In the Name of God Read online

  In the Name of God

  The Archbishop Who Armed the PLO

  Translated and edited by

  Adel Beshara

  Original interviewers

  Sarkis Abouzeid and Antoine Francis

  In the Name of God

  The Archbishop Who Armed the PLO

  Translated and edited by

  Adel Beshara

  Original Interviewers

  Sarkis Abouzeid and Antoine Francis

  First published in Arabic under the title "Archbishop Hilarion Capucci: My Memories from Prison" (Beirut: Dar Abaad, 2018)

  Copyright © 2019 Black House Publishing Ltd

  All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval without permission in writing from the publisher.

  ISBN-13: 978-1-912759-28-6

  Black House Publishing Ltd

  Kemp House

  152 City Road

  London, United Kingdom

  EC1V 2NX

  www.blackhousepublishing.com

  Email: [email protected]

  DEDICATED TO THE

  ‘CHILDREN OF THE STONES’

  WHO KEEP CAPUCCI’S DREAM ALIVE

  Table of Contents

  In the Name of God

  Preface

  Introduction

  1 - An Orphan in Aleppo

  2 - The Arrest

  3 - The Interrogation

  4 - The Trial

  5 - Prison

  6 - Reflections From a Rotten Prison Cell

  7 - Letters from Prison

  8 - Freedom

  9 - In Exile

  10 - Political Stances

  11 - The Indefatigable Archbishop

  12 - Death

  Preface

  I n 1974, Israel convicted a native of Aleppo, Syria, and a Melkite Greek Catholic archbishop in Jerusalem named Hilarion Capucci of using his diplomatic status to smuggle arms to Palestinian militants in the occupied West Bank. Capucci was given a 12-year jail term in December 1974, but he was released after serving three years of his sentence following a personal appeal from Pope Paul to Israeli President Ephraim Katzir. Vatican representatives began negotiating with Israeli officials shortly after Menachem Begin became premier. Informed sources said that Katzir agreed to free Capucci under four conditions:

  He not be permitted to make anti-Israeli propaganda for the Palestine cause;

  He be given a religious post far from the Middle East;

  The Pope officially request the release; and

  The Pope’s letter not deny Capucci’s guilt.

  Soon after Capucci’s release and transfer to Rome, two Lebanese journalists and close friends, Sarkis Abu Zeid and Antoine Francis, approached him in Rome for a biography of his exploits and remarkable courage. Capucci agreed, and in a series of taped interviews conducted in 1979 at his residence in the Monastery of Sisters of the Cross in Rome, he furnished them with the details of his life and ordeal as a prisoner in an Israeli jail. The Archbishop of Jerusalem opened up and recounted his personal experiences in a very frank and intimate way. He shared with the two journalists both his frustrations and triumphs without boasting or diatribes. He told his story as it was. His only condition to the interviewing journalists, which they fulfilled in a professional manner, was that he be allowed to look over the manuscript prior to publication.

  Toward the end of 1979, a French publishing company agreed to publish the book under the title L’Archevêque revolutionnaire (The Revolutionary Archbishop). However, just prior to publication, the Archbishop reversed his position and asked the two journalists to put the book on hold due to circumstances “beyond my control.” Apparently, on learning of the book, the Vatican pressured Capucci to abandon the project lest it jeopardize its relations with Israel, as a book of such ambition and consequences was considered a potential breach of the agreement that led to Capucci’s release. The Archbishop acceded to the Vatican’s request, and in turn, the two journalists acquiesced to Capucci’s request. Thus, the final manuscript was stored away “in an old wooden box” for 38 years.

  Upon Capucci’s passing on the first day of 2017, the two journalists retrieved the manuscript and organized its publication in Arabic in time for the Beirut International Book Fair the following December. In their introduction, they cite three reasons for publishing it after such a long interval:

  Until now, no book has appeared dealing with Capucci’s life or describing his tribulations in Israeli prisons.

  A true fighter whose name and life struggle have become a symbol of Jerusalem (the city he loved and served with all his heart, mind and conscience to the very end) deserves tribute and recognition.

  The memoirs contain some valuable and highly confidential details for scholars and laypersons alike, and these details should be disclosed for the sake of historical accuracy and authenticity.

  I am deeply grateful to Sarkis Abu Zeid and Antoine Francis for giving me permission to render the book in English. This book is neither a history narrative nor a comprehensive autobiography. Rather, it is a biographical account of a very eventful and stormy period told in the voice of its protagonist. The narrative travels through familiar social and political territory. Capucci takes the reader back to his childhood and explains how he joined the ecclesiastical hierarchy and why he became intimately involved with the Palestinian cause. In an “honest-to-God” trip into the dark side of Israeli occupation, he exposes its crimes and excesses before the world.

