Comment from Middle East Synod - Jewish community not happy!

[crazzeto]

You are absolutely right. I am with Israel and I do believe that attacks on Israel are a way of expressing anti-Semitism today in an “acceptable way” but such is never acceptable.

One thing about Christian churchmen - they are great at theology, but extremely naive to the point of being just, well, stupid when it comes to politics and the other social sciences (must be because seminaries don’t often teach them these). I do respect my Hierarchs, but have to laugh out loud when I hear them speak on political subjects - why don’t they ask for some others’ political perspectives on things before they let loose their tongues?

No, the only reason this disgraceful statement was made was to try and curry favour with the Arabs. It has never happened before, and won’t happen now. Israel is the only democracy there and it is the only place where I can buy a cross and a rosary and walk around with both with impunity and without feeling I need to put them in my pocket.

Shalom Aleichem.

Alex

I disagree, I think that what is being stated is simply realistic and frankly a very postitive thing to acknowelge when one considers the tragic circomstances in the Holy Land today. Ultimitly such acknowlegement benefits the safty of the Israelies, as no amount of combined Israelie and US military might seems to be capable of stopping the bloodshed.

The only reasnoble way towards peace is for both sides to make certain consessions, some of which are very difficult to make (to say the least) if we pretend that Israel is the anything but a secular state.

No anti-sematism, just plain old realism.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

About the only “Christians” I know of who share that artificial “Biblical justification” are the ultra-right-wing Evangelical Protestants, and even not all of them. For that matter, not even all native-born Israelis buy into it. It seems to be more popular among the Russian and American born.

How about Greece, Switzerland, and all of the Nordic Countries? And then there’s Turkey which is, officially at least, secular.

100% true.

Let’s face it, very similar things have been said before. Raya did it when he was Abp of Galilee. So did Hakim but I think he started it in earnest after he was elected Patriarch. There’s at least one other whose name escapes me, but he has been featured in several threads in this forum in the past.

OK, we’re agreed on some things.

As for the biblical justification - I was referring to the Jews being the Chosen People, once and for all. Within the Christian “weltanschauung,” the Jewish tradition is the fount of our religion as well. That they have a right to be in Israel and that that land is theirs - Bible or not, they do and it is.

Greece may be secular, but the Orthodox Church is well entrenched there. Switzerland and the Nordic countries have crosses on their flags and they are essentially Christian - no matter how much their politicians will declare themselves to be secular. The movement against immigrants in those countries, against minarets etc. - if they were so secular, why should those things bother them within the perspective of cultural diversity and religious plurality which are the hallmarks of secular democracies? I remain unconvinced.

I used to correspond with Archbishop Raya and I still love reading his books. My point is that trying to placate those who are hell-bent on destroying the Christian Church is useless. It actually makes matters worse since then those same enemies think Christians are even weaker than they thought. The same thing held true for the Catholic Church and the West in the days when they tried to placate the Soviet Union. That whole enterprise failed as well and those who engaged in that process never regained their integrity.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I disagree, I think that what is being stated is simply realistic and frankly a very postitive thing to acknowelge when one considers the tragic circomstances in the Holy Land today. Ultimitly such acknowlegement benefits the safty of the Israelies, as no amount of combined Israelie and US military might seems to be capable of stopping the bloodshed.

The only reasnoble way towards peace is for both sides to make certain consessions, some of which are very difficult to make (to say the least) if we pretend that Israel is the anything but a secular state.

No anti-sematism, just plain old realism.

I never said (at least I hope I never said) that the man was being anti-Semitic. But in terms of realism - how so?

Has recent history taught our Hierarchs nothing? Trying to placate the Muslim extremists will only demonstrate to them that we are weak. They will not look favourably on that at all - just as Soviet Russia cared not a wit about the Catholic Church’s attitude of “ostpolitik” towards it.

I would have thought that our Hierarchs would have developed some poliltical sense in this by now. As for the conflicts between Arabs and Israel - Israel has the right to defend itself and this does become complicated when terrorists mix with average people. I don’t know the answer to that as I’m not a military strategist nor a policeman. And yes, the Eastern Catholics there are between a rock and a hard place. But Israel is the only friend Christianity has there. If you don’t believe, go and try to live elsewhere in the region for a while.

No realism there, just political silliness and grasping at straws by our Hierarchs.

Alex

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Alexander Roman, you said that attacks on the state of Isreal are an acceptable means of anti-semitism, correct. I mean no personal offense against you when I say this, however when most people say this, their using the political-correctness/religious persicution card to try to prevent others from voicing legitimate political grievences. I for example am staunchly anti-Zionist due to the crimes commited against Palestine and her people but am certainly not anti-Semetic. For example do you think Jews Against Zionism are antisemetic?

jewsagainstzionism.com/

yes these people certainly hate Jews to the core…

 

[crazzeto]

I never said (at least I hope I never said) that the man was being anti-Semitic. But in terms of realism - how so?

You did suggest that anything which “attacks Israel”, which to some indeed includes anything which is not politically expediant for Israel (as the very remarks which originated this thread are not) are anti-Semetic.

If you are not accusing the Melkite Greek Catholic bishop of being anti-semetic then terrific. But I still disagree with this equation of what’s not great for Israel is anti-semetic. Israel professes to be a secular state, fine that’s what they are. This status would very much disassociate the State of Israel from the needs and goods of the Jewish people. Indeed, there are some devoute Jews who wholly oppose the state of Israel because they see it as an affront to their faith, according to their views (at least) the state can only be reestablished after the coming of the messijah (in which case Israel is actually in very good standing, but I degress).

Has recent history taught our Hierarchs nothing? Trying to placate the Muslim extremists will only demonstrate to them that we are weak. They will not look favourably on that at all - just as Soviet Russia cared not a wit about the Catholic Church’s attitude of “ostpolitik” towards it.

If recent history serves as an example, then I put forward the example of Egypt, once the greatest threat to Israel’s existance. Today they have a peace agreement and over all tend to be a fairly moderate voice in the process. It’s possible to make peace, even if there will always be some tensions.

With regards to the extreamist, well sure nothing will placate them… So why bother trying? But pretending Israel has some protected status as being the property of the Jewish people by command of God even unto this day isn’t going to help that situation any either.

All in all it’s fairly nutral with regards to this group. Either way, they want Israel destroyed. There’s no positive or negative here. What will help however, is endorcing a course of action which leads to peace with responcible states who in turn can put real pressure on these groups.

I would have thought that our Hierarchs would have developed some poliltical sense in this by now. As for the conflicts between Arabs and Israel - Israel has the right to defend itself and this does become complicated when terrorists mix with average people. I don’t know the answer to that as I’m not a military strategist nor a policeman. And yes, the Eastern Catholics there are between a rock and a hard place. But Israel is the only friend Christianity has there. If you don’t believe, go and try to live elsewhere in the region for a while.

I’ve honestly never really viewed Israel as a true friend, indeed not just Christians but even the USA which dumps billions into their economy oweing to nothing than their existance. Yet we’ve had some very serious issues with them one secular nation to another. Take the 6 days war in '67 as an example of this, or any other number of times in which Israel has engaged in behaviour which was not particularly productive.

I’m not hating on Israel by any means, the Muslims in the area have more than enough blood on their hands… And I can’t say I’m happy about 9/11… But some times, I think it’s necessary to point out that the Muslims aren’t exlucsivly the problem.

We have a big problem in the region, the only thing that can solve is is real effort on all sides. Issues like this one only propetuate the problem.

No realism there, just political silliness and grasping at straws by our Hierarchs.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alexander Roman, you said that attacks on the state of Isreal are an acceptable means of anti-semitism, correct. I mean no personal offense against you when I say this, however when most people say this, their using the political-correctness/religious persicution card to try to prevent others from voicing legitimate political grievences. I for example am staunchly anti-Zionist due to the crimes commited against Palestine and her people but am certainly not anti-Semetic. For example do you think Jews Against Zionism are antisemetic?

jewsagainstzionism.com/

yes these people certainly hate Jews to the core…

I did not say that the hierarch was being anti-semitic - only that he was making a well-intentioned, but politically naive, statement. I understand why he was making that statement, but that takes nothing away from its silliness.

I’m not politically correct and I don’t believe in political correctness. Nor have I said others don’t have the right to criticize Israel. No state can be above criticism, period.

I don’t know the group “Jews against Zionism.” I do know Jews who join on the bandwagon of anti-Israel attacks because they feel that otherwise they will themselves be attacked and ostracized. If that is the only reason why they do this, then they shouldn’t.

The Palestinian situation is a complex one. Israel has the right to defend itself and in so doing, evil things can and are committed. The same is true of the United States of America and its involvement in Iraq, Vietnam etc. I don’t condemn the U.S.for the same reason. It’s easy for us to condemn Israel or the U.S. in times of conflict. But that is what happens when conflict occurs and when people defend themselves or engage in war - there are no saints on any side. That doesn’t mean that situations should not be investigated or condemned on an international scale. I just think that a blanket condemnation of Israel - as occurs regularly - truly is a contemporary way to justify anti-Semitism. Jews can also be against their own, just as American citizens can be against their own country. I know people who are anti-Semitic. They hate Jews and they also hate Israel. I personally disagree - as for stopping the debate, hey, these have full control of the debate and there is no political correctness about it. Just ask my Jewish friends who are cowed into submission when they go on campus.

The debate and the attacks continue unabated. All I’m saying is that I don’t agree and stand with the Jews. No one is perfect (the U.S. isn’t perfect either), that doesn’t mean we need to condemn. Let’s talk in the spirit of respect and put aside the truisms that has poisoned the international atmosphere.

As a Catholic, I am spiritually Jewish. There is so much of Judaism that is my heritage. My Saviour is Jewish too. I respect His cultural background, for starters.

As for debate and criticism - there is much in me to criticize too. And I’ve never rejected such criticism and don’t ever intend to.

Please call me “Alex.”

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

You did suggest that anything which “attacks Israel”, which to some indeed includes anything which is not politically expediant for Israel (as the very remarks which originated this thread are not) are anti-Semetic.

If you are not accusing the Melkite Greek Catholic bishop of being anti-semetic then terrific. But I still disagree with this equation of what’s not great for Israel is anti-semetic. Israel professes to be a secular state, fine that’s what they are. This status would very much disassociate the State of Israel from the needs and goods of the Jewish people. Indeed, there are some devoute Jews who wholly oppose the state of Israel because they see it as an affront to their faith, according to their views (at least) the state can only be reestablished after the coming of the messijah (in which case Israel is actually in very good standing, but I degress).

If recent history serves as an example, then I put forward the example of Egypt, once the greatest threat to Israel’s existance. Today they have a peace agreement and over all tend to be a fairly moderate voice in the process. It’s possible to make peace, even if there will always be some tensions.

With regards to the extreamist, well sure nothing will placate them… So why bother trying? But pretending Israel has some protected status as being the property of the Jewish people by command of God even unto this day isn’t going to help that situation any either.

All in all it’s fairly nutral with regards to this group. Either way, they want Israel destroyed. There’s no positive or negative here. What will help however, is endorcing a course of action which leads to peace with responcible states who in turn can put real pressure on these groups.

I’ve honestly never really viewed Israel as a true friend, indeed not just Christians but even the USA which dumps billions into their economy oweing to nothing than their existance. Yet we’ve had some very serious issues with them one secular nation to another. Take the 6 days war in '67 as an example of this, or any other number of times in which Israel has engaged in behaviour which was not particularly productive.

I’m not hating on Israel by any means, the Muslims in the area have more than enough blood on their hands… And I can’t say I’m happy about 9/11… But some times, I think it’s necessary to point out that the Muslims aren’t exlucsivly the problem.

We have a big problem in the region, the only thing that can solve is is real effort on all sides. Issues like this one only propetuate the problem.

Actually, I’ve read and reread your post and will say that I don’t take issue with anything you’ve said. I would probably put it differently in some places, but I don’t take issue.

