Last July, the US Presbyterian Church moved to boycott Israel and firms that do business with the Jewish state, ostensibly in sympathy with the Palestinian people for the harsh treatment they receive under the occupation. Now, the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches are preparing to join in the boycott as well, with a final vote to be held next June ("Anglican group promotes boycott of Israel, firms," Sept. 26, page 6).
Representatives of these two denominations have recently returned from a "fact-finding" mission to the occupied territories. They were shocked at the deplorable conditions there, and incensed at the construction of the wall separating the two peoples. They deplore the checkpoints, curfews and restrictions, without ever pointing to the causes.
These church representatives, although claiming their decision was one of "moral responsibility," are incredibly naive. They are being used as dupes by the Palestinian leadership, which has been incapable of halting acts of violence and terrorism against Israelis.
These foolish Christians, in their simplistic analysis, compare the situation in Israel to that of South Africa during the period of apartheid. They conveniently forget that the white South Africans were Christians who were supported for many years by Christian churches.
The itinerary of the representatives was a highly selective one, carefully prepared by the Palestinians. Gullible to an extent that defies logic, they accepted this view as gospel.
They never questioned the degree of Palestinian responsibility for their predicament. They never questioned the lack of democratic process among these "victims," their leadership tainted by terrorism or any other relevant factors. They were so ready and willing to blame the Jews.
Did these good Christians bother to visit Israeli hospitals to view the real victims of Palestinian terrorism? Sadly, the answer is "No!"
Unfortunately, the Christian churches have a long history of anti-Semitism, which led to the Inquisition (and the forcible conversion, torture or death of countless Jews) and to the hatred of Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. With such a bloodstained record, these Christian churches should be ashamed to be seen as attacking their perennial victims.
While they may have antipathy toward the "People of the Book" for never having accepted the Christian faith, they might look into the New Testament and consider the words of Jesus Christ: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," and avoid political gambits which will tarnish the reputation of the churches.
Perhaps it's time these Christians reread the Bible. They seem to have forgotten that God told Abraham: "And I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" (Genesis 12:2-3).
It does not bother them that peaceful democratic nations like Taiwan are threatened by dictatorships like China, or that countries like Tibet have been swallowed, and their native cultures decimated. They are, however, disturbed by Jews who refuse to lie down and die.
One can only hope that good sense will prevail, and that the churches' congregations will reject the unwarranted "Christian call" to boycott the state of Israel, which will merely exacerbate the current situation and punish the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Chaim Melamed
Pingtung City
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing