A “Thing is a Thing”
A Response to the ELCA Bishop Eaton’s October 13th Statement Concerning the October 7th Massacre of Israelis by Hamas.
Bishop Eaton says: “We must also call a thing a thing. The power exerted against all Palestinian people — through the occupation, the expansion of settlements and the escalating violence — must be called out as a root cause of what we are witnessing.”
What does it mean to call a thing a thing?
When someone calls a “thing, a thing,” it implies that the “thing” is the “truth.”
When Bishop Eaton says that Israel’s “occupation” is the root cause of “what we are witnessing” in the Holy Land, she admonishes us to call “a thing, a thing.” In other words, she is telling us that what she is describing is the “truth.”
Besides running the risk of generating an absurd tautological argument, Bishop Eaton demands that we see the October 7th massacre as an action generated by a “thing” that is the “truth.” The “occupation” is the “thing,” and that “thing” or “truth” is Israel’s fault. Therefore, the resultant chaos is Israel’s responsibility.
We might extend this tautological argument further into absurdity by saying that “Israel’s occupation is Israel’s occupation.” We might also simply say that an “occupation” is an “occupation.”
An “occupation” resounds in meaning with key terms like: “colonialism,” “apartheid,” and the “stealing of someone’s else’s land by an unfair, powerful, and superior force.”
Throughout this blog I will undertake the job of investigating the “things” that confound us in the Holy Land. What does “occupation” really mean throughout history? How does this critical understanding shape our often-mistaken conclusions about Israel—culminating currently with the October 7th massacre of Israelis by Hamas.
“The occupation” is not “the root cause” of the Oct. 7th massacre of 1400 Israelis by Hamas. The root cause of the massacre is the Hamas charter. This terrorist group is an Islamic Jihadist organization, whose very existence is justified by the refusal to allow a Jewish state to exist in Palestine.
The Atlantic’s Bruce Hoffman summarizes the Hamas charter as including four main themes:
The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories
If the bishop defines Israel’s “occupation” as controlling and occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Gaza has not been under occupation since 2005)—it’s one “thing.” If she defines Israel’s occupation as occupying the entire historic land of Palestine—in the same way Hamas accuses Israel, it’s another “thing.”
If the bishop defines “occupation” as Israel’s control of the entire land, then her assessment fits. That occupation would then be the “root cause” of the October 7th massacre. And she would be agreeing with Hamas that Israel should not exist.
Even acknowledging this proposed “root cause,” how can the bishop give justification for a massacre by Hamas?
In essence, the bishop is promoting not only the classic theme of blaming the victim—blaming a woman for her own rape—but something much more innate and clearly nearly impossible to eradicate in Christian theology: that Jews are guilty of their own suffering.
Just as a woman can be blamed for spousal abuse—“it’s your fault for making me so mad I had to punch you in the face”—Israel, by virtue of its existence becomes the reason for a big punch in the face by Hamas. “You made me so mad, I had to kill, rape, and burn you while you were dancing at a music festival.”
“That’ll teach ‘em that we mean business!”
Comments