Alex

 

[malphono]

OK, we’re agreed on some things.

Probably more than you think, despite what I’m going to say.

As for the biblical justification - I was referring to the Jews being the Chosen People, once and for all. Within the Christian “weltanschauung,” the Jewish tradition is the fount of our religion as well. That they have a right to be in Israel and that that land is theirs - Bible or not, they do and it is.

I have no argument at all with Israel. “Biblical justification” however, is another matter. I don’t buy it. And frankly, there’s no need for it. The existence of Israel as a democratic entity is a fait accompli that I support, albeit that I do not support the American and Russian born “settlers” (more like “extremists”) and their so-called “ideals” and prejudices. As I said in a previous post, there never has been a problem between Christians and Jews in in the Middle East, and historically, anything to the contrary is a myth fabricated by the the Arab “identity” and/or the “third” religion.

All of that said, I do not like BiBi, nor do I trust him. His “coalition” is with extremists (look at the foreign minister (and I wish he was “foreign” meaning I wish he were still where he came from and not in Israel) and his party for a clue), and the particular brand of rhetoric is something new to placate those extremists. Without them, (i.e., the extremists) BiBi’s coalition fails in a “New York minute” or less. (I can think of several people whom I would prefer to be PM of Israel (preferably a mizrahi for a change), but I digress.)

I used to correspond with Archbishop Raya and I still love reading his books.

As far as I’m concerned, the only thing Raya ever did that was of any value was publishing his “Byzantine Daily Prayers” book. No offense, but I am not, and never have been, a fan of his, including when Hakim made the huge mistake of naming him Abp of Galilee.

My point is that trying to placate those who are hell-bent on destroying the Christian Church is useless. It actually makes matters worse since then those same enemies think Christians are even weaker than they thought. The same thing held true for the Catholic Church and the West in the days when they tried to placate the Soviet Union. That whole enterprise failed as well and those who engaged in that process never regained their integrity.

Yes. Here we again agree 100%

 

[Nine_Two]

Now you would think that since we only make up two tenths of one per cent of the world’s population and since Israel is about the size of New Jersey, we could avoid making people so mad at us all the time or of being aware of our existence. The following links may help explain why some people today hate Israel and Jews so much and want to boycott us and eliminate the Jewish State:
argomedtec.com/
jinfo.org/

Are you interpreting the archbishop’s points as being hateful of Jews then?

While I agree that a lot of the criticism you hear levelled at Israel is, to put it plainly, dumb, but there is some valid stuff there, and people have a right to make mention of it without being accused of hating Jews. Just like one can make mention of other countries flaws without hating that country. Russian autocracy? Horrible. America’s ability to hold an election? disgusting. My own country’s ability to have an open and honest debate? Non existant. Israel’s ability to handle criticism? Even worse.
Now tell me I hate all those countries.

 

[Louie1983]

Are you interpreting the archbishop’s points as being hateful of Jews then?

While I agree that a lot of the criticism you hear levelled at Israel is, to put it plainly, dumb, but there is some valid stuff there, and people have a right to make mention of it without being accused of hating Jews. Just like one can make mention of other countries flaws without hating that country. Russian autocracy? Horrible. America’s ability to hold an election? disgusting. My own country’s ability to have an open and honest debate? Non existant. Israel’s ability to handle criticism? Even worse.
Now tell me I hate all those countries.

you hate them!

You make a very good point here!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Probably more than you think, despite what I’m going to say.

I have no argument at all with Israel. “Biblical justification” however, is another matter. I don’t buy it. And frankly, there’s no need for it. The existence of Israel as a democratic entity is a fait accompli that I support, albeit that I do not support the American and Russian born “settlers” (more like “extremists”) and their so-called “ideals” and prejudices. As I said in a previous post, there never has been a problem between Christians and Jews in in the Middle East, and historically, anything to the contrary is a myth fabricated by the the Arab “identity” and/or the “third” religion.

All of that said, I do not like BiBi, nor do I trust him. His “coalition” is with extremists (look at the foreign minister (and I wish he was “foreign” meaning I wish he were still where he came from and not in Israel) and his party for a clue), and the particular brand of rhetoric is something new to placate those extremists. Without them, (i.e., the extremists) BiBi’s coalition fails in a “New York minute” or less. (I can think of several people whom I would prefer to be PM of Israel (preferably a mizrahi for a change), but I digress.)

As far as I’m concerned, the only thing Raya ever did that was of any value was publishing his “Byzantine Daily Prayers” book. No offense, but I am not, and never have been, a fan of his, including when Hakim made the huge mistake of naming him Abp of Galilee.

Yes. Here we again agree 100%

Ok! I don’t know anything about Archbishop Raya from the point of view of his administration, but I always thought of him as a very spiritual man. No one is perfect, to be sure. Again, I don’t know so I cannot comment!

All the best!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

For the record, I only said that I believe that being against Israel is “a way” to express anti-Semitism.

At no time did I say that criticism of Israeli (or U.S.) government policy etc. is always anti-Semitism.

I think there is a difference. In my experience where I live, those who criticize Israel do so because they want to try and destroy her. There would be nothing good that they could ever say about Israel. Israel, according to them, is the source of all the world’s troubles etc.

That is not rational criticism, nor is it helpful to anyone.

The current brand of political correctness is also all about being anti-Israel in that same vein and I’m referring to the actions called “Israel Apartheid Week” that purports to promote democratic discussion about the Middle East. There is no democratic discussion involved, of course - it is all simply an anti-Israel “bashfest” involving overt forms anti-Semitism on campus where Jewish students are singled out for maltreatment.

That again is not helpful to anyone and to abuse, verbally or otherwise, anyone because he or she is Jewish is reprehensible and an overt form of anti-Semitism by anyone’s definition.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Are you interpreting the archbishop’s points as being hateful of Jews then?

While I agree that a lot of the criticism you hear levelled at Israel is, to put it plainly, dumb, but there is some valid stuff there, and people have a right to make mention of it without being accused of hating Jews. Just like one can make mention of other countries flaws without hating that country. Russian autocracy? Horrible. America’s ability to hold an election? disgusting. My own country’s ability to have an open and honest debate? Non existant. Israel’s ability to handle criticism? Even worse.
Now tell me I hate all those countries.

Actually, Russian autocracy really is horrible . . .

I would love for Russia and Ukraine to have the blessing of holding a North American style election with public debates. It won’t happen not only because of autocracy, but also because many of the people themselves would probably be afraid of it.

As for Israel’s ability to handle criticism - I’ve seen the kind of criticism Israel and our Jewish community is putting up with, especially during “Israel Apartheid Week.” If I were on the receiving end of such “democratic critiques,” I wouldn’t be able to handle it either.

In fact, our Jewish community, for the most part, suffers in silence in the face of such abuse.

Alex

 

[German_Melkite]

The Eparch of Newton has clarified his remarks.
melkite.org/Bustros/EB02.htm
Clearly some of the interpretations and newspaper coverage was in error.

 

[silentstar]

Actually I think you are supposed to be careful not to offend “Jews”, however I’m pretty sure you don’t have to be careful about offending “the jews” since everyone knows what “the jews” did to Jesus and how “the jews” control all the banks and all the media and just about everything else.

Now you would think that since we only make up two tenths of one per cent of the world’s population and since Israel is about the size of New Jersey, we could avoid making people so mad at us all the time or of being aware of our existence. The following links may help explain why some people today hate Israel and Jews so much and want to boycott us and eliminate the Jewish State:
argomedtec.com/
jinfo.org/

I think most people truly do not understand what Israelis are living with. My feeling is that Israel is here. It does not need to ‘justify’ itself any more than America needs to ‘justify’ its existence b/c many Pilgrims came here to flee religious persecution. The history of Europe including fairly recent history shows that religion can both unite and divide countries, as well as create ‘new’ ones.

