Peace in the Holy Land

The latest round of carnage in the Middle East has served to underscore a crucial but often neglected truth: Israel’s political leaders and Hamas need each other. They feed off one another to assure there never will be a peace they don’t want.

In bombing Israeli settlements, Hamas knew from experience that Israel would respond with little subtlety and no regard for innocent civilians (even when these are sheltering in schools run by the United Nations). With every outrage committed by Israel, Hamas entrenches its support. And with every rocket and every missile it fires into Israeli territory, Hamas boosts support for those in Israel who have no interest in a negotiated peace and deter many of those who do.

This vicious cycle must be broken. Two events this year present an opportunity towards doing so.

The January 20 inauguration to the US presidency of Barack Obama offers an occasion to reverse eight years (and more) of unconditional US support for Israel, proffered regardless of grievous human rights violations. It has been a disastrous and, indeed, scandalous policy. Mr Obama may have chosen as his secretary of state (or foreign minister) an outspoken friend of Israel, but Hilary Clinton’s mandate must be to recalibrate America’s interpretation of the Middle East conflict. The notion of equivalence between wrongs committed by Palestinians and those committed by Israel must be rescinded.

There is a world of difference between ten Israel civilians killed by Hamas rockets in the space of more than two years, and more than a hundred Palestinian civilians killed by Israel within a couple of weeks. There is a world of difference between firing off clearly ineffectual missiles (deplorable though that is) and sealing off 1,5 million people cramped within a tiny area, actively depriving them of even the necessities for survival, including medicines.

We must not believe the fabrication that Israel is purely defending itself in its oppression of Palestinians, in Gaza and on the West Bank. By its commission of excessive injustices, Israel is the primary aggressor.

There can be no equivalence in disproportionate actions. Hamas must be forthrightly condemned, and Israel even more so. Peace is possible if Israel really wants it. We must hope that the Obama administration will find ways of persuading Israel politicians and electorate  that a peaceful solution is attainable.

The second opportunity rests with Pope Benedict, who is planning to visit the Holy Land and Jordan, probably in May.

The Vatican has indicated that the planned itinerary might be modified following the Gaza strife. Now would be a fitting time for Pope Benedict to visit the land of Jesus to boldly proclaim peace in words and deeds.

Pope Benedict should consider meeting leaders of Hamas, not to legitimise their actions and policies, but as the elected representatives of Palestinian people, even if at the risk of creating a diplomatic quandary. He might be forthright with them, calling on them in the name of our Saviour and their prophet Jesus to adjust their policies. Likewise, Pope Benedict might abandon diplomatic niceties and tell Israel openly that their current course will lead them not to peace but to calamity.

It would be a sign of solidarity with the suffering if the pope were to include in his itinerary areas of Palestinian suffering, such as Gaza City or Jenin, where he might offer an alternative vision to the present cycle of hatred and violence. And in a visit to the Holocaust Museum  demeaning quotes about Pope Pius XII notwithstanding  he could offer solidarity with all who suffer gross injustices.

What a service to Our Lord it would be if his representative on Earth were to come to his troubled land and succeed in communicating a vision of peace to those who cannot see it.