On December 2, 2023, St Paul’s Church Milagiriya organised a public seminar on ‘Israel & the Church’. The main speaker at the event was Vinoth Ramachandra with whom I disagreed during the Q&A. Ramachandra, in response, asked for my sources—at the event and later via email. Although I drafted a response, I never sent it to him.

Upon reflection, following a recent email exchange with him, I am now publishing an updated version of what I wrote last December. My decision to put this on public record is informed by the absence of a credible challenge to Ramachandra’s position as some sort of an authority on Israeli history and the Israel-Palestine conflict amongst the English-speaking, Colombo-living Christians.

Ramachandra does not read his own sources

At the seminar, Ramachandra presented Ilan Pappé and Benny Morris as primary historical authorities corroborating his particular narrative. In reality, these two historians hold fundamentally divergent views. For instance, while Pappé wrote an entire book characterising the events of 1948 as ethnic cleansing, Morris does not share this view. In fact, Morris describes Pappé’s book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, as being riddled with “distortions, large and small” on “almost every page” and credits Pappé with “polluting Middle Eastern historiography and poisoning the minds of those who superficially dabble in it.”1 One might be forgiven for thinking that the latter part of Morris’s critique is directed at Ramachandra himself.

Speaking of sources, Ramachandra unreservedly commended Al Jazeera to the audience as the credible news platform to follow on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Notwithstanding the fact that Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded media organisation and is headquartered in the same city where the same state houses Hamas’s top brass. I suggest that Ramachandra dusts up his nuclear engineering textbooks to fact-check this Al Jazeera piece2 which, among other things, equates mass and energy to assert that Israel dropped the equivalent of two atom bombs on Gaza.

Ramachandra has a thin grasp of facts on the Israel-Palestine conflict

PLO’s founding date and purpose

At the seminar, contradicting Ramachandra’s assertion that the PLO was formed in 1970, I stated that the PLO was in fact launched in 1964. In a recent email Ramachandra claimed that this mistake was trivial, brushing aside my correction as “not affecting any of (his) arguments.”

This is not so. At the event, he specifically claimed that the PLO was formed in 1970 to liberate Gaza and the West Bank from Israel, which had conquered those territories in the 1967 war. However, in 1964, the actual year of the PLO’s founding, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza administered by Egypt.

In fact, Article 24 of the PLO’s founding charter explicitly declares that “the Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip, or the Himmah Area.”3 In other words, what the PLO meant by “liberating Palestine” was liberating the lands under the territorial control of Israel as envisioned by the UN partition plan of 1948. Thus, Ramachandra was incorrect about both the date of—and the purpose behind—the formation of the PLO. To now trivialise such a grave error on his part is both disingenuous and unacceptable.

The Arab army was a ragtag group of volunteers

Ramachandra claimed that the invading Arab army of 1948 was a ragtag group of volunteers. But the Egyptian air raids on Tel Aviv starting from May 14/15, 1948, a widely known historical fact, suggests otherwise. Had Ramachandra read Morris, he would have known that Egypt possessed the largest air force in the Arab world at that time.4 Additionally, Jordan’s Arab Legion, part of the pan-Arab army, was armed, trained, and commanded by British officers.5 The British were also actively involved in arming and training the Egyptian army for their Cold War strategies. These facts contradict Ramachandra’s assertion that only Israeli forces received British training, while Arab forces did not.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine

According Ramachandra, the events of 1948 constitute ethnic cleansing. But a more appropriate paradigm to understand the circumstances surrounding Israel’s founding is population exchange. Similar population exchanges occurred globally around the time, as empires dissolved and gave rise to new nation-states. These were necessarily violent affairs. The closest example, for those of us in Sri Lanka, is the partition of India. The creation of Pakistan in 1947 displaced roughly 5.5 million Hindus from what is now Pakistan and around 7 million Muslims from India and killed around a million.

As previously noted, Morris, who extensively researched the Israeli military archives, disputes the existence of a deliberate plan to ethnically cleanse Arabs from Israeli territory during the War of Independence.6 The Arabs who left Israeli territory in 1948 did so for various reasons: fleeing conflict, instruction from Arab leaders, as well as expulsion by Jewish forces. Israel’s subsequent decision to prevent the return of approximately 700,000 Arab refugees was driven by the concern that their return would jeopardise the very existence of the Jewish state, a decision that, as Ramachandra might put it, “can be understood without necessarily condoning.”7

Nonetheless, it would have been reasonable to think of the Arabs as the overwhelming victims of the events of 1948 if not for the subsequent (forceful) removal of historic Jewish communities from Arab countries – most of whom settled in Israel.8 These Mizrahi Jews, from countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria now make up roughly a half of the Jewish population in Israel today. In summary, approximately 700,000 Arabs were either voluntarily or forcibly displaced from Israeli territory, paralleled by a similar number of Jews moving into Israel from Arab countries.

Such population transfers were not unique to that period and were a common feature in the creation of new states. The many millions of refugees, including Jews of Middle and Near Eastern origin, who were displaced in these admittedly harsh episodes of history moved on and built up new lives in their new homes.

Ramachandra traffics in antisemetic tropes

Antisemites regularly dispute that Jews constitute a people group. They do so because international law recognises the right to self-determination of a people group and racial or ethnic identity is one of several characteristics inherent in the description of a people for the purposes of “peoples’ rights.”9

I happen to think that all nations are imagined and that Israel is only as imagined as any other nation. However, since Ramachandra regularly advances arguments for Palestinian statehood and/or cause based on notions of indigeneity (which are, in turn, rooted in genetics), it was troubling that, during the seminar, Ramachandra spent a considerable amount of time casting, in much the same way as internet antisemites do, a conspiratorial shadow over the basic fact of whether or not Jews constitute a people/ethnic group. That diasporic Jewish communities, including the Ashkenazi, trace their origins back to the Levant is a matter of scientific fact.10 Ramachandra referenced the existence of Ethiopian and Indian Jews, as though the existence of Jews in such distant lands implies that Jewish identity lacks (ethnic) cohesion. He is, however, misguided as even those distant Jews trace a “clear paternal link” to the Levant.11

Ramachandra needs to explain why he compares Israel to a “foreign colonial power”12 when within his operating paradigm of statehood based on racial indigeneity, if one were to follow the science, Israel is better understood as the homecoming of a formerly scattered indigenous people group.

Now, why does that sound exactly like Zionism?

Ramachandra whitewashes Hamas’s atrocities

Just three days after the brutal terror attack that Hamas perpetrated on October 7, 2023, Ramachandra began his blog by quoting Edmund Burke: “Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable.”13 At that time, hundreds of civilians lay dead, and their bodies were still being collected. He finished his blog post by pointing to an Al Jazeera article with the words, “for anyone wishing to understand the context of, without necessarily condoning, Hamas’s attacks on Israel.” The article effectively blamed Israel for the death of its own citizens and argued that Hamas’ attacks were inevitable given said “context.”14

Could Ramachandra elaborate under what context the purposeful massacre of civilians, as well as mass rape and bodily mutilation of women, deserve anything but unreserved condemnation? Even granting the Al Jazeera article’s characterization of the “context”, his response is certainly not “Christian”. “Without necessarily condoning” – is that a serious stance?

Not only did Ramachandra characterise Hamas’s terror as inevitable he also ascribed an (noble) objective to the terror. Ramachandra suggested that the attacks aimed to free Palestinian prisoners in Israeli captivity. Hamas, on the other hand, called the attack “Al Aqsa Flood” in reference to the libertion of the Al Aqsa mosque. Ramachandra also suggested that Hamas’s foundational goal of eradicating the Jewish state is merely political rhetoric and not an objective the movement actively pursues. Statements from high ranking Hamas officials, since October 7, beg to differ. Ramachandra has to explain why he feels so comfortable speaking on behalf of Hamas, often contradicting what Hamas itself says about its actions and intentions, in public fora.

In response to Ramachandra readily faulting the theologically motivated actions of Christians and Zionists for the Israel-Palestine conflict, I suggested that a holistic understanding must also consider the theologically motivated actions of Arab Muslims. This should be an obvious point. But Ramachandra has a long and unfortunate intellectual history of falsehood on the topic of Islamic terrorism. For instance, in the “Myths of Terrorism” chapter in his book Subverting Global Myths, Ramachandra writes:

“The American taxpayer was also funding the vigorous program of Islamization by Pakistani Islamists among the millions of refugees in Peshawar and the tribal trust territories. Pamphlets with Quranic texts were distributed in the madrasas (religious schools), reviving the interpretation of jihad as holy war against the enemies of Islam, an idea that had largely lain dormant for centuries.”15

While the “largely” in the final sentence attempts some heavy lifting, it ultimately cannot mask the fundamental inaccuracy of the statement. Jihad as holy war against the enemies of Islam never needed “reviving”. For example, just a century prior, in the 1800s, Islamic clerics Usman dan Fodio and later Umar Tal led the Fulani jihads in Western Africa and founded the Sokoto caliphate.16 Instances of jihad as wars of conquest against non-Islamic peoples can be traced back to Prophet Mohammed himself, with multiple episodes in each century since his time. Mainstream Islamic theology was also never in confusion about what jihad means. One can, for instance, read through every reference to jihad in the hadiths in the Bukhari collection17 which is considered to be “the most authentic collection of the teachings and sayings of Prophet Mohammed.”18 The same is true within Sharia legal traditions.

The repeated refrain of Hamas terrorists and citizens of Gaza who attacked Israeli settlements on October 7 was “Allahu Akbar” and not “Fillasteen hurra” (Free Palestine). The Ummah singularly obsesses over the Israeli-Palestinian war while numerous other recent wars, in the Middle East and elsewhere, have killed far more people, primarily Muslims. Muslims in London, New York, and Sydney chant “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaish Muhammad soufa ya’oud” (Khaybar Khaybar oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return)19 in rallies for Palestine that Ramachandra encouraged his blog readers to join. Posters at these rallies displayed Prophet Mohammed’s words: “The Jews will fight against you and you will gain victory over them, till the stone says: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.” These words also appear in Article 7 of Hamas’ founding charter. Clerics in several mosques in the UK, after October 7, preached messages inciting violence against Jews.20

The most potent political force in Palestinian politics for the past 25 years is Hamas, and it explicitly states that it is a jihadist movement. A glance at Hamas’ founding charter21 is instructive:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” (Article 6)

“The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.” (Article 11)

“Palestine is an Islamic land… Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.” (Article 13)

“Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” (Article 8)

Moreover, it would be a mistake to think that the Islamic dimension of the Palestinian struggle is a recent evolution and that such a religious character was absent in the early days. Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, after whom the military wing of Hamas is named, was an Islamic preacher who fought against British and Jewish forces in the 1930s. There is also the history of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the exiled grand mufti of Jerusalem, who sought collaboration with Nazi Germany during the second world war. The Palestinian struggle, since its inception, has shared a very close relationship with Islam with many of its principal leaders being Islamic preachers who drew deeply on Islamic teachings.

There is much more that I can say on this topic but what I have laid out is sufficient to ask Ramachandra the following question: does the foregoing point to there being some link between Islamic theology, at least strands of it, and the Palestinian national struggle, or is all of this mere coincidence?

It is remarkable that for 20 years Ramachandra has blamed “Christian Zionists” for the Israel-Palestine conflict while simultaneously refusing to consider Islam’s role in it. This is not the mark of a serious and objective scholar.

Ramachandra is unfamiliar with the text of the ICJ ruling and does not understand how the ICC works

Ramachandra has also recently circulated an open letter which misrepresents the ICJ provisional measures ruling dated 26 January 2024 on South Africa’s case against Israel.22 The ICJ did not identify genocide or ethnic cleansing by Israel as the letter claims. In fact, it could not have done so, as the court did not evaluate the merits of South Africa’s allegations during the provisional measures phase:

“At the present stage of the proceedings, the Court is not required to ascertain whether any violations of Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention have occurred. Such a finding could be made by the Court only at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case.”23 (paragraph #30)

The court instead considered whether the rights asserted by South Africa—specifically, the right of Palestinians “to be protected from acts of genocide, attempted genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, complicity in genocide, and conspiracy to commit genocide” (paragraph #37)—are plausible. The word “plausible” appears 15 times in the decision text, always in the context of “rights asserted by South Africa,” never in the context of “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing.” In fact, the term “ethnic cleansing” does not appear at all in the decision text. Moreover, it is instructive that the court did not order a ceasefire as South Africa had requested. Instead, it instructed Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention, which Israel was already obligated to do as a party to the convention. If the court did find plausible genocide, as Ramachandra’s letter claims, is it not unusual that it did not order an immediate ceasefire? Keep in mind also that the ICJ is capable of ordering such a ceasefire as it did against Russia in March 2022.

Ramachandra appears unfamiliar with the actual text of the decision but the text is quite explicit about what it found to be plausible which has since been clarified beyond reasonable doubt by the former president of the ICJ who presided over the hearing.24

Ramachandra also claims that the ICC Prosecutor has “issued” arrest warrants against Netanyahu and the Israeli defense minister Gallant for war crimes. In reality, the prosecutor made an application for arrest warrants. The ICC has yet to make a final decision. In both the prosecutor’s statement and the expert report that accompanied it, again, the word “genocide” is absent.

Conclusion

To summarise, Ramachandra (i) does not read the sources he quotes; (ii) has a thin grasp of facts when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (iii) traffics in antisemitic tropes; (iv) whitewashes Hamas’s atrocities and speaks on behalf of the terror outfit in public fora; (v) delinks Islamic terror from Islam without basis; and (vi) remains ill-informed about source material he confidently opines on, as in the case of the ICJ ruling.

References

  1. Benny Morris, “The Liar as Hero”, link ↩

  2. Al Jazeera, “Israel’s attacks on Gaza: The weapons and scale of destruction”, link ↩

  3. PLO, “The Palestine National Charter of 1964”, link ↩

  4. Benny Morris, “1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War” ↩

  5. Time Magazine, “TRANS-JORDAN: Chess Player & Friend”, link ↩

  6. Watch one of Ramachandra’s “primary sources”, Benny Morris himself, from minute 41 onwards: link ↩

  7. To borrow from Ramachandra’s language on Hamas’ October 7 attacks, link ↩

  8. Adi Shwartz, “A Tragedy Shrouded in Silence: The Destruction of the Arab World’s Jewry”, link ↩

  9. UNESCO, “International Meeting of Experts on Further Study of the Concept of the Rights of Peoples, Paris, 1989”, link ↩

  10. Haber, M. et al., “Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture”, link ↩

  11. Behar, M.B., et al., “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people” in Nature, link ↩

  12. Ramachandra, “Towards a Self-Critical Church”, link ↩

  13. Ramachandra, “Violence and Myopia”, link ↩

  14. Al Jazeera, “There is nothing surprising about Hamas’s operation”, link ↩

  15. Ramachandra, “Subverting Global Myths”, Chapter on terrorism ↩

  16. Wikipedia entry of Fula Jihads, link ↩

  17. “Sahih Bukhari”, link\ ↩

  18. Islamic Relief, “Guide to Sahih Bukhari Collection”, link ↩

  19. ADL, “Chant: Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the Army of Mohammed will Return”, link ↩

  20. The Telegraph “Sermons made since terrorist group’s October 7 attack include calls to ‘destroy Israel’, ‘kill the Jews’ and ‘wage your war for Allah’”, link ↩

  21. The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, link ↩

  22. Ramachandra, et al., “The Gaza Call: An Open Letter to Christian Leaders, Churches, and Theologians in the West”, link ↩

  23. ICJ, “Provisional Measures Order of 26 January 2024”, link ↩

  24. BBC, “Former head of ICJ explains ruling on genocide case against Israel brought by S Africa”, link I suggest watching the video instead of reading the BBC’s description which is unnecessarily convoluted. ↩