By David Billet

On the eve of Christmas, an op-ed by Kenneth L. Woodward, the former religion editor and now contributing editor of Newsweek, appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Titled “The Plight of Bethlehem,” it enumerated a number of ways in which the Jewish state imposes hardships on Christians in the Holy Land. According to Woodward, Israel restricts their movement and their access to holy sites; squeezes them economically in cities like Bethlehem; and confiscates their land for its security fence and for Jewish settlements. Woodward closes by reminding Israel that it would be a mistake to “lose” the good will of the dwindling population
of Palestinian Christians, who enjoy “remarkably good” relations with their Muslim neighbors, have long been a moderating force in the area, and in any case “deserve to keep their land and work for peace on earth, goodwill toward men.”

A rousing tale of injustice–but one constructed almost entirely out of bias, falsehood, and demagoguery.

Woodward writes: “Israel’s security wall, its restrictive exit-permit

system, roadblocks, and military checkpoints now make it impossible for

most Holy Land Christians to visit the shrines that, for all Christians,

make the Holy Land holy.” He explains: “Like East Jerusalem, Bethlehem

is part of the West Bank, not the State of Israel. Temporary exit visas

[for Palestinians] to go from one to the other to worship . . . are hard

to come by, of brief duration even when granted, and always subject to

the whims of Israeli soldiers.” Also, since Israel “bans its own

citizens from traveling to the West Bank,” Israeli Christians can no

more visit the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem than Bethlehem

Christians can visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in East Jerusalem.

It is remarkable that a veteran religion writer can be so ignorant of

his subject as to write that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel. In

fact, Israel annexed East Jerusalem after the 1967 Six-Day war. East

Jerusalem’s Arab residents are full-fledged citizens of Israel or

eligible to be so. By contrast, Bethlehem is part of the territory in

the West Bank designated as “Area A” –that is, under the control of the

Palestinian Authority–and one does indeed require a permit to pass from

it into Israel proper. This is Israel’s prerogative, and a quite

sensible one for the protection of Israel’s borders from terrorist

infiltration.

Nevertheless, contrary to what Woodward claims, permission is routinely

granted to Palestinian Christians (and Muslims) to enter Israel to

worship. This past holiday season, thousands of such travel permits were

issued to Christians in Bethlehem. Similar permits were even granted to

Christians in Gaza–at a time when the Israeli government has no

official contact with the Hamas government there.

Also false is Woodward’s claim that travel in the opposite direction is

“banned” by Israel. Israelis are indeed discouraged from entering

hostile Palestinian areas–the day after Christmas, an Israeli driver

who took a wrong turn narrowly escaped being lynched in Ramallah–and

Israeli Jews require a special permit from the military to enter Area A.

But Israeli Arabs, Christian and Muslim alike, can for the most part

pass through freely. Thousands of Israeli Christians traveled to

Bethlehem over Christmas without incident.

As for the “whims” of Israeli soldiers, this is another slander. Border

policies are made by the government and passed down the chain of

command. Soldiers on duty at checkpoints are under stringent orders,

enjoying a measure of discretion only when it comes to halting

suspicious cargo and the like. They may no more restrict passage on a

whim than nap or play cards.

Woodward: “Few producers in Bethlehem can get their goods to markets in

Jerusalem. Fewer buyers can get to Bethlehem to sustain its markets.”

Tourists to Bethlehem “are routinely whisked in and out without time to

shop.” Nor can Israel “blame the Christians’ dire circumstances on the

second intifada: Muslims are suffering just as much as the tiny

Christian minority.”

Whose actions are bad for business in Bethlehem? Although Woodward

briefly acknowledges that Israel “must protect its security,” he will

not lay the blame for Bethelehem’s economic woes on the real culprit.

Before the second intifada, which began in September 2000, Israelis from

Jerusalem and nearby settlements used to shop in Bethlehem, many

Bethelehemites were employed in Israel, and everybody gained from the

open exchange. During the intifada, the area became a hotbed of terror,

a base from which many suicide bombers infiltrated into Israel. Tourists

began to stay away, and Israel had to erect barriers to protect its

citizens.

Still, contrary to what Woodward claims, foreign visitors to Bethelehem

are not “whisked in and out”–certainly not, as he implies, by Israel.

