Photo by Jeremy E. Meyer and licensed under CC BY 2.0. Cover design by Laura Cathey

Transcription

1 Perspec ves on Presbyterian Church (USA) Support for a Just and Peaceful Compromise of the Israeli Pales nian Conflict Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group of the Presbytery of Chicago Photo by Jeremy E. Meyer and licensed under CC BY 2.0. Cover design by Laura Cathey

2 Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group Presbytery of Chicago Discussion Paper: Perspectives on Presbyterian Church (USA) Support for a Just and Peaceful Compromise of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Introduction 1 Executive Summary. 2 Discussion Paper. 4 Responses: Middle East Task Force, Presbytery of Chicago.. 22 Rabbi Noam E. Marans, Director, Interreligious and Intergroup Relations, American Jewish Committee.. 25 Talat Othman, President, Metropolitan-Based Investment Management Firm. 27 Rev. Dr. Katharine Rhodes Henderson, President, Auburn Theological Seminary 30 Rabbi Yehiel Poupko, Rabbinic Scholar, Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Rabbi David Fox Sandmel, Director of Interfaith Affairs, Anti-Defamation League 36 Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President, Union for Reform Judaism. 38 Charles Wiley, Convener, Middle East Staff Team, Office of the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Mission Agency, Presbyterian Church (USA) 41

3 Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group Presbytery of Chicago Discussion Paper: Perspectives on Presbyterian Church (USA) Support for a Just and Peaceful Compromise of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is there a hopeful and humanizing perspective from which to view and engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group (EIWG) of the Presbytery of Chicago believes there is. The answer lies in coming to grips with two fundamental realities: The current situation is intolerable for Palestinians, and unsustainable for Israel. Despite the singularity of each people, their lives and destinies are intertwined. Any just and peaceful compromise of the conflict must be credible and real for both. The Work Group offers this paper as a contribution to the current discussion regarding the variety of positions within the Presbyterian Church (USA) towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EIWG drafted this discussion paper in active dialogue with persons associated with local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities, and various entities within the Presbyterian Church (USA). The EIWG is also including responses to the discussion paper from eight unique and often conflicting perspectives, illustrating the complexities, and facing up to the incongruities, that continue to make a just and peaceful compromise elusive. Nevertheless, we believe that Presbyterians must fulfill their call to work on behalf of reconciliation. In that spirit, we propose that Presbyterians actively support on-the-ground efforts for self-determination, human rights, and respectful co-existence, in order to create the conditions for an achievable, just and peaceful compromise, and lay the groundwork of the harder task of communal reconciliation, undertaken by, and for, both Palestinians and Israelis. 1

4 Perspectives on Presbyterian Church (USA) Support for a Just and Peaceful Compromise of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group Presbytery of Chicago Executive Summary All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to God s self, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to God s self, not counting their trespasses against them, but entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making God s appeal through us. (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) The Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group of the Presbytery of Chicago offers this paper as a contribution to the current discussion regarding the variety of positions within the Presbyterian Church (USA) towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EIWG drafted this discussion paper in active dialogue with persons associated with local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities, and various entities within the Presbyterian Church (USA). Shared Understanding is Necessary for Compromise The current situation is intolerable for Palestinians, and unsustainable for Israel. Presbyterians must listen to and honor the tragic histories and cherished aspirations of each people, as they understand it themselves. We must not seek to deny or diminish the incongruity of these two stories, nor try to equate the struggle and suffering conveyed in each. Despite the singularity of each people, their lives and destinies are intertwined. Any just and peaceful compromise of the conflict must be credible and real for both. Such a compromise can only be achieved through the self-determination of each people, coupled with a non-negotiable commitment to human rights and communal recognition for all concerned. Whatever form the final compromise may take, it will only be achieved through the actions taken by, and decisions made by, the two peoples directly involved. We propose that Presbyterians actively support on-the-ground efforts for self-determination, human rights, and respectful co-existence, in order to create the conditions for an achievable, just and peaceful compromise, and lay the groundwork of the harder task of communal reconciliation, undertaken by, and for, both Israelis and Palestinians. Key Questions Is there a hopeful and humanizing perspective from which to view and engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is there a way for the selfdetermination of one people not to delegitimize the selfdetermination of other people? Is there a practical and effective approach for engaging parties on all sides in the active pursuit of an achievable just and peaceful resolution? Is there a way for Presbyterians to acknowledge and serve the cause of reconciliation and healing for all concerned that must inevitably follow from such a negotiated compromise? Any stances or actions taken by the PC (USA) must seek to ensure Israel s right to exist and the end of the military occupation of the West Bank; to resolve the question of East Jerusalem; and to reverse the economic embargo of Gaza by both Israel and Egypt. Conversely, opposing measures that create obstacles to a twostate compromise such as normalizing the occupation, or threatening the safety and well-being of Israeli citizens must also be a part of the calculation. As a denomination, Presbyterians are compelled to work on behalf of both sides for a just and peaceful compromise. We should create the conditions that enable the pursuit of an equitable two-state compromise and eliminate the obstacles to such an agreement in pursuit of achieving the desired goal. 2

