|
A Letter to President Arafat by Uri Avnery
Shalom. I
write these lines in order to protest against a statement that I cannot
ignore. In
the weekly Palestinian paper, The
Jerusalem Times, there appeared on March 26 a short item reporting
that you have viewed the controversial film of Mel Gibson, “The
Passion of the Christ.” Afterwards your advisor and close assistant,
Nabil Abu-Rudeina, stated that you found the film “moving and
historical.” Abu-Rudeina added that “the Palestinians are still
daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his
crucifixion.” If
the statement had not appeared in a Palestinian paper, I would have
believed that it was invented by Ariel I
hold Abu-Rudeina in very high esteem. I appreciate his loyalty to the
Palestinian cause and to you personally. He has remained at your side
throughout the siege of your compound, and--like you--he is now risking
his life there daily. But this statement should not have been made. I
have not seen the film, nor do I intend to. I abhor cruelty, also in
films, and this film is full of cruel scenes, claiming to depict the New
Testament on screen. Obviously, there is a great difference between
reading a written text and seeing it all on the screen, with life-like
displays of atrocious acts and blood flowing like water. But
this is not the main thing. As
an Arab and a Muslim, you are not obliged to be aware of the terrible
impact that the description of the crucifixion has had on the life of
Jews over almost two thousand years of persecutions, pogroms and torture
by the Spanish inquisition, large-scale expulsions, mass and individual
murders, up to the Holocaust in which six million Jews perished. All
these were, directly or indirectly, caused, or at least made possible,
by this narrative. The
New Testament is sacred to its believers. But like our Bible (the
so-called Old Testament), it is not a history text. Religious truth and
historical truth are not one and the same. The descriptions of the
crucifixion in the four gospels were written down many decades after the
event, and the writers wrote what they wrote under the influence of the
circumstances of their time. Let’s
take, for instance, the image of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.
The Romans described him as an unscrupulous, corrupt and cruel
procurator. In the New Testament, he is pictured as a humane person,
almost a philosopher, who did not want to execute Jesus but gave in to
the Jews. In Gibson’s film, he is an attractive figure, who is
compelled by the disgusting Jews – disgusting even physically – to
act against his conscience. Why
this description? Simple: When the text was written, the Christians were
already trying to convert the Roman world to their creed. It was
convenient for them, therefore, to blame the Jews and exonerate the
Romans, reversing the realities of the times. The Jews then, like the
Palestinians now, were an occupied people, and the Romans were the
occupiers. Crucifixion was a usual Roman punishment, a kind of
“targeted elimination” of that time (but after a trial). The
writers of the gospels were bursting with hatred of the Jews. That is
not surprising, either. They were Jews themselves, as were Jesus and all
the people around him. But they belonged to a dissident sect, which was
considered by the Jewish establishment in The
Gospel According to Matthew (Chapter 27) puts it this way: “Pilate
said to them (the Jewish crowd assembled in front of his office):
‘What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?’ They all
said to him: ‘Let him be crucified!’ Then the governor said: ‘Why,
what has he done?’ But they cried all the more, saying: ‘Let him be
crucified!’ When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but
rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands
before the multitude, saying: ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just
Person. You see to it!’ And all the people answered and said: ‘His
blood be on us and on our children’.” Obviously,
this is not a historical description. An entire people, or a great
multitude, does not talk like one single person. The words “His blood
be . . . on our children” are unreasonable and were put there in order
to justify taking revenge on generations to come. And indeed, many
generations of rabble-rousers used these words in order to incite
against the god-killers. Adolf
Hitler, of course, was no Christian fanatic. Quite the contrary, some of
his followers tried to bring back pagan Germanic rites. But Hitler and
the perpetrators of the Holocaust learned the New Testament in school,
and no one can say how much of the text they unconsciously absorbed. And
many simple fundamentalists accepted the Holocaust or took part in it
because of this. I
do not intend to lay the collective blame on the entire Christian world
throughout the centuries. Far from it. Many of the greatest humanists
throughout history were Christians, some of them very devout. Not only
the perpetrators of the Holocaust were Christians, so were the Righteous
Ones, those who saved Jews. Christian monasteries in many places took in
Jews and saved their lives. Jesus
preached love, and the new Testament pictures him as an immensely
attractive person, righteous, merciful and tolerant. How terrible that
so many atrocities in history were perpetrated by persons and
institutions claiming to act in his name. You,
Mr. President, as an Arab and a Muslim, are proud of the fact that for
more than a thousand years the Muslim world was a model of tolerance,
toward both Jews and Christians. The Muslim world has never known mass
expulsions and pogroms, which were a regular feature in Christendom, not
to mention the terrible Holocaust. The
blood-bond between Muslims and Jews runs through history. One of the
darkest chapters in the history of this country, which we both love, is
the story of the Crusades. Even before they reached the After
the fall of Four
hundred years later, when the Christians finished the re-conquest of Let
us not allow the present bitter conflict between our two peoples, with
all its cruelty, to overshadow the past, because that is the basis for
our common future. The
present sufferings of the Palestinian people - which we, as Israelis and
Jews, oppose and fight against – have no connection with what happened
– or not – some 1,973 years ago. If
there is any connection at all, it is the other way round. Without
modern Christian anti-Semitism, the Zionist movement would not have been
born at all. As I have mentioned before, the founder of the Zionist
movement, Theodor Herzl, explicitly stated his belief that the founding
of a Jewish State was the only way of saving the European Jews.
Anti-Semitism was and is the force that drives the Jews to Without
anti-Semitism, the Zionist vision would have remained an abstract idea.
From the pogrom of On
top of all the moral reasons, this is an additional argument against a
statement about the crucifixion that can be construed by anti-Semites as
an encouragement for their cause. When
peace comes, we shall all meet in discuss this column in the forum Uri Avnery is a peace activist. |