Onlangs verscheen op de website van de Wereldomroep een interview met mij in het arabisch. Lees meer: Interview in arabisch
Omdat het geschreven is in het arabisch kon ik het niet voor publicatie lezen en corrigeren. Inmiddels heeft iemand voor mij een engelse vertaling gemaakt, die ik hieronder graag beschikbaar stel. Om misverstanden te voorkomen heb ik mij hier en daar een aanvullende opmerking of (wat betreft feiten) correctie veroorloofd.
Dispute in the Protestant Church
with regards to its relations with Israel
Abir Sarras, International Netherlands Radio 26/09/2007
Rev. Henri Veldhuis, who for the first glance seems like any other clergy man, sits in his office filled with books and manuscripts and speaks quietly and moderately to explain his point of view following the outburst within the Protestant Church in the Netherlands in reaction to his criticism of the Church for taking the side of Israel and being silent regarding the violations of the rights of the Palestinian people. Rev. Veldhuis believes that the Church should go back to the original meaning of 'Israel', as mentioned in the Bible, referring to all believers who have accepted the message of God and not the state of Israel and the Jewish people in general.
In 2004, three Dutch churches merged to form the current Protestant Church, which is considered the second lategest denomination in the Netherlands, with an estimate of two million believers. Rev. Veldhuis is a member of the General Synod, which includes clergy- and laymen representing the different member congregations. Last month, during the opening of the Friends of Sabeel in the Netherlands society, an initiative to support the Sabeel Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem, Rev. Veldhuis criticized the current policy of the Protestant Church. Apparently, this did not please some orthodox members. He soon received a sharp warning from some notable figures within the Protestant church, describing him of "falling in the trap" of Palestinian Liberation Theology. I spoke with Rev. Veldhuis to see what he's up to:
1. What is your main objective when you call the Church to reconsider its relations with Israel?
My first objective is to open the door for dialogue on this issue. I've been expressing my criticism regarding the Church position since the 1980s, and have been writing about it for the past couple of years. My visit to the Occupied Territories last year further motivated me to go further in this matter.
2. The current constitution of the Protestant Church states that the entire Protestant Church has an "unrelinquishable solidarity" with Israel. What does that refer to in your opinion?
It is not easy to define this formula. We first have to realize the historical events that drove the Church to adopt this clause. The events of WW2 have left many Christian Europeans with feelings of guilt. In the past centuries, antisemitism have been widespread in Europe. When the State of Israel was established, the church was among the supporters of the newly-emerged State as an expression of its feeling of guilt following the events of WW2. The Church was also interested to maintain a relationship with its profound historical connections with the Jewish heritage, and therefore, a close relationship was initiated between the Church and Israel.
Many theologians at the time believed that establishing the State of Israel was a sign that God did not desert the people of Israel, and that this is a message for all Christians. In 1970 the Church published a memorandum entitled: "Israel: People, Land and State", mentioning that the return of the Jews to the Promised Land was a sign from God and that God has fulfilled the promise to the Jews. Since the Christian Church has historical roots within the Jewish tradition, the Church was also interested to have a good relationship with Israel, leading to unconditional support of Israel. This memorandum was quite effective indeed, since it gave the Jewish State a religious and theological justification to exist. Despite numerous and repeated criticism by many voices of this clause, the Synode adopted this position ever since. This is still the mainstream position of the Church.
3. What is your objection regarding the connection with Israel?
I do not object that Christianity has profound roots within the Jewish tradition. Our Chirstian religious scriptures started from Judaism and I've studied Jewish heritage for several years. Yet what I do object is the current logic of having exclusivist ties with the Jewish people [HV: as ethnic group]. There is a difference between looking at Jews as an ethnic group and Jews as people of the Torah, the believers of the Old Testament [HV: Tenach]. When the Church refers to the "unrelinquishable solidarity" with the Jewish people, this means a relationship with all ethnic Jews, wherever they are located, and whether they believe in the Old Testament [HV:Tenach] or not. In my opinion, this contradicts our reading of the Old Testament, because God did not choose the Jewish people based on the ethnic characteristics of the Jewish people. What is meant here in fact is the Jews who believed and followed God's covenant. This means that God has chosen His People from the believers who followed Him and not necessarily Jews wherever they are located and whatever they believe in.[HV: This sentence doesn't express my view correctly. I believe that God choose the whole ethnic people of Israel, and for all of them the promise of the covenant is always valid. But the covenant can only be realised, in so far (Jewish) believers respond to it and can be approached for that. Only with them we as christians have a special bond, without denying that for every ethnic Jew the promise of the covenant is still there.] It is also important to keep in mind that there can't be an immediate bond with the modern State of Israel, because it is a state like any other state in the world. Unjustly we often use faith and religious motivations to make Israel our role model.
