Jim Flowers: Of Middle Eastern Matters

Jim Flowers is the rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Mobile, Alabama.  This article appeared in his parish newsletter for the fourth Sunday after Epiphany.  With leadership from Ed LaMonte he is also sponsoring a study group of the Episcopal edition of Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace.

From the Rector: Of Middle Eastern Matters

Not that we will hear anything substantive from our politicians regarding recent developments in the Middle East, now that the na-tional election campaigns are headed into full swing, but we best be paying attention to the rapid destabilization in the Arab world. Egypt is at a crucial crossroads as it attempts to form a government less op-pressive and more responsive to its people. Tunisia and Libya and Yemen also in transition towards a more democratized form of gov-ernance; Syria also with the current regime desperate to hold on to power and thereby facing a possible human catastrophe with expo-nentially increasing loss of lives; Iraq is still a powder-keg with re-newed sectarian violence sprouting with the so-called Arab Spring; Iran now threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which the greatest proportion of crude oil is exported. Left out of the conversation, at least in the news, is the fading possibility of the so-called two state solution between Israel and Palestinian Arabs. This is a potential disaster in the making. Israel continues to occupy increasing acreage of Palestinian territory deemed illegal by the United Na-tions for decades. It seems that the United States has lost energy and interest in making a bona-fide attempt to resolve the issue, an issue with global ramifications.

Ironically enough it is this Holy Land, Israel/Palestine, sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians that is at the heart of all matters Middle Eastern. Each example of conflict I cited above has some substantial contingency to the resolution of the seemingly intractable Israel/Palestinian deadlock. This conflict reflects the larger issue affecting the entire Arab world and that is the issue of the loss of dignity of populations in the face of oppressive power for power’s sake; and the corollary: the disparity of wealth between the elite few who garner 90+% of the wealth and the rest who struggle for a living, struggle for a dignified life. This problem of course has now made its way insidiously into our own country…..multi-millionaires pay-ing lower tax rates than the secretaries who work for them.

What will stabilize matters in the Middle East will be an impassioned effort by all parties to create a means of shared power and shared wealth…In the political and socio-economic rhetoric of the gospels that is exactly what is called for…when people are freed from poverty and indignity…when people have the option for a bet-ter life…then there is no need for the wars that such oppression and indignity en-gender. Had we, the U.S. as a nation, spent the countless billions on creating op-portunities for shared wealth and power in the Middle East beginning with Israel and Palestine, the critical domino for Middle Eastern stability, instead of fighting two hyper-expensive and unwinnable wars, I believe things would look quite dif-ferent. The gospel imperative is the human imperative, that the abundance of this planet belongs to all, that every living soul has a birthright for freedom and there-fore dignity….that violence is not an option….because the well-being of humanity is deeply interconnected….one organism, we humans…Should our own nation in its capacity as leader take on such a predisposition in the coming critical negotiations on matters of the Middle East, I believe violence will wane, and our common hu-manity will become the rule of the day….May it come ever so swiftly.

‘Zionism Has Run Its Course’: Ruth Dayan and Rula Jebreal

This article first appeared in the 14 November, 2011 issue of Newsweek

Byline: Rula Jebreal

These startling words were uttered last week in Tel Aviv by 95-year-old Ruth Dayan, widow of one of Israel’s founding fathers

Elegantly dressed and perfectly made up, Ruth Dayan, 95, receives me with a wide smile in her Tel Aviv home overlooking the Mediterranean Sea. The charismatic, alert, and extremely intelligent Dayan is the widow of Moshe Dayan, legendary chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces and a key leader in the war of independence in 1948. Indeed, Moshe Dayan was transformed into a symbol of national strength during the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel took control of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The Israelis felt invincible with this imposing figure at the helm. Having lost his eye in battle, he chose to wear a black eye patch, which became his trademark. In the years since his death, Ruth has continued to act as one of Israel’s most outspoken elder statesmen.

Sixty-three years after the founders began to build a democratic, secure, prosperous state, Israel is still struggling: there is no peace deal in place with the Palestinians, tensions between Arabs and Israelis grow by the day, and the violence drags on. Under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party, Israel has been racked with political divisions. The government has moved to the right politically in order to keep a majority in Parliament. Yet over the summer, liberal Israelis set up tent cities protesting the massive income inequality and high cost of living that are plaguing the nation. Moshe Dayan is very much seen as one of the “founding fathers” of Israel. And there is a nostalgic turn today, mainly among the middle-class Ashkenazi who see him and his brethren as symbols of collective sacrifice and communal bonds.

Dayan is rich with memories of the Israel of then and gets furious when I ask her to compare it with the Israel of now: “We built this country inch by inch, and we lost so many lives. We built public and social institutions, schools, factories. What’s going on today is awful. They’re ruining this country. I am a proud Israeli. I’ve lived through every war, endured every moment of suffering, but I never stopped believing in peace. I lost friends and family members. I’m a peacemaker, but the current Israeli government does not know how to make peace. We move from war to war, and this will never stop. I think Zionism has run its course.”

She sighs, and adjusts herself before continuing. “I long for the old Israel, where I traveled alone to Gaza the day after we won the 1956 war. Moshe was already a war hero, known to Israelis and Arabs alike. When I met the Palestinian mayor, I introduced myself as Ruth Dayan. The mayor almost had a heart attack.” She giggles. “His aides fled the scene. He cautiously asked me what my business was, and I replied that I wanted to see their rugs. He was astonished. ‘Rugs?’ he asked me. I was the head of Maskit at the time, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores. We were employing Bulgarian immigrants, and I wanted to include Arabs. I hired Arabs all over the country to make rugs and other merchandise. It was about living together, working together, creating a bridge. Today we use foreign labor to work in Israel because Palestinians are not allowed. And this continuous expansion of the settlements everywhere–I cannot accept it. I cannot tolerate this deterioration in the territories and the roadblocks everywhere. And that horrible wall! It’s not right.”

The tensions between the Jews and the Arabs in Israel have been particularly fraught since the second intifada started in 2000. The wall built to protect the nation from the terrorist attacks sealed off Gaza and the West Bank, but it also cut off contact between the two populations. Ruth Dayan is considered a free thinker in Israeli society. And her devotion and constant efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians together are legendary. “Moshe had a double-edged policy: hardline punitive raids of cross-border Arab retaliation, and at the same time, he led the delegation for the ceasefire negotiations with Jordanian King Abdullah. He was a fighter and a negotiator. He was tactical and realist–never saw things as black or white. After the death of his brother, Zorik, in battle in 1948, Moshe reached out to the Druze community, which had been responsible for his brother’s death, and made a peace accord with them. Moshe’s father never forgave him for that.”

In fact, the Dayan family was severely tested by the historical events that unfolded with the creation of the state of Israel. “You know, Moshe died 30 years ago this month [October]. His courage and bravery had shaped the history of Israel.” Ruth Dayan wrote a love letter to Moshe on the 30th anniversary of his death, which was published in one of Israel’s prominent newspapers. But Ruth complains that the paper discussed at length Moshe’s numerous love affairs rather more than his contribution as a public servant. “Women fell like flies at Moshe’s feet, but I didn’t care. The charisma evaporates at the breakfast table.” Regardless of her true feelings about her husband’s infidelity, Dayan insists on defending his memory. “You can divorce a husband, but you can’t divorce a legend.” Their younger son, Assi, has spoken publicly about his conflicts with his father. As Ruth explains, “There was a feeling of resentment and abandonment” on her son’s side. For Moshe, “military missions were his absolute priority?…?We had to leave a life that we loved on the farm. We moved so many times to so many places. It became a challenge to keep a proper family feeling while Moshe was advancing his career. The country’s needs demanded immediate solutions.” Ruth adds, “I was visiting Nablus in what is now called the West Bank. The military governor asked me if I could visit Arab women in prison there to see if I could get them to embroider. Later that day, when I came home, Moshe criticized me, saying: ‘I put those women in jail, and you go visit them. What are you doing?!’?” I decided then it was time for us to divorce.”

Dayan comes from an elite, secular family. Her grandfather graduated from the Sorbonne, and her father studied at the London School of Economics. At the age of 17, she dropped out of school, left her parents’ comfortable home in Jerusalem and her pampered city life for an agricultural school in Nahalal, a cooperative village in the Jezreel Valley in the Lower Galilee. Her dream was to build kibbutzim, farms, and to work the land. There she met Moshe Dayan, who was born into the harsh reality of the backbreaking labor, mud, and smells of kibbutz life in Degania. “He knew how to grow crops and orchards. He treated trees as if they were his own babies.” Ruth and Moshe were married in 1935, a year after they met, and together they envisioned a country based on socialist ideals. “Work was the center of our lives. I milked the cows even on my wedding day,” she says. “Before daylight each morning, I would bake, make cheese, and look after the animals while Moshe tilled the fields, so I deeply understand the Arabs and their attachment to the land. I miss the farm life: the cows, the dogs, even the filth of it.”

As an Arab teenager growing up in East Jerusalem during the first intifada, I saw the many faces of Israel, mostly Israeli soldiers imposing martial law on my community; but I also befriended liberals like Ruth whose belief in coexistence and reconciliation broadened my perspective. The echoes of years of violence left us fewer moderates. I fear without more people like Ruth Dayan, the children of the country will grow accustomed to hatred and a deep racial divide that is becoming insurmountable.

