George Will, the Vatican, and the Sacred Cow

By Robert Hazo

On ABC's January 10th Sunday-morning news magazine, "This Week with David Brinkley," Brinkley brought up the question of New York Archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor's January visit to the Middle East. Syndicated columnist George Will responded that the "contemptible behavior" of the Vatican during the Holocaust and its "contemptible refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," had forced him to the conclusion that "there is residual anti-Semitism in the Vatican."

In a subsequent column, Will fumed that "the Vatican should be told that the status of Jerusalem is none of its business." Since Jerusalem is the place where Christ was crucified, it would seem that its status is, at the very least, as much the business of the Vatican as it is of George Will, his claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

Will's statements prompt a number of observations. If the Catholic Church is to be judged in hindsight as somehow deficient in its reaction to the Holocaust, then it is certainly not alone in that category. Nor is it all alone in not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

If the reason is anti-Semitism in the Holy See, then by the same reasoning Ronald Reagan, and every American president since the founding of Israel in 1948, would also have to be called anti-Semitic. So would the leaders of virtually every other country in the world, not to mention the World Council of Churches and other major religious groups.

The problem stems from the original United Nations partition resolution of November 29, 1947, which divided the Mandate for Palestine into a Jewish portion, an Arab portion, and a "Corpus Separatum," composed of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. During the 1948 fighting, Israel occupied West Jerusalem, and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem. After the fighting ended, neither army withdrew. In the 1967 war Israel seized the remainder of Jerusalem and proclaimed that it had annexed the entire city and established it as the capital of the State of Israel. Since then the Israelis have gradually extended the city limits of Jerusalem deep into West Bank areas awarded to the Palestinians by the 1947 UN Partition Resolution. Recognition of Israeli possession of either Western, Eastern, or the newly-attached areas of Jerusalem before a peace agreement settles the fate of the area as a whole would be a gross violation of the UN Charter stipulation concerning the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. That stipulation, the basic premise of international law, is the reason that members of the United Nations have voted overwhelmingly against recognizing Israel's annexation of Jerusalem.

Does this mean the United States, the entire membership of the United Nations, and major Christian denominations all are anti-Semitic? Or does Will have some special reason for reserving that slander for the Holy See?

For well over a decade George Will, with his acerbic pen and palate, has put forward negative opinions on just about any major subject one can think of. His recent hatchet job on Vice President Bush was particularly notable. Very little has escaped his scorn, including the conservative movement, of which he is a part, and President Reagan, whom he helped coach to debate Walter Mondale.

At the time of the attack on the Marines in Lebanon, President Reagan refused to retaliate because he did not know the location of those responsible for the atrocity. The President observed that the lash out in their general direction and kill innocent people in the process would make us no better than the perpetrators. Will violently disagreed, saying that the US standard of evidence was too high. He urged for weeks that the US follow the Israeli example. The right idea, he claimed, was to mount, before the dust had settled, a retaliatory strike against anyone who might have benefited from the attack on the Marines, and justify it the Israeli way by describing the action as a strike against "suspected terrorist bases."

Though his judgments are frequently questionable, Will's erudite phrasing and forceful delivery give the impression of a brash and independent mind that brooks no sacred cows.

With one exception. In all the years he has volunteered his outspoken views to the American public, there has been not one word of criticism of any Israeli action. Not one! Who would question the fact that Israel has often deserved criticism? Yet Will has justified Israeli actions and opinions at virtually every turn.

After Moshe Arens referred to the Syrians as "sub-human" on national television, Will wrote a column to show that Syrians are culturally or otherwise inferior to "us" and are, therefore, to be treated accordingly. When Menachem Begin referred to the Palestinians as "two-legged beasts" and Israeli General Rafael Eytan called them "cockroaches," Will said nothing. When Cardinal O'Connor referred to Palestinians as "an ancient, honorable, and noble people," who do not presently enjoy and should be given the right to self-determination, Will apparently took such offense that he labeled the Holy See, from which Cardinal O'Connor took his bearings, "anti-Semitic."

Through the grace of the First Amendment and the ABC network, Will has the right to say almost anything he wishes. The objects and observers of his calumny also have a Constitutional right to reply. If Will's slanders of the Vatican draw no rebuttals from any US political or media quarters, that will speak volumes about the power of intimidation and of the influences that now dominate the American public dialogue.

Robert Hazo is Chairman of the Middle East Policy Association. He has lived and studied in the area and lectured extensively on the Middle East both here and abroad.