On Sept. 24, President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly against "regimes that deny their people fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration." He was referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Article 18 of the Declaration defines freedom of religion and belief as follows: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
Stressing that the expansion of freedom is not just a Western goal, nor a mere Bush doctrine, but a fundamental agreement of the world body, the President cited Myanmar, where "basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted."
The issue of religious freedom is part and parcel of the American heritage, not only in political speeches, but also in academic circles. When Lee Bollinger recently introduced the president of Iran as a guest speaker at Columbia University, he scathingly referred to Iran's denial of freedom to a religion founded there in the 19th century: the Baha'i faith. The mainline media picked up Bollinger's statement and clearly emphasized it.
Current criticism of those who deny religious freedom throughout the world often focuses on Muslim countries. It is noticeable, however, that the same critics in America have nothing to say about ongoing violations of religious freedom by the Israeli government. Just recently, for example, it has rescinded its policy of granting re-entry visas to Arab Christian ministers, priests, nuns and other religious workers who wish to move in and out of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories to church offices in Jerusalem, or to travel abroad. In the past, re-entry visas were routinely granted to Arab Christian religious workers in the Holy Land, and clergy traveled relatively freely to and from points overseas, including the United States. They must now apply for re-entry visas at Israeli consulates abroad each time they travel outside the areas under Israeli control. Since visa applications submitted to Israeli missions abroad take months to process, the new Israeli policy means that religious personnel will no longer be able to move freely outside their parishes in the West Bank. Many of the clergy and other church workers are from nearby Jordan, which made a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. The new Israeli policy will effectively prevent them from visiting their families there.
Rev. Fares Khleifat, the only Greek Catholic priest in Ramallah, traveled to Jordan for several days in mid-September. When he tried to return to his parish on September 14, he was stopped at the Al Sheikh Hussein Bridge, and his valid multiple-entry visa was canceled without explanation. He was forced to return to Jordan. His de facto deportation from the Holy Land by the Israeli government has left his parish without a priest. Father Faris, a holder of both Vatican and Jordanian passports, commented: "For the past six years, I have been traveling regularly between the West Bank and Jordan on church affairs without any problems whatsoever."
Father Faris is one of thousands of foreign passport holders who have been denied entry by the Israeli authorities over the past several years, and is only the latest in a trend in refusing religious-worker visas. This trend, which has disturbed Vatican officials for some time, is one of a number of contested policies under debate in a Vatican-Israeli permanent working commission since 1994, when the Vatican and Israel established diplomatic ties. In 1997, a Fundamental Agreement was made, clarifying the legal status of Catholic institutions in Israel. That agreement, however, was never added to Israeli law, rendering it unenforceable. With no legal relationship between the Church and the Israeli government, church property disputes cannot be resolved in court. The Israeli government thus reserves for itself the handling of Church-property disputes. There are many cases of confiscation of Church properties by Israel that have never been resolved or even litigated. Since 1994, the Vatican has requested guaranteed access to juridical due process through the Israeli court system when property disputes arise, and, more specifically, the return of those Church properties confiscated by the Israeli government. The failure to come to an agreement on these issues has been a long-standing obstacle in Vatican-Israeli relations.
The Holy See has always demonstrated a fundamental interest in the freedom of religion in the Holy Land. Before 1948, the popes insisted primarily on the physical integrity of the Holy Places and the needs of the local Catholic community and its institutions. Since then, the stress shifted to safeguarding those Holy Places and granting to each of the three monotheistic faiths freedom of access, as well as control over those places that are proper to them. The pontificate of John Paul II was particularly defined by an emphasis on the global context of Jerusalem and the preservation of its unique identity and vocation to the entire world. Such an image of Jerusalem implies guaranteed access by all faiths to the places cherished in their cultural and religious history.
Such freedom of access is routinely denied to Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem and its surrounding area. At Easter this year, Christian non-governmental organizations in Jerusalem issued a joint statement, charging that for several years, the Israeli authorities have seriously impeded the traditional Holy Saturday celebration at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Strict restrictions imposed on the movement of Christians during Holy Week prevent them from reaching their churches. The Holy Saturday procession, a centuries-old tradition, is no longer permitted. Palestinian Christians from other parts of the West Bank are prevented from reaching Jerusalem for the celebration. Barriers are placed near the gates of the old city, especially in the area leading to the Christian quarter and the roads leading to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Those barriers deprive worshipers of their right to pray freely.
Likewise during the present month of Ramadan, many Palestinian Muslim worshippers have been unable to reach the Al Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem to offer their prayers. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that from September 12-16, "the Israeli authorities imposed a general closure on the West Bank, due to the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashana. All Palestinians, including holders of valid permits, were prevented from passing through all the checkpoints leading to East Jerusalem and Israel. September 14 marked the first Friday of Ramadan. This year marked the introduction of a new 'prayer permit' for men between 45 and 50 years of age and women between 40 and 45 years of age. There was, however, an overnight change in regulations that ultimately allowed only men and women above 60 to pass in order to attend Friday prayers at Al Aqsa Mosque."
Given these circumstances, it is surprising that the US State Department's Report on International Religious Freedom in 2007 states that the Israeli Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty "provides for freedom of worship, and the Government generally respects this right in practice."
The Universal Declaration, to which President Bush referred, specifies that religious freedom includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private. The violation of this right by Muslim societies is routinely invoked in the American public forum. Left unmentioned by those who accuse Muslims is Israel's anti-missionary law, The Penal Law Amendment (Enticement to Change Religion — Law, 5738-1977). Passed by the Israeli Knesset during Christmas week (Dec. 27, 1977) and put into effect during Easter week (April 1, 1978), this law states: "Whoever gives or promises to a person money, money's worth or some other material benefit in order to induce him to change his religion or in order that he may induce another person to change his religion is liable to imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of 50,000 pounds." A Christian who gives even a gospel leaflet to an Israeli thus violates the law. It further states that "Whosoever receives or agrees to receive money, money's worth or some other material benefit in return for a promise to change his religion or to cause another person to change his religion is liable for imprisonment for a term of 3 years or a fine of 30,000 pounds." Though the law has not been enforced, the Israeli authorities have demanded that Christian evangelical organizations leading pilgrimages to Israel forbid their participants from "witnessing" while in the Holy Land.
In recent weeks, the Israeli Council for Cable TV and Satellite Broadcasting has also moved to cancel the Dallas-based Daystar TV broadcast of New Testament teachings and messages about Jesus. As Israeli Councilwoman Mina Fenton put it, "The State of Israel must safeguard its Jewish existence — which means preventing any non-Jewish authority that plans to wipe out the Jewish Nation spiritually — from operating in the Jewish State."
Similar reasoning could likewise be used to justify Iran's denial of religious freedom to the Baha'i faith, Myanmar's treatment of the Buddhists, or Saudi Arabia's prohibition of non-Muslim religious expression. In the latter three cases, however, the American government, academia, and media are united in vocal condemnation of such reasoning as unacceptable. Isn't that a double standard?