4. How did the Church documents and reports deal with Palestinians until now?
Palestinians were mentioned in many reports of course. The Church stressed the importance of a fair solution. The Church supports the two-state solution. Yet all these reports remained in the air, because in praxis the Church did not reach out and advocate for the Palestinians. There was a minority of Church members who called for advocating for the justice of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the term "loyalty for both sides" but they did not receive sufficient support from Synode.
5. You are the only voice who calls for reconsidering the Church position. Why don't we hear or see any other members who have the same position?
We are currently a minority but this might change quickly. Our feelings are mixed with worry. Everybody's looking forward to the Church memorandum on the matter, which we are expected to discuss during the Synod meeting in coming November. The memorandum will probably be published only a couple of days before the meeting given the sensitivity of the matter.
6. In your opinion, what are the fears of the Church?
The Church does not want problems or disagreement among its members. It wants to avoid sensitive issues. One of the members who attacked my position was the notable church member Jan van der Graaf. Seems like he does not want me to express my opinion and he fears I might receive support within the Church. He holds a high rank within the Church and does not want strong disagreements inside the Church, especially following the unity of the churches in 2004 [HV: This last point was made in relation to our churchleaders in general, not to J.v.d.G.]. My main criticism of the Church is its fear of discussion and disagreement, but I believe that dialogue is a natural phenomenon and church members are able to participate in constructive dialogue. I do understand that it is not always easy for us to reach an agreement that unites us all under a joint position, but this does not mean we cannot have an open dialogue.
7. Does Church want to avoid mixing religion with politics?
I believe they are mostly worried from criticism because most members love and support Israel.
8. Are there factors and pressure effects on the Church from abroad?
There are relations and communication with the Israeli Embassy, with the Israeli Documentation and Information Centre (CIDI) and with some politicians. For instance, the Embassy visits our church-leaders. There are efforts to exert pressure on the board of Synod. From my own experience with the parish members here in Culemborg I see that people have realized that time has come to reconsider our position. There is an interest and readiness for discussion among parish members.
9. Ever since you gave a speech during the founding ceremony of the "Friends of Sabeel" society, there has been increasing debate about your position, you received harsh letters from notable church members, and there have been hundreds of comments on the matter following an article published in Ha'aretz in the end of last week. Most of these reactions blame you of antisemitism. What is your response to these accusations?
I will not react to these accusations. I would like those who blame me of anti-semitism to give me proof of their accusations. I have studied Jewish Philosophy closely. I deeply love and understand Jewish religion and heritage. I do not like being blackmailed by others and being blamed of "antisemitism", but I try to ignore these accusations and base my ideas on evidence and reasonable discussion. I do not respond by playing with the feelings of others (blackmailing others) or feeling guilty as I mentioned earlier. Time has changed and I do not believe these accusations are effective in the long run. The Dutch public have seen enough of Israeli violations. The time has come to take a firm position. Of course no Dutch person supports the scuicide attacks and operations done by Palestinian armed men. Yet this does not mean we should stand still.
My father is an orthodox Christian and supporter of the State of Israel. When he saw my response to the Open Letter I received by some notable church members, he had a positive reaction, and that is a good sign.
10. What will you do if the mentioned memorandum and the coming meeting do not succeed in changing the position of the Church?
I will not stop calling for what I believe in. Different points of view change. This change cannot be inverted in my opinion. We will not succeed in changing the Church Consititution in one meeting of Synod, but we will be able to put the Palestinians in the agenda of the discussion, and this in itself is a good achievement.