5 Call to Action: Promote the Conditions Necessary for a Just and Peaceful Future Support Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers and their initiatives Presbyterians in cooperation with local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities can identify and support initiatives in the region and the US, where Israelis and Palestinians are working for the economic and social development of Palestinians, and reconciliation on behalf of both peoples. For example: Work of the Children of Ibillin and Fr. Elias Chacour Palestinian Children s Relief Fund Seek partnerships Presbyterians can seek partnerships regardless of ideological differences - with Jews and Palestinians in service to any aspect of securing a just and peaceful compromise of the conflict. For example: Oppose the sale of products from contested settlements in the West Bank Petition Hamas to revise its charter in recognition of Israel as a Jewish state Provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, refugee camps in Lebanon, and residents of Sederot Encourage understanding of opposing views Presbyterians can get to know all the communities involved - Palestinian Muslim and Christian, and Jewish. They can respectfully engage those in any community who do not share their stance on resolving the conflict. Presbyterians should speak up when any of these communities are defamed or demonized. For example: Regularly visit and listen without comment to their concerns and hopes for a just and peaceful future in the Middle East Collect and disseminate human-interest stories about the pain and suffering the conflict has inflicted on both Palestinians and Israelis Collect and disseminate stories from those on the front lines working for empowerment and reconciliation Establish relations locally Establish relations with local Jewish, and Palestinian Muslim and Christian, neighbors. Interreligious encounter is no substitute for working towards justice and peace, but it can pave the way for cooperation towards that end. Specifically: Visit each community during their religious and cultural celebrations Express solidarity with each community in the midst of their own struggle or suffering Encourage study groups focused on initiatives for empowerment and reconciliation Get information first-hand from those working for a just and peaceful compromise Seek out information from those working for the benefit of both Israelis and Palestinians, with a vision for an equitable future no matter how unsettling those reports may be. For example, connect with Rabbis for Human Rights. Visit Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza together Visit the region together with unlikely ideological co-travelers who are committed to the principle of selfdetermination for both Israelis and Palestinians. Seek to travel and meet with those who challenge your perspective. For example: Plan trips with mainstream members of all four communities Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian, and Presbyterian Visit locations determined by each of the participating communities Identify initiatives for empowerment and reconciliation to support jointly Return to educate and mobilize their respective communities Presbyterians must join together with their local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities, to actively and practically support empowerment of the Palestinian people; reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, from the grassroots up; and efforts by individuals and communities willing to take on this extraordinary task, in a courageous and selfless way.before it is too late. 3

6 Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group Presbytery of Chicago Discussion Paper Perspectives on Presbyterian Church (USA) Support for a Just and Peaceful Compromise of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to God s self, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to God s self, not counting their trespasses against them, but entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making God s appeal through us. (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) The Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group of the Presbytery of Chicago offers this paper as a contribution to the current discussion regarding the variety of positions within the Presbyterian Church (USA) towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The impetus for this discussion paper comes out of our relations with local Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities, and our shared denominational concern as Presbyterians for justice and peace for Palestinians and Israelis. We intend to use this paper as a basis and blueprint for those in Chicago Presbytery who wish to support a just and peaceful resolution of the conflict in relation to, and in cooperation with, our local Muslim, Jewish and Christian counterparts. We also hope that, in whatever modest and informal way, the paper may prove helpful to the current denomination-wide discussion. The rationale underlying this paper rests in these understandings: The current situation is intolerable for Palestinians, and unsustainable for Israel. Presbyterians must listen to and honor the tragic histories and cherished aspirations of each people, as they understand it themselves. We must not seek to deny or diminish the incongruity of these two stories, nor try to equate the struggle and suffering conveyed in each. Despite the singularity of each people, their lives and destinies are inter-twined. Any just and peaceful compromise of the conflict must be credible and real for both. Such a compromise can only be achieved through the self-determination of each people, coupled with a non-negotiable commitment to human rights and communal recognition for all concerned. Whatever form the final compromise may take, it will only be achieved through the actions taken by, and decisions made by, the two peoples directly involved. 4

7 We propose that Presbyterians actively support on-the-ground efforts for selfdetermination, human rights, and respectful co-existence, in order to create the conditions for an achievable, just and peaceful compromise, and lay the groundwork of the harder task of communal reconciliation, undertaken by, and for, both Israelis and Palestinians. In light of these understandings, the questions that have governed the reflections, framework and proposals in this paper are: Is there a hopeful and humanizing perspective from which to view and engage the Israeli- Palestinian conflict? Is there a way for the self-determination of one people not to delegitimize the selfdetermination of other people? Is there a practical and effective approach for engaging parties on all sides in the active pursuit of an achievable just and peaceful resolution? Is there a way for Presbyterians to acknowledge and serve the cause of reconciliation and healing for all concerned that must inevitably follow from such a negotiated compromise? The Ecumenical and Interreligious Work Group is an entity of the Presbytery of Chicago charged with fostering ecumenical and inter-religious relations. The EIWG drafted this discussion paper in active dialogue with persons associated with local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities, and various entities within the Presbyterian Church (USA). To further broaden the complexity and nuances of the discussion, the EIWG invited a range of written responses that accompany the paper. The EIWG is issuing this discussion paper solely on its own behalf, and does not claim to formally or officially speak for the Presbytery of Chicago or the Presbyterian Church (USA). Rev. Dr. Robert Cathey Ms. Shelley Donaldson Rev. Dirk Ficca, Moderator Rev. Jay Moses Ms. Liz Nickerson Rev. Brian Paulson Dr. Bo Myung Seo Rev. Joyce Shin Rev. Dr. Robert Reynolds, Executive Presbyter / Staff Support (May 9, 2014) 5

8 Mission of Reconciliation God s reconciling work in Jesus Christ and the mission of reconciliation to which God has called God s church are the heart of the gospel in any age. To be reconciled to God is to be sent into the world as God s reconciling community. This community, the church universal, is entrusted with God s message of reconciliation and shares God s labor of healing the enmities which separate me from God and from each other. Christ has called the church to this mission and given it the gift of the Holy Spirit. The church maintains continuity with the apostles and with Israel by faithful obedience of this call. The life, death, resurrection, and promised coming of Jesus Christ has set the pattern for the church s mission. His life as a human being involved the church in the common life of all humanity. His service to humanity commits the church to work for every form of human wellbeing. His sufferings make the church sensitive to all sufferings of all humankind so that it sees the face of Christ in the faces of human beings in every kind of need. His crucifixion discloses to the church God s judgment on our inhumanity to others and the awful consequences of its own complicity in injustice. In the power of the risen Christ and the hope of his coming, the churches sees the promise of God s renewal of human life in society and of God s victory over all wrong. (Confession of 1967) As Presbyterian Christians struggle to envision what it means to be a reconciling presence in the midst of the tragic and seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps its not so difficult to imagine Jesus working the front lines. You could see him there, moving from Haifa to Hebron to Ramallah to Sederot to Gaza city. Visiting the prisons and refugee camps. Comforting grieving parents and loved ones. Listening to the aspirations of young people. Trying to get everyone to the table. Berating the leadership. Angrily denouncing injustice and violence of any kind. Issuing dire warnings of things to come. Becoming a target for those on all sides opposed to peace. Praying for his enemies. Praying at the Western Wall. Praying in the Dome of the Rock. Praying at the barrier that now stretches the length of the Holy Land. As the Confession of 1967 states, as Jesus lived among his own people and shared their needs, temptations, joys and sorrows...true humanity was realized once and for all. 6

9 Tragedy We believe any approach to the compromises needed to reach a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict must begin with an acknowledgment of its inherent tragedy in its origins, its ongoing nature, and in the fading hopes for a satisfactory and lasting solution. These are two peoples, seeking to fulfill their national aspirations, at the same time in history, claiming the same sacred land as their homeland and both rightfully so. For Israeli Jews for whom Israel is their homeland - and for the Jews around the world who identify with them, their tragedy is a two thousand year odyssey as a religious and cultural diaspora. An odyssey marked by continual persecution, displacement, oppression, and suffering as a people, the horror of mass murder and the specter of annihilation in the Holocaust, all amplifying an enduring longing and need to return to their ancient homeland. The proposed 1947 UN Partition plan was seen as a first attempt at a two-state solution, but was not embraced at the time by the wider Arab world. For the Palestinian people the indigenous people who call historic Palestine their homeland - their tragedy is the decision of the international community to partition the territory and support the establishment of the state of Israel, coupled with a pervasive indifference to their own national aspirations and integrity as a culture and a people. In the ongoing conflict that has ensued, the Palestinian population has been displaced from their homes and cities since 1947, borne the brunt of a demeaning occupation since 1967, and endured an unrelenting refugee status for nearly seven decades. There were periods when Jews, Muslims and Christians lived together peacefully in this Holy Land. For the current and coming generations of Israelis and Palestinians, their tragedy is the inability of their respective leadership, the neighboring countries in the region, and the international community, to create a viable framework for a peaceful future and to summon the political will to enact it. To acknowledge the tragic character of the conflict is to be honest about past injustice, present pain, and the uncertain path forward. Paradoxically, it offers a way to claim one s own history, identity and aspirations, and at the same time, to acknowledge and humanize the history, identity and claims of the other. Only with such recognition of the other can an authentic way forward be forged. Ambiguity This sense of tragedy is coupled with the ambiguity that always accompanies the unfolding of history, particularly when it comes to the establishment of any nation state. Although the persistent hope and guidance of our highest ideals are essential to working in our world for justice and peace, this must be tempered with a measured realism about the inherent flaws and limitations in even our best efforts. We have no choice but to live in the midst of the ambiguity of what is and what should be. We must name it, admit to the frustration and confusion it can create, but not be deterred by it from making the difficult decisions crucial to moving forward. 7

10 It is not a surprise that the crucial points of contention grow out of the ambiguity resulting from conflicting narratives and points of view. Take the question of the right of return for Palestinians, and the meaning and viability of a Jewish democracy. Here are the questions that have been posed to us: Here is are questions that have been posed to us: If Israel agrees to the right of return for Palestinians, would it be an admission of the inherent unfairness involved in establishing the nation state of Israel? And how will the majority needed for a Jewish state be maintained as the Palestinian population inevitably grows? Here are other questions that have been posed as well: If Palestinians give up the right of return (in exchange for compensation and the prospects of a better future) would it seem to justify their displacement in establishing the nation state of Israel? How could Palestinian Muslims and Christians live in such a Jewish state, where they hold a minority status as citizens, with the all the inequalities that go with it, and still be a democracy? How do we weigh the respective importance of the right of return and a Jewish democracy in light of a workable future? What measure of principle and pragmatism needs to be employed in order to move realistically towards a just and peaceful future? Realism Naming these ambiguities is not to say that this conflict, or the possible path to justice and peace, is entirely or substantially ambiguous. But when such ambiguities exist, Presbyterians can call on a sense of political realism in being proactive and affirmative in their stances and actions. There is a nation state of Israel, where both Jews and Palestinians reside today. Its right to exist as a sovereign nation has been consistently recognized and upheld by the international community. At key junctures in ongoing negotiations with Israel, the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel s existence, but not necessarily its right to exist. There is a Palestinian population that has lived under occupation in the West Bank, or in exile, now into a third generation. Because of the inability to negotiate a viable compromise to the conflict, their sovereignty has been compromised, and their daily living conditions are worsening. Some would say that time is on the side of the Palestinians. The younger population is growing rapidly, both in Israel and the occupied territories. US officials, and even Palestinians, have stated that if Israel were prudent, it would negotiate an agreement as soon as possible. Others point to the instability of the region. Giving up military control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, removing the barrier, leaves Israel more vulnerable and exposed to militant forces on all sides. 8

11 Yet still others see the continual rule of an ethnic and religious majority over ethnic and religious minorities, through martial law, to be at odds with the ideals of a just democracy, to say nothing of its sustainability. Israel should move to resolve the situation as soon as possible, they argue, to lessen the prospects of regional intervention in the conflict. The purpose here is not to argue one position or another. It is rather to point out that no measure of suffering can serve as the justification for the domination of one people over another. There are harsh and seemingly intractable realities that are not going to be addressed merely through ideological argumentation, but by the actions and decisions of those involved. It is, in fact, easier for Jews and Palestinians, living in their respective diasporas - and not in the midst of the conflict - as well as their Presbyterian counterparts - living in the US - to demand a harder line, to hold up utopian and at times unrealistic standards than can be enacted on the ground. Insight into the delicate 'dialogue of life' of those who live a day-in and day-out existence in Israel, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, is therefore a necessity. Otherwise, arguments from afar can become the rhetoric of double standards that only defame one side, and potentially inflame the tensions between communities living sideby-side in the midst of the conflict. Responsibility We are all involved. American Jews and American Palestinians in the United States have ties to families and communities in Israel, in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and other nations in the Middle East impacted by the conflict. Their ethnic and religious histories, identities and relationships make them more than just interested parties. This goes for Presbyterians as well, who through mission trips and projects, denominational and organizational ties, have a personal investment in what happens to these two peoples. Furthermore, in the American context, Jews, Muslims (including Arab and Palestinian) and Christians (including Orthodox and Presbyterian) are all citizens of the United States. We all should take responsibility for the role our nation plays in its foreign policy though with clearly varying levels of influence. Our government sends significant funds and military aid to support Israel as a strategic partner in the region. It provides targeted humanitarian and developmental aid to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It exerts influence over allies and adversaries across the region in ways that significantly impacts both parties. Israel is not the sole cause of the disarray and dysfunction in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, Nevertheless, any responsible US foreign policy leading to a viable compromise must not only support Israel with its security concerns, but also critique the conditions caused by those security measures, as we would with any other country. Palestinians want to take responsibility for their own self-development as a people and participation as equal partners in a peace process. Yet how much of this is actually possible when the power dynamics are so starkly disproportionate, with debilitating restrictions for Palestinians on their freedom of movement, the unfettered exercise of their livelihoods, and their access to educational and medical institutions? 9

12 While the ultimate responsibility for finding a compromise to the conflict lies in the hands of Israelis and Palestinians, what is the nature of the responsibility of the Presbyterian Church (USA) on behalf of the all peoples caught up in the conflict? How can Presbyterians, living in a North American context, even have a voice in this conversation that does not in many ways co-opt the entire narratives and lived realities of both peoples for the sake of a Christian social ethic? For the answer to that question, we must begin by acknowledging the current realities, in ways that those directly involved in those realities can affirm. The true test of trust in any conflictual situation is for each side to be able to relate the narrative of the other in a way that is understandable by them. When the hard work of trust is achieved, then the promising work of constructive engagement can begin. 10

