anti-Semitism, Germany, Jews

1. AN AMERICAN JEWISH – GERMAN INFORMATION & OPINION NEWSLETTER
dubowdigest@optonline.net
GERMANY EDITION
March 9, 2013
Dear Friends:
In the last few days we had a genuine winter snowstorm here in New York. However,
today the sun is out and it has warmed up. Spring is just around the corner.
In Jewish households Spring brings with it the Passover holiday. This year it starts on
the evening of March 25th.
Passover is a family holiday celebrated mostly in homes with a special Passover meal
(called a Seder). It is loaded with important symbols, matzohs (unleavened bread) and
many other good things to eat. There is a (fairly) regularized service to go through with
the highlight usually featuring the youngest participant asking 4 questions beginning
with,” Why is this night different from all other nights?”
Without going too deeply into its meaning, Passover is the liberation holiday of the
Jewish people marking their release from bondage in Egypt.
If you'd like to know more about it click here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover
To all my Christian friends, of course, I wish you a wonderful Easter.
If there was a 5th Passover question I would vote for, “Ain't Spring great?”
Let's get on to the news...
IN THIS EDITION
THE ISRAELI ELECTION – The election is over but the quest for a workable coalition
government is not.
1

2. ANTI-SEMITISM: GERMANY – Is it more acceptable these days?
OBAMA IN ISRAEL – He’s visit soon. A new peace plan? Forget it!
THE POPE & THE JEWS – How will he be remembered?
IRELAND & ISRAEL – How come they don’t love each other?
CHRISTIANS AS “THE NEW JEWS” – No! It’s not about conversion, it’s about being
persecuted.
THE ISRAELI ELECTION
The Israeli election took place over a month ago. I thought that by this time Prime
Minister Netanyahu would have been able to put together a ruling coalition but that has
not happened – though it may come to pass in the few days or so.
Why all the trouble? The Prime Minister’s party, Likud/YisroelBeiteinu could not gather
enough strength for a wide coalition because two new parties, one on the left, Yesh Atid
headed by Yair Lapid and one on the right, Jewish Home Party headed by Naftali
Bennett joined together in a peculiar post-election alliance to block it. Neither wanted to
be in a coalition with the ultra-Orthodox parties.
Their bond had nothing to do with the Israeli – Palestinian situation. As a matter of fact
that issue was, sort of, put on the back-burner. The main issue joining the two has to do
with how the government is to treat the extreme Orthodox and their issues of marriage,
divorce, conversion and, most important, exemption from military service for yeshiva
students. Netanyahu has always had the ultra-Orthodox in his coalitions and wanted to
continue that. It is not to be this time.
After a lot of negotiating it now looks as if P.M. Netanyahu will include the Lapid and
Bennett parties and the ultra- Orthodox will go into opposition. The Times of Israel
reports, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made considerable progress toward
building what is set to be a 70-strong coalition, sources close to the negotiations said
Friday evening. They stressed, however, that the key deals had yet to be signed, and
nothing would be concrete until they were.
The coalition, set to be finalized early next week, will comprise Netanyahu‟s Likud-
Beytenu (31 seats), Yesh Atid (19), Jewish Home (12), Hatnua (6) and Kadima (2).
Labor would lead the opposition, in which the two ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and
United Torah Judaism, would also sit, the sources said.
The emerging compromise on ultra-Orthodox military service will see 1,500-2,000
scholars exempted from service each year — a far higher number than the 400 cap
Yesh Atid had sought. Ultra-Orthodox men will be called for service at age 22, not 18, in
another reported compromise.
2