  The actual events and plot of the narrative are as relevant today as they were four decades ago. Most importantly, the narrative reveals the mindset of a very determined and principled man of religion who was undaunted by fear and driven forward by faith and who risked his life for the sake of his people.

  Because the recorded recollections end in 1979, two extra chapters are added here to complete the account. The first, entitled “The Indefatigable Archbishop”, provides a concise reconstruction of Capucci’s life struggles from 1979 to 2017, and the second deals with his death.

  This book will make you consider many aspects of human life: courage, determination, faith, oppression, injustice, indifference, integrity, and the final goal of existence. It is a damning indictment not only of Israeli oppression, but also of the international community for allowing this oppression to continue while ignoring its brutality and rampant violations of the most basic human rights and humanitarian laws.

  Given his relentless quest to promote the Palestine cause in the West, I am certain Archbishop Capucci would be delighted with the decision to render his narrative in English.

  Introduction

  GOD IN HEAVEN AND PALESTINE ON EARTH

  “G od and Palestine” are two powerful words that capture the spirit of the late Archbishop of Jerusalem, Hilarion Cappuci. 1 In a checkered career that is as well documented for its unprecedented accomplishments as it is for its decidedly endless affection for activism and sacrifice, Capucci served “God and Palestine” with gladness and singleness of heart. His devotion to them was absolute. It never wavered with time or dimmed with hardships. God strengthened Capucci’s faith in Palestine, and Palestine brought him closer to God. The more devoted to God he became, the stronger his devotion to Palestine. The bond between God and Palestine in his heart and mind was so intense and total that it influenced and shaped his personality and outlook on life until the very end.

  *****

  In 1967, Jerusalem – the spiritual capital of the world – fell to the invading Israelis. The invasion turned into a permanent occupation and the occupation into a blood-soaked disaster. In the early days of the occupation, the people in Jeru
salem were disillusioned. They did not know how to behave under the new conditions. The clergy, in particular, were uncertain and confused. Under the leadership of their respective institutions, they carried out a policy of cautious collaboration with the invading Israelis based on international law 2 for occupied nations. However, after only a few weeks, it became apparent that the Israelis did not intend to withdraw or respect elementary human rights. Instead, they undermined international law and implemented a policy of the gradual Judaization of Jerusalem and the establishment of new Jewish settlements in and around it.

  In this situation, the clergy had to choose whether to compromise with the occupants or join the upwelling resistance. Systematically, the resistance movement began to challenge the occupying power’s lies, injustice, and arbitrary use of violence. The majority of the clergy reacted against the strong pressure exerted on their consciences by means of self-control and ideological ecclesiastical conformity. Some of them found the courage to speak out against the occupation, but their protests went unheeded. It was left to the Melkite Archbishop of Jerusalem, Hilarion Capucci, to step up and provide the leadership needed to drive and sustain the process of resistance.

  Why Capucci? First, no organization, state, or individual tried to recruit Capucci or elicit his help. He was neither pressured nor persuaded to join the anti-occupation resistance. The decision was entirely his, but the implementation was in collaboration with others, specifically the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Thus, the answer to “Why Capucci?” lies with Capucci himself. From his narrative, one can surmise three possible triggers:

  A personality predisposed to rebelliousness and risk-taking. By his own admission, Capucci developed a defiant streak from an early age that was hard to suppress and continued to his manhood. The years of his training and preparation for an ecclesiastical life and his ordination into the priesthood gave him a new way of looking at the world, but it failed to curtail the defiant streak in his personality and thinking. Despite his appointment as Archbishop of Jerusalem, he continued to express his personal convictions and engage in nonconformist conduct spurred on by the urgency of the struggle against Zionist colonization.

  A progressive understanding of Christianity. Although Capucci belonged to the Melkite Catholic Church, which combines Catholic and Orthodox rites and remains under the authority of the Vatican, he also subscribed, knowingly or unknowingly, to the school of “liberation theology.” He considered Christianity not a passive message of love and forgiveness, but an agenda for social and political activism concerned for the liberation of oppressed peoples. Like other liberation theologians, Capucci saw Jesus’ life and ministry as both boldly progressive and revolutionary. Did Jesus not speak to centers of political power and challenge the religious authorities of the day? Did He not challenge the rich and powerful and place himself consistently on the side of the poor and oppressed? Did He not defy the Pharisees by nullifying a large section of the Levitical law and substituting a new principle in its place? The perception of Jesus as a revolutionary crusader against injustice and oppression provided Capucci with the theological legitimacy to translate the deep truths of the Christian faith into action with a clear conscience.

  Attachment to Jerusalem. Capucci’s deep local knowledge and love for Jerusalem influenced his attitude no less than theological and patriotic considerations. His attachment to Jerusalem was more than administrative and ephemeral. He regarded the city as the spiritual centre of “Christianity” in the full theological sense of the word and served it according to such a perception. Capucci did not deny the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, but he was deeply sentimental and protective of the city’s Christian identity. When the city fell to the Israelis in 1967, it triggered deep feelings of rage in him and an indefinable urge to act, especially as organized Judaization began and Jewish settlements started to expand into Palestinian territories.

  Capucci was an audacious leader with strategic capability, ecumenical experience, and persuasive power. His unique personality equipped him for new and difficult tasks. He combined spontaneity of heart with dauntless, firm leadership within his parish. However, his sense of immediacy and spontaneity sometimes brought him into unexpected difficulties. By 1974, he had received many stimulating and helpful commendations for his personal courage, church leadership, and theological thinking. Nonetheless, his weapons smuggling gamble took everyone by surprise, not the least his own Jerusalem parish and the Melkite Church. The Vatican, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Islamic world were stunned by the audacity of the act. Mostly, clergymen who engage in political activism let alone military activism tend to elicit opposition from two sources:

  The laity through declining attendance and decreasing financial contributions

  Higher church authorities through measures designed to punish the individual and prevent a repetition of the behavior and action.

  In Capucci’s case, opposition from neither source materialized. Despite the gravity of his act, both the laity and his ecclesiastical superiors stood by him. His Jerusalem parish remained fully loyal and snubbed any calls for his replacement. Its members demonstrated in the streets demanding his release, and both Moslems and other denominational Christians joined the chorus of disapproval of his arrest and conviction. Similarly, Capucci’s superiors in the Melkite hierarchy refused to condemn his action or to sanction the Israeli response. They continued to recognize Capucci as Archbishop of Jerusalem and to seek his release urgently. The Vatican, too, bestowed a modicum of legitimacy on the act by endorsing the position of the Melkite Church.

  This show of solidarity with Capucci was a measure of the love and respect he commanded. The nature and intent of his action was also crucial. Almost everyone felt that he acted purely out of religious and moral considerations rather than for personal gain or prestige. Furthermore, there was confidence that anti-Semitic feelings played no part in his decision. In his own mind and heart, Capucci believed he was doing the right thing. His objective was purely devotional (1) to his High God, Jesus, who stood for him as a paragon of struggle against injustice, and (2) to Palestine, the country he had come to regard as his own and served with grace and integrity. Indeed, Capucci’s life and work rested on the two axioms “God and Palestine.” Everything he did revolved entirely around them: a simple case of “God in Heaven and Palestine on Earth.”

  From this perspective, Capucci’s action cannot be considered deviant or terroristic. It was an act of courage and wisdom motivated by benign intentions. On the one hand, it was a personal statement against the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people, and on the other, it was an advocacy for the dignity of man and the necessity of truth and fairness. Beyond that, the act achieved several important objectives that Capucci may or may not have intended:

  It attracted public attention and help to build an attitude of resistance among the people.

  It gave impetus to a theology of activism that emphasized man’s role as a partner with God in the fight against injustice.

  It presented a theological and ecclesiastical basis for a deeper commitment to, and involvement in, struggles against foreign occupation.

  It raised questions concerning Jerusalem’s spiritual and political identity.

  It belied western projection of Palestinian struggle as Islamic.

  It created a renewed sense of solidarity between Christians and Muslims in the Arab world.

  It jolted Christian supporters of Israel into an awkward position.

  It embarrassed Israel before the world community by reviving memories of the pastors, priests, and bishops who willingly sacrificed their lives resisting the Nazi persecution of Jews in the name of divine justice.

  Critics will almost certainly argue that Capucci went too far: that he crossed the red line and broke every rule in the book. Such a subjective assessment cannot be used credibly in this particular case because the moral duty to confront oppression, flagrant injustice, violence, and foreign occupation can sometimes b
e stronger than the obligation to use religious sanctioned means. As Weber once noted, “In numerous instances the attainment of “good” ends is bound to the fact that one must be willing to pay the price of using morally dubious means or at least dangerous ones.” When “dubious means” are elicited to fight evil ends, the propagators of evil must be condemned and punished rather than those who stand up to them and risk everything to foil their evil plans. Where the evildoer is clearly visible and unrepentant, as in the present case, canonical guidelines take a backseat.

  To condemn Capucci would be to condemn every clergyman and theologian in history who stood up to illegitimate tyranny, repression, foreign occupation, and state-sanctioned violence. Almost every one of them was compelled to resort to “dubious means” to achieve noble goals. We hail them as heroes today because they risked everything to make a difference. They risked their lives and some even paid the ultimate price to give us the freedom we enjoy today. Their efforts and sacrifices should not be forgotten or judged according to codified religious laws. It is the larger moral issues that matter: the meaning and purpose they added to make religion more relevant and humane.