Suggested Guidelines for Individual Catholics on How to Appreciate and When Necessary, Admonish the State of Israel
Folks, the following post is a translation of Part VII of a series which I wrote against the shenanigans of an Argentina-based blog, self-styled Santa Iglesia Militante, for its blatant display, storage, and enthusiastic endorsement of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a known anti-Semitic forgery that was, and continues to be, fodder for the persecution of Jewish people across the world. In this essay, I analyze certain anti-Semitic currents flowing not far below the surface of anti-Zionism and prescribe, based on the teachings of the Church, the right attitudes to have toward the State of Israel and in the end, applicable to any secular state in the world’s consortium of nations. I have abridged this translation so as to leave out things pertaining only to the aforementioned blog that are not interesting to my English-speaking readers. You may access the entire series in Spanish here and this article in particular here.
The Inherent Contradictions of Anti-Zionism
I start with a statement that many will find counterintuitive and is this: since Zionism is a non-religious political movement belonging to the sphere of politics according to its own founders, to oppose Zionism a priori does not make one a Judaeophobe and anti-Semite of necessity. Said in other words, in theory, it is possible to be an anti-Zionist without hating Jews as a people or as a believers of their particular religion and at the same time, there is no obstacle in principle impeding an otherwise tolerant state to oppose Zionism and to protect the civil liberties of the Jewish people in their midst.
Even from a religious viewpoint it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic: in principle, one can be a fervent humanitarian and also oppose the existence of the State of Israel on religious grounds. In fact, there are some ultraorthodox Jews who define themselves as anti-Zionist, like the renowned rabbi Joel Teitelbaum whose followers are still amongst us. It is theoretically possible, I think, that a Catholic, like a Jew, may arrive at a number of anti-Zionist conclusions as an exercise of his or her prudential judgment without falling into a moral vice. It’s possible in theory but in contemporary practice, I find it nearly impossible to make a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
When I look at contemporary anti-Zionist collectives, I see they include an impressive number of Christian leaders of various confessions, of Muslims, as well as left-leaning opportunists like Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. For them, the Palestinians are an oppressed people, victims of imperialism and colonialism and an useful foil with which to fustigate the West for whatever improprieties, real or imagined, they deem fit. They are joined from the right of the political spectrum by the same coterie of bigots who continue to consider the Jews as subhuman beings according to the traditional prejudices. All of these groups oppose in various ways any attempt by Jews to associate themselves and form their own collectives, including their own state.
The funny thing is that all anti-Zionists seem to forget that the goals of Zionism were accomplished back in 1948: Jews have a country in the land they came from. The UN recognized that fact on that year. Zionism reached its principal goal over 60 years ago.
But if we understand “Zionism” to be the continuing idea that the Jewish state ought to remain right where it is in the Holy Land, then anti-Zionism must be understood as the opposite thought: the desire of either annihilating the State of Israel as a political entity with a Jewish identity, or of expelling the Jews from the land, or both ends simultaneously. To be an anti-Zionist today involves a contradiction seldom explored by clearly intelligent people regardless of political opinion, since anti-Zionism is really an advocacy aimed at destroying an entire people – again – to satisfy the unmet aspirations of another people, the Palestinian one. To the anti-Zionist, a Jew may exist individually but not as a nation, as a country, or as united people at a specific place anywhere, much less in the Holy Land.
This is why I think that nowadays, in order to be a consistent anti-Zionist, one would have to necessarily maintain a hidden anti-Semitic and Judaeophobic agenda, since by embracing anti-Zionism one must seek the dissolution of the Jewish state. Within the framework of anti-Zionism, “justice” means the destruction of the State of Israel without the right to appeal to any other outcome except the one dictated by the anti-Zionists. In this context, “justice” becomes a semantic trap, for those who wield it as well as for those who will be victimized by it. In the end, anti-Zionists will not be satisfied with anything else but capitulation, followed by the dismemberment, dissolution, and the ultimate destruction of the State of Israel.
I think there is ample evidence to sustain the above statement. For example, the media coverage of the recent incursion by the Israeli army into Gaza seldom mentioned the reason that triggered the military action: the persistent rocket attacks directed by the Hamas terrorist organization aimed at killing or panicking the Israeli civilian population. Although the media gave wide coverage to the civilian losses in Gaza, very few if any spoke that Hamas hid their weapons, munitions, and operatives within civilian buildings and even emergency vehicles in order to protect themselves, in effect, using the Palestinian civilian population as human shields. The repercussions of these clear violations by Hamas of international humanitarian law continue to be unexplored by the media as well as by responsible international organizations.
I find this attitude narrowly one-sided and indicative of an anti-Jewish bias and a clear desire to shine a negative light over the actions of the State of Israel without venturing similar moral judgments against the actions of Palestinian terrorists who are in their majority Muslim fundamentalists. The media, as well as large segments of the public opinion in Europe and the Americas have too willingly accepted an anti-Zionist and therefore, an anti-Semitic narrative of the events in Gaza subservient to anti-Semitic interests.
The Correct Attitudes Toward the State of Israel
We need to proceed from the Church’s Social Doctrine in order to formulate a coherent Catholic attitude toward the State of Israel and toward Zionism. I believe these non-contiguous paragraphs provide the relevant guidance:
433. The centrality of the human person and the natural inclination of persons and peoples to establish relationships among themselves are the fundamental elements for building a true international community, the ordering of which must aim at guaranteeing the effective universal common good. Despite the widespread aspiration to build an authentic international community, the unity of the human family is not yet becoming a reality. This is due to obstacles originating in materialistic and nationalistic ideologies that contradict the values of the person integrally considered in all his various dimensions, material and spiritual, individual and community. In particular, any theory or form whatsoever of racism and racial discrimination is morally unacceptable.
The coexistence among nations is based on the same values that should guide relations among human beings: truth, justice, active solidarity and freedom. The Church's teaching, with regard to the constitutive principles of the international community, requires that relations among peoples and political communities be justly regulated according to the principles of reason, equity, law and negotiation, excluding recourse to violence and war, as well as to forms of discrimination, intimidation and deceit.
438. To resolve the tensions that arise among different political communities and can compromise the stability of nations and international security, it is indispensable to make use of common rules in a commitment to negotiation and to reject definitively the idea that justice can be sought through recourse to war.“If war can end without winners or losers in a suicide of humanity, then we must repudiate the logic which leads to it: the idea that the effort to destroy the enemy, confrontation and war itself are factors of progress and historical advancement”.
Not only does the Charter of the United Nations ban recourse to force, but it rejects even the threat to use force. This provision arose from the tragic experience of the Second World War. During that conflict the Magisterium did not fail to identify certain indispensable factors for building a renewed international order: the freedom and territorial integrity of each nation, defence of the rights of minorities, an equitable sharing of the earth's resources, the rejection of war and an effective plan of disarmament, fidelity to agreements undertaken and an end to religious persecution.
439. In order to consolidate the primacy of law, the principle of mutual confidence is of the utmost importance. In this perspective, normative instruments for the peaceful resolution of controversies must be reformulated so as to strengthen their scope and binding force. Processes of negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration that are provided for in international law must be supported with the creation of “a totally effective juridical authority in a peaceful world”. Progress in this direction will allow the international community to be seen no longer as a simple aggregation of States in various moments of their existence, but as a structure in which conflicts can be peacefully resolved. “As in the internal life of individual States ... a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the rule of law, so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international community”. In short, “international law must ensure that the law of the more powerful does not prevail”.
To conclude: I think that from the above we may derive the following individual norms that we ought to keep present when engaging, and if necessary, admonishing the State of Israel for its actions in the world arena:
· First, we Catholics are not allowed to entertain the anti-Zionist attitude that would free us to wish for or call for the destruction of the State of Israel or to undermine its Jewish identity. In fact, to embrace anti-Zionism defined in this way stray us from the Church’s Social Teaching. Is not legitimate for Catholics to hold this opinion and remain still in God’s good graces and in the communion of the Church.
· The Holy See, the temporal organ of the Catholic Church and its diplomatic corps, the longest in existence in Europe, have set the primary example we ought to follow by extending diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel. “Diplomatic recognition” means that the Holy See, as a sovereign body politic, recognizes the State of Israel as a nation with a legitimate government operating within recognized borders. The Holy See did so following the aforementioned Social Teaching principles, which ultimately derived from the teaching of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. This political action means that the Holy See recognizes the right to exist of the State of Israel within just borders and in peace and harmony with its neighbors. Since the Holy See recognizes the fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist based upon the Church’s Social Teaching, so must we.
· The State of Israel has a right to exist right where it is, as well as the right to take those necessary and proportional measures needed to protect the life of Israeli citizens. The right of self-defense of the State of Israel is inviolable and inalienable.
· On the other hand, we must recognize that the State of Israel is a secular state. It is not the modern incarnation of the biblical Israel. The theological vision of “Israel” that the Catholic Church holds is larger through time and space than the concrete Jewish population currently concentrated in the Holy Land within the borders of the modern State of Israel since 1948. Therefore, there is no religious obligation of any kind compelling us to render unconditional support to every political or military action by the State of Israel. The formal equivalence between the biblical Israel and the State of Israel may be popular among certain Protestant circles in the USA, but this is a vision that we Catholics do not share with them.
· We must also recognize that the modern State of Israel is not exempt from acting in conformity with accepted international norms, and within the principles of collective and individual morality imposed upon it by positive international and natural law. The State of Israel shares in the same responsibilities and obligations of other independent countries in the international community. Therefore, we should not understand any legitimate criticism of the State of Israel and its actions in the international arena as an exercise in anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, or anti-Zionism.
In short, one thing is to criticize justly the State of Israel but wishing for, defending, and laboring for its destruction are impermissible, immoral acts, impossible to condone by normative Catholic Social Teaching.
I want to conclude this brief study by inviting all of you who see yourselves as “anti-Zionists” to examine your hearts and then, having exorcised from them all malice and ill-will, to seek truly constructive solutions aimed at achieving peace in the Middle East, inside and outside of Israel, for Jews as well as for Palestinians. Let us all pray that the Holy Land may become really “holy” and not merely in name only.
1. Whoever will recite it will receive great mercy at the hour of death. 
1. I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life. 
1) Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces.
Posts