3. A Friday morning meeting at the Prime Minister‟s Residence between Lapid and
Netanyahu yielded significant progress, both sides said.
The coalition negotiation teams were scheduled to reconvene Saturday night, and a
government could be announced by Wednesday or even sooner, Israel Radio reported.
Earlier on Friday, Bennett likened the talks to a birth, and, while indicating that a
coalition with both his and Lapid‟s parties was all but inevitable, cautioned that a deal
with Netanyahu hadn‟t quite crowned.
“If establishing the government was like a labor process, we‟d be two fingers dilated,
and the doctor would be optimistic,” Bennett tweeted.
Netanyahu, who has until next Saturday to form a coalition, will likely aim to present an
agreement to President Shimon Peres upon Peres‟s return next Wednesday from a
sojourn in Europe.
If Netanyahu failed to present a new government in time — he is already in the midst of
a 14-day extension granted him by Peres on March 2 after his first 28 days of efforts
proved futile — the president would either tap another politician as presumptive prime
minister, or call another round of elections. But that prospect, always unlikely, is
receding all the time, the sources said, and Netanyahu is said to be aiming for a
Wednesday or Thursday swearing-in ceremony for his new government.”
So what does all this mean? Well, it seems as if the new Israeli government will have a
more liberal domestic caste to it when it comes into office. The ultra-Orthodox will not
have such a strangle-hold on the policies mentioned above and, most important, some
of their young people will have to do military or national service. They are seen by a lot
of Israelis as non-contributors to the national good while the rest of the population has
to support them.
Where does this leave the peace process? It appears to be status quo. The Bennett
party is made up mostly of settlers. They are in large part opposed to any forward peace
movement. On the other hand, (again The Times of Israel), “Tzipi Livni‟s Hatnua [party],
with six seats, is the only party to date to have signed with Likud-Beytenu. In addition to
the position of justice minister, Livni was promised the right to lead peace talks with the
Palestinians.
Will there be movement? Don’t bet on it. Even Pres. Obama, who is to visit Israel shortly
(see below), is not coming with any new peace program. Recently Palestinian Pres.
Abbas said he would be willing to resume talks but set out a whole list of pre-conditions
that even he knew were not realistic and so nothing new is about to happen.
All we can do is – stay tuned – which we will do.
ANTI-SEMITISM: GERMANY
3

4. (This article also appears in my American Edition)
When Jews and Israel are discussed one of the most difficult issues to come to terms
with is “What is anti-Semitism and what is legitimate political criticism of the Jewish
State of Israel?” There is no doubt that some people who are critical of Israel’s policies
are not anti-Semites even though they are accused of being just that. On the other
hand, there are those with deep seated anti-Jewish feelings and attitudes that claim
they are only being critical of political policies. Because overt anti-Semitism is no longer
acceptable in Western society they claim not to be anti-Semitic and, therefore,
“bulletproof”. Sometimes the armor looks pretty thin.
Over the years wordsmiths have worked up ways of expressing anti-Semitism so that
no one can lay a glove on the purveyors. Indeed, it is sometimes very difficult to “prove”
that individuals are anti-Semites. “Smoking guns” are frequently hard to find. However,
what are we to believe when there is a tsunami of anti-Israelism in a society? Is it just
political criticism or is it something more troubling? There are indications that something
like that may be happening in Germany.
Isi Leibler is a well-known Israeli leader and political “pundit”. He writes frequently in the
Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom. In a recent article which appeared in both journals
he wrote, “In the aftermath of the Holocaust, successive German governments have
meticulously upheld their obligations to the Jewish people. Study of the Holocaust is a
mandatory component of the German state education curriculum, Holocaust denial is
classified as a crime and restitution commitments were honored and even exceeded.
Chancellor Angela Merkel is a genuine friend of the Jews and despite intense political
pressures and occasional minor vacillations, has consistently supported Israel,
describing its security as “part of my country‟s raison d‟etre”. However in recent years,
as in other European countries, German public opinion has turned against Israel,
perceiving it as the principal threat to global stability and peace. This hostility has
increasingly assumed overt anti-Semitic tones.
There is growing resentment against Jews, who are blamed for imposing excessive
emphasis on collective German national guilt for the Holocaust.
Anti-Jewish hostility is often expressed in the more „politically respectable‟ demonization
of the Jewish nation state, allegedly not related to anti-Semitism although the
“Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe” (OSCE) explicitly defines such
behavior as anti-Semitic.
I am going to make you read Leibler’s article (see below) wherein he spells out the
various outcroppings of the kind of language which seems to prove the point he makes
that anti-Semitism is becoming more acceptable than it would have been a decade ago.
Leibler concludes his article with, “It was significant that in 2010, two Bundestag leftist
representatives were aboard the Turkish Marvi Marmara and that for the first time, the
left and the right united in parliament to carry a unanimous resolution censuring Israel
for the Gaza flotilla episode. This in itself may not represent anti-Semitism, but reflects
the atmosphere of increasing hostility against Israel which would have been
4

5. inconceivable in Germany only a few years ago.
For Jews, the positive side of Germany is the evident abundance of pro-Israeli and even
philo-Semitic rank and file Germans in all walks of life. Yet, simultaneously the
intensifying efforts by left wing activists uniting with Moslem extremists and occasionally
even Nazis, to demonize Israel and promote anti-Semitism, provide valid grounds for
concern about a future for Jews in Germany.
The situation is likely to further deteriorate drastically after the culmination of Angela
Merkel‟s term as Chancellor.
Perhaps he is a bit over the top about his “concern about a future for Jews in
Germany”. Every time I see an eruption of anti-Semitic writing or behavior I also see a
strong reaction in Germany. As long as it remains the democracy it is the implications
remain positive for Jews and Jewish life. However, European anti-Semitism remains a
constant and, indeed, is growing by leaps and bounds. If the virus spreads further, well,
all bets are off. It is a time when actions and words have to be examined more closely.
What is happening is very unsettling.
The Leibler article can be read by clicking here.
http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=68624233&msgid=994155&act=MF2Y&c=3651
52&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwordfromjerusalem.com%2F%3Fp%3D4518
OBAMA IN ISRAEL
In a few weeks Pres. Obama will make his first visit to Israel as President. Almost every
columnist and TV talking head in the U.S. has made it known what they believe will
come to pass as a result of the visit. To me, some make sense and others do not. The
best analysis thus far was penned by James D. Besser of The Jewish Week.
A few weeks ago writing in that journal he posted, “The announcement of [the] trip
triggered widespread speculation of a possible new U.S. peace push — speculation the
White House has tried hard to quash.
A dramatically altered Middle East climate may relieve much of the international
pressure that past presidents felt to dip their feet in the turbulent waters of Israeli-
Palestinian negotiations. At home, the subject of U.S. involvement has become so toxic
that few politicians of either party see much point in actively supporting it — especially
with Israeli and Palestinian leaders so entrenched in their reluctance to make
confidence-building compromises.
Obama may feel even less political pressure to make peacemaking a top priority [than
did Pres. Clinton] because supporters of a more active U.S. role do not get much help
from a Palestinian Authority with weak, vacillating leaders and no realistic plan for
dealing with the split that has left Gaza in the hands of Hamas.
5

6. Under the Obama administration, a new realism has crept into U.S. foreign policy that
seems to eschew grand but inevitably futile and costly gestures.
The results can be seen in the administration‟s cautious approach to the bloody,
explosive civil war in Syria, the chaos in Egypt and pressure to ratchet up military
threats against Iran and close the door to diplomacy with Tehran.
That same caution is likely to diminish Obama‟s eagerness to dive back into the Israeli-
Palestinian quagmire without clear signs both sides are ready to take big political risks
to make negotiations happen.
Underneath it all, it‟s possible to detect a kind of “a pox on both your houses” in a
Washington foreign policy establishment weary of years of fruitless peacemaking, tired
of the blame game played by both sides and increasingly refocused on dramatic
changes in other parts of the Middle East and around the world.
Support for Israel remains strong across the Washington political spectrum — a matter
of both genuine belief and political expedience — but interest in helping Israel reach a
peace agreement with its neighbors has gone deep underground.
Ultimately, that could prove disastrous for a Jewish state afflicted with a strain of
political paralysis that is rapidly undercutting any chance for the kind of two-state
solution that may be its only hope for both its long-term security and an end to its
growing international isolation.
There is a clear understanding that this president is much more risk averse in foreign
policy than his predecessors — and much less likely to launch new policy initiatives
when the chances of success are slim to nonexistent.
Looking at the Middle East, European leaders are much more concerned about the civil
war in Syria and its implications for the region, the unrest in Egypt and what it portends
about the future of the Arab Spring movement, the ongoing confrontation with Iran over
its alleged nuclear weapons program and the tumult in North Africa — all issues that
have little or nothing to do with the entrenched Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.
But for now, at least, the era of sweeping U.S. peace initiatives and overt pressure on
both sides to come to the table is probably over. That will make the upcoming U.S.
diplomatic forays a kind of holding pattern while waiting for political realities in Israel and
the West Bank to change.
There is more to the Besser article but, by and large, as noted above he does not think
much will come of the Obama visit. I have to agree. There just does not seem to be
anything on the horizon that will move the parties from their tightly held positions. All the
leaders involved have their own constituencies to think about and those, while voicing
the need for movement and peace, are holding fast to their long held positions.
To read Besser’s article click here.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/international-news/obama-trip-looming-new-
6

