Blog : Philosémitisme

C'est un affligeant petit jeu auquel se livrent maintenant certains Européens dans lequel la vérité n'est jamais toute la vérité.  On peut néanmoins discerner clairement un mode opératoire.  On commence par insulter les Sionistes ou les Juifs ou Israël, en général les trois à la fois en y ajoutant la Shoah.  A ce scénario maintenant bien rôdé, les dirigeants de la communauté juive, divisés et impuissants, expriment leur stupéfaction, dénoncent et obtiennent des excuses ou des pseudo-rétractations ou encore mieux le fameux "dialogue".  Voici ce qui est arrivé cette semaine.

Cérémonie du jour de l'Indépendance,
 Mont HerzlL'Eglise d'Ecosse a publié un rapport diffamatoire envers les Juifs qui nie purement le droit d'existence à Israël. Le document attaque les Juifs, leurs "désobéissance", et argue que l'accomplissement de la promesse d'Abraham sur la terre [land!] se réalise par l'impact de Jésus et non par la restauration de la terre au peuple juif. Selon une tactique parfaitement rodée, l'Eglise d'Ecosse qui veut éviter toute charge d'antisémitisme a donc trouvé "une conscience juive" auto-proclamée en toute modestie, un certain Mark Braverman, qui pense exactement comme elle ("The authors use Braverman to whitewash their anti-Jewish agenda."). Car l'Eglise s'attaque même à l'Holocauste. Entre-temps, selon toujours la même stratégie bien rodée, l'Eglise d'Ecosse va revoir le document. L'affaire a reçu une grande publicité et réjouit antisémites et antisionistes - c'était en fait le but. Ceux-ci pourront ajouter une nouvelle accusation: le puissant lobby juif a fait céder l'Eglise.  Et les dirigeant juifs écossais ont déjà dit que le dialogue est renoué...  A propos, au 19e siècle l'Eglise d'Ecosse savait déjà mieux que les Juifs ce qui était bon pour les Juifs eux-mêmes: elle voulait les convertir et ainsi détruire le peuple juif!  Mais ne nous faisons pas d'illusions entre l'islam et le judaïsme ces chrétiens européens n'hésiteront jamais c'est l'islam qu'ils préfèrent et les bons Juifs sont, à ses yeux, les Mark Braverman de ce monde.  Après ils s'étonneront que les églises sont vides.

Seth Frantzman a publié dans le JPos un article sur cette triste affaire:

"[...] Ostensibly the document seeks to challenge the ?assumption by many Christians as well as many Jewish people that the Bible supports an essentially Jewish state of Israel.?

It asserts that Zionists believe ?the Bible is our Mandate.? It ponders the question of whether ?the promise of land is literal,? or whether it ?is given conditionally to the Jewish people.? At each point the authors trot out Palestinian Christian theologians such as Mounib Younan and Naim Ateek to challenge the supposed Zionist view.  If the authors had stopped there, with theological wrestling with Christian Zionism and interpretations of the Bible, the document wouldn't merit much interest.  However, the text then takes an odd turn, from supposedly debating whether God gave the Jews land, to whether Israel is a just country: ?The decision [by Israel] not to adopt a constitution led to the limiting of civil liberties.? Then, shockingly, the Holocaust is brought up: ?There is also a belief among some Jewish people that they have a right to the land of Israel as compensation for the suffering of the Holocaust.?


The authors produce a Jewish source, one ?Mark Braverman, an American Jew who grew up sharing the beliefs of his community,? whose ?attitude was radically changed by visiting Palestine in 2006...and [by] his horror that these [injustices] were being done in his name.? Then the authors write that after reading Braverman, it is clear that ?Christians must not sacrifice the universalist, inclusive dimension of Christianity and revert to the particular exclusivism of the Jewish faith because we feel guilty about the Holocaust... They [the Jews] must be challenged, too, to stop thinking of themselves as victims and special.?  The authors use Braverman to whitewash their anti-Jewish agenda. They claim that because the Jews view themselves as ?chosen' that ?Other people's part in this is limited to being pushed aside to make way for occupation, being agents of God's punishment of the Jews for their disobedience and witnessing to God's glory through Jewish survival and prosperity.?

Anger is directed at the ?difficulty of Jewish ?exceptionalism.?? In discussing the New Testament the church reverts to language that seems more fit the Inquisition: ?Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewish specialness and exclusivism, but the people of Nazareth were not ready for it.? They conclude, ?Promises about the land of Israel were never intended to be taken literally... [God's] promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people.?

This text is deeply disturbing because it punishes the Jews for having suffered the Holocaust, pretending Jews manipulate the Holocaust in order to make Christians feel guilty. Thus by opposing the existence of Israel the church does not ?revert to the particular exclusivism of the Jewish faith.?

The continuous hammering on the ?exclusive' claim shows a deep and abiding hatred for the Jews simply because they exist; for example the ?exclusivist tradition implied Jews had a special, privileged position in relation to God.?  Why does the Church of Scotland have a right to decide what Jews may or may not believe' The document handily uses a Jewish critic, Mr. Braverman, who few people have ever heard of, to advance its agenda, noting ?he is equally clear that the Jewish people have to repent of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.?

By including this claim they assert that in fact the Scottish Church demands that the Jews ?repent.? How can ?the Jewish people' repent for an action few of them took part in' This echoes the ancient anti- Jewish libel that the Jews must ?repent' for killing Christ. This text replaces Jesus with the Palestinians, just as Palestinian- Christian extremists have insinuated at ?Christ at the Checkpoint' conferences.

In the 19th century the Church of Scotland thought it knew best for the Jews. It surveyed them and sent missionaries to prey on their weak and infirm, sick and elderly.  Although there was a whole world of hundreds of millions of people, it made the conversion and thus the destruction of the Jewish people a main pillar of the Church.  This text continues this tradition. It attacks the Jews for having suffered the Holocaust, claiming that the Jews manipulate Christians into feeling guilty. Furthermore it demands the Jews repent, and claims ?they must be challenged to stop thinking of themselves as victims and special.?

This text will deeply shame the Church of Scotland. It is not the Church who should challenge, it is the Jews who should challenge the Church of Scotland to repent for its missionary work, to stop thinking it knows what is best for the Jews, and to stop meddling in Jewish lives.  It is not for the Church of Scotland to decide where the Jews may live, just as they claim that the Old Testament gives no exclusive right over the Land of Israel, so the New Testament does not give them the right to whisk the Jews away.

This is not the time of the Crusades; no church has a right to tell the Jews where they may live. Like any member of the Church of Scotland, any Jew has a right to live in peace where he or she pleases. He may think himself special like any person, and she may think herself a victim of the Holocaust if she likes.

Jews were restored to the land, irrespective of the Church of Scotland. The church owes the Jewish people an apology for this incendiary text that is more fitting to the 13th century than to this one. Jewish groups, Church of Scotland members and others must join together to oppose and repudiate this vicious and defamatory text.

Crédit photo:  Marc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post