That being said, I'm glad I read it. I have friends who take the Palestinian and Palestinian Christian side against the Israeli Jews often and this is the kind of story they refer to as the basis for their support.
The story begins with an edenic childhood in Palestine interrupted one day be evil Zionist who take the land and refuse to let the townspeople back in. No reason is given other than the Zionists are evil.
Chacour takes pains to point out that growing up he was always taught to love and respect the Jews as "blood brothers" to the Palestinian Christians, and he is careful to distinguish the Jews from the Zionist.
The families are largely thrown to the wind as refugees in nearby towns. Despite attempts to return or to exist peacefully with the Zionists, they are never allowed back in.
Finally, Chacour is sent to a boarding school and eventually to seminary. His first job is in a desperately poor town with a history of internal division. The best part of this story is when he locks the congregants in the church and demands reconciliation. From this he gets the idea that he can reconcile Jews and Palestinians through peaceful protests and demonstrations.
This becomes his main focus, especially later in life.
The biggest disappointment in the book is that the Jews are treated as cartoon characters and despite the distinction between them and the Zionists, it's not clear there is a distinction. The Jews are only portrayed as hateful and irrational, although some are willing to see reason and lay down their hatred. Terrorism is almost never mentioned except as extremely rare occurrences by those who were not raised in the loving bosom Chacour experienced. And for his peers acting violently, he dismisses that with a "what do you expect" attitude.
Elias Chacour seems to be a genuine Christian with a genuine commitment to the Gospel, but I think he is still blinded by Palestinian identity. He sees the Jews as usurpers. Life was perfect before the evil Jews invaded. If they had just stayed a tiny minority and let the Palestinians continue in their ways, there would be no conflict today. This narrative ignores the large events taking place outside his tiny town. He has his limited perspective and it seems like he is unable to provide a larger view.
One thing that I noticed time and again was that although it appeared the things I could research were factually correct, his take on them is sometimes misleading. His story about his village is true. In fact another village experienced the same thing. However those two villages stand out as aberrations and are frequently mentioned in the horrors of Israel. He makes it sound like his small village is one of myriad villages experiencing the same thing. And he never hints at any kind of reason for the takeover of his village besides pure evil. I have no idea if the Israelis saw some sort of strategic purpose in taking the villages. I assume some kind of reason was behind it, even if not communicated to the people. That is not to justify it, but these kinds of horrible things happen in areas under distress. Hundreds of innocent German towns were bombed by the Allies in WWII. Life in a war zone is awful.
Other stories he told put the worst spin on controversial events. I researched a couple and the general thinking seems to be it could have happened that way, but no one knows. For example, he accuses the Jews of terrorizing Iranian Jews so that they would immigrate to Israel. Some pointed out that this was a story floated by Iran, but it makes no sense from an Israeli perspective. They were already struggling with the immigrants pouring into the country. Chacour's ability to take one side in an argument, as long as it makes the Jews look evil, certainly damages his credibility.
The reason I'm glad I read this is so that I could see what those who defend the Palestinians see. If this is the best evidence for the maltreatment at the hands of the Israelis, I remain unconvinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment