Before coming here, I read a tiny bit about the present
Israel-Palestinian situation, and, in passing, I noticed something slightly odd
without giving it much attention to it.
A few years ago prominent Palestinian Christians produced a
Kairos document, titled in homage to the Kairos declaration which defined the ultimately
successful anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa including the significant
boycott campaign which contributed to that success.
This summer there was a form of re-launch of this in England
which was reported on in a number of mainstream Christian websites. These understandably attracted positive and
negative comments. The thing I half
noticed was the way some of the hostile comments were lengthy, detailed and
carefully crafted pieces of writing – quite unlike the splurge of personal
opinion one might expect – more like pre-prepared packages.
As I say, I didn’t pay much attention, until I learnt here
that public statements drawing attention to the situation of the Palestinian
people often attract a level of hostile attack which can look quite
calculated. There is nothing wrong with
well planned lobbying, of course, especially if it looks as if the legitimacy of a State of Israel is being attacked, but the tone and volume can look almost intimidatory.
I'm told that the volume of comments is sometimes swamping, and that the accusation is sometimes made that the original item was anti-semitic simply because it criticised the way the State of Israel is governed, but I don't have personal encounters with either of these.
In this sort of situation there is always a simple but
effective interpretative tool. Look at
the counter arguments which are being put forward – there may well be things about
the original report which need balancing or correcting. But also, if these comments look at all as if
they might be calculated or even intimidatory, let them be exactly the thing
which draws your attention to the precise points they might appear to be trying
to drown out.
In the case of the comments which I first half-noticed, the points
were the language of apartheid in relation to the State of Israel and the call
for forms of boycott to tackle this.
As far as the apartheid accusation is concerned, the level
of objection to it would lead one seriously to consider whether it is an appropriate
term to use in relation to the occupied State of Palestine in particular where
things like access to systems of justice, use of particular roads, the ability to bring a foreign spouse into the country and the
provision of water is different depending on whether the individual or
community is Arab or Jewish.
At present the headline issue within the State of Israel itself
is proposals to move Israeli citizens who are Bedouin from villages the state
chooses not to recognise into other designated towns so that new Jewish
villages can be built in their place.
Individuals have to judge what language they think is appropriate about
that.
As far as the calls for boycotts are concerned, the
suggestion is that there is now particular diplomatic time being put in by some
embassies to address and counter what some churches are investigating and saying. It is understandable that any State would
want to do this if it feels misinformation is being spread about the State. In each specific case, individuals have then
to judge from which side they feel misinformation is coming.
The picture was taken in Jericho yesterday.