Israelis are living with chronic terror b/c terrorism has become an accepted way to vent anger against them. Suicide bombing attacks are all too common and they are devastating. It is as if 9/11 were happening over and over again. People’s lives have value regardless of what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I think the Palestinians in some ways are victims of this terror also b/c from what I have read, suicide bombers are sometimes recruited among people who are disabled or so ashamed of themselves that they feel they have no prospects in life. It is even the case that some terrorist leaders have arranged for women to be raped and then told them that they can restore their families’ honor by becoming suicide bombers. This was discussed in the book, An Army of Roses.

I believe the Palestinian people love life and want peace but there are some leaders that have turned to terrorism and that is never a good thing. That having been said, many Palestinians are living in awful conditions but when leaders turn to terror, they will cause a country to react with fear and that can cause a clamp-down. The same thing happened in Belfast a couple decades ago. At its worst it was compared to London during the Blitz. They have achieved a fragile peace and I hope this happens in the Middle East.

I read that Israelis believe they went to sleep with nightmares of the Holocaust and woke up to hostility from Arab nations. I think every life lost in the Middle East is a tragedy, for whatever reason, and I don’t think that counting numbers of lives and saying that some are worth more than others is a good idea.

I’m not Jewish but I have seen the impact of violence in some ‘bad’ inner-city neighborhoods in America and the tendency of some people is to blame the victim. They are poor and they don’t ‘better themselves’ and they form gangs and etc…and while that is sometimes true I think every life lost is a tragedy and worth honoring. People who live in conditions of chronic fear can find life difficult.

 

[crazzeto]

@silentstar,

One can not however simply ignore the many injustices Israel so recently (frankly) commited against their Islamic neighbors. Just as we Americans do not pretend, and in fact do not simply ignore the injustices commited so long ago against the natives of this land.

The fact is, Zionest Israel didn’t exist until the 20th century and the expansion that put Israel at it’s current borders didn’t happen until as late as the 1960’s. I think what most are asking for here is not unreasnoble, a viable two state solution. You can’t simply say “well Israel is here now, so forget you deal with it and live under aprtideish conditions”. That just diesn’t work.

 

[chosen_people]

@silentstar,

One can not however simply ignore the many injustices Israel so recently (frankly) commited against their Islamic neighbors. Just as we Americans do not pretend, and in fact do not simply ignore the injustices commited so long ago against the natives of this land.

The fact is, Zionest Israel didn’t exist until the 20th century and the expansion that put Israel at it’s current borders didn’t happen until as late as the 1960’s. I think what most are asking for here is not unreasnoble, a viable two state solution. You can’t simply say “well Israel is here now, so forget you deal with it and live under aprtideish conditions”. That just diesn’t work.

In regard to your comments, I can assure you that I too am against any any further injustices to the natives of the land of Israel.
By the way the natives for the last 3500 years have a name. They are called Jews.

 

[malphono]

One can not however simply ignore the many injustices Israel so recently (frankly) commited against their Islamic neighbors.

One also cannot ignore the unyielding (and really unnecessary belligerence) of certain Arabs (as well as others of that faith, and, apparently, some Christians as well) against Israel.

Just as we Americans do not pretend, and in fact do not simply ignore the injustices commited so long ago against the natives of this land.

That, it seems to me, is not a great analogy. Oh sure, the indigenous people are now called by a more politically correct name (“Native Americans”), but most Americans do, in fact, pretend and simply ignore what was done to the Indians in this country. For the most part they have no concept of having their tribal lands expropriated to make room for settlers. But even so, using that as a parallel to the Middle East doesn’t work since there, the forebearers of both sides actually did live in the same place millenia ago.

The fact is, Zionest Israel didn’t exist until the 20th century

And here we have yet another example of British meddling in external affairs. As was the case for the native Christians in the Middle East, the situation of the Jews in Palestine as it was before WWI under the Ottomans was far from ideal, but it was at least stable. By their meddling, the Brits sowed the seeds of destabilization. Eerily similar to what they caused in what is now Lebanon in 1860. And in what is now Iraq in 1921. (Mention of destabilizing events set into motion in Iraq in 2003 (by, of course, other than the Brits) is in another thread, so we needn’t look at that here.)

and the expansion that put Israel at it’s current borders didn’t happen until as late as the 1960’s.