They are free to roam as they please, unless the uniformed Palestinian

Authority policemen patrolling the streets say otherwise.

Bethlehem, Woodward writes, “has historically been one place where

Muslim-Christian relations have been remarkably friendly.” Not even

close. The annual Christmas celebration in Manger Square outside the

Church of the Nativity is invariably greeted by the organized intrusion

of local Muslims in collusion with the authorities, whether it is giant

posters of Arafat plastered throughout the square, Muslims from the

adjacent mosque (in Bethlehem as elsewhere in the Holy Land, a mosque

has been deliberately set down next to a Christian shrine) holding their

prayers outside in the middle of the festivities, or the Palestinian

Authority preventing Christians from putting up decorative lighting. For

more examples of such brotherly love, see David Hazony’s post on

contentions from last week.

A final insult, writes Woodward, is that “urban Bethlehem finds itself

encircled by Israeli settlements.” “From the Church of the Nativity,

Christians can . . . look out on Har Homa (’Wall Mountain’), a verdant

Jewish settlement on a hillside that was formerly Christian land.”

Jewish settlements near Bethlehem are neither new nor “encircling.” The

territory south and east of the city is overwhelmingly Area A–i.e.,

Palestinian. Jerusalem lies several kilometers to the north; to the west

is the Etzion Bloc, which contains a number of Jewish villages as well

as Arab ones. The Jewish population in the bloc, resettled shortly after

the Six Day war, has grown over the years, but title to the land on

which Jewish villages are built is not disputed. Nor does the bloc flank

Bethlehem: the terrain is hilly and open, and urban Bethlehem is barely

visible from most points.

As for Har Homa: though the subject of much artificial controversy, it

is part of the Jerusalem municipality, it is not “verdant,” and the

hilltop on which it is situated was acquired by the Israeli government

through eminent domain, upheld by Israel’s Supreme Court. Most of the

acreage belonged not to Christians but to Jews, and none of it was

farmland or dwellings. The owners were all compensated.

According to Woodward, Israel’s security wall “is being completed

around Beit Jala, separating this Christian village from 70 percent of

its lands, which are mostly owned by Christian families. Some of the

families are attempting to contest the confiscations in court, but

construction–and the confiscation–goes on.” Likewise, “the

Franciscans, the Sisters of Charity, and other religious groups both

Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox have had property confiscated and

Christian housing destroyed.”

The reason Beit Jala is being walled off from Israel is that it has

been the source of repeated mortar attacks against the Jerusalem

neighborhood of Gilo. The requisitioning of land for the security fence

is no different from what happens in any country when a road or a

railway is built, and the owners, who retain title, are being

compensated by the government. Israel’s civil administration also

ensures that landowners have daily access to land on the opposite side

of the fence, and has not received complaints on this score.

Mary McCarthy famously remarked of Lillian Hellman that every word she

writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.” ……. The true and

elementary fact is that Israel has always gone out of its way to ensure

access to the holy sites of all faiths. Even administration of the

Temple Mount in Jerusalem, not exactly an insignificant place to Jews,

was immediately given over to the Islamic Authority in 1967.

By contrast, when Jerusalem, Hebron, and Bethlehem were held by Jordan

between 1948 and 1967, Jews were forbidden to visit the Western Wall,

the Cave of the Patriarchs, or Rachel’s Tomb. A decade ago, when the

Palestinians took over Nablus, it was not long before Joseph’s Tomb was

desecrated. And when Israeli settlers exited from Gaza two years ago,

the synagogue they left behind was torched. In areas governed by the

Palestinians, it is unthinkable that Jews should be allowed to worship,

let alone to live.

The purpose (of Woodward’s article) is clear: to persuade American

Christians, the last firm bastion of support for Israel in the Western

world, that Israel lacks the quality of mercy, and is unworthy of their

support. Among Israel’s enemies, this has become a familiar trope in

recent years. Distressingly, it has now appeared in the Wall Street

Journal, a paper with a long and distinguished record in defense of

Israel. One can only hope it was but a momentary slip in what has been,

elsewhere, a famously low season for honest journalism.

David Billet is assistant editor of COMMENTARY

Please visit our website at: