Controversy Continues over Rahi's Jerusalem Visit as the Church Assures He Will Not Take Part in Political Talks
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi's visit to Jerusalem continues to be controversial, with some considering it a “historical mistake that opens the door for normalization with Israel,” and Church authorities reiterating that it has a strictly religious character.
Bishop Samir Mazloum assured OTV on Saturday evening that the patriarch “is not going to hold a peace treaty with Israel.”
And March 14 forces general-secretariat coordinator Fares Souaid said the Maronite Church's stance of enmity with Israel will not change after al-Rahi's visit.
"No one should understate our Arab identity,” Souaid added.
He continued: “If the Church was able to take a step forward that they were not capable of doing, it would breach the exclusiveness that Israel had designed to keep Jerusalem a city for Jews only and make it instead an international city. The visit would open the door for Muslim pilgrims to visit al-Aqsa mosque and for Christians to visit the Church of Nativity.”
At the other end of the spectrum, activist Samah Idriss, who is a member of a campaign that calls for boycotting Israel, described the patriarch's visit as a “historical mistake.”
“The visit overthrows the call of civil society and of 170 international organizations to boycott Israel,” he told LBCI television.
In 2006, an international movement that included several members of the Church called for boycotting Israel and withdrawing all investments there, Idriss said.
"Will he (the patriarch) go with an Israeli visa? Will he travel with an Italian passport? Even is he does, he is still a Lebanese patriarch. The Pope will visit the Yad Vashem museum of the holocaust and will meet with the butcher (Israeli Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu and the second butcher (President) Shimon Peres who is responsible for the Qana massacre. Will (al-Rahi) stay at an Israeli hotel?” he asked.
But al-Rahi's envoy Bishop Boulos Sayyah assured LBCI that the head of the Maronite Church will not accompany Pope Francis in his official visits in Israel, and that he will travel using a diplomatic passport issued by the Vatican.
"We have a Patriarchate in Jerusalem and we have a beautiful monastery in Old Jerusalem and the patriarch has a suite there,” he clarified.
While no politician has so far expressed their views on the visit, newspapers close to Hizbullah slammed the patriarch's move as a “historical sin.”
As Safir newspaper ran a critical piece headlined "Historic sin: Rahi goes to Israel,” in its Saturday issue in response to al-Rahi's controversial visit.
Calling it a "dangerous precedent,” the daily argued that the trip would "not serve the interests of Lebanon and the Lebanese, nor those of Palestine and the Palestinians nor Christians and Christianity.”
It speculated on whether the patriarch "would shake hands with Israeli leaders who will be in the front row to welcome Pope Francis to Jerusalem.”
Even if he does not, he would still have to coordinate his trip with Israeli officials, the paper added, claiming that the visit "is part of the normalization between the head of the Catholic church and the occupier.”
As Safir also said: “It is a custom that any person who visits Israel becomes subject to legal prosecution on charges of cooperating with the enemy.”
As a response, Souaid told MTV: “We are fully aware of what this threat signifies.”
Al-Akhbar daily, which is also close to Hizbullah, said a group of Lebanese politicians will try to dissuade Rahi "from visiting Jerusalem as long as it is under Israeli occupation, which would signify a normalization with the occupier.”
Patriarch al-Rahi told Agence France Presse on Friday he would travel to the Holy Land to welcome the pontiff during his brief May 24-26 visit.
He would be the first patriarch to do so since the creation in 1948 of Israel, with which Lebanon is technically at war.
Lebanese citizens are banned from entering Israel, but Maronite clergy may to travel to the Holy Land to minister to the estimated 10,000 faithful there.
Rahi insisted that the trip will be strictly religious and has no political significance.
S.D.B.
04 May 2014, 00:57
00
The Kingdom of Heaven ..a war that will never end . you all poor mind and souls , poor hearts and wisdom , poor life and nature ....wake up and watch the film again .....
04 May 2014, 01:30
00
1 life to,live everyone knows his or her limits ,we can visit anyplace we want ,stone age mentality still looking to things from narrow spot.
04 May 2014, 01:46
112
I'm gonna drop a bombshell on you, FT: you're more LF than I am. Old time LF. Core LF. Bashir LF. Purist LF.
I dare you to deny it.
