The Christian Humanist A Boston Globe article this morning reported the Vatican complained that the international community is ignoring the plight of Christians in the Middle East, who are being persecuted as a result of the “extremist current’’ unleashed by the rise of “political Islam’’ as a threat to Christians. That complaint is true and raises a real problem that in my opinion goes well beyond religious persecution, but it does not tell the whole story.
I read several national papers regularly, and I make comments on their websites on matters that interest me if I have anything relevant to say on the issue. The Boston Globe is unusual in that it “removes” my comments from time to time. No other paper has ever removed my comments. I’ve noticed a pattern to these removals that is troublesome. All of the comments that have been removed have related either to policies of Israel or to the Catholic Church’s inadequate response to its sexual abuse problem. All were well-written (more extended versions of those comments appear on my blog) and properly-sourced, always polite, but often sharply critical. As is the case whenever comments are allowed there are mean-spirited, vicious comments that remain on the site even after mine is removed.
Boston is an interesting city, with strong Jewish and Catholic communities, and there are always defenders of Israel and of the Catholic Church who weigh in on any issue relevant to their community. I have concluded (without anything other than circumstantial evidence) that my comments are removed so as not to offend either group. If that is true it is an indictment of freedom of the press and a matter of concern. There is a “button” on the Globe website where readers can report “abuse” of policy—spam, profanity, personal attacks, etc. and I suspect that those who object to my viewpoints just hit the “abuse” button and it is removed so as not to offend. I now fight back, and each time it is removed I file a complaint, and each time the comment is then put back.
Am I paranoid? Am I being wrongly critical of the Globe? Maybe. Judge for yourself.
Here is my comment on the story about persecution of Christians in the Middle East, posted about noon today.
Two comments: [a] Religious persecution, wherever it occurs is objectionable. [b] The article, and the Vatican, expresses concern about persecution in the Middle East by Muslims, but it fails to discuss persecution by Israelis.
According to a number of websites, usually Christian fundamentalist, there is overt and repeated persecution of Christians in Israel. This item from NewsBlaze:
“Even though Israel signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says in Article 18, Everyone has the right to…change his religion…and freedom…to manifest his religion or beliefs in teaching, practice, worship and observance, persecution of Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity, continues in Israel…. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “Israel has an estimated 8,000 so-called messianic Jews. In effect they are crypto-Christians, practicing their faith discreetly for fear of stoking hostility among mainstream Jews. Reprisals can sometimes be violent.” The intimidation and violence against the Jewish population who are Messianic was recently seen in a vicious attack on a Jewish Messianic pastor’s home. CNN’s Mark Bixler reported that the teenage son of a Messianic pastor was severely injured when a package delivered to his home exploded.
A second source reports that Christians working in Israel have been denied renewal of their visas. While no official reason was given, it appears obvious that there is a religious objection to “Christian missionaries” by the Israeli government. My personal opinion is that the whole concept of missionaries is objectionable and insulting, but since it is not illegal and there is an accord on religious freedom and exchange of religious personnel between US and Israel, it is pretty clearly a violation of religious freedom. Christian missionaries should be allowed to be fools for Christ.
There is no reason why Israel should get a pass on this issue.
About 45 minutes after it was posted, the comment was removed. I discovered it about an hour later. I complained to the Globe’s web editor. Then wrote another comment:
OK, I will try this again. My comment was removed. I will try to reproduce it from memory. I said that this news article indicated the Pope’s concern about discrimination against Christians in the Middle East but he only mentioned discrimination by Muslims. I noted that discrimination for religious reasons was objectionable no matter who does it and that Israel also discriminates against Christians, and I quoted two news sources with illustrations (and gave their links). I said that the Israeli discrimination was against Christian fundamentalist missionaries, and that while I thought sending religious missionaries was insulting it was allowed under an agreement between Israel and the US and they should not be interfered with. I closed quoting St. Paul, to the effect that they should be allowed to be “fools for Christ.” [I Corinthians 4:10]. Someone, possibly the editor, did not understand the biblical reference and must have taken offense. So much for intelligence at the Globe.
The Globe wrote back, as they usually do, and said that the removal was a mistake, due to a “technical glitch.” I got the same reply the last two times my comment was removed. So is this merely a response for having got called on this, or am I paranoid, that my comments are going to get removed by the Globe when someone there doesn’t like what I said?
Addendum 6:10 pm–
This story just got more intriguing. At 6 pm I checked that story on the Globe for updates and was surprised to discover that my second comment, outlining what I had said in the comment that had been removed and complaining about the Boston Globe having removed the comment, was itself removed. Obviously someone is reading these comments and arbitrarily deciding to remove those they don’t like. This looks like a confirmation of my suspicion—comments the Globe does not like for its content are being arbitrarily removed. A once fine newspaper seems to have lost its bearings.