7. realism-limits-options
THE POPE & THE JEWS
In surveying the Jewish press, there are about as many articles on the retirement of
Pope Benedict XVI as there are writers. Everyone seems to have an opinion. – and
rightly so. Since Benedict was shepherd to 1 billion Catholics, each every statement he
made that had any implication for the Jewish community had to be taken seriously. The
relationship between Catholicism and Judaism especially, as it pertains to the rise or fall
of anti-Semitism, is of (if you’ll pardon the pun) cardinal importance.
Perhaps the most comprehensive article on Benedict is one by Prof. John Connelly of
UC Berkley who has written a book,“From Enemy to Brother: the Revolution in Catholic
Teaching on the Jews, 1933-1965,” (Harvard University Press, 2012).Prof. Connelly
quoted in The Forward states, “In the field of Jewish-Christian relations he will not be
remembered as having enjoyed success. Most of his initiatives involved a gaffe of one
sort or other. From a visit he made to Auschwitz we recall that he conspicuously
avoided any statement of repentance for the church‟s history of teaching anti-Semitism.
Later, he attempted to reconcile the church with reactionaries who deny the reforms of
Vatican II, where, among other things the church renounced the theological sources of
hatred of the Jews, sometimes called anti-Judaism, above all the idea that Jews lived
under a curse for killing God. These extremists have refused the Vatican‟s overtures,
perhaps saving the pope further embarrassment. Among their number are Holocaust
deniers.
Perhaps most troubling, in the spring of 2008 Benedict announced a Good Friday
Prayer for the Jews “that God our Lord should illuminate their hearts, so that they will
recognize Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men.” This seemed to presage a return to the
practice of trying to convert Jews and denying—against the teaching of Vatican II—that
Jews stand in a covenantal relation with God.
Those who study history have good reason to fear that progress may be reversed. But
Benedict‟s record in Jewish-Christian affairs shows the limited impact even a tone deaf
Pope can have.
Prof. Connelly feels that a more positive relationship with the Jews has been built, so
Pope Benedict notwithstanding, the relationship between Jews & Catholics is not at risk.
Perhaps I’m a cynic but I believe that all things can change and that anti-Semitism is
always available to use should the proper situations arise. It’s up to Jews and non-Jews
alike to see that it doesn’t.
You should read the entire article which you can by clicking
here.http://forward.com/articles/171377/the-next-pope-could-be-progressive-and-
transform-r/?p=all#ixzz2LGOGMxJU
7

8. My AJC colleague, Rabbi David Rosen, the Director of International interreligious
Relations who knows the Pope quite well has a different sort of a take. He notes, “While
many liberals within and outside the Church will be hoping for a successor with a very
different outlook, those who care about the future of Catholic-Jewish relations and who
know Pope Benedict XVI's record will be concerned that the next pope might not have
the same commitment as his predecessors.
Benedict XVI has been a true follower, in word and deed, of John Paul II regarding the
Church's relationship with the Jews. In fact, in many ways he consolidated the latter's
steps. One might have considered John Paul II's visit to the synagogue in Rome or his
pilgrimage to Israel, paying respects to the state's highest elected political and religious
leaders, to be the atypical actions of a pope who had had a unique personal connection
with Jews since childhood. The fact that Benedict did the same confirmed these
gestures as belonging to the Church as much as to individuals, and potentially made
them a template for his successors.
There are few people who know more about Catholic – Jewish relations than David.
One must take what he says about the Pope seriously. I do. Let’s then hope that the
“the next guy in the door” (I’m pretty sure it won’t be a woman) is, indeed, as positive
about the Jews as was Benedict – perhaps with fewer slips of the lip.
Last, but certainly not least, my now retired colleague Rabbi A. James Rudin, writing in
the Religion News Service noted,Benedict had the unenviable task of succeeding a
legendary larger-than-life figure, John Paul II, who during his 27 years as pope became
the best-known person on the globe. John Paul‟s style, early vigor and charisma cast a
constant shadow over Benedict‟s pontificate.
But he was not, as some critics charge, a “transitional” or an “accidental” pope. History
will, however, view him as the last of the traditional European pontiffs. And that, in the
end, might not be a bad thing for the church.
The most serious problem that dogged his papacy was the continuing sexual abuse
scandal across an increasing number of nations. The clergy scandal was a constant
malignancy within the church that eroded the moral authority of priests and bishops and
increased the disenchantment of many lay people.
The scholarly and professorial pope was seemingly unable to cope adequately with the
rapid technological changes sweeping throughout society. It also led to an early
headache, when a quick Google search would have confirmed that one of the
breakaway traditionalist bishops he welcomed back into the church was a vocal denier
of the Holocaust.
That move, with others, caused both anger and concern in the Jewish community.
Muslims, too, took issue when Benedict invoked a Byzantine emperor who said Islam
was violent and “spread by the sword.” Although Benedict is a committed champion of
positive interfaith relations, several of his public remarks, statements and actions
seemed out of step with that ideal.
8

