U.S. Bishop Says Jews Have No 'Exclusive Right' To Israel

By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A special Vatican meeting on the Middle East ended Saturday (Oct. 23) with a flare-up in Catholic-Jewish tensions, after an American bishop declared the Bible does not give Jews privileged rights to the land of Israel.

"We Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people," said Archbishop Cyril Bustros, a native of Lebanon who is currently a Melkite Greek Catholic bishop in Newton, Mass.

"This promise was nullified by Christ," Bustros said at a Vatican press conference marking the end of a two-week session of the Synod of Bishops. "There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

Bustros' remark drew swift and strong rebukes from Israeli spokesmen.

"The comments of Archbishop Bustros reflect either shocking ignorance or insubordination in relation to the Catholic Church's teaching on Jews and Judaism," said Rabbi David Rosen, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee and an adviser to Israel's Chief Rabbinate.

Rosen, who addressed the synod in its first week, said the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s affirmed "the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish People, which is inextricably bound up with the land of Israel."

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called Bustros' statement "a libel against the Jewish people and the State of Israel," and expressed "our disappointment that this important synod has become a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best history of Arab propaganda."

"The synod was hijacked by an anti-Israel majority," Ayalon said.

The two-week meeting, which was attended by 185 bishops, most of them from the 22 "Eastern Catholic" Churches loyal to Rome, focused on the precarious plight of 5.7 million Catholics in 16 Middle Eastern countries.

The synod's closing document deplored both Palestinian suffering as a consequence of the "Israeli occupation" and the "suffering and insecurity in which Israelis live." It also reiterated a frequent theme of synod participants by calling for "religious freedom and freedom of conscience" in Muslim lands.

Comments

[PaLmeTTo X]

08:47 AM on 11/04/2010

The bible says that a third temple will be build by Israel. Don't know where, but it will be build.

[jo smith456]

05:22 AM on 11/02/2010

Archbishop Bustros' point serves as a reminder that Jesus Christ's ministry clarifies/illuminates the theological and religious difference between Christianity and Judaism. Historically and culturally, perhaps, there's a commonality between the two. Theologically, they're "vastly" different. In a nutshell, compare the Talmud/Torah vs. Bible (new testament).

[RedRat]

02:07 PM on 10/31/2010

Well I must agree with the Bishop on this. Using mythological texts to grant "exclusive rights" to one people over another is sheer nonsense. Jews were granted the land that is now Israel by a group of nations who basically won WW-I and WW-II. There is nothing wrong with that, Israel has representation in the UN and has diplomatic ties with a host of nations, just like all other nations. Israel holds its land like all nations hold their land, basically and most simplistically through force of arms, just like the U.S. holds its territory in North America.

European nations came into North America and laid claim to the land and what little resistance that was presented to these claims, was handled the "old fashioned" way: war. At the end of the day, "to the victors goes the spoils of war". Do I wish there was a better way? Sure I do, but presently I don't know what that would be.

[RegCorleonis]

02:07 PM on 10/30/2010

The historical and genetic claims of Jews to modern Palestine are dubious at best. The premise of the debate needs to be rephrased: do the Jews have ANY claim at all, quite apart from an exclusive one? Such a debate, however, is moot. The geopolitical reality of the Zionist state is that the Jews are in there, they are in control, and not about to concede anything. What this reality means for Palestinians is plain for all to see. What it means for Jews is a chapter yet to be written. I fear it will not be a happy one.

[RedRat]

02:13 PM on 10/31/2010

Sad but true. Right now, it is the geopolitical realties that govern nations. I would wish that Israel and Palestinians could come to an agreement that benefits both of the parties, but that is hardly on the horizon right now. The reality is that Israel holds the land through both force of arms and through international treaties, that is the current and foreseeable situation. Common sense (albeit in short supply nowadays) dictates a peaceful approach, but unfortunately, both parties are driven by both religious ideologies which brook no compromise, so little if anything will be done.