Ruth shares with me her deep-rooted connections with the Arab community in the form of a letter written in 1924 by Nazira Zananiri to Dayan’s grandmother, Madame Clinker. Zananiri is thanking her dear Israeli friend for a Christmas card she had received. The affection between the two women is evident. “My mother spoke Arabic and we often hosted Palestinians in our home. We lived among them, even during wars. At the double wedding of our children Assi and Yael in 1967, we invited Israelis, Druze, Arabs; it was a wonderful celebration.”

The general view in Israel before the U.N. bid for Palestinian statehood this September was that by erecting a wall, the government would no longer need to deal with the Palestinian issue. Security would be guaranteed. A physical defense was built up as a block against the bloody days of Hamas-led terrorism. But it has not ended the war within. Recent Israeli governments have been held hostage by the ultra-Orthodox political parties that dictate the national agenda by demanding large economic subsidies and affordable housing within the settlements in exchange for their parliamentary support. These political parties and their constituency, the Haredi, are transforming the face of the nation by promoting an ideological inflexibility that opposes any peace deal with the Palestinians. This has created tremendous tensions with the Obama administration, and runs counter to the visions of those like Moshe Dayan, who, after suffering a psychological defeat in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, began engaging in a different kind of dialogue with Egypt. Moshe Dayan went from saying, “Never peace without Sharm al-Sheikh, and never Sharm al-Sheikh without peace,” to entering into a peace negotiation with Anwar Sadat under the guidance of the Carter administration. This political transformation is not lost on Ruth. “For Netanyahu, peace is just a word, and that [current Foreign Minister Avigdor] Liberman?…?he is the most terrible man in this country. The way he speaks about our Arabs, our Israeli Arabs, is unacceptable! I call Liberman ‘Doberman’: how can a man like that represent our country?!” On the other hand, Ruth endorses the next potential leader of Israel, Avishay Braverman, a member of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. “I was impressed by his work at Ben-Gurion University. I also would like to have someone like Tzipi Livni as the foreign minister. She was a great representative of Israel when she was the foreign minister. She understands diplomacy, and above all, she has good manners, not like Avigdor Liberman. I even said it on TV–this Doberman is insane!” Liberman has advocated for the involuntary transfer of Arab-Israeli citizens to a future Palestinian state in exchange for retaining Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank, and has proposed a parade of anti-Arab bills.

In contrast, Moshe Dayan was capable of amending his political views along the way. He had denied the existence of Palestine in his early speeches, yet he later agreed to Palestinian autonomy when, as foreign minister, he negotiated the Camp David accords with Egypt. In it, the Israelis agreed to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with Cairo, all this in spite of the fact that Dayan’s views conflicted with those of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. “[The late Palestinian leader Yasir] Arafat, who would always kiss me when we met, respected him. So did King Abdullah of Jordan. ‘What a pleasure it is to have your husband as an enemy,’ he would say. Moshe has always treated Arabs with respect. Even after the Six-Day War, he would travel by himself to the West Bank. He liked spending time with Arabs, and would visit Nablus without bodyguards. He believed that work would bring us together. He had a dialogue with the Arabs. So did my brother-in-law, Ezer Weizman, who was a pilot and later became the president of Israel. He was also a true believer in peace. He knew Cairo like the palm of his hand, having flown over it so many times on missions. He used to laugh and joke with President Sadat. Relations were different then. Who talks to the Palestinians now?” she asks.

In reference to the current prime minister’s conservative stance, Dayan takes pains to make herself clear. “I reject Netanyahu’s policy; it is a recipe for disaster. He is unwilling to address the issue. It’s a bunker mentality. We had the Oslo accords, which established Palestinian control over certain areas in the West Bank and Gaza, while other areas remained under mixed control. The accords established the Palestinian Authority and police force, but nothing has changed. The number of settlements has increased from 60 to 200, military checkpoints are everywhere, and freedom of movement is virtually nonexistent. Violence is still the only spoken language. I don’t try to instill optimism in my Palestinian friends. Out of courtesy, I tell them that I hope something will change. But I don’t speak about peace anymore; I don’t have the courage. I’m friends with so many Arabs. My soulmate is Raymonda Tawil, Arafat’s mother-in-law. This government does not represent my values. It’s gone so far. Both sides think they are freedom fighters.”

Dayan speaks like a natural-born leader. When I provoke her with the question of whether the security measures are justified by terrorism, she interrupts me and says: “Oh, please, nothing will stop terrorism except dialogue. [Yitz-hak] Rabin could have achieved peace. He fought terrorism as if there were no negotiations, and negotiated as if there was no terrorism. Today we must apply the two-state solution because we have grown apart, and it would be best if everyone took care of their own business. We are a mob that can’t even get along internally.”

Having made plans to visit a friend, she drives me home, and we continue our conversation in the car. The radio is reporting the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s death. Dayan is outraged. “Why not give him a trial?! This is barbaric. Even the worst criminals deserve a fair trial. This is the price of democracy! Why start the new Libya with bloodshed?” Gaddafi, she tells me, had sent her a book in 2008 in which he described his peace plan. “He wrote that we all should live together and benefit from our combined resources. I sent him a thank-you note and gave the book to Shimon Peres.”

Dayan continues: “Israel today is not a dream, it is a country in a lot of trouble. It’s a high-tech society that communicates through iPad, iPhone, and Facebook instead of having children talking to each other. Our youth live all over the world, wherever they can find a job. There’s a brain drain taking place. I’m very concerned about where all of this will lead us. I am really proud of the 300,000 protesters who demanded social justice. I say go on and include the Palestinian issue in your agenda! That is also about justice and our future.” Dayan doesn’t just talk, she also acts: a few months ago, she invited 300 people from Kharbata, an Arab village in the West Bank, for a trip in Israel. “I got them entry permits, and they were treated wonderfully. I took them to the beach where they swam, and the children had so much fun! It seemed that at least for a day they were living a normal life. This is my ultimate goal.”

By Rula Jebreal

Source Citation

Jebreal, Rula. “‘Zionism Has Run Its Course’.” Newsweek 14 Nov. 2011: 58. General OneFile. Web. 18 Jan. 2012.

Jews/Christians and Israel/Palestine: Rediscovering the Prophetic

by Rabbi Brant Rosen, Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation, Evanston, IL.  You may also follow Brant on his blog at http://rabbibrant.com/

Here is the sermon that I delivered yesterday (January 15, 2012) at St. James Episcopal Cathedral in Chicago. If you would like a copy of “Steadfast Hope,” the study guide published by the Episcopal Peace Fellowship to which I refer in my remarks, please click here.

I am so pleased to be here with you this morning – and so very honored to have been invited to preach to you today. I want to especially thank Dean Joy Rogers for the invitation and to St. James for hosting me so graciously.

I’d also like to thank my very dear friend, Father Cotton Fite of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Evanston, who I believe had no small part in making my visit here a reality.  Many members of my congregation have come to know Father Cotton well – in addition to our friendship, he has become something of a mainstay at our Shabbat morning Torah study group.  I value my friendship with Cotton quite deeply – and I’d like to think that our the work might provide a model for a new kind of interfaith action.  Indeed, this very model is at the heart of my message to you this morning.

I’d like to start properly: with this Sunday’s Episcopal lectionary selection from the Hebrew Bible: 1 Samuel, chapter 3:

In an earlier chapter, we’ve already read that Samuel was born under somewhat remarkable circumstances. Before his birth, his mother Hannah had promised to dedicate him to divine service if only God would only bless her with a child.  In chapter 3, the young Samuel is now serving under Eli the priest at the temple in Shiloh.  We’re told that in those days, “the word of the Lord was rare; prophecy was not widespread” – clearly a literary clue that this all about to change.

Samuel is sleeping in the temple, next to the Ark of God. In the middle of the night, God calls out to Samuel, and Samuel, who thinks he hears Eli calling him, runs to the priest, and says “Hineini – Here I am.”  Eli replies, “I didn’t call you – go back to sleep!”  This happens again, and Eli, presumably with even greater exasperation in his voice now, sends Samuel back to sleep.

When it happens a third time, Eli finally realizes what is going on. So he instructs Samuel, “If it happens again, say ‘Speak Lord, for Your servant in listening.”  When Samuel is called yet again, he follows Eli’s instructions. God then reveals to Samuel that Eli’s priestly house is about to be punished, due to the corruption of his sons and his unwillingness to rein them in.

The next morning, Eli asks Samuel what God said, adding “please do not hold anything back.”  And so the young Samuel tells Eli everything: “the good, the bad, and the ugly,” if you will.  Painful though it must have been, Eli accepts God’s word as delivered by Samuel.

At the close of the chapter, we learn that Samuel grew up and “the Lord was with him.” As the text puts it, “(God) did not leave any of Samuel’s predictions unfulfilled.” Thus, Samuel quickly gained a reputation through Israel as a trustworthy prophet. He would go on, of course, to be one of the greatest prophets in Israelite history.

Now on the surface of this story, there is sort of a endearing slapstick quality to the young Samuel’s discovery of his prophetic abilities.  Because of this, I think it’s too easy to misunderstand the real source of Samuel’s greatness.  What made Samuel a great prophet?  Was it because he was promised to God by his mother?  Was it because he had the ability to hear God talking to him when no one else could – not even Eli the priest himself?

No, I believe the key to his prophetic greatness lay in what came next. Samuel learned a harsh and painful truth about a very powerful man – a man who also happened to be his spiritual mentor – and he was willing to speak that unvarnished truth to him.  He did not shrink from his prophetic responsibility, although the chances were probably strong that Eli could cast him out for delivering such a message.

This is, after all the essence of being a prophet. A prophet isn’t someone who can tell the future – and a prophet is certainly not special for being chosen to deliver God’s divine message. No, the essence of being a prophet lies in one’s readiness to speak painful, difficult, often public truths to power.

We will soon learn a great deal about the wages of power in the book of Samuel. The Israelites will eventually come to Samuel and tell him they want a king of their own. They tell him they want to be “governed like all the other nations.”

Samuel is grieved by this request – like all prophets, he takes it very personally. But God tells him, “Don’t fret. It’s not you they are rejecting, Samuel, it’s me.  They’ve just never understood where the real source of power in the world lies, despite my attempts to demonstrate this to them over and over again.  If they think that putting their faith in military and political power will save them, fine. But they will soon find out where that path will lead them.”

And of course as they come to discover, kingship in Ancient Israel doesn’t go so well for the new nation. It becomes focused on militarism, becomes incorrigibly corrupt, splits in two and eventually gets overrun from within and without. During this period, it is only the prophets who continue to speak the hard truth to power, who rail against the toxic ambitions of Israelite empire, who warn that this path will eventually be their downfall. And so it becomes.

When I asked Dean Joy for some advice on what I should say in my sermon to you today, she advised me to share my own spiritual vision with you: what drives me as a spiritual leader. So I will say that, personally speaking, prophetic religion is my primary spiritual inspiration as a rabbi, as a Jew, and as a human being. I am driven by religion that speaks hard truth to power. When it holds faith in unmitigated human power to account.

I fervently believe that when religion advocates the cause of the powerless, when stands with those who are victimized by the powerful, when religion proclaims to God stands with the oppressed and seeks their liberation –  this truly has historically represented religion at its best.  And conversely, when religion is used to promote empire, when it is used as by the powerful to justify their rule, when it is wedded to militarism, nationalism and political power – this is, tragically, when we witness religion at its worst.

I cannot help but read Jewish tradition with prophetic eyes.  As a Jew, I’ve always been enormously proud of the classic rabbinical response to empire. I believe that the Jewish people have been able to survive even under such large and mighty powers because we’ve clung to a singular sacred vision.  That there is a power even greater. Greater than Pharaoh, greater than Babylon, even greater than the Roman empire that exiled us and dispersed our people throughout the diaspora. It is a quintessentially Jewish vision best summed up by the prophetic line from the book of Zechariah: “Lo b’chayil v’lo b’koach” – “Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord of Hosts.”

And as a 21st century American Jew, I cannot help but view the world through prophetic eyes as well. Painful though it is, if I am to be true to my understanding of my spiritual tradition, I cannot simply look away when I see my own country going down the road to empire, when I see our nation enmeshed in a state of permanent war around the world with economic disparity growing ever larger here at home.

To be sure, these are not issues of concern for the American Jewish community alone.  And in my own interfaith activism, I have been deeply inspired by my clergy colleagues and other people of faith who share this prophetic vision.  For me, this is the most critical aspect of the interfaith relations – the movements that are created when faith traditions come together to hold power to account in a time of unacceptably growing gaps between the wealthy and poor, the privileged and the exploited, the powerful and powerless.

However, in order for this coalition to truly thrive, more specifically, in order for Jews and Christians to truly work together, we are going to have to find new ways to talk to each other.  We must not park our prophetic values at the door when whenever our conversations grow difficult.  And one of the most difficult conversations has to due with the issue of Israel and Palestine.

In my opinion, the issue of Israel – Palestine is the one area in which true interfaith cooperation tends to break down. However, if we are to use the prophetic model as a guide for Jewish-Christian relations, then our communities cannot shirk from sharing hard truths with one another.

Just as the Jewish community has not hesitated to hold the Christian community to task for any number of historical issues, I do not expect the Christian community to shrink from fully speaking its mind on the issue of Israel – Palestine.  We cannot and should not dance around this issue. To my mind, there is simply too much at stake.

This is, needless to say a painful issue for Jews to talk about amongst themselves, let alone with others.  But I would like to emphasize that there is by no means a uniformity of opinion on this issue in our community.  While I have strong feelings about this subject, I do not pretend to speak for my congregation or the Jewish community at large – nor should any Jewish leader.

In this regard, I want to your church to know I am profoundly appreciative of the publication of “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest for Just Peace” by the Episcopal Peace Fellowship.  I’m glad to know that your church has been studying it together these past few weeks and I’m so happy to be able to join your study session here after our service this morning.

More than the content itself, I am truly inspired by this study guide because it represents an authentically prophetic statement. It is faithful, forthright, and unflinching. Rather than paper over the difficult issues, it shines a light on them. And in the end, these are the places where real dialogue must ultimately start.

I have no doubt that “Steadfast Hope” is being attacked angrily by some in the Jewish community and elsewhere. But that is, of course, the nature of prophetic witness. You don’t shy away from speaking your truth because you’re worried about hurting feelings, you can’t dwell on the prospect of being labeled any number of names, and you shouldn’t allow yourself to be bullied or cowed into silence.  On the contrary, acting prophetically means speaking your truth knowing full well that there will be strong opposition, but with the faith that there will also be those on the other side who are ready to hear your message and ready to work alongside you in your struggle.

So I’d like to suggest carving out a new place for interfaith relations between our respective communities.  Not one that seeks dialogue for dialogue’s sake, nor one that engages in political bartering, but one that finds common cause in prophetic witness.

Indeed, I hold on to this hope for my own community as well – and here I’d like to return to our lectionary chapter once more. If we read this story carefully, we may well discover that Samuel is not the only hero here. There is also Eli the priest – who is able to hear powerful rebuke, along with a prophecy of terrible consequences for his family.

What does he do? He has the wisdom, the humility and the strong sense of self to ask Samuel for the whole truth – and when he hears it he is able to accept it. He is able to hear this difficult, harsh, prophecy and not react with anger or defensiveness – for he knows it comes from a place of truth and righteousness.

I believe that Eli’s response to Samuel’s prophecy provides a powerful model for my own community. While I fervently hope that we find the strength to offer prophetic witness, but that we find the courage to accept it as well. To overcome the fears that keep us from finding true partners in the struggle for liberation in our world.

So let us come together by facing down the glorification of corrupt power. Let us work together to affirm loudly that it is not by might and not by power but by God’s spirit alone that we will create God’s kingdom here on earth.  And let us find a common worship in the God that stands with the oppressed, the marginalized and the vulnerable.

I look forward to working together with you in this sacred work and, once again, I thank you so very much for inviting me to join you in worship this morning.

A 2012 Epiphany message from Jim Lewis

Well, so that is that. Now we must dismantle the tree, putting the decorations back into their cardboard boxes.

That’s how W. H. Auden ends his Christmas Oratorio. And we know he is right because Christmas trees have been dismantled, the crèche has been stored, Santa is gone from the mall, and we are left to live into the bleak midwinter we sang about at the Christmas Eve worship.

But we must not lose hope. After the twelve days of Christmas, the Christian calendar offers believers a lovely sugarplum. It is called Epiphany. Beginning on January 6, it lasts for forty-seven days and the arrival of Lent.

The Epiphany liturgical season begins with words from Isaiah (60:1-6). “Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.” They are encouraging words that balance Isaiah’s reminder: “For darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples.”

Enter the Magi, following the star with gifts for the Christ Child, who will one day tell his disciples, “I am the light of world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 9:5). Epiphany is the celebration of the “true light that gives light to everyone,” a light that will not be overcome by the darkness (John 1:1-8).

The comparison between then and now is astonishing. The People of Israel, when Jesus was born, were looking for deliverance from the oppressive occupation of their land by the Roman Empire. Today, in like manner, Palestinians are looking for deliverance from the oppressive occupation of their land by the Government of Israel. Then and now, the lesson is on display for our edification. The lesson learned: Occupation only leads to injustice, violence, and isolation. Occupation is darkness personified. It pleads for light.

But what, we might ask, was the raison d’etre for this child in the crèche? What better definition than this: “ For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14).  Ah, The Prince of Peace battering down walls that separate people and nations.

There is no more appropriate symbol of hostility than The Wall erected by the Government of Israel separating Jews from Palestinians—all 430 miles of it when completed. It epitomizes the hostility between Jews and Palestinians.  The existence of The Wall begs the question: If the Magi were to attempt a visit today to the Palestinian city of Bethlehem in search of God incarnate in humble settings there, would The Wall prevent them from their destination?

The answer seems self-evident to people of faith. As long as The Wall exists, built upon the illegal appropriation of Palestinian land, darkness will cover the land like a pall, and the light that enables a just peace will be shrouded. Like the Berlin Wall, or any wall that separates people and nations, it must be taken down. A divided land, like a divided self, is at war with itself and destined for a disastrous future.

What gifts do we, like the Magi, have to offer the Prince of Peace in a divided land, the birthplace of Jesus? Here’s a gift suggestion: Epiphany is an appropriate time to pray for peace as Jews and Palestinians once again renew negotiations in Jordan. And, by way of action, to work politically in this election year to put an end to U.S. foreign policy and corporate business military-based activity that perpetuates the violence between Jews and Palestinians.

Consider such a gift as a way of discipleship directed toward breaking down the dividing walls of hostility.

An Evangelical Response to Mr. Gingrich

Dear Mr. Gingrich,

Warmest regards and best wishes to you and your family during this holiday season.

Allow me to remind you that recently you said in an interview with the Jewish Channel: “Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and I think it’s tragic.”
Gingrich’s interview with the Jewish Channel

Again, describing yourself as a historian while speaking to those gathered for the Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa, you mentioned that the word Palestine had been invented. “There never was a Palestinian state (or people) and so, there is no legitimate place for them today.”  Today the Palestinians make up almost half of the people living in the Holy Land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. They’re not an invention.

As a refresher, historian Basil Soufi recaps the history of Palestine: Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c 1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt. The first mention is though to be in texts of the temple at Medinet Babu which record a people called the Peleset among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III reign.The Assyrians called the same region Palashtu or Pilistu, beginning with Adad-nirari II in the Nimrud Slab in c 800 BCE through the emperor Sargon II in his Annals approximately a century later.

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region synonymous with that defined in modern times was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.Herodotus wrote of a ‘district of Syria, called Palaistinê” in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.

Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology. Later writers such as Polemon and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region. This usage was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. Other writers, such as Strabo, a prominent Roman-era geographer (although he wrote in Greek), referred to the region as Coele-Syria around 10-20 CE.  The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form “Syria Palaestina” (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.

The Hebrew name Peleshet (פלשת Pəlésheth)- usually translated as Philistia in English, is used in the Bible more than 250 times. In the Torah / Pentateuch the term is used 10 times and its boundaries are undefined. The later Historical books (see Deuteronomistic history) include most of the biblical references, almost 200 of which are in the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel, where the term is used to denote the southern coastal region to the west of the ancient Kingdom of Judah.
During the Byzantine period, the entire region (Syria Palestine, Samaria, and the Galilee) was named Palaestina, subdivided into provinces Palaestina I and II. The Byzantines also renamed an area of land including the Negev, Sinai, and the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula as Palaestina Salutaris, sometimes called Palaestina III. The Arabic word for Palestine is فلسطين (commonly transcribed in English as Filistin, Filastin, or Falastin).

Moshe Sharon writes that when the Arabs took over Greater Syria in the 7th century, place names that were in use by the Byzantine administration before them, generally continued to be used. Hence, he traces the emergence of the Arabic form Filastin to this adoption, with Arabic inflection, of Roman and Hebrew (Semitic) names. Jacob Lassner and Selwyn Ilan Troen offer a different view, writing that Jund Filastin, the full name for the administrative province under the rule of the Arab caliphates, was traced by Muslim geographers back to the Philistines of the Bible. The use of the name “Palestine” in English became more common after the European renaissance. It was officially revived by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and applied to the territory that was placed under The Palestine Mandate.

Mr. Gingrich, may I suggest that you review your understanding of history and make a public statement about the people of Palestine being “invented.”  I think everyone, including your supporters, would appreciate your apology for this historical error.

Palestine was mentioned twice in the letter to Lord Rothchild from Balfour in the 1917 saying that a national home for the Jewish people would be in Palestine and nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. See the exact copy of the Balfour letter below.

(Mr. Rodgers provides an exact copy of Arthur James Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild. You can read the letter by going to http://history1900s.about.com/cs/holocaust/p/balfourdeclare.htm)

Sincerely,

Leonard Rodgers

Leonard Rodgers
Director – EMEU (Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding)
Suite #104
1565 E. Warner Road
Tempe, Arizona 85284-4526
Office Telephone (480)838-9216
Cell (480)628-5420
www.emeu.net

The Bethlehem Call, December 13, 2011

The Bethlehem Call:  Here we stand – Stand with us

To the reader: Read and interpret this text with a Kairos consciousness and gaze of prophetic anger.

Preamble

How long, O God, will they steal our livelihood? Oppress, imprison and humiliate our people? Deprive our children of their childhood?  Indeed how long, God, will the multitudes of Christians of the world ignore the anguish of our Palestinian sisters and brothers and all of the oppressed?

“Come and see,” said the Christians of Palestine. “Come and see the olive groves, the bulldozers, the ancient terraces, the segregated cities.  The situation is worsening.”

More than 60 participants from 15 countries heeded an urgent call by Kairos Palestine. On 4-10 December 2011; they joined Palestinians in the Kairos for Global Justice Encounter/Conference in Bethlehem.

The aims and objectives of the encounter/conference were to:

·         Bring awareness of and share a Kairos consciousness experienced by all groups attending the encounter;
·         Strengthen and build ties among Kairos groups to form a committed global network for justice;
·         Learn from the Palestinian experience the urgency of Kairos solidarity and to end injustice by implementing concrete actions at the national, regional and global level.

On the road to this encounter/conference, there was the Amman Call in 2007, which ended 60 years without a unified Christian voice speaking against the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The next milestone was the Berne Perspective in 2008, which is illustrated in the statement: “Enough is enough. No more words without deeds, it is time for action.” The cry for justice in Palestine reached a pivotal moment when, in December 2009, Palestinian Christians launched the Kairos Palestine document: “A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering.”

We now say:  “Injustice no more. Here we stand. Stand with us”

The current context

Today, the illegal regime and illegal forms of the Israeli occupation of Palestine assumes dimensions of systemic injustice whereby the unthinkable and unimaginable becomes globally accepted, supported and normalized. This is an example of Empire (global domination) at work. It happens in Palestine as it happens in many other contexts around the world. At the same time, Palestine is clearly a global issue. The government of Israel claims to have and indeed enjoys an exceptional status within the international community. Israel regards itself to be above the law and is treated as exempt from international law. This status provides the Israeli government the freedom to occupy Palestine with impunity.

As witnessed with our own eyes, the treacherous conditions imposed by the Israeli occupation on Palestinians and their land have reached a level of almost unimaginable and sophisticated criminality. This includes the slow yet deliberate and systematic ethnic cleansing and the geo-cide of Palestinians and Palestine as well as the strangling of the Palestinian economy. The brutality in the “violence of silence” internationally provides an almost impenetrable shield for the Israeli government to implement its evil designs in blatant disregard for human rights and international law. Silence is an opinion. Inaction is an action. We witness decidedly spineless cowardice in failure to resist the Israeli government by the majority of governments, political parties, media outlets, businesses, most of organized religion — including Christianity — and the silence of prophets worldwide. This makes us accomplices in crimes against humanity, such as the crimes of apartheid and persecution as described in international law.[1]

We witness also the resolve and resilience of Palestinians to match the imbalance of political, economic and military power with unbending steadfastness for their freedom and just peace.

The deligitimization and criminalization of the Israeli government and its local and international support base is gaining unstoppable momentum. The existence of international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns and other forms of non-violent resistance is an established fact. The government and state of Israel is now regarded as an apartheid regime in terms of international law, with particular reference to the UN Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court. The severity of the Palestinian situation makes comparisons with apartheid in South Africa superfluous and almost irrelevant. The benchmark is international law and not South Africa.

Globally we observe a context of growing fluidity and volatility. In this context, we are deeply concerned to observe how governments and societies in the West, including churches and ecumenical bodies dominated by the West, are becoming more and more exclusive, supremacist and dictatorial in conserving an unjust status quo. Furthermore, the growing economic and political volatility of world powers in North America and Europe creates a context of uncertainty for precise timelines in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian situation. However this fluidity in addition to the Arab Awakening holds potential for hope.

The global South, also complicit in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, possesses the potential to be an untapped source of hope. This potential holds value not only for Palestinians but also for those societies in the global North where Empire crumbles.

We are also acutely aware of struggles for justice everywhere, including within Israel itself. We have come to ignite, nurture and strengthen a Kairos consciousness for each of these contexts as interconnected and interrelated. We draw inspiration and strength from each other and also from progressive peace activists and human rights groups in Israel.

In the deep pain of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, of Palestinian refugees and of Israeli Arab citizens, we witnessed the tears of God. God keeps the flame of faith alive, as the darkness of despair closes in. God lives and breathes in the lament of those whose future has been stolen. In the cries of the dispossessed we have sensed the passion of God for right to prevail.

God takes sides for justice against injustice. God does not take kindly to injustice and the perpetrators of injustice. “He has shown the might with His arm. He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly (Luke 1:46-55).  A spirituality that recognizes the face of God in every human being is, therefore, inevitably marked by a bias towards justice for the poor and the oppressed. “One thing God requires of you is only this, to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God,” (Micah 6:8). This is the true essence of both Testaments. Christ still weeps over Jerusalem.

A Kairos is both the recognition of God’s will and the urgency of our response. It is in the awareness of a God of the Now, who is deeply involved in the human predicament. God keeps us steadfast in courage, hope and love as we continue to struggle and resist.

We pray and plead for a radical change of hearts, policies and practices of the Israeli government and those governments that support it. If this does not happen, we pray in trembling and hope if it is God’s will…. for these governments to fall.

Some non-negotiable: Occupation no more

In the light of the above and with our conviction that Palestine is in an ever deepening crisis, Kairos Palestine urgently calls us to move forward boldly and act radically by speaking out with courage, passion and determination. The time for words and diplomatic niceties, that obscure the reality, are over. We affirm the churches’ commitment to and contributions for decisive action since the Amman Call as well as in the creation and impact of the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum (PIEF). Nevertheless, we will strengthen and increase our advocacy initiatives.

Therefore, we:

·         Reject the silence of the church, lest we be accomplices in crimes against humanity, such as those of apartheid and persecution. It is imperative to speak up and cry with the oppressed in demanding justice.
·         Refuse to be coerced into accepting financial assistance from any church or organisation that supports the Occupation.
·         Challenge any church which, either directly or indirectly, invests in companies which support the occupation. As congregants of a church, we will be alert towards church policies and challenge unethical financial investment and spending practices.
·         Call the Israeli occupation of Palestine a crime and sin. We reject any theological or political justification for the Occupation. We regard such theologies as defying the core of the Gospel.
·         Reject any argument aimed at convincing Palestinians and the international community that the problems are caused by Muslims rather than the Occupation.
·         Demand that churches take bold and courageous positions for justice against injustice. We are appalled at the spiritual and institutional cowardice that refuses to take an unequivocal stand for justice. Equally, victims and perpetrators cannot be put on equal footing in efforts to create illusions of balance.
·         Confirm our obligation to resist the Occupation in faith, hope and love. We reject calls to cease advocating and practising BDS or any other form of non-violent civil resistance that will end the Occupation.
·         Resist being party to any church or church-related organisation offering tours to the Holy Lands that do not include an encounter with local Palestinians and express our opposition to such initiatives.  Alternative tourism groups are now available that Christians and others can avail themselves of.
·         Demand that the Right of Return for all Palestinian refugees be enforced.
·         Steadfastly uphold the principle of compassion toward the oppressor. We acknowledge and understand their experiences of oppression, fears and insecurities. Our demands are in the best interests for a better future for all involved.

In love, we rage against injustice and yet refuse to be destroyed by our anger.

Our vision: Call to act now

A shared vision of peace with justice inspires us to respond with committed action, at this critical moment. This vision must include affirming voices from the Jewish,,Muslim and other faith traditions that express hope for a pluralistic, democratic society here.

The tide is turning. The pain will pass soon if we act now. This calls for a collective willingness to take risks in the cause of justice.

Theology: One voice for justice

We commit ourselves to develop contextual biblical theologies and practices of resistance and liberation. We will unmask those theologies in our midst that are harbingers of death for Palestinians and the oppressed worldwide and which challenge traditional ways of doing theology.

Dismantling Israeli apartheid

We support and commit ourselves to the dismantling of Israeli apartheid, insist on the enforcement of international law and ensuring the fulfillment of legitimate demands of Palestinians. These demands include:

·         People living side by side in justice and peace within pre-1967 borders;
·         A shared Jerusalem including open access to all holy sites;
·         The right of return for Palestinian refugees;
·         An end to all settlement extensions and dismantling of the settlement system;
·         Free access to water and sanitation;
·         The breakdown of the apartheid wall.

We should not accept the argument that the fear of civil unrest between Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a deterrent to achieving Palestinian freedom.

Prophetic communities that support Palestine

We commit to:

·         Acknowledge that people at the community level are empowered as the primary theologians of a Kairos Consciousness.
·         Develop effective south-north and south-south coalitions for prophetic action
·         Agree that Kairos Palestine create a core group to facilitate these coalitions

[1]               Relevant international laws include the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (adopted in 1973 and enacted in 1976); and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 7 (1)(h) & (j),and Article 2 (g) & (h) 0f 1998.

Boycott-Divestment-Sanction (BDS): Creative, non-violent resistance now

·         We commit to engage in creative, non-violent resistance in response to the call from our Palestinian sisters and brothers to this end, including BDS.
·         We will actively participate in and lend credibility to popular, non-violent resistance in Palestine, Israel  and internationally, including giving effect to BDS
·         We will oppose with appropriate means the policies of our governments that support the occupation.

Holy Lands Tourism and Pilgrimage

We will:

·         Promote and participate in alternative tourism and Kairos pilgrimages in the Holy Lands for the purposes of spiritual nurturing, awareness-raising and advocacy.
·         Insist that such tours be organized by or in partnership with Palestinian tour operators
·         Utilize those travel agencies that follow “Come and See: A Call from Palestinian Christians for Ethical Tourism”2. We will challenge and boycott those that do not.
·         Actively seek to enable targeted groups to travel to Israel-Palestine.

Conclusion

The Bethlehem Call for a here-we-stand, stand-with-us journey provides each one of us a joyous blessing and honor, difficult though the journey may be. We seize this opportune, Kairos moment with conviction and hope.

Palestinians and a world community have gathered: here in, breaking barriers between regions and cultures and building bridges of friendship and solidarity because we have a common dream to see a Palestine and a world free of all forms of injustice. We believe that each one of us was called to Bethlehem for a purpose.

“We are the ones we have been waiting for.” (Alice Walker)

A Franciscan benediction:

May God bless us with discomfort at easy answers, at half truths and superficial relationships so that we may live deeply within our hearts. May God bless us with anger at injustice, oppression and exploitation. May God bless us with tears to share for those who suffer in pain, rejection, starvation and war, so that we may reach out our hands to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy.  And may God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a difference in this world so that we can do what others claim cannot be done. And may the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah, and Jesus born in Bethlehem of our sister Mary, and of the Holy Spirit, who broods over the world as a mother over her children, be upon us and remain with us always. Amen.

Rashid Khalidi’s Interview Reported in Haaretz

  • Published 11:55 05.12.11

Leading Palestinian intellectual: We already have a one-state solution

Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi says nobody believes firing rockets is resistance that will liberate Palestine or that talking with the U.S. will deliver a just and lasting solution.

By Chemi Shalev Tags: Hamas Palestinians

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority should unite, unequivocally renounce violence and jettison the U.S.-led peace process which is “a corpse that has had formaldehyde pumped into its veins for over a decade” – this is the diagnosis and prescription of Professor Rashid Khalidi, one of the leading Palestinian intellectuals in the world.

“Nobody believes that firing rockets and getting 1,400 people killed in response is ‘resistance’ that is going to liberate Palestine, and nobody believes that talking with the U.S., with Dennis Ross putting his thumb on the scales in favor of Israel, which is already overwhelmingly superior, is going to produce an equitable and just and lasting solution of the Palestine question. If you still believe that – you have to have your head examined,” the U.S.-born Khalidi said.

Palestinian Professor Rashid Khalidi.
Photo by: Alex Levac

Khalidi, a member of the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid peace process in the early 1990s, and one of the first proponents of a two-state solution expressed grave doubts about the chances for its implementation, because of what he describes as the “inexorable work of the bulldozers” and Israel’s “settlement-industrial complex”. In any case, he added, the two-state solution was but a “way station” that would not mean end-of-conflict and would still necessitate agreement on Palestinian refugees and on Israel’s “Palestinian minority” before a comprehensive settlement could be achieved.

A “one-state solution already exists,” he added, because “there is only one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, in which there are two or three levels of citizenship or non-citizenship within the borders of that one state that exerts total control.”

Laying much of the blame for their situation on the Palestinians themselves, he called on them to “re-imagine” the way a Palestinian state would work. “Why not have a Palestinian state in which Jews live? What’s wrong with that?” And in what might sound as an echo of Israeli complaints about the “Tel Aviv state”, Khalidi said that Palestinian leaders need to mobilize their people and “get them out their expensive Audis and Mercedes and out of their bubble in Ramallah where everyone is prosperous and there is no unemployment.”

Khalidi refused to discuss any aspect of his personal relations with U.S. President Obama, which featured so prominently in the 2008 presidential campaign and was used to criticize Obama’s attitude toward Israel. But Khalidi’s criticism of the President’s Middle East policies is withering: “I had low expectations and my low expectations were more than fulfilled. He’s done considerably worse than I would have expected.”

Khalidi said that Obama had squandered his chance of making meaningful changes during his first two years in office, when the Democrats still controlled Congress “and since they lost Congress a year and a half ago, Benjamin Netanyahu has more influence over these issues than the president does. Because he has a House and a Senate that will carry him on their shoulders as far as he wants to go. The President can’t do that.”

In a wide-ranging interview conducted in his office at Columbia University in New York, where he is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Khalidi also dismissed Israel’s existential fears of Iran as “fantasy” and said that the leaders of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood are “pragmatic” and would not abrogate Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel.

On the other hand, Khalidi expressed grave concern about the extremist Salafi party’s performance in the Egyptian parliamentary elections, which “shocked” him, and suggested that its success may be connected to Saudi funding. “There are several scores of Saudi princes who have personal budgets as large as medium-sized states. So there are 20 or 30 Saudi ‘foreign policies,'” he said.

At the same time, Khalidi believes that Islamist parties will have a hard time maintaining their current popularity in the Arab world, a development that already be seen in what he described as the Gaza public’s growing disenchantment with Hamas. “It’s perfectly fine to come in with a slogan that ‘Islam is the solution’, but try to solve a housing crisis, or infrastructure, or unemployment, with ‘Islam is the solution’, he said.

“This is a process that’s going to fall through – if it’s not short-circuited by hysterical people from the outside,” he added.

On Iran, Khalidi believes that “Ahmadinejad is a technician who has no real role in security or foreign policy or where the military is concerned. You try to convince Americans of that – as far as they are concerned, he’s Hitler’s little brother.”

He said that Israeli leaders are “cynically and irresponsibly” drumming up fears of Iran in order to “maintain Israel’s dominance over the region” and that Jerusalem must change its attitude towards Teheran “which means layers of hysteria, and lies and exaggeration and propaganda are going to have to be peeled back.”

“The idea that Israel is under any existential danger is fantasy. The idea that the Iranians would incinerate a 3,000-4,000 year old civilization for some apocalyptic reason and destroy themselves as a government, as a regime, and as individuals – is irrational,” Khalidi said.

Khalidi, who lived for many years in Beirut, also warned of an outbreak of “civil war and sectarian violence” in Syria, which would be “catastrophic for the whole region”. He accused the Gulf countries of stirring the pot in Syria and of drumming up sectarian animosity.

 

Click here for the full text of the interview.

 

Follow me on Twitter @ChemiShalev

Come visit Israel. Before it’s gone. Bradley Burston

by Bradley Burston

Come visit Israel. Before it’s gone.

You’re going to have to hurry.

By Bradley Burston   15/11/11

I have a nephew who’s never seen Israel. I have young cousins, and friends and children of friends, who have never been here, but who have long wanted to come visit.

I want them to come soon. Before it’s all gone.

Sukkot holiday, family, Galilee, hike A family enjoying a hike in the Galilee on Oct. 13, 2011.
Photo by: Gil Eliyahu

The Israel I want them to see is dying by the day.

It’s the Israel I saw when I myself once came to visit. A place which had a calm but breathtaking belief in a better future. A place that still had a shot at just that. It was this Israel that convinced me to stay.

This is this Israel that this government, and this parliament, has decided, once and for all, to finish off, precept by democratic precept. As they see it, the sooner, the quieter, and the more permanently, the better.

My nephew is going to have to hurry.

I want him to see what’s left of a place of quietly extraordinary people who dreamed of decency and peace, who envisioned making a place in the world where both we and our immediate neighbors could live together: no longer hated, no longer hating.

It was a place where there was an overriding belief that democracy was sacred, that minority rights should be respected more and more, rather than less and ultimately not at all.

This was the place I came to so many years ago, unfamiliar with its rude clamor and its face-slap smells, the directness of its language and its unfamiliar concepts of personal space.

Foreign. It was a place that believed that affordable housing and quality health care and reasonable living costs and reliable employment should be available to the poor and well as the well-off, to the elderly and infirm and the pre-existing condition, to the Arab as well as the Jew.

I want my nephew to know that there was once a place that his great-grandparents, believers in social justice who had been anarchists in Bialystok and became anarchists in Boyle Heights, could take pride in.

I want him to see it before they kill it. Kill it with settlements. Kill it with privatization and Social Darwinism and the lie they call the free market. Shred by shred, what is good is being drained away, voted away, diluted away in secret, or torn away by force.

Every morning we wake to it. Dreading it. Every morning, a new abomination, an obscene policy proposal, a rabbinical outrage, new plans to expel Palestinians from homes in Jerusalem, new plans to drive Bedouin from homes in the Negev, new steps taken to insult the United States, new ways of threatening a free press, new permits to expand settlements, an endless stream of opaquely worded legislative assaults on democracy, from ravenous middle and back-bench politicians on the make.

Last week, as Israel marked the watershed of the assassination of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, I was thinking about the place this could have been. The Israel, for example, that was the promise of the Rabin government.

A government that related seriously to the needs of Israeli Arabs. A government that more than doubled the education budget for all Israeli children. A government that fostered construction of thousands of homes for young couples and families within Israel, that invested millions in depressed outlying towns rather than new settlements, that dramatically expanded ties with the Muslim world, and with developing nations.

I want my nephew to meet my heroes, the people who have made it through wars and tragedy and this government and who still believe in that Israel whose future is one of social justice and peace.

I want my nephew to know that most Israelis believe that settlements do little other than ruin their lives, stain their country, and block the way to peace.

I want my nephew to see that people here have let down their guard and have let the people in power run and ruin their lives. When scouts in the Book of Numbers called this a land that eats away at its inhabitants (13:32), they knew what they were talking about.

I want my nephew to meet my heroes, the people who still believe in the Israel that can endure. Not one big ghetto of a doomed settlement, but one modest jewel of a country. People who hope for good, people who see all people as deserving of respect, safety and freedom, are heroes. And, for the time being at least, they’re still here.

I Woke Up This Morning with Freedom on My Mind: Clarence B. Jones

Last month I was invited as a guest to a reunion of former Assistant and Deputy Attorneys General from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department during the presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Pulitzer-Prize-winning civil rights historian Taylor Branch and civil rights activists Julian Bond and Robert Moses also attended. Moses had been Mississippi Field Director of Voter Registration for the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee during the 1960s. The reunion was also the occasion for the celebration of the 90th birthday of John Doer, the former Civil Rights Division’s Deputy Attorney General.

Several historically memorable civil rights events were discussed: Albany, Ga., 1962; Birmingham, Ala., 1963; the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, 1963; Mississippi summer of 1964; the march from Selma to Montgomery, 1965; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; etc. As Dr. King’s lawyer and political advisor during those years and events, I represented him and the SCLC. We frequently appealed for support and assistance from either Attorney General Robert Kennedy and/or President Johnson.

We were often positioned or viewed as “adversarial.” On the orders of Attorney General RFK, wiretaps were illegally installed on my home and office phones, along with the home and office phones of Dr. King, by J. Edgar Hoover, from July 13, 1963 until the end of December 1967. After transcribing the content of every conversation, 24/7/365, that took place between us, the wiretaps were discontinued by Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

I was glad to learn more about the individual dedication of several lawyers in the Justice Department during those years. They worked to enable the civil rights movement to succeed in challenging racial segregation in public facilities and sought to protect our efforts at voter registration. As historian Nick Kotz writes in Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America, “Without tens of thousands of demonstrators demanding change as they transformed restaurant counters into venues for sit-ins, bus trips in to Freedom Rides, and voter registration into bloody battlefields, the shining moments of the 1960s never would have become a possibility.”

The Civil Rights Division’s “baptism by fire” during the administration of President Kennedy was the interracial Freedom Riders journeys to desegregate interstate bus transportation. The Freedom Riders sounded an alarm bell to awaken our nation’s conscience to one of the most egregious and personally humiliating forms of racial segregation that hundreds of thousands of African Americans had to endure, the precepts and principles of equality and justice enshrined in our Declaration of Independence notwithstanding.

During the “Arab Spring” I was pleased to learn that several of its leaders had not only read about Mahatma Gandhi’s and Dr. King’s philosophies and actions of nonviolent civil disobedience, but they had also studied Gene Sharp’s Self-Liberation: A Guide to Strategic Planning for Action to End a Dictatorship or Other Oppression, published by the Albert Einstein Institution. Earlier this week I received a press release that reminded me of the connection a new generation of people from the Middle East feels about the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The release says that next Tuesday Palestinian activists from the Ramallah Cultural Palace in the West Bank “will attempt to board segregated Israeli public transportation headed from inside the West Bank to occupied East Jerusalem in an act of civil disobedience inspired by the Freedom Riders of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement in the 60s.” The press release continues by saying:

Fifty years after the U. S. Freedom Riders staged mixed-race bus rides through the roads of the segregated American South, Palestinian activists will attempt to board segregated Israeli public transportation headed from inside the West Bank … asserting their right for liberty and dignity by disrupting the military regime of the Occupation through peaceful civil disobedience.

While it is not officially forbidden for Palestinians to use Israeli public transportation in the West Bank, these lines are effectively segregated, since many of them pass through Jewish-only settlements, to which Palestinian entry is probhited by a military decree.

The media seems fixated on Herman Cain’s alleged sexual misconduct, Governor Rick Perry’s momentary lapses of memory, Mitt Romney’s alleged political “flip-flops,” and who will emerge as the GOP challenger to the reelection of President Obama. Nevertheless, as the recent disclosure of an unknown open mic discussion between Presidents Obama and Sarkozy about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu indicates, major matters continue that affect U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, the Palestinians and the Middle East.

Once again, America is transfixed on an incident of alleged sexual harassment by a political figure intertwined with the issue of race. Meanwhile, our outsized debt, national spending, high unemployment, housing foreclosures and Wall Street bonuses also continue unabated.

It is refreshing that amidst all of this Sturm und Drang, some Palestinian activists remain inspired by the legacy of our Freedom Riders.

The question confronting us is whether our sense of moral responsibility can transcend the latest “scandal” of the week long enough for us to focus our attention on the plea from our Palestinian brothers and sisters.

Just as our Freedom Riders in the 20th century were primarily directed to awaken the conscience and sense of decency in the majority of white America, our Palestinian “Freedom Riders” brothers and sisters are seeking, in the 21st century, to awaken the conscience of the world and a majority of Israelis.

On Nov. 8 the Associated Press reported that the State Department had announced that “[i]nternational Mideast mediators will hold separate talks with the Israelis and Palestinians this week in a bid to re-launch stalled peace talks after a series of setbacks that have badly damaged prospects for negotiations.” This is good news.

My attendance at the reunion of lawyers from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department reminded me of what Martin Luther King, Jr. would often say: “The moral arc of the Universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It is this same moral arc that enabled Civil Rights Justice Department personnel to gather in pride to celebrate their work more than 50 years ago and enabled me to see them with greater respect than I did at the time.

I woke up this morning humming a song from our Civil Rights Movement. It made me think about Dr. King’s moral “arc.” The “arc” is also resilient enough for me to hear the plea of the Palestinian “Freedom Riders” from Ramallah in the West Bank.

I hope that amidst the media clatter of domestic presidential politics, you can also hear them.

Israel to Palestine: “You are Damned if You Do, and Damned if You Don’t”

Israel to Palestine: “You are Damned if You Do, and Damned if You Don’t”

NEW YORK — Nov. 3, 2011 — The Israel Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA)* (IPMN) condemns the announcement by the Israeli government to accelerate expansion of settlement construction and financially sanction the Palestinian Authority as a response to the successful bid by its leadership to join UNESCO this week. The IPMN calls upon President Obama to take a clear, public stand against this decision because it threatens any hope that peace negotiations can occur between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in the foreseeable future.

By this action, Israel’s intentions have become quite clear: It will expand settlements when the Palestinians are at the negotiating table; and, it will expand settlements when they are not at the table. With this move, Israel is taking away the legitimate choice all peoples have of seeking relief within the appropriate international structures dedicated towards global community and peace building. In addition, in light of reports by Israel’s own generals that the Palestinian Authority has played a major role in reducing extremist violence, it is absurd to cut off funds to an official Palestinian entity that is helping to achieve nonviolence inside the pressure cooker of Israeli apartheid.

Historically, in regard to settlement building, the facts cannot be disputed: Israel has been expanding them at break neck speed under the leadership of every one of its prime ministers since the Six-Day War in June 1967. The pace has even accelerated following the breakdown of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Israeli historian, Gershom Gorenberg has pointed out why settlement expansion, and not peace negotiations, is the top priority for Israeli leadership: “What we’re seeing is a classic example where a diplomatic initiative has the effect of accelerating settlement construction. When there is a fear or suspicion that a diplomatic process might actually take place…there is a tendency among settlement supporters within the government to try to speed things up.”

Complicating matters is the recent announcement by the United States State Department to withhold $60M from UNESCO, as dictated by U.S. law (1990 & 1994) requiring the withdrawal of financial support from any U.N. entity that admits Palestine into its membership. Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO) described what is at stake as a result of this decision: “The United States is on the brink of abandoning its decades-long leadership in several international organizations-a process that will fundamentally undermine American national security and economic interests … UNESCO leads global efforts to bring clean water to the poor, promotes educational and curriculum building in the developing world, and manages a tsunami early warning system in the Pacific, among other important tasks.”

The Palestinians will be applying for membership in all 16 U.N. agencies in the coming months. These include the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If these U.N. agencies vote to admit Palestine as UNESCO did so overwhelmingly, will the United States continue to withdraw its support in a time when its leadership in such areas is so greatly needed? Will the United States actually find itself in the position of sabotaging efforts towards global stability and well-being because of its indefensible, parochial view that Palestine can only seek terms of a just peace through the methods or channels the U.S. has approved? Will the U.S. stand against Palestinian membership in U.N. agencies just to satisfy Israel even at the cost of U.S. interests elsewhere in the world?

The Israel Palestine Mission Network regrets that an effort by Palestinian leadership to work within the structures of the greatest international peacekeeping and peacemaking body in the world can lead to even more isolation of Israel and the U.S. and further undermine peace, security and justice not only in the Middle East but globally. The network calls upon all Christian, as well as interfaith bodies to contact our national leadership at every level to make our financial and military aid to Israel contingent upon an immediate halt to the building and expansion of illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

*Established by action of the 2004 General Assembly, the IPMN seeks to demonstrate solidarity, educate about the facts on the ground, and change the conditions that erode the humanity of both Israelis and Palestinians, especially those who are living under occupation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The network speaks TO the Church not FOR the Church.

 

Another Kind of Balance

While we work toward peace, can we ignore the ongoing human tragedy in the Holy Land? 

Anne K. Lynn

Somehow, it was not obvious to me that Christians in the Holy Land, descendents of the Apostles, are Palestinian.  Those blond Jesus images from childhood take a long time to erase.   Palestinian Christians did not convert to Christianity; they’ve lived and spread Christ’s message throughout the region over the last 2000 years.  And now, after decades of turmoil in the region, Palestinian Christians, once the majority, have withered to less than 2% of the population.  That’s startling news to most.

And they’re suffering.  One of many examples: two Israeli civil rights groups estimated earlier this year that East Jerusalem needs 1000 more public school classrooms than currently exist for Palestinian children.  Families there must choose among inadequate facilities, private schools with unaffordable fees or in the case of about 5,300 children just in East Jerusalem, no education at all.   Travel to hospitals is difficult or impossible, turning manageable conditions into crises or permanent disabilities.  Rather than contributing to a vital, growing community, the chronically ill become dependent, a drain on scarce resources.

What would you do in these circumstances?  I know I’d leave.  And leave they do.  The result is that the remaining Palestinian Christians are statistically more likely to be elderly, poor or female than their Muslim or Jewish counterparts.  Charles Sennott wrote in The Body and the Blood that those who remain no longer feel they belong or that they even matter.   They feel forgotten by both the peace negotiators and their Christian brothers and sisters around the world.   Sennott added that the more polarizing groups in the region “are drowning them out, squeezing them from the public space.”  Their voice of reconciliation and tolerance is barely heard.  Without external support, the result will be a Holy Land with no indigenous Christian presence.

Sennott argues, and we agree, that if the Christian population vanishes, so will an important voice for religious tolerance.  Christian institutions imbed respect for differences in their service delivery which is one reason those of other faiths choose Christian hospitals and attend Christian schools.   The region needs as many reliable, neutral buffers as possible to provide a sense of safety and permanence.  Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant congregations and institutions often provide that buffer.

Phoebe Griswold, President of the Board of the American Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem posed the following question recently:  What goes on on the other side of the wall?  While others rightly focus on political advocacy and a political solution to the hardships the wall represents, how do we address the daily human cost in lives lost to frustration and despair?   AFEDJ helps to provide the Diocese of Jerusalem with resources to educate and heal those trapped in the stifling situation which they had no part in creating.  Can we be observers of suffering without addressing the immediate, human need?

We’ve been told that providing humanitarian aid in this region is a weak response to a muscular problem.  We disagree.  When politics and diplomacy have been unable to deliver, we as Christians and as human beings may not walk away from the consequences of that failure.  Political pressure, while important, doesn’t put food on the table today.   And while there’s surely no peace without justice, the Rt. Rev. Suheil Dawani has said that you can’t make peace with hungry people.

Every day that we don’t directly support our abandoned and suffering brothers and sisters is a day that increases and encourages the brain drain.  We could end up striving for a peace in a land devoid of indigenous Christian believers, creating a kind of religious theme park.  Imagine the paths where Jesus trod without a living Christian presence.

The institutions of the Diocese of Jerusalem include 14 schools, 2 full service hospitals, 4 outpatient clinics, 3 institutes for the disabled plus facilities for the elderly and for pilgrims in addition to 23 parishes.  These institutions encourage a vibrant, stabile community to retain residents, develop businesses, to prepare future leadership and to model the spirit of reconciliation and hope that will be the basis for a sustainable peace.   This is nation building — developing peace and justice from the ground up.

Some argue that developing a stronger civil society takes too long, that a negotiated peace breakthrough would be the only true and permanent fix.  But sustaining peace requires an educated population with the resources to develop economic self-sufficiency.   The World Bank published a report in September which began with this statement: “The viability of a future Palestinian state will be determined by the strength of its institutions and its ability to sustain economic growth.”

With a coordinated effort on the part of the Episcopal Church and other mainline Christian denominations, developing a functioning civil society could be accomplished in 20 years.  It’s the peace process that’s taking too long.  We can build infrastructure, economic opportunity, educational institutions – stability and hope — in the same amount of time.

Peace and justice and humanitarian aid are two sides of the same coin.   One without the other is ineffective and temporary.  Peace among hopeless people is a soulless, unacceptable victory just as well-fed people with no freedom would be.   Justice is a core value, and a goal that needs to be bound to the real, overwhelming daily needs of our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land.  A combined solution is a powerful engine for the future.  One without the other is incomplete.

We know about the high levels of unemployment, the affronts to basic dignity, the destruction and despair.  But at what point do these stop becoming statistics to bolster an argument and become a living breathing human tragedy?  As long as the struggle to obtain a just peace continues to confound our best and brightest, we must consider the human cost of this endless process.  We cannot allow residents of the region to bear the price of our failure alone.  We have an obligation to fight both fights at the same time.  Pincer movements win battles.  By combining the hard work for a just peace with the equally hard work of developing a functioning civil society, we can claim not just a human rights victory, but a compassionate, human lives one as well.

We each have a role to play in this effort  —  building presence, building peace.  Let’s find it and change history.  A solution in the Holy Land is too important to be left to politics alone.  It deserves a response from the heart as well as the head.

Anne Lynn is the Executive Director of the American Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem.  For further information, visit www.afedj.org

Christison: The Problem with ‘Balance’

EPF/PIN talk, Chicago

Kathleen Christison

October 18, 2011

 THE PROBLEM WITH ‘BALANCE’

 Everyone in this room, I’m sure, has heard the injunction that those of us who speak for justice for the Palestinians must be “balanced.”  Balanced, the great Middle East buzzword—usually meaning that, if we criticize Israel, we must also criticize the Palestinians equally.  If we speak of injustice done to Palestinians by Israel, we must also recall the Holocaust, and injustices inflicted on Jews, and Jewish pain.

We might want to dismiss this demand with a shrug or a rolling of the eyes as something that’s unnecessary, even unfair.  But unfortunately the demand that we be balanced is a reality that we will always be confronted with as we try to educate congregations about the situation in Palestine and raise awareness about Palestinian needs for justice and freedom from oppression.

It’s the kind of pushback that will always be shoved at us, and always with moral overtones: we are inevitably charged with anti-Semitism if we attempt to criticize Israel, if we simply lay out the facts of what Palestinians endure under Israeli occupation, and most certainly if we explain the Palestinian case without also giving the Israeli side.  Nowadays, the charge that’s heard more often than anti-Semitism is “de-legitimization” of Israel.  Today, it’s less a case of being perceived as personally hateful toward Jews, as with anti-Semitism, than of wanting to destroy the entire Jewish state of Israel.

This is the counter to almost any criticism of Israeli policies.  These are heavy charges to deal with for anyone; being accused of the kind of ethnic and religious hatred that once led to the Holocaust is heavy.  And these charges have caused many a stalwart crusader for Palestinians to back down.  And caused many of the rest of us to walk on eggshells, pull our punches, and be less forthright and honest than we should be.

When I talk about the demand for “balance,” by the way, I’m not talking about the situation I described yesterday when my rector said she simply wished I had noted in my presentation of the Kairos Palestine document that there are many Israelis and American Jews also working for justice for Palestinians.  This is OK.  (I’m still frankly irritated by the need always to say something good about Israelis whenever one talks about Palestinian suffering, but I can accept this kind of demand for “balance” as fairly easy to accomplish and not dishonest.)

What I mean when I talk about the demand for balance that we so often face is the dishonest demand that we treat Israelis as suffering equally with Palestinians, or the notion that Palestinian terrorism is as destructive of true peace as are Israeli human rights violations, and Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians, and the Israeli occupation—when, for instance Israeli supporters demand ahead of an event that a conference have as many speakers who present the Israeli perspective as speakers who present the Palestinian perspective, or when after the fact Israeli supporters criticize a presentation or an article or book as unbalanced and one-sided because it did not devote an equal amount of time or space to Palestinian wrongdoing as to Israeli wrongdoing.

This is a very real, very serious problem that we confront.  It is a profoundly moral issue, but I think we can take the moral high ground here.  Israel and its supporters attempt to put the moral burden, the moral onus on us as Palestinians and Palestinian supporters—for simply being Palestinian or for speaking out for Palestinians, as if, as Edward Said once said, Palestinians have terrorism in their genes—and as if, I might add, Jews have innocence and virtue in their genes.

But in fact—and I believe this is the approach we should use when confronted with these demands for balance—in fact, the bottom line is that there is no equality whatsoever in the Israeli and the Palestinian situations, and there is no moral equivalence between an oppressor and an oppressed people.  Moral equivalence, of course, is the argument Israeli supporters often throw up at the Palestinians: Israel is more virtuous, more innocent than the Palestinians, who are terrorists.  We can turn this around, I think, and ask where is the moral equivalence between the occupied population and their oppressive occupier, between a people who were dispossessed and the dispossessors?

Desmond Tutu gets to the point most simply and directly: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice,” he has said, “you have chosen the side of the oppressor.  If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

The Croatian-American theologian Miroslav Volf has said much the same thing.  In his book Exclusion and Embrace—which, although it doesn’t address the Palestinian-Israeli situation, is about precisely hatred of the “other” and the exclusion of one people that we see in Palestine—he says that “neutrality is positively harmful.”  For one thing, he says, a la Tutu, “it gives tacit support to the stronger party….Second, neutrality shields the perpetrators and frees their hands precisely by the failure to name them as perpetrators.  Third, neutrality encourages the worst behavior of perpetrator and victim alike.  If one party can get away with atrocities without offsetting neutrality, the other party, especially since it sees itself struggling for a just cause, will resort to atrocities too.”

He goes on, and I hope you’ll indulge me for a minute because this is so pertinent:

There is another sense in which no neutrality is possible.  For those who appeal to the biblical traditions, the presumption that one perspective is as valid as the other until proven otherwise is unacceptable.  The initial suspicion against the perspective of the powerful is necessary.  Not because the powerless are innocent, but because the powerful have the means to impose their own perspective by argument and propaganda, and support the imposition both with the attractiveness of their ‘glory’ and with the might of their weaponry.  In part, their power lies in the ability to produce and give plausibility to ideologies that justify their power….

Often, the only resource of the powerless is the power of their desperate cry.  The Jewish prophets—and indeed the whole of the Scriptures—are biased toward the powerless.  Such a preferential option for the powerless implies a privileged hearing for those whose voices are excluded….If justice is what we are after, then we will interrupt the powerful rhetoric of the smooth-tongued and strain our ear to hear the feeble and crackling voice of ‘those who cannot speak’ (Proverbs 31:8).  The stammerings of the needy are an eloquent testimony to their violated rights; the spellbinding oratory of the powerful may well bespeak their bad conscience.  It is above all the powerful who need to practice ‘double vision’ [that is, seeing the perspective of the “other”]—the groans of the powerless should disturb the serenity of their comforting ideologies.

I think we must keep these images of the powerful versus the powerless in mind when we advocate for justice for the Palestinians.  It’s important, in the interests of true fairness, to make it clear that we don’t want injustice for Israelis or Jews and to make it clear also that many Israelis are working for true justice for the Palestinians.  But, in speaking to congregations, we need to treat the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the situation of the Palestinians as every bit as much a moral as a political issue: the immorality of the injustice the Palestinians suffer because they have been dispossessed, displaced, denied their status as a nation state, and forced to live in exile or under foreign occupation.

Desmond Tutu has noted that during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in South Africa, there was never any question of whether “apartheid was evil or only a good policy that had gone awry in its application….[A]partheid,” he said, “was intrinsically in and of itself evil without remainder.”  And this is the basis on which the truth was ferreted out in these hearings and reconciliation was achieved.  It should be no different in Palestine-Israel: the Israeli system, and I’m talking about the system, not the Israeli people or Jews—the system, which by the testimony of numerous South Africans, white and black, resembles apartheid in most of its aspects, is “intrinsically in and of itself evil without remainder.”  Kairos Palestine uses the word evil, and uses the word apartheid.  We should too.

The difference with Palestine, of course, is that almost no one recognizes or will acknowledge this evil.  But the message of South Africa is that the powerful, no matter how needy themselves, must not be able to gain redress at the expense of the powerless or to live in “the serenity of their comforting ideologies,” as Volf would have it, while the powerless are left simply to groan.

We have a difficult task.  I’ll give you the example of the response I received to an article I wrote years ago, 2004, for the website Counterpunch.  It was entitled “The Problem with Neutrality,” and in it I complained about the stated mission of many peace groups, including most of the supposedly progressive Jewish peace groups, which they define as finding what they call a “middle way” between Israel and the Palestinians.  I pointed out that seldom, maybe never, in history have “decent people seriously accepted balance and neutrality as a proper response in moral conflicts or national conflicts that pit one very powerful party against a powerless party.”  I drew an analogy between the Israeli occupation and slavery in the US in the 19th century.  Imagine that a group of well-meaning activists hope to end slavery without war.  They propose that the two sides strive for reconciliation, that slaves sit down at the negotiating table with slave owners and attempt—without any outside help—to work out their differences through negotiation.  These activists believe that slavery is oppressive but that the property rights of slave owners and their right to a livelihood must also be respected, that they have a right to exist and not be murdered in a slave uprising.  They propose a middle way between the two sides, in the belief that both are responsible for the conflict (because slaves have shown a propensity to rebel, causing the slave owners to tighten their oppressive grip), and they believe the only way to achieve peace is to avoid blaming either side.

This is of course absurd.  I also noted that in other colonial conflicts in the 20th century—in Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa, elsewhere in Africa and Asia, all conflicts that by their very nature involved an overwhelmingly strong power in absolute domination over a virtually powerless civilian population—no one, no mediator, no commentator, no activist group ever credibly proposed that the conflict be resolved by working from a neutral position to try “reconciling” the two sides.  The reason I bring all this up is to describe the response I received from a spokesman for the Jewish organization Tikkun, Rabbi Michael Lerner’s group.  What this person termed the “most significant” objection to the article was that I had not taken account of the fact that none of the groups I was analogizing—slave owners, white South Africans, etc.—had a “collective history of persecution and trauma similar in its breadth, depth, or recency to the traumas inherent in Jewish history.”  She did say that this did not excuse Israel’s behavior, but she believed that “the particular psychological backdrop of this conflict needs to be attended to skillfully for lasting change to occur.”  In other words—my interpretation—it’s not quite so bad when Israelis are oppressive because Jews have a history of suffering.

This is the kind of pushback we will get when we try to press the case for justice in Palestine.  And I haven’t even touched on the position of Christian churches, which, acting out of guilt over the Holocaust and over centuries of exclusion of Jews, have come around full circle to reaffirm unquestioningly the election, the chosenness, of Jews and everything about Israel.

It’s an indication, in fact, both of how pervasive is the impulse to protect Israel from criticism and of how Christian churches refuse in their guilt over the Holocaust to look at what Israel has done to the Palestinians that Miroslav Volf, in a book specifically dealing with the theology and the realities of exclusion of the “other” by a people considering itself superior, fails ever to mention Israel and its policy of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Let me just finish now by noting what Desmond Tutu took from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings that he led: that there can be “no future without forgiveness.”  This is quite profound, but I think it’s necessary also to say—as he makes clear in his beautiful book of this title—that there can be no forgiveness or reconciliation without truth, without redress.  The victims of apartheid and the victims of those who fought apartheid with violence did not forgive except when their victimizers spoke the truth, made restitution, acknowledged and showed remorse for their injustices.  It must be the same in Palestine.  Kairos Palestine itself speaks of reconciliation “once justice has been restored” (3.3.3)—that is, reconciliation after justice.

Palestine Justice Network | Copyright © 2026 All Rights Reserved

2045 West Grand Ave, Suite B #40058, Chicago, IL 60612-1577

info@epfpjn.org

LOGIN