The Christian Humanist The Israelis say that inspection is to make sure that rockets and weapons do not get into Gaza, but the list of prohibited items puts the lie to that statement. Israel will not allow international inspections because the inspectors would only restrict weapons. Building supplies necessary to reconstruct and repair the 5000 homes destroyed by Israel are prohibited. Food supplies are restricted by Israel to about 25% of what is needed. International aid agencies are not allowed to bring in necessary supplies. Israel continues to say there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but the UN says there is a very definite humanitarian crisis underway. Israel wants to control the story line, which is why they deny outside observers.
The issue about imports into Gaza has never been about Israel’s security, it is (a) about depriving the citizens of Gaza of the essentials that make life tolerable, in the hope that if life is miserable enough the people of Gaza will turn against Hamas and (b) weakening resistance to Israel’s constant expansion of territory at the expense of the Palestinians so that Israel will control the entire country.
You can read more about why peace in the Middle East will not happen at http://thechristianhumanist.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-peace-in-middle-east-possible.html Hamas wishes to roll back history to deny the existence of Israel. The Zionists (which includes the parties in control of Israel, and Prime Minister Netanyahu) do not want and will not accept a Palestinian state and wish to make life so miserable in the territories and the Palestinians give up the idea of a separate state. Neither side wishes peace because it interferes with their intentions, that is, it involves compromise, something neither side wants.
The Christian Humanist Should we be shocked? The attack by Israeli Defense Forces on the flotilla of ships bringing supplies and humanitarian aid to Gaza is one more sign that Israel’s right wing extremists have no interest in peace or in resolving the tensions created by their mistreatment of the citizens of Gaza. In a bizarre distortion of reality and a futile attempt to shift attention away from the facts on the ground, Israel claimed that the flotilla had attacked its troops and that the unfortunate deaths of the protestors were the result of the soldiers of the IDF defending themselves from unprovoked attack.
Last week on this blog, in discussing the prospects for peace in the Middle East, I concluded in what appears to have been confirmed once again by Israeli actions: “To a non-partisan in this struggle, recent Israeli actions appear to be more vengeful and punitive than defensive. A reasonable person might conclude that they are strategic actions intended to provoke the Palestinians, making it more difficult for Palestinian leaders to work for peaceful resolution of the conflict and strengthening the hand of advocates of violent resistance to the peace process among the activists on both sides of the dispute.”
So let’s look at the facts of what we could call The Mavi Marmara Incident: The flotilla that attempted to run the blockade consisted of six ships, three passenger ships, three cargo ships, carrying hundreds of international protestors (not terrorists) and tons of humanitarian cargo. According to the Jewish Voice for Peace “the flotilla passengers included retired US diplomats Ambassador Edward Peck and Col. Ann Wright, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire, and former UN assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, as well as humanitarian aid and human rights workers, several Members of Parliament from Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Turkey, Malaysia, and Palestinian Members of the Knesset.”
The ships were unarmed, a fact verified by Turkish customs agents before the ships left Turkey. At least 50 miles off the coast of Gaza in international waters the Israeli navy intercepted the flotilla with naval missile boats, rubber assault boats and helicopters, and boarded the flotilla (a violation of international law) carrying weapons (which the Israelis said were paint guns, but there was no evidence of paint on the clothes of the protestors or on the ships). According to witnesses on the lead ship the Israelis began firing before landing on the Mavi Marmara, an assertion denied by the IDF. The protestors tried to defend themselves against the Israelis, using whatever they could find including sling shots, knives and poles. The Israelis fired their guns on the protestors, killing 9 or 10 (depending on which report is more accurate). It looks to everyone but the Israelis that the attackers here were the Israelis and that those on the boats were defending themselves against attack by the IDF.
The Israeli government has argued that (1) there were terrorists on board the ships (proved to be not true); (2) the protestors were shouting anti-Israel slogans before the ships left port in Turkey (proved to be an exageration, a few angry shouts were recorded but that certainly does not justify the attack on the ships; anti-American slogans are frequently shouted at demonstrations in the US and elsewhere in the world, and no one that I know thinks that justifies military action); (3) the protestors had guns and other weapons (there were no guns other than Israeli guns); and finally (4) the bizarre assertion that there would have been no violence if the protestors had not defended themselves from the Israeli attack.
So let’s look carefully at that last argument. The Israelis were armed with guns, the protestors had no guns. The flotilla was in international waters. Israeli navy commandos in ships and helicopters attacked civilian vessels in international waters estimated as about 50 miles off the coast of Israel, boarded the vessels, seized the ships and their cargo. [When the Somalis do that we call them pirates!]