9. Benedict perhaps will be best remembered as an intellectual, a German theologian
steeped in traditional values who had the unavoidable and difficult task of following a
legendary figure. He is likely to be the last of a generation of European pontiffs who
were shaped by World War II, the Holocaust and even the historic reforms of Vatican II.
Neither he nor the institution he led was sure-footed in navigating the changing tides of
the 21st century. Unlike Vatican II‟s Pope John XXIII or John Paul, he was not a papal
game changer who set his church on a new course. Some of the biggest issues facing
the church — clergy celibacy, women‟s ordination and a shortage of priests, the role of
the laity — didn‟t get much attention, and they‟ll soon be transferred to a younger
leader.
The Greek philosopher correctly warned that we never step into the same river twice;
both we and the river constantly change. In 2005, Benedict stepped into a raging river of
change, conflict, and even chaos. It‟s still too soon to tell just how well he navigated his
church in the world‟s churning waters.
I think that says it all. Obviously Benedict made mistakes but, in the long run, was
deeply committed to the improvement of Catholic – Jewish relations. He now belongs to
history which will be the judge of his pontificate. Let’s hope that the “new guy”
understands the needs of the Jewish community and that anti-Semitism is seen as
dangerous to the Church as it is to the Jews.
IRELAND & ISRAEL
Since I’m on the subject of Jews and Catholics (above) I thought I would mention one of
those political matters that puzzles me the most – the relationship between the Jewish
state of Israel and the mostly Catholic state of Ireland.
I must admit it never even occurred to me that Ireland would be one of the most, if not
the most, anti-Israel state in Europe. After all, throughout the cities of the United States
Jews and people of Irish extraction live side by side almost invariably in peace and
harmony. Of course, anyone my age is well aware that in the later part of the 20th
Century the Catholic Church had in it strong elements of belief that were anti-Semitic.
Nostra Aetate and the 2nd Vatican Council introduced a whole different vision of Jews
that removed a good deal of the hateful thinking and feeling that had been part of
Catholic theology.
In addition, I thought back to the 1930’s and 1940’s when both the Jews trying to form
the Jewish state of Israel and the “troubles” the Irish had with the British in Northern
Ireland. Both groups had a common negative feeling about the Brits.
I have been deeply surprised that none of the above has had an impact on today’s
political landscape shared by the two countries.
The Times of Israel recently ran an article on a left-wing conference, “Billed as
9

10. “Discussions on Austerity, Resistance and the Left Alternative,” the event was
organized by Paul Murphy, the socialist Irish member of the European Parliament, and
attended by various European leftists. The agenda on the flyer was ambitious:
“Militarisation, Democracy, Women‟s Rights, Palestine, The Far Right and Building to
Defeat EU Austerity.”
Yes, Palestine was just dropped in there like a political football. There were no other
foreign policy issues. No Kurds, Kashmir or Syria, currently being torn apart in a civil
war. Even US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has slipped off the radar.
This single-minded focus on “Palestine/Israel” is a feature of the hard left, and indeed of
the softer left: One of the summit participants was Sinn Fein, now a centrist party in the
South and North of Ireland.
Billed as “Discussions on Austerity, Resistance and the Left Alternative,” the event was
organized by Paul Murphy, the socialist Irish member of the European Parliament, and
attended by various European leftists. The agenda on the flyer was ambitious:
“Militarisation, Democracy, Women‟s Rights, Palestine, The Far Right and Building to
Defeat EU Austerity.”
Yes, Palestine was just dropped in there like a political football. There were no other
foreign policy issues. No Kurds, Kashmir or Syria, currently being torn apart in a civil
war. Even US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has slipped off the radar.
This single-minded focus on “Palestine/Israel” is a feature of the hard left, and indeed of
the softer left: One of the summit participants was Sinn Fein, now a centrist party in the
South and North of Ireland.
In Ireland, this focus is especially obsessive, and Israel-bashing is a hot topic, which
connects to a wider European agenda.
Thus, although the anti-summit and its participants are small in scale, they are noisy,
and have a disproportionate influence. As does Ireland itself. In 1980, it was a famously
outspoken statement by then foreign minister Brian Lenihan supporting Palestinian
“self-determination” and recognition of the PLO (the Bahrain Declaration) that led to the
Venice Declaration later that year, in which the European Economic Community — the
precursor to the EU — followed suit.
Since then, Ireland has consistently pushed the EU to take a harder line on Israel.
So for a small country with no geopolitical connection to the Middle East, and with a
minimal ethnic connection (there is a small Muslim population and smaller Jewish one),
Ireland is surprisingly active on issues related to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. It is an interest not necessarily shown in other foreign disputes by this often
insular island.
The focus may have something to do with the parallels between Irish history and
perceptions of colonialism in the Middle East, but either way, Ireland has provided some
of the most vocal opposition to Israeli security policy, be it through support for the Gaza
10