04 May 2014, 02:42
310
peace as equal ? Tsahal could invade all lebanon just by sending its women soldiers...
04 May 2014, 16:22
11
FT: you show pride in your country, and they vote you down en masse! Pretty amazing.
I’d like to comment on what you wrote about the possibility of peace with Israel once we can talk on equal terms, militarily. That’s not an attainable goal: Israel has more people, more money, a much stronger knowledge-based economy, and Uncle Sam as sponsor. Lebanon does not have those luxuries. Lebanon indeed needs greatly enhanced defensive capabilities, and this can be achieved relatively quickly by bringing HA’s military wing under the sole authority of the state. No easy thing, of course, but not impossible either. There are many stake holders in this process, chief upon them Iran who needs HA as a pressure point against Israel, and by extension the U.S. Iran could become more flexible if the détente with the U.S. takes hold. HA’s Lebanese opponents might also need to make long-term political concession to HA in order to facilitate the process. This is difficult as well, but not impossible.
04 May 2014, 16:23
01
cont (2)
The result of all this will be a strong state, and THAT is the prerequisite for viable peace talks with Israel. From Israel’s perspective, what is the point of a peace treaty with Lebanon if the Lebanese government can’t enforce it?
Interestingly, it is the people of South Lebanon who are best positioned to reap immediate peace dividends. As soon as relations between Lebanon and Israel start to normalize, cross-border trade would spike. We’ve seen this happen in ´82 in the wake of operation Peace for Galilee, and before relations between the IDF and the Shia started to sour. Southerners were importing all kind of goods from Israel, for distribution throughout Lebanon. Remember those Coke cans with Coca-Cola in Hebrew? There were all over the country, along with scores of other Israeli-imported goods. Israelis were crossing the border for all kinds of shopping errands. Lebanese goods were simply cheaper than heavily taxed Israeli ones.
04 May 2014, 16:23
01
cont (3)
What we want from Israel is to respect our resources, our territory, our airspace, and we need to agree on a solution for the Palestinians that are on Lebanese soil.
What Israel wants from us is security on its northern border, and probably an agreement on water rights. The UN can easily mediate an agreement on water rights, based on international water access laws. But most importantly, Israel needs to feel secure in the fact that Lebanon has the cohesion and political will to enforce its international agreements. So a strong Lebanese state, backed by a robust defensive force is in the interest of both the Lebanese and Israelis.
04 May 2014, 06:17
26
nothing wrong at all phil with normalizing relations with Israel. HA similar to the syrian regime uses Israel as an excuse to monopolize power, oppress the people, and steal their wealth. How can HA intimidate the Lebanese, control Lebanon's economic resources such as the ports and airport, deal in illegal activities if it were not for the excuse that Israel is an enemy and we need to resist it.
04 May 2014, 08:45
21
Who exactly is stopping them?
If Lebanon had peace with Israel then they could travel there just like hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from all over the world.
04 May 2014, 08:56
04
I'd love to live and see the day that the Lebanese and Israeli Prime Ministers, sit down at a table and sign the peace treaty, and then stand up to shake hands.
Could you just imagine the advantages to the Lebanese economy if this then led to co-operation on the use and export of the natural gas and oil off their coasts in the Mediterranean.
Could you imagine the pleasure it would give the Lebanese Christians and Moslems if they could go to visit their holy sites in Jerusalem,
and other cities? Could you imagine the pleasure it would give the Lebanese Druze if they could go to the Tomb of Nebi Shueib?
You would see the cruise ships entering Haifa and Beirut ports bringing their hundreds of thousands of tourists, and then remember the package tours that could include Lebanon and Israel.
What does Lebanon have to lose? oh yes, Hizballah influence.
04 May 2014, 10:59
12
I agree with you. What prevents Lebanon and Israel to do that apart Iran who is opposed to see in Lebanon other that a battlefield?
04 May 2014, 12:51
00
Enough of self punishment with what we call "avoiding normalization", the sole benefitter from this policy is the state of Israel, while we're missing out on everything.
Enough of slogans that lead nowhere. Only now Palestinians are starting to recruit the west for their just cause, and it is only through channels and values that resonate well in Europe and the US, not wars, not killings, not kidnappings, not explosives and definitely not racism or ethnic categorization.