The Israelis argue that enforcing the blockade is defending Israel by preventing weapons from reaching Gaza, but that the protestors on the flotilla do not have the right of self defense and, by defending themselves against the Israeli military and injuring a few of the commandos who were trying to take control of their ship, they were responsible for the shootings by the commandos and are responsible for the damages, injuries and deaths of their fellow peace activists. Isn’t this like saying that if a student walking to school is attacked by the neighborhood bully who demands his lunch money or he will beat him up, and if the student refuses and attempts to defend himself against his attacker, that the student deserves the beating by resisting his attacker? In what perverse world would that argument gain traction?
The Israeli government has a pretty weak defense. The attack on the flotilla was not a clearly thought out strategy, it was also incompetently executed. Not only do the Israelis blame the victims for their injuries, they have made two other odd points.
First, they argue that the protestors were not really interested in humanitarian aid but were making a political statement by trying to embarrass the Israeli government over the conditions in Gaza. That is true to the extent that any peaceful protest (remember, these flotilla boats were intentionally unarmed), whether civil rights marches, sit-ins, or crowds of demonstrators intends to call attention to injustices and embarrass the perpetrators by peaceful means. Yes, they wanted to embarrass Israel, and Israel deserves to be embarrassed on that issue. Moreover the protestors wanted to establish their right to provide aid to Gaza, call attention to the illegitimacy of the blockade, focus attention on the inhumane conditions of Gaza, and demonstrate the need to keep the Gaza port open to humanitarian aid.
Second, the Israeli government argues that their repression in Gaza is justified in order to protect Israel from terrorists and Hamas. Earlier today [June 2] Benjamin Netanyahu defended the attack on the flotilla and the use of deadly force, saying, as quoted in the New York Times that “…the blockade of the Hamas-controlled territory of Gaza was necessary to prevent rockets and missiles from being smuggled to militants.” On that point, Mr. Netanyahu is being disingenuous. If Israel merely checked shipments to Gaza for weapons they might have a point, but what has security to do with stopping food, fuel, medical supplies, building supplies, etc., necessary to make life tolerable and possible in Gaza? Not only is the blockade illegal under international law, it is not necessary in order to protect Israel. The blockade (both by land and sea) is seen by most people around the world as immoral, illegal and counterproductive.
Actions such as the blockade and attacking the flotilla harm Israel’s cause without increasing its security. To demonstrate that the blockade is more about making life miserable in Gaza than in enhancing Israeli security, look at what items have been prevented from entering Gaza: Food products including jam, chocolate, cookies, potato chips, fresh meat, coriander and margarine, and non-food items including musical instruments, pens, notebooks, toys, cars, refrigerators and computers. It is a real stretch to argue these items have anything to do with security, but they have a lot to do with normal life.
There is background to these events that should not be forgotten. Several years ago, following the electoral victory of Hamas in Gaza, Israel forcefully attacked Gaza and instituted repressive controls over every facet of life there, arguing that such restrictive controls were necessary in order to protect Israel from attack by militants. These controls involved restrictions on goods [food, medical supplies, materials for repairs of homes, and fuel for stoves and the power plant] and on the movement of people, making the citizens of Gaza virtual prisoners. Israel instituted a blockade of Gaza to prevent any goods coming in and out of Gaza. Consequently the people of Gaza are unable to repair homes damaged by the IDF in its attacks on Gaza, cannot get adequate medical supplies for its hospitals and doctors, cannot get enough food or fuel.
Israel allows some goods to be brought in, about 25% of what the UN determines necessary. The people of Gaza are suffering. Israel’s tactics, as explained by its officials, is that it wants to show the people of Gaza that life under Hamas rule will not be good, and apparently that is the rationale for the inhumane treatment of the people who live in Gaza.
The U.S. position in this horrific act, unlike other countries in the world, defies explanation. In the UN discussion of resolutions, according to a BBC report, “the United States worked to soften the language.” According to the report, “the UN statement was the result of a compromise between Turkey and the United States, with Turkey reluctant to water down its trenchant criticism of Israel while the United States, Israel’s closest ally, wanted to temper the language used, says the BBC’s UN correspondent Barbara Plett in New York. Turkey is furious at the commando raid, which targeted a Turkish ship and appeared to have killed mostly Turkish activists, our correspondent says. The compromise took out direct condemnation of Israel and removed references to an international investigation, our correspondent adds. It also weakened demands for an end to the economic blockade of Gaza that the activists were trying to break, but the incident has refocused international attention on the siege and many states have renewed calls for it to be lifted, she says.”
When the U.S. response to Israel is so patently wrong on an international incident of this sort we have cause to worry about the influence of supporters of Israel in our government and in our Congress compromising our foreign policy against our national interests, and against our human values. This is one of those situations. The current government of Israel is not interested in peace, it is interested in expanding its control of the territories and uses “security” as an excuse for expansion [see Is Peace in the Middle East Possible ]. Liberals and progressives, both in the U.S. and elsewhere [see Liberal Disenchantment with Israeli Policy], need to ask whether Israel has gone too far and whether it is time to reduce our support for Israel and its inhumane and unjustified treatment of the Palestinians.