[perazziman]

01:25 AM on 11/02/2010

I have a problem with anyone claiming Jews have some 'exclusive' right to Israel. However, as a Muslim, I also believe denying the historical and genetic claims of Jews to modern Palestine is unfair. Many DNA studies have now shown that Jews and Palestinians share a recent common middle eastern ancestry. More than 80% of Cohanim belong to Haplogroup J. Nearly 40% of lay Jews belong to Haplogroup J. Similarly, 50% of Palestinians belong to haplogroup J. Nearly 70% of Saudi belong to Haplogroup J. In contrast, Haplogroup J forms less 10% of Northwestern European population. Therefore, for Muslims to suggest that Jews are descendants of Europeans or for Jews to suggest Palestinians are descendants of southern Arabs are religious and political distortions. It is time for Jews to acknolwedge that Pals are descendants of Jewish converts to Islam. It is time for Arabs to acknowledge that the Jews are actually descendants of Middle eastern men who were forced to leave Israel by the Romans.

[gregory57]

02:30 PM on 10/28/2010

Give the Holy Land to the Disney Corp. They can develop holy theme parks, and charge everybody an admission fee! The proceeds go to pensions and homes for the displaced!

[jmklein]

12:16 PM on 10/28/2010

Because when Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" he was really saying "nullified", and when the Catholics use quotes from the "Torah" as authority, they really mean "not one jot or one tittle".

[Trollstein]

11:22 AM on 10/28/2010

The "Promised Land" as it was referred to in Biblical context was a much larger area then 2010 Israel @ about 5x the size. Thus, if Christ nullified this covenant (see Genesis 13:14) then he did so for the entirety of the area @ about 50,000 sq-miles and including all of Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon. Is that what the Bishop is suggesting? Me thinks not.
This land was allegedly promised to all of Abraham's descendants, including Ishmael and Isaac and their offspring. If Archbishop Cyril Bustros is an Arab, which I think is likely based on his Lebanese background, then he is included in this covenant:
"The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. (15) All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever."
But the main point is that 4/5ths of this area is now controlled by Arabs who are exclusive citizens. 1/5th is controlled by Israel who have a mixed Hebrew and Arab citizenry. So "the Promised Land" is not "exclusive" to Jews. One more double-standard falling against Israel.

[Macready]

12:09 PM on 10/28/2010

the bible is not a binding legal document . . .end of story . . . . when israel was created a state in 1948 . . it was given certain boundaries . . . aftter the 1967 war . . . under UN resolution 242 israel was told to go back to its pre-war 1967 boundaries . .end of story . . go back go back go back to them . . .

[Trollstein]

01:18 PM on 10/28/2010

The discussion on this tread was about competing scriptural claims. I did not start the tread and needless to say, I did not write the Old or New Testaments. I merely pointed out the Bishop's inaccurate reflection of those biblical components. I invalidated his point based on his own authorities.
"the bible is not a binding legal document"
Is correct. The rest of what you said is INCORRECT.
"when israel was created a state in 1948 . . it was given certain boundaries . . "
Incorrect. Israel (as a legal matter) unilaterally declared its independence. The United Nations Partition~Plan was a non~binding proposal. Good thing too because the Arabs rejected it. (Now they claim they want Israel to accept UN proposed 1948 borders.) Israel's legal rights stem from the legal documents consummated following WW1 (1917-1924) and in particular the Treaty of Sevres (Aug~1920).
" under UN resolution 242 israel was told to go back to its pre-war 1967 boundaries ."
Incorrect. Where please does UNSC Res~242 say that? Of course, it does not. What is most interesting about your above inaccurate paraphrasing is that it would have been exceedingly easy for Res~242 to have said EXACTLY those words. Instead, the 242 language was left intentionally ambiguous. Time-travel is not permitted. It says what it says and it does not say: "Israel to go back to its pre-war 1967 boundaries". You can read it how you please but you can not change what is written.

[jo smith456]

05:30 AM on 11/02/2010

You missed the point. It's exactly the "nullification" (by Christ) that practically removes the "exclusivity".

(To extend the argument, there's a VAST difference, at least in terms of universality of message and intent, between the Talmud and the Bible (New Testament). As a side note, New Testament Bible "practically ignores/removes" the worldly land of Israel, which is mentioned in the Old Testament.)

[ebanks84]

10:59 AM on 10/28/2010

"Seaniebhoy - Fair enough...except you are'nt interested in what they say...your posts do not address the article or anyone's post...just a rant on why you hate religion and religious people. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, but would it not have been better served on an article about what you believe in...unless your only objective was to stir the pot a bit?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since HP isn't working today to address responses to previous comments, I must do it this way and post the comment I'm addressing.