Which would never have happened if not for the intransigence of certain parties (Nasser, for one, comes to mind here) who were clients of Soviet Union.

I think what most are asking for here is not unreasnoble, a viable two state solution.

Yes, that would be nice, and would have happened had Arafat not slammed closed a window of opportunity some years back. There have been possibilities since then, too, but the same side kept on thumbing its nose and closing the window. Now they have BiBi and Liberman (neither of whom I respect or trust) to deal with. Maybe (hopefully) another window of opportunity will open when BiBi and his party are again out of power.

You can’t simply say “well Israel is here now, so forget you deal with it and live under aprtideish conditions”. That just diesn’t work.

And we come back full-circle: neither can one say to the native-born Israelis “get out and go somewhere else” or even “you can stay here as second (or third) class residents of a greater Arab state that is controlled by the religion of its majority.” That doesn’t work either, no matter how much those of one particular religion demand it.

As a final thought, consider this: at least the Israelis have the possibility to resist domination by that religion. The native Christians of the Middle East have barely a prayer. It’s only by our prayers and the power of God that we have survived this long.

 

[Lev23]

The Eparch of Newton has clarified his remarks.
melkite.org/Bustros/EB02.htm
Clearly some of the interpretations and newspaper coverage was in error.

Here are a few quotes from the link you gave…
*The two-State solution
After this theological issue we come now to the political issue, and these two levels must be clearly distinguished. …

The message of the Synod for the Middle East takes a moderate position and clearly advocates, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the two-State-solution:
“The citizens of the countries of the Middle East call upon the international community, particularly the United Nations, conscientiously to work to find a peaceful, just and definitive solution in the region, through the application of the Security Council’s resolution and taking the necessary legal steps to put an end to the occupation of the different Arabic countries. The Palestinian people will thus have an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security. The State of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within their international recognized borders. The Holy City of Jerusalem will be able to acquire its proper status, which respects its particular character, its holiness and the religious patrimony of the three religions: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. We hope that the two-State-solution might become a reality and not remain a dream only.” (Paragraph 11) …

By dialogue only – a dialogue which requires compromises from both sides, not by war, and especially not by a war based on religious assumptions – can the Holy Land reach a just and lasting peace.

• Archbishop Cyril S. Bustros

Eparch of Newton*

Zechariah 12:1-5
A prophecy: The word of the LORD concerning Israel.
The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness,” declares the LORD. “I will keep a watchful eye over Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘The people of Jerusalem are strong, because the LORD Almighty is their God.’

 

[Lev23]

The Eparch of Newton has clarified his remarks.
melkite.org/Bustros/EB02.htm
Clearly some of the interpretations and newspaper coverage was in error.

The Church has no business entering in with the godless nations who desire to have a Christless “two-state” solution in the land of Israel. Even worse is denying what the scriptures say leading up the the second advent of Christ to Israel. That is, in short, unsaved Israel will start to regather into the land of Israel and the nations will not like it and will take action against this event.

The Church’s business should be taking care of the poor in the land, like in all nations, and give the Gospel of Christ to all those who will hear. Especially to the descendants of Jacob regathered into the land of Israel. From here on out, there is nothing but trouble planned by the nations in the land of Israel that will last right up to the coming of Jesus Christ.

Who do the nations really want the Israelis to make peace with? The PA, Hamas, Hezbollah? None of them have any real power to keep their end of the deal. Not to mention they are divided amongst themselves. Their only common bond is their desire to see all Jews expelled from the land. These three groups(and other nations) constantly mention “crimes” by Israel that they will pay for. How will these comments pan out after a peace plan is brokered? The issues go on and on…

One more quote from your link-----
"I also warned against the risk of Israel becoming an exclusively Jewish state, with a consequent threat to the 1.2 million Muslim and Christian Arabs living in Israel.

The more hostility the nations throw at Israel(from weapons lobbed at or even in the form of councils questioning the Jews “chosen status” and their rights to the land), the more Jewish Israel will probably become.