Passover Letter
(The following is a letter between friends. It is a response to the comment that the war in Israel/Palestine is due to religious fanaticism.)
3 April 2002
Dear H___,
I understand your feelings about the events of the past and present. If I were in your situation, I�d probably feel helpless and hopeless as well � in your words, a victim. However, let�s try to put things into perspective and take it one issue at a time.
In my humble opinion, the current situation in Israel is not strictly religious in origin. It is not even about Holy Places. The Zionist policy of colonisation and expansionism may be more to blame. And if I remember my history right, the original Zionists were secular, not religious. The religious Jews were even against the establishment of a State of Israel claiming that the Lord would gather His people in His own time. Zionist activities started way back in the 1800s and would have continued without WW2. To a certain extent, the Shoah* only hastened the realisation of their goal for a Jewish homeland.
If what I read is right, even in the 1930s the Palestinians already had a revolt due to the Zionist policy of dispossession, which was the buying of land at exorbitant prices from absentee landlords. From reports it also seems that the early Zionists didn�t intend to live side-by-side with the native population. So, the Palestinians didn�t revolt due to inherent anti-Semitism but did so, and still do, because of a threat to their own community. Even after the British mandate, the Palestinians only objected to a State of Israel because they would be subjected to a rule of the minority (when Jews were only 10% of the population) when it was so clear that they were much more numerous.
Given such a situation, how were the Arabs supposed to react? To them, clearly the Jews are the aggressors. Of course, when this happens they would raise the right to defend themselves, just like how a threatened person would kill in self-defence. Only then does the situation become religious in nature. Even then, it only becomes religious because of the term �jihad� or holy war. If it were not Moslems and Jews, if it were one pagan tribe against another, it would be the same thing. When Arafat complains about not being able to go to Jerusalem, he is only invoking his right to practice his religion. It takes on another colour because Jerusalem is a pilgrimage site for the three monotheistic religions. But it would be the same situation if tomorrow someone prevented me from going to my church here in the Philippines. Then that would be a violation of my right to worship. It only seems a war of religions because the antagonists are of two different faiths. When two countries with the same predominant religion fight against each other, we don�t call it a religious war. Think Iran and Iraq, Japan and Korea, or even North and South Korea. Think of the First World War between European powers. And in such situations, you will find people of the same faith on both sides of the argument.
When I raise the issue of Israeli (or pre-state of Israel) aggression, in no way does it diminish my sympathy for the plight of the Jews. I believe in the individual and national right to self-determination but not at the expense of stepping on other people�s rights, in this case, the curtailment of the Palestinians� right to self-determination.
Here, I am not arguing for the state of Israel�s abolition. I am hoping that previous events be reconsidered so that mistakes may be rectified. We know a lot about the human condition now much more than a century ago, during the time of the early Zionists. I hope that what we do know now, about justice and tolerance be used to further peace. After all, civilisations are supposed to advance, not regress. When basic human rights are met, when we learn to treat our fellow human beings with sacredness, then we will learn to treat creation as sacred.
Looking at the psychological aspect, I believe what we�re seeing now is a case of the cycle of violence. This is when someone who was formerly oppressed breaks free. What happens is that the former oppressed person or people take on the characteristics of their oppressors and are much more oppressive to those under them. Of course, that cycle can be broken if the experience is processed properly. I suspect that there is something in the Jewish collective conscious, or subconscious, that needs to be articulated and reconciled with. In psychological terms, perhaps a national catharsis is needed. As I always say, we need to look at the past to understand who and where we are now so that history does not repeat itself.
As I see it, even if Arafat is able to stop militant Palestinians from launching suicide attacks, it will only be sometime before the violence erupts again. Israel has to go to the root of the problem and that is to face its historical responsibilities to the Palestinian refugees it has created.
I am not sure how to read your statement about monotheistic religions. Do you no longer believe in One God or are you angry with Him, for letting violence happen? Or are you extremely disillusioned with the way monotheistic religions are being practiced? If so, are you suggesting we just do away with institutional religion so that violence may be lessened? Somehow I suspect it is the latter which you are trying to express. When I think of all the things that have been done in the name of religion (according to one theologian, with �comical earnestness� and �idiocy�), I tend to agree with you. However, if we go by mainstream teachings, the �idiots� are the ones in the periphery of tradition. They do not represent the accepted assertions of their religion.
That�s how it is in the present. As for the past, it�s a different story. But of course, we shouldn�t be so hasty in judging our forebears. We cannot use the standards of today to judge the past. Those who acted the way they did do not have the benefit of hindsight and the information that we have now. What we call racism now seems to have been legitimate in the past because of their theory of genetics. Of course it was the �white� race that perpetuated it and so was ethnocentric, much as the same way humans thought of the earth as the centre of the universe before the dawn of modern science. Goodness knows how the Church persecuted Galileo because of his solar system theory. But later on, the same Church apologised for that mistake. It may not have been in Galileo�s lifetime but still, it was an act of humility that we (the faithful within that institution) are supposed to follow. That�s the irony of it. Rectification does not come easily. We have to be patient in working for change. I am not saying we have to stand by and not challenge the status quo but we have to be careful and make sure we do not add fuel to the fire. Violence begets violence. Of this, I believe you would agree.
As I said, I also have questions. I�m trying to find the answers within my own tradition. Perhaps part of the answer is that Sacred Scripture was written at different periods of history, with their respective contexts. The feminist theologians would even tell you it was written by men, which makes the imagery patriarchal and masculine, all from the male point of view. There are many answers and they all point to one truth. We may not find the whole truth now, nor in our lifetime but if we only try each day, we might be a step closer to the objective of our journey.
Don�t lose hope. Much as we cannot comprehend the violence around us, God can do what is incomprehensible in human terms. If it gives you any comfort, in the book of Qoheleth or Ecclesiastes, it says that there is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens. �A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.� (3:8)
Let�s continue praying for eternal peace to come in our time. Happy Passover!
Regards,
Karen
* Shoah is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust