Balance and Dialogue as a Substitute for Advocacy and Justice?

Advocacy by Christian Leaders: Recently, Palestinians lost 170+ lives in Gaza and Israelis lost 5+ in a wave of violence, and just averted a war with a tense ceasefire, while the United Nations has granted the Palestinians observer status as a state and Israel has announced plans to build settlements that would be the last nail in the coffin of a two state solution.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch that is sometimes called the Episcopal Church (TEC), there has been considerable consternation that TEC declined to participate in an October 5 letter to Congress calling for hearings on foreign aid to Israel. All the major denominational leadership signed the letter: Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, the United Church of Christ and others. The decision to sit this out is a critical blow to TEC’s advocacy in the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict built over three decades and reflects not just on TEC leadership, but on the whole Church.

The mainline denominations that wrote and signed the letter includes the Christian membership of an eight year Jewish/Christian dialogue of which the Episcopal Church is a founding member (2004).  The decision not to participate in the letter put the Episcopal Church in the lonely position of being the only Christian member of that dialogue to abstain.

And it is not as if TEC lacked policy. The General Convention held in July in Indianapolis voted (A-015) to reaffirm the 1991Resolution A149, which “require(s) the State of Israel to account to the Government of the United States for all aid to Israel…in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act.”  This is precisely what the letter to Congress is about!  Yet the Episcopal Church chose not to participate despite the invitation to do so. The Church’s own policy base has been thwarted.

Dialogue AND Advocacy: The letter to Congress is issued in the context of eight hard years of this dialogue with the mainline Jewish organizations in the United States, who have as a primary objective the defense of the State of Israel. That’s different than a commitment to a just peace.  This is not a criticism, just an observation of an important dynamic. Having participated in five of the eight years of that dialogue, and having organized for the Christian membership an historic joint Jewish/Christian trip to the Holy Land in 2005, I am aware of the deep gulf that separates the Christian witness for justice of these denominations versus the Jewish organizations perspective of solely defending the “Jewish state” of Israel.  While we were respectful of each other we rarely were able to find consensus.   Nonetheless, the experience was invaluable and revealing.  And I enjoyed a number of friendships in those Jewish organizations despite our differences, and they even defended Desmond Tutu from charges of Anti-Semitism at my request.  But it felt to me as if the Jewish organizations were more interested in managing us than in serious dialogue that would lead to a joint justice oriented position to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Now, the letter to Congress has emerged. The Jewish organizations have predictably howled, saying they were blindsided and not consulted ahead of time, as if the signers violated some protocol.  For years, Jewish organizations have asked that TEC share resolutions being prepared for General Convention or Executive Council.  They actually suggested they should have some kind of censorship role.  Of course, when we asked how they’d respond to us reviewing their many web postings on the conflict prior to publication they would demure.  Instead, one issued a fund raising appeal naming mainline denominations as villains against Israel. But we didn’t walk away from the table.

I discerned from these organizations that there are certain lines over which we as Christians could not be allowed to cross, for example, any sort of boycott, divestment or sanctions, or making comparisons to Apartheid, or as in this case, questioning Israel’s use of foreign aid.  The Church must always be “balanced” as if this conflict is between two equal parties. Justice is to be sidelined in favor of balanced statements, neutrality, silence and polite dialogue. If this had been the methodology of the Churches towards South Africa, Apartheid would still be alive and well. Israel has been oppressing the Palestinian people during 45 years of Occupation, to say nothing of the second class status of Israel’s Palestinian citizens.  In this context, dialogue has its place and can be an important component of peacemaking, but it cannot be a substitute for advocacy and the pursuit of justice.  There has to be a both/and approach.  The latest issue of Cornerstone from Sabeel is devoted to interfaith dialogue and contains important insights.

An emergent Jewish critique: Marc Ellis, an American Jewish scholar, recently offered these insights on Jewish/Christian dialogue and the letter to Congress:

It seems late in the Israel/Palestine political game – and it is late indeed – but the mainstream Churches are breaking… the interfaith ecumenical dialogue, the post-Holocaust place where Jews and Christians have mended their relationship. Israel was huge in this dialogue. Christians supported Israel as repentance for anti-Semitism and the Holocaust….

Just as aspects of Jewish support for Israel are dropping off, liberal Christian support is ebbing…. I’m thinking specifically of the October 5 letter that a group of prominent Church leaders sent to Congress. In the letter, Church leaders admonish Congress for allowing Israel to skirt and in some cases violate American law. They are direct and to the point, especially highlighting American foreign aid to Israel…. In a stunning departure, interfaith relations are secondary to the immediate needs of the Palestinian people who are under assault by Israel.

Reading the letter out loud I marvel on the distance traveled. Despite the pressure and with support as well, is there any way back to the pieties of yesteryear for these Church leaders?

Strange, looking on the internet for commentary on the Church leaders’ letter, one site had the letter opposite a quotation from the Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel: ‘Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.’

It seems that the Church leaders have finally learned the central lesson of Christian complicity in the Holocaust. It was taught to them by Jews in the personal witness of Elie Wiesel.

The lesson: The ultimate sin is silence in the face of injustice.  

Conclusion: The letter to Congress is a watershed moment.  While the denominations have separately held similar policy positions over the last few decades of which Ellis may not be aware,  joint letters such as this have been rare, making this one all the more poignant.  And for some troubled Episcopalians committed to a just peace, the decision not to sign the letter has cast a shadow over the conscience of the Episcopal Church.

The Reverend Canon Brian J Grieves, Former Peace and Justice Officer,  The Episcopal Church, 1988-2009

December 2012

Washington DC
October 31, 2012

We write today as Palestinian American Christians in support of the October 5th letter by fifteen U.S. Christian leaders who called for an investigation of possible Israeli violations of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, and, more broadly, whether our aid to Israel is undermining prospects for peace. The letter also urges Congress to hold hearings and regular evaluations to examine Israel’s compliance with the two afore-mentioned Acts, and suggests the possibility of withholding military aid for non-compliance.

RESOLUTION FOR DIOCESE OF MAINE CONVENTION

 RESOLUTION PROPOSAL: Palestinian/Israeli Peace

SUBMITTED BY:  Episcopal Peace Fellowship – Maine Chapter

CONTACT:  Maurine Tobin

Resolved, that the 193rd Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine, acknowledging the Church’s regret at the lack of progress in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians toward a just and peaceful resolution of the longstanding conflict in the Holy Land, urge each congregation in the Diocese to continue to pray and study the situation in the Holy Land through resources such as the annotated bibliography to be prepared and posted on The Episcopal Church website as well as existing resources such as Steadfast Hope and Kairos Palestine, the Episcopal Peace Fellowship of Maine providing facilitators if requested, and be it further

Resolved, that in response to urging from the General Convention, the Diocese of Maine commit in 2013 to offer support tothe Al Ahli Arab Hospital of Gaza, an institution of the Episcopal Diocese of the Jerusalem, by requesting that Episcopal Peace Fellowship of Maine provide educational programming for congregations on the work of the hospital and to solicit financial support for its work, and be it further

Resolved, that the Diocesan Convention request the Trustees of Diocesan Funds to adopt the recommendations of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church (see Appendix 2) with regard to corporate engagement. Specifically we request that they:

 1)  provide information regarding our Diocesan portfolio, including profile share of companies that invest positively in Palestine or that negatively affect life in Palestine;

2)   file shareholder resolutions or other formal communication with companies in the Diocesan portfolio “which operate in the Occupied Territories” and “contribute to the infrastructure that supports and sustains the Occupation, such as settlements and their bypass roads, the security barrier where it is built on Palestinian land, and demolition of Palestinian homes” urging them to cease to do so;

3)  report to the 2013 Diocesan Convention regarding actions taken by the Trustees and the responses they receive from the companies so engaged.

Explanation:

Supporting information for these resolutions is found below in Appendix 1 (Resolutions B017 and B019 adopted by the 2012 General Convention of the Episcopal Church) and in Appendix 2, an Executive Council resolution passed in October 2005 that calls on The Episcopal Church to support both positive investment and corporate engagement with companies contributing to violence against either side or practices that sustain occupation.

NOTE: The first two sections of the resolution passed overwhelmingly; the third failed 141 – 93.

Dear Bishops:

I thought this would interest you regarding the letter that was signed by the 15 Christian leaders to the Congress. They are indeed to be commended on this initiative. While the Lutheran Presiding Bishop has signed it, it is surprising to note that Episcopal Presiding Bishop did not. “Not in line with Episcopal policy does not hold water.” The Lutherans and the Episcopalians are the only two churches in the US that have communities in Palestine, so their voice needs to be heard. For the church abroad to be concerned about the dwindling numbers of Christians does not help when they do not raise their voice to put an end to the occupation and the violations of human rights. Please make an effort to support those voices who finally had the courage to speak up and not worry about interfaith dialogue that seems to be the Jewish trump card everytime the church attempts to raise its voice.

Respectfully,

Samia

Samia Nasir Khoury was for 17 years the President of Rawdat El-Zuhur, an elementary school in East Jerusalem.  She has served on the board of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center and the board of trustees of Birzeit University.

An Open Letter to the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori
From the Palestine Justice Network of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship

Dear Bishop Katharine:

We write as fellow Episcopalians who share your deep interest in “a just and peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict” as stated in your letter to the two major political candidates for President of the United States on October 12.  Our membership includes many seasoned people who have traveled extensively to Israel and Palestine, some of whom have lived in the region for a number of years.  We are comprised of lay and ordained members, including bishops.  We hope our letter today will further the interests of not only dialogue, but advocacy on behalf of the just peace that we both deeply desire for Palestinians and Israeli Jews.

We particularly appreciate your pointing out a number of the complexities that make progress towards justice challenging, including a potential “nuclear Iran; continued Israeli settlement building, particularly in and around Jerusalem, at a pace and pattern that complicates the territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian state; unacceptable levels of violence on all sides; and the humanitarian disaster of the Gaza Strip.”   You also correctly point out that even though “only direct bilateral negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians themselves can bring about a just and lasting peace, history is clear that American political leadership has the power to play a catalytic role in supporting the work of peacemakers.”

This latter point, with which we share agreement, leads us to ask why you have not yet signed the letter from our ecumenical partners to Congress calling for an accounting of U.S. aid to Israel.  The General Convention just completed in Indianapolis voted (A-015) to reaffirm Resolution 1991-A149, which “require(s) the State of Israel to account to the Government of the United States for all aid to Israel…in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.”  It also calls for “hold(ing) in escrow aid to Israel by an amount equal to any expenditures by the Government of Israel to expand, develop or further establish Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and only release the aid from escrow if proof is given that settlements are not being established.”  Given the explicit nature of our Church’s policy we are perplexed that you have not yet signed onto the letter to Congress.  We could not have a clearer policy base for you to join in this important initiative.  We hope to see your name added in the coming days.

We would also like to point out that your letter to the presidential candidates fails to describe accurately the current state of affairs in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.  One might imply from your letter that there are two equal parties to the conflict.   In fact, your letter does not once mention the word “occupation.”  (Nor did the General Convention 2012 resolution B019).  We wonder if your failure to mention the occupation is deliberate or just an oversight.  No one who is uninformed would understand from your letter that the state of Israel has been oppressing the Palestinians living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza since 1967.  We cite the B’Tselem report, “No Minor Matter” as evidence of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children as just one of many forms of human rights abuses committed by Israeli entities.   B’Tselem is a respected Israeli organization.  Our own State Department has also noted significant human rights abuses by Israel in its annual human rights report.  We also commend the latest issue of Cornerstone, a publication of Sabeel, which writes about children being held under Israeli military detention.  500-700 children are prosecuted in Israeli military courts each year.  The description of detention of these young people is heartbreaking.  We commend the full issue to your attention.

We would add that unless American political leadership is willing to hold Israel accountable for acts – past and present – that undermine movement toward a just peace, restarting bilateral negotiations may create the illusion of progress but will simply condemn the Palestinians to continued loss of their land and resources.  “Supporting the work of peacemakers” must include addressing the immense imbalance in power that has characterized negotiations during both the Bush and the Obama administrations and drains these and possible future talks of any hope for successful resolution.  Negotiations must be matched by actions on the ground that support, not undermine, the talks themselves.  Again, we appreciate your noting this concern.

Because of so many documented human rights violations by the state of Israel, the letter to Congress could not be more appropriate.   The current impasse in negotiations makes inevitable a third intifada, the nature of which we can only speculate about.  The letter to Congress sends an important signal to all the parties that U.S. Christians stand for human rights across the board, without exception, and is an important advocacy effort that could help forestall another intifada.  Palestinians on the ground need to see that others understand their daily suffering and are speaking out.  Otherwise, the voices of extremism will drive events.

We appreciate your reminder to the candidates that “a two-state solution is the shared policy of the United States government, the government of Israel, and the Palestinian National Authority.”   But as you no doubt already know, many expert analysts, including American and Israeli Jews, are making the case that the policy of Israeli appropriation of Palestinian land and its unrelenting expansion of illegal settlements, has or soon will make a two-state solution impossible.  Many of our members believe the two-state solution has already been foreclosed.  Your letter correctly acknowledges that settlement building “complicates the territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian state.”  The irony is that Israel through its settlement policy is forcing a one state bi-national solution as the only alternative, which many Jews see as the end of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.   The only other option would be for Israel to force Palestinians into a non-viable, non- contiguous state that will be judged by the world as another apartheid system, which will lead to an inevitable movement for a bi-national state.  We believe our Church should review its policy of support for a two-state solution in light of Israel’s continuing expansionist policies that seriously draw into question its commitment to this goal.   Ultimately, as you have noted, Israeli Jews and Palestinians must resolve this issue.

There is much else left unsaid here that we hope we might pursue in future dialogue with you.  Again, we are grateful to see you engage this most pressing of all international conflicts, and we seek to find a common witness from our Church on behalf of justice for oppressed Palestinians and liberation from the role of  oppressor by Israel  so that our common vision of peace and security can be realized for all Israeli Jews and Palestinians.
Faithfully and with gratitude,

Steering Committee, Palestine Justice Network/Episcopal Peace Fellowship:
Ann Coburn, Cotton Fite, Brian Grieves, Donna Hicks, Edward LaMonte, Grace Saïd, Newland Smith, Cabell Tennis, Jessie Vedanti

Linda Gaither, Chair, National Executive Council, Episcopal Peace Fellowship
Allison Liles, Interim Executive Director, Episcopal Peace Fellowship

A Statement of Support for Sabeel

As rabbis and people of faith, we stand in solidarity with the work of Sabeel.

Palestinian Christian liberation theologians such as Canon Naim Ateek of Sabeel challenge Jews and Christians to rethink our relationship to the Holy Land and each other on the basis of a universal standard of human rights grounded in nonviolence. Canon Ateek sees us as equal theological partners in the land we both love – and Sabeel’s partnership model provides a hopeful model for dialogue and action. We encourage the Jewish community to engage the Palestinian Christian faith community with an open heart and mind in order to encounter another version of faithfulness.

We are aware that many Jews point to the more radical incarnations of some of Ateek’s theological images. We believe, however, that it is a mistake to dismiss Palestinian Christian theology wholesale. As Jews, we are much more troubled by the “End of Days” theologies of fundamentalist Zionist Christians such as Pastor John Hagee, who believe that Jews will either convert or go to hell when we’ve fulfilled our theological purpose. This is anti-semitism par excellence.

The Palestinian people live in the face of daily brutality by those who are destroying their homes, confiscating their land and water, manning the checkpoints that prevent freedom of movement to hospitals, work and study, shooting tear gas during demonstrations and dropping bombs in civilian areas. Needless to say, many Palestinians do not possess positive feelings toward the people who perpetrate these kinds of actions. Nonetheless, an amazing movement for nonviolent resistance has arisen in Palestine – and Sabeel is part of this movement.

We have much to learn about the faithfulness of thousands of Palestinians toward nonviolence. Jews who are upset with Sabeel need to ask the following question: what kind of nonviolent leverage does a disadvantaged people use when so much power is aligned against them? This is the heart of the question that Sabeel have been exploring for decades: how to struggle nonviolently against Occupation.

We believe this is an extraordinarily important question with which to begin an interfaith dialogue.  Granted, it will invariably be a difficult conversation, but it is one in which we simply must engage. At the end of the day, contemporary interfaith cooperation and reconciliation must be grounded in a shared understanding of human rights. Authentic prophetic faith challenges us in painful ways because, as Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel reminds us, it upsets the status quo.

After all, isn’t this one of the central lessons of the Holocaust: that every person, group and country is accountable to the same human rights standards?  When the Declaration of Human Rights was written in response to the Holocaust, Jews were grateful for a universal measure by which to judge human behavior.   We believe groups such as Sabeel to be our partners in affirming these sacred standards – that are rooted in our shared conviction that all human beings are created in the image of God. We are proud to stand together with them in our shared work of justice, dignity and liberation for all.

Signed,

Rabbi Brant Rosen, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Alissa Wise, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Rachel Barenblatt, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rain Zohav, Rabbinical Student, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Joseph Berman, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi David Mivasair, JVP Rabbinical Council

Cantor Michael Davis, JVP Rabbinical Council

Ari Lev Fornari, Rabbinical Student, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Zev-Hayyim Feyer, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Brian Walt, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Julie Greenberg, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Eyal Levinson, JVP Rabbinical Council

Michael Ramberg, Rabbinical Student, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Michael Feinberg, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Margaret Holub, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Rebecca Lillian, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Elizabeth Bolton, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Haim Beliak, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Rebecca Alpert, JVP Rabbinical Council

Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom, JVP Rabbinical Council