To Seaniebhoy: Everyone who posts on HP is ranting about something or another, just as you are right now. These threads are for that purpose, to express one's opinions. Whether your opinion is favorable by others or not isn't the issue. The whole point is that you can say what "YOU" want to say and nobody can take that away from you. They can disagree or agree, but they cannot say you don't have the right to say what you're saying (except the moderators). And you cannot tell me where to post my opinions.

My opinions are frank and bold at times and you can take them or leave them. But you cannot tell me where I should post. I'm not into religion and that is my prerogative, not yours. Now take it or leave it.

I hope you can move on and make somebody else's day more rewarding.

[aamfo]

07:41 AM on 10/28/2010

The Bishop is positively, definitely right. No God deals in REAL ESTATE.
The whole world / universe is of God - . Does God prefers one over the other
- NO - God chosen ones are those who strive to be good and follow his teachings / commandments -
Maybe - yes maybe they (Jews) were preferred over others at a time in history when all
others were pagans or were worshiping other gods than the one True God -
later with the advent of Christianity and Islam - God only prefers who are pious
and good - who do not spread death and destruction and who do not occupy the
land of others in HIS name.

[Trollstein]

11:27 AM on 10/28/2010

The Bishop is not saying that "No God deals in REAL ESTATE". He is saying that the old covenant is ucerped and replaced by the new, thereby invalidating the earlier provisions. So to buy this argument one has to accept the Gospels as being the word of God.
Qur'an 17:104:
"And therefter, WE [Allah] said to the Children of Israel, dwell securly in the Promised Land. . . "

[ruth606]

05:03 AM on 10/28/2010

I think everybody could have predicted how well that would go over. Seriously, what could have been the thought process? Expectation: "You know what, Archbishop Bustros...we've been thinking about the whole Jesus thing and really...we're probably not as special as we've been claiming to be all this time. And about Rabbi Saul...he did have some darn good ideas!"

[Daleri Rileda]

03:27 AM on 10/28/2010

The hatred of the Jews is evidence of there being evil in this world because there is no rational reason for such awful hatred.

[Daleri Rileda]

04:12 AM on 10/28/2010

Maybe I should rephrase that. People that hate Jews are visible evidence of the fact of there being evil in this world because such hatred is so irrational.

[ruth606]

06:52 AM on 10/28/2010

Is that what you understand the article to be about, hatred of Jews?

[C H Aguero]

10:49 PM on 10/30/2010

Just as with racism and homophobia, people dance around the issues, not always saying what they feel. Too often, people say Israel when they mean Jews. This bishop said, and means, Jews. He is denying what even the United Nations has affirmed -- the right of the Jewish people to a secure homeland.

[Daleri Rileda]

02:52 AM on 10/28/2010

The Bible does give exclusive rights for Jews to live in the land of Israel many times but most notably from Abraham who sent each of his seven other sons in different directions so that Isaac could inherit the land.

[ruth606]

06:57 AM on 10/28/2010

Yes and Jesus was a descendant of Isaac.

[thebarbarian]

06:52 PM on 10/28/2010

Both Jesus and Harry Potter are fictional characters. I have 14, 16 or 19 reasons to think so. You are not forgiven for all 24 of your sins even if you are Cunning and Perceptive.

[Macready]

07:19 AM on 10/28/2010

and the bible is not a legal document . . . so as a deed to land it is not valid . . . . you should read The Bible Unearthed . . . .

[thebarbarian]

06:55 PM on 10/28/2010

King James Bible Hebrews 9:17
For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

So either Jesus is dead or the New Testament is not valid.

[tallndumb]

11:23 PM on 10/27/2010

censored by alan dershowitz again. seems to happen often.

[tallndumb]

11:22 PM on 10/27/2010

censored by alan dershowitz again. seems a common occurence

[MillRock]

09:18 PM on 10/27/2010

The Jewish State was founded by people who escaped from the pogroms in the Pale and survived the Holocaust. They didn't have a chance to wait for a divine permission this time. The leaders of the free world in 1948 made it so, and that was good enough. Seems to me the Catholic Church doesn't need more PR issues, Archbishop Bustros.