11. flotillas, official government statements or the controversial campaign by a major
charity, Trocaire, to boycott goods from Jewish settlements…
I do not want to take up too much of this edition’s space with a rant about Ireland.
However, though Israel does have diplomatic relations with Ireland and there are
supporters in the general population and the government, they are a loud anti-Israel
voice in the EU and therefore have some relationship to Germany.
History is strange. Ireland should be Israel’s best friend in the EU and turns out to be its
most outstanding adversary. Germany, which should be on the negative side of the
ledger is its best friend. Truly strange!
P.S. If you think I’m a little too worked up about Ireland, read the following about an Irish
TV news broadcast. Click here.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/irish-channel-must-apologize-for-show-calling-israel-
cancer/#.UTIMqAOCS4c.email
CHRISTIANS AS “THE NEW JEWS”
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, who directs interfaith affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, and chairs Jewish Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, has written a most
interesting piece in Patheos Jewish, a well-known Jewish website entitled, “Are
Christians the New Jews?”
In it he writes, "If you want to understand us, study our story, learn of our pain." That is
what Jews told Christians who wanted to build new bridges of respect after the
Holocaust. Ironically, when Christians begin listening to the story of the Jews, they are
finding reflections of themselves.
Christians who listened learned of a Jewish history written in blood from ancient to
modern times. When they thought of Christian martyrdom, on the other hand, they had
to turn for the most part to antiquity, to early Christianity under the thumb of Roman
emperors.
That has all changed. While Jews feel threatened by the massive explosion of global
anti-Semitism in the last years, coupled with Iranian and Islamist calls for the genocidal
destruction of all Jews, very few Jews in 2013 are dying because of their faith or their
roots. Christians, on the other hand, have become the New Jews.
That term used to be a theological one, telling the faithful that G-d's covenants with the
Jewish people had been rewritten in favor of new beneficiaries: Christians. Today,
however, it means that Christians have succeeded Jews as the numerically most
persecuted people on the face of the earth. In a huge swath of territory from Nigeria
east and north to Iran and Pakistan, millions of Christians live in fear of losing their
property or their lives simply because they are Christians. In the Assyrian Triangle of
11

12. Iraq, the campaign of church-burning, clergy-killing, and terror has all but decimated the
historically oldest Christian communities.
Today, Christians—especially those who take their faith most seriously—report that they
feel like a scorned stepchild within general culture. They are mocked and derided, and
treated as intellectual pygmies who have nothing to offer the better, more enlightened
people around them.
Christians who listen to the Jewish saga begin to understand how Jews lived with
themselves through the long centuries of persecution. Jews felt the power of
conviction—of belief that if you are fortunate enough to possess the truth, you do not
compromise or sacrifice it, even if it means that you continue on only as tiny fleck of
mankind. Ironically, those who mocked Jews for their insignificance now consider
voluntarily choosing to live with the same ethic. Pope Benedict XVI will be remembered,
among other things, for his theological depth, for facing intellectual challenges head-on
and refusing to water down what he considered essential truths. Writing as Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger in Das Salz von der Erde, he made a startling confession. "We might
have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge
of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those
we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew
13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant
groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world."
Lastly, Christians are discovering their Jewish roots—how deeply dependent
Christianity had been on its Jewish beginnings. As T.S. Eliot put it, "And the end of all
our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time."
That place, for many Christians today, is looking more Jewish all the time.
There is more to the article including the Rabbi’s assertion that the safest place for
Christians in the Middle East is Israel. From what I’ve read he’s probably right.
In any case, you should read the entire piece which you can by clicking here.
http://www.patheos.com/Jewish/Christians-New-Jews-Yitzchok-Adlerstein-02-21-
2013?offset=1&max=1
************************************************************************************
See you again in April.
DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be contacted by
clicking here
Both the American and Germany editions are posted at www.dubowdigest.typepad.com
Click here to connect
12

13. BTW – all editions are posted at www.dubowdigest.typepad.com
13