In the concluding paragraphs of his open letter to the Catholic Institute for International Relations, Mr Allen notes that ‘the ultimate objective of the Palestinians is said to be “a non-Zionist, Arab-Jewish state in the whole of what was once Palestine”. This means the ultimate objective of the Palestinians is still the destruction of the state of Israel as it now is’ (my italics). Mr Allen clearly implies that individuals and organisations who subscribe to the objective of destroying the state of Israel as it now is cannot be considered legitimate parties to a Catholic debate on the Middle East conflict and the desired future for the Israel’- Jewish and Palestinian-Arab peoples. Mr Allen is a Catholic and he questions whether the CIIR is voicing a legitimate Catholic position on the question of the Middle East conflict presumably because Comment 19 either states or implies the desirability of destroying the state of Israel as it now is.

Israeli-Jews, as a rule, are not too well informed of Christian history and more often than not betray unforgiveable ignorance of the development of Catholicism. I am no exception, yet, given my limited knowledge, I would be surprised to find a Catholic consensus that state-worship constitutes part of the Catholic spirit or dogma. I would rather have thought that Catholics, like people of any other religion, might have been expected to oppose any insinuation that unconditional acceptance of the existence of any state as it now is, irrespective of its policies and history, should constitute a condition sine qua non for a legitimate ethical-political discussion. I would further like to state at the outset that in terms of my own political ethics, no ethical discussion of the political domain can take place unless it involves a critical scrutiny of any existing state in the light of its history and de facto policies and can thus decide in each case whether one can justify support for its continued existence. This is as true of the state of Israel as it is of the Vatican State.