the situation from the Protestant and Catholic pastors than from anybody else. I could not meet anybody from the evangelical side which was a pity. Obviously Catholic and Protestant pastors were a highly educated and more politically aware group. They also largely formed an older generation of pastors, the first group of well-educated Palestinian pastors. In this sense, one could see that the latest generation of pastors embodied by various Bible Institutes like the Jerusalem Bible College and the Bethlehem Bible College were much more evangelical than the older set. This probably reflected the growing importance of the evangelical fundamentalist lobby of Christianity over the traditionalists generally in world-wide Christianity as well as in the US, the main centre for the training of Palestinian Christian ministers. Bernard Sabella all but confessed to me that all that all his horror-mongering about the decrease in Palestinian Christian numbers was not really true. There was something like 50,000 Christians in the OT’s which was a significant number indeed. And these were largely quality people, educated people.And finally,The manic danger of Christian Zionism (CZ); responses from the Holy Land.And finally, all Christian interlocutors emphasized the great threat posed by militant Christian Zionism to the future of peace between Israel and the Palestinians as well as the future of mainstream Christianity in the Holy Land. I’ve included some statements below that were picked up by me in Palestine and in Jerusalem and show the extent to which this group is actually exercising the consciousness of the Palestinian Christians. ‘Christian Zionists may not be personally ‘militants’, in the sense that they do not show of their weapons like the Islamists as well as Jewish fundamentalists do, but they certainly support the use of military power by their respective states to attain their own narrow theological objectives.’ Christian Zionists see the use of military power by so-called ‘Christian’ states as within the sovereign ‘Will of God’. In short, they feel that when an administration swears by the ‘Christian’ God, then it is perfectly justified again by divine prerogative to use the arms at its disposal to ‘defend’ itself, even though this causes untold distress to another group of people, the majority of whom hold a different religious affiliation. People of a different religious affiliation, other than Jews, are equivalent to ‘null and void’ for CZ’s. They just do not signify and probably the more conservative among the CZ’s would classify such people as vermin. Incidentally, this classification would go to include those of ‘minority’ Christian faiths that oppose the agenda of the CZ’s. There is also no way to reconcile minority Christian politics with Christian Zionism which seeks legitimacy in the brute force of a majority ‘Christian-conservative’ regime. The experience of Eastern Christians as a persecuted minority is totally opposed to the experience of the CZ’s as they seek to set up the kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
# posted by Sam @ 2:58 AM 0 comments links to this post

About Me
Name: Sam
View my complete profileLink Text

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-->
Links
Google News
Edit-Me
Edit-Me
archives
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
if (location.href.indexOf("archive")!=-1) document.write("Current Posts");
Current Posts