This may explain the antisemitic bent in Desmond Tutu's "criticism" of Israel and Jews.

"On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

I think it's naive to assume there isn't a STRONG religious aspect to the anti-Israel movement - in fact there are two: one Muslim and one Christian.

Neither religion has forgiven us for remaining Jewish. Both have strong antiJewish invective written right into their holy books and a history of treating Jews like second class citizens AT BEST and at worst of trying to exterminate us.

Unless this problem is confronted head on there will be NO peace for Israel, ever, and no security for the Jewish people - EVER.

I think Sophia is right on here. Though I would say, leftist Christians, who never use the bible's injunctions againt non-believers to criticize Mulsims, etc., have found it convenient to pick out the anti-Judaic aspects of the new testament to lambaste Jews. (The attitude of conservative Christians towards Jews and Israelis, while troubling in many ways, is more nuanced and complex--and requires the use of a wholly different paradigm.)

Notice that self-rightous anti-semite Desmond Tutu's constant use of the term "Jewish Israelis." Does he also refer to "Muslim Palestinians" or "Muslim Egyptians"? Whatever this man's record in South Africa, he has proven himself to be a revolting figure on the world stage, particularly when it comes to the Jewish people. It would be one thing to criticize Israeli policies purely as the actions of a nation like any other nation. (And I am sensitive to the unfortunate record of Israel's relationship to apartheid era SA.) But Tutu is clearly exercized by the very fact that Israel is a Jewish state.

This reminds me of someone I met who works at the U.N. He called Israel a "theocracy" but, when questioned about Saudi Arabia and Iran, simply referred to them as "native Muslim lands." Not only does such thinking reflect a complete absence of historical knowledge, but clearly indicates animus towards the "Jewish Israelis" in toto.

Sophia and Jonathan

You are absolutely right that there is a STRONG religious aspect to the anti-Israel / anti-Jewish movement - both Muslim and Christian. It is clearly something that must be confronted and opposed - both for the sake of peace and (though it may sound extreme) for the sake of the survival of the Jewish people.

Jonathan's observation that the Christians involved in this are hypocritically selective in their invocation of the Christian bible. And the attitudes of (apparently) 'Christian Zionists' don't fall into the same category.

But I have to respectfully disagree on a couple of points. First, Christians are by no means divided into the 'conservative Christian Zionist' camp on the one hand, and the 'liberal anti-Semite' camp on the other. I know there are many Christians that do not share the hatred of Jews and Judaism implicit in the anti-Israel activist mantras, who also do not share the specific beliefs on prophecy, etc. common to the 'conservative' camp. We object to this on the grounds of fundamental fairness, and because the hatred and bigotry that rests (sometimes) beneath the surface in this anti-Israel campaign are loathsome to us.

I would also disagree with the characterization of the Christian Bible. Though it has been removed from its context by many Christians, it comes from a time that reflects a very internecine fight when many Christians also regarded themselves as Jews - a characterization that, while problematic, made perfect sense to them until Bar Kochba. The view in these texts toward Judaism is very complicated. These passages have been lifted out of context and used in ways that run completely counter to the texts from which they are taken. Yes, Christians bear full responsibility for this, but it was and continues to be a gross perversion of Christianity.

I thank Will Spotts for clarifying my admittedly Manichean distinctions between leftist/liberal Christians and conservative Christian Zionists. I was being reductive in order to make a point about Desmond Tutu and the likes of the Sabeel organization.

My own experience at The Union Theological Seminary in NYC--one of the most left-wing, if not outright Christian-Marxist seminaries in the U.S.--revealed a great deal of ambiguity on the issues of Israel and Judaism along the whole spectrum of Christianity. Often, liberal Christians were the most sincere in their efforts at interfaith dialogue (a project that I have come to find problematic at its very core,) while many conservative, often Pentacostal or Charasmatic, Christians were deeply hostile to Jews and commonly fell back on formulations of the Jewish people as "deniers" of Jesus's divinity.

Further, I think Will is correct in discussing much of the seemingly anti-Jewish animus in the new testament as emerging from deeply internicene conflicts between what I'd (again reductively) term "old" and "new" Jewish sects. This is especially true of the gospels (with the exception of John--a book which bears little resemblance to its three counterparts) and the verifiable epistles of Paul. Where things become messier is in such cases as the later books of, for instance, Hebrews and Revelation, which many scholars now consider to be outright provocations on the part of more developed Christian communities against the emerging "Rabbinic" Jewish holdouts.

In any case, I think the point stands that to pull out "anti-Jewish" statements from the new testament SPECIFICALLY to denounce Israel or to vilify Jews in general is a grotesque and utterly dishonest tactic that Christians of all political/theological persuasions must counter in no uncertain terms.

Used to have a very devout Christian friend who conducted "interfaith" meetings between Muslim and Christian students when the main source of tension on campus was between Jewish students and Muslim students. It seemed ... odd. Until the summer of 2006, when she became "all hizballa". Then the incoherence fell away, as did our friendship. I've been wondering about this phenomenon of religious Christians seeking to forge a bond with Muslim fundamentalists with the fire being mutual rejection of Jews. Some Muslims like to emphasize that unlike the perfidioius Jews, at least they "accepted" Jesus as a prophet. Jimmy Carter's strange ideas about Israel seem to be a good example of this kind of dynamics.

Jonathan - I take your point. The Sabeel types do tend to fit the category you used. But I also think your wider observations about attitudes toward Jews and Judaism tend to agree with what I have seen.

You are also quite correct that some texts are more troublesome than others.

I am curious in what sense you find interfaith dialogue as problematic at its core.

Noga - You point out something I had not really noticed - but now that you mention it ... What is with the rather exclusive emphasis on Muslim Christian relationships?

And yes, though I see it is as inherently bigoted and anti-Jewish, I have actually seen Mainline denominational resources that play up this very distinction. "Muslims reverence Mary... Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet ... Jews do not."

Will,

Having worked at one of the more prominent interfaith centers in NYC, I can speak only to my own experience of what interfaith dialogue, at least on what (again, reductively) I would term the leftist-liberal end of both the Christian and Jewish theological/political spectrums, entails. I recall one specifically Jewish-Christian meeting in which the Christian ministers uniformly agreed to the statement that Jesus's incarnation was salvific for ALL people, whether Christian or not. This is, needless to say, a kinder, gentler form of supersessionism--one which the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative rabbis in attendance were willing to stomach, perhaps out of a desire to keep the boat from rocking. "You can go on denying Jesus as your savior, but he's your savior anyway." These "liberals" do not attempt, as many conservative Christians do, to convert Jews, because, in essence--and quite bizarrely--a Judaism (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) WITHOUT Jesus does not exist. Under the guise of tolerance, this amounts to religious supremecist thinking of a type only marginally less disgusting than that of a Pat Robertson, etc.

Further, I noticed that both leftist-liberal Christians and Jews walked on eggshells when engaged with Muslim "dialogue partners." Even when an Islamic woman hideously compared the fate of the Jews in the Shoah to the "plight" of Muslims after 9/11 (excuse me?!?), no one dared to question her. What transpired in these meetings was not dialogue of any kind, but rather the affirmation of Muslim rage and self-pity by well-meaning and misguided Christians and Jews who considered themselves the ultimate arbiters of "social justice."

Finally, I would say that Noga's point about the coalesence of a leftist Christian-Muslim block, one with, at times, strongly anti-Jewish overtones, has come to seriously marr a great deal of what passes as interfaith relations these days. By the time I left the Interfaith Center, the only rabbis who would show up to the meetings anymore were of the the Tikkun (anti-Zionist, pro-appeasement) variety.