13 Recognizing the Current Realities for Palestinians (in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel) The current situation for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is intolerable. Palestinians today have no place to call their own in the region that had been their homeland for centuries. From the time of the establishment of the state of Israel, to the present day, Palestinian families indigenous to the land have lost property, prosperity, and livelihood, with no restitution or compensation, at the even more considerable expense of their basic human dignity. Unrest, warfare and discontent in the region have left Palestinians as a people in an internal state of disarray, disempowerment, and vulnerability. Israelis, on one side of the barrier, live in relative economic prosperity and self-governance. For Palestinians, the barrier is a symbol of communal indignity and functions as an infuriating impediment to daily life, as they struggle in the midst of economic stagnation, social deprivation, and political instability. Daily life for Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is shaped by a military occupation, carried out by martial law, under the jurisdiction of a government in which they play little or no part, where check points, separate roads, identity passes, restricted movement, random searches and detainment, and the threat of violence, are a constant. For Palestinians in Gaza, daily life is marked by the desperation of a population far too dense and impoverished to be viable as a workable society, a situation heightened by a military siege in 2007, restricted borders, limitations on humanitarian aid, and the continuing impact of an economic embargos imposed by Israel and Egypt. The internal nature of the Palestinian community is fractured politically, and surrounded by radicalized Christian, Jewish, and Muslim factions. There is little or no viable democratic infrastructure. Corruption is rampant. What government is in place is chaotic at best. The leading political parties of Hamas and Fatah have competing agendas, and they have struggled in their attempt to reconcile with each other, much less seek to broker a peace with Israel or accept the presence of a Jewish Democracy. Palestinians also find themselves in the midst of larger geo-political dynamics. In the ongoing political contest between the Iranian/Shi a and Egyptian/Sunni, the plight of Palestinians has been identified as a symbol of US and European intervention in the region. Their situation is often used as a justification for the demonization of Israel, the self-serving continuation of the conflict by Arab despots, and the ever-shifting regional agenda of Europe and the US. Daily life for Palestinians for those residing in 12 UN refugee camps in Lebanon is a perpetual state of limbo. Palestinians living in the midst of a Jordanian citizenry face resentment. Palestinian Muslim and Christian minorities living within the borders of Israel face de facto discrimination as second-class citizens. Christian Palestinians face the double bind of being Christian and Palestinian minority in Israel, and Christian minority in the West Bank and Gaza. Before the two intifadas and the building of the barrier, there was day-to-day humanizing contact with Israelis. For an older generation of Palestinians, that experience is fading, and is limited, at best, for newer generations. These are not suitable conditions for peoplehood. They are a seedbed for discontent and potential violence threatening on all sides. 11

14 Recognizing the Current Realities of Presbyterian Palestinian Relations The Presbyterian Church (USA) has a long history of relationships and involvement in the Middle East. The denomination has long had close ties with Palestinian Christians in the West Bank, Jordan, and Israel. The national denominational staff, and various affiliated advocacy groups focused on the Middle East, have been familiar with the Christian Palestinian narrative for several decades, leading to advocacy efforts for a two-state solution, an end to the occupation, and a resolution of the overall conflict. As a rule, Presbyterians tend to side with those who are disenfranchised and suffering. At the end of World War II, with the unfolding realization about the Holocaust, Presbyterians were sympathetic to the Jewish diaspora, and then newly established state of Israel. Over the past twenty years, however, more of the denomination at the grassroots has become familiar with the Christian Palestinian narrative, and the nature of their plight. While still firmly supportive of Israel, mainline Presbyterians are becoming adamant that Palestinians receive equal consideration. Increasingly, all Palestinians Christians and Muslims - are being viewed by Presbyterians as getting the short end of the stick. This goes hand in hand with greater awareness of, and relations with, the broader Muslim community at least with Presbyterians in metropolitan Chicago which took a major leap forward in the aftermath of 9/11. Palestinian Muslims believe that the political lobby of Jewish organizations and Christian Zionists is more powerful and influential than Palestinian and Arab advocates when it comes to the US foreign policy concerning the Middle East. In the face of this, Palestinian Muslims and Christians see Presbyterians as established peacemakers, influential in the US context, and more open as US Christians to interreligious dialogue than some of their other Christian counterparts in the Middle East. Christian Palestinian speakers have been featured frequently at the General Assembly. Rev. Fahed Abu-Akel, elected as moderator of the General Assembly in 2002, was a Christian Palestinian. The Palestinian community has applauded the repeated overtures brought before the General Assembly calling for divestment from companies that profit from the occupation of the West Bank, or are associated with violence of any kind. It s no mystery why the state of Presbyterian Palestinian relations is at an all time high. 12

15 Recognizing the Current Realities of Presbyterian Jewish Relations (in the US) There is little or no trust today between Presbyterians and Jews at the level of their national structures, and interaction between the two is declining, a trend that can be traced to the 2004 General Assembly deliberations on divestment. This is in spite of the fact that, since 1974, the denomination has approved numerous overtures to the General Assembly affirming its support for a two-state solution, and continues to operate officially according to that position. Still, the PC (USA) has no formal denominational policy on its relationship to the Jewish community. While the 1987 study guide document on Presbyterian Jewish relations functions as an informal source of guidance, subsequent policy documents were rejected. The most recent efforts to draft such a policy have proved unworkable, due to polarization over the Middle East. Many Presbyterians fail to realize that the mainstream Jewish community tends to be open to a critique of the policies and practices of Israel as a nation state, as long as they are in line with the method of critique for any other nation state in the international community. Both in Israel and in the US, one need only look at the Israeli and American Jewish media to find a robust discussion about all aspects of Israeli policy and society, However, when the Jewish community sees efforts aimed at discrediting or undermining the existence of Israel as a nation state, or unfairly singling out Israel for criticism, the community perceives that anti- Semitism, and not simply political critique, is at work. These perceptions are strengthened by the highly visible and united front of support for Israel by the mainstream Jewish community. In the past, Presbyterians have been left wondering about the degree to which there is a diversity of perspectives among mainstream Jews about its policies and practices and the degree to which concerns for a just and peaceful future for Palestinians is a priority. That approach with the emergence of J Street, for instance - has changed, and continues to evolve. For the Jewish community, the polity, lines of accountability, and public discourse of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is confusing much of time. Presbyterians remain deeply divided over how best to act as trustworthy advocates for justice and peace in the region for all peoples. The diversity of perspectives within the denomination on Israel and Palestine, and a variety of governing bodies, offices, church-related networks, task forces, work groups, and institutions, each putting forward positions and agenda, makes it practically impossible to discern the PC (USA) s voice from one year to the next. Recently, however, there has been progress at local levels, where interactions between Presbyterians and Jews are not solely focused on Middle East concerns, but on a wider range of shared activities and concerns, creating more of a climate of trust. It s no mystery that the state of Presbyterian Jewish relations, at least at the national level, is at an all time low. 13

16 Recognizing the Current Reality for Israelis The current state of affairs for Israel internally and in the region - is unsustainable. Jews have lived in the Holy Land for three thousand years (with a presence in the four holy cities of Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberius and Hebron). Their experience of two thousand years as a diaspora community - with forced mass expulsions and frequent violence, the searing memory of the Holocaust - are powerful motivating factors for creating and maintaining an Israeli identity. Like any other democracy, Israel is a work in progress. It is also a trusted ally of the US in the region. At the same time, Israel finds itself in a situation where relations with their most immediate Arab neighbors (Egypt, Jordan) are strained, at best. At worst, there are 60,000 missiles in southern Lebanon pointed in their direction; weapons are being transferred to Hezbollah from Syria; Iran continues to smuggle weapons into Gaza, governed by Hamas whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel; rockets fired from Gaza create terror in the south of Israel. Israelis find themselves as a nation caught in the midst of wider Middle East instability and hostility, with a failed Arab Spring, civil war in Syria, unrest in Lebanon, and a potential nuclear threat in Iran. Israelis see the continued conflict with Palestinians, in part, as a product of proxy wars between Egypt and Iran, Shi a and Sunni forces. More viscerally for Israelis is the issue of terrorism. Being a nuclear power, having a superior military force, does not protect ordinary citizens from rockets launched from Gaza, or the memories of bombing of non-combatants in public places. Added to that, Israel feels increasingly alienated from the international community, particularly Europe, and now Turkey. The singling out of political Zionism as a racist ideology and post-modern invention, of Israel as a racist nation, the constant threat of UN sanctions, the international boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, and the recent political recognition of Palestine by the UN, are all are sources of distress. From an Israeli point of view, efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians has been thwarted on two fronts: The instability and lack of credible leadership in the West Bank and Gaza, and the refusal of Fatah and Hamas to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state; The fractured nature of Israeli politics, with many small but powerful political (settlers, hard-line Orthodox and secular Jews) opposed to any peace agreement that includes the dismantling of settlements, and often using a religious rationale for the occupation of the West Bank. The Israeli electorate has become more pessimistic and inflexible when it comes to the prospects for peace. The sense of internal stability symbolized by what is to Israelis the security barrier, in conjunction with the ominous external threats all around, has strengthened the hand of hard-liners and those concerned about security alike. Still, a majority of Israeli Jews support a two state compromise, even if they think it is unlikely to happen. The two-state position remains the official stance of the Knesset. 14

17 Before the two intifadas and the building of the barrier, there was day-to-day humanizing contact with Israelis. For an older generation of Israelis, that experience is fading, and is limited, at best, for newer generations. No wonder the majority of Israelis who favor a two-state compromise, and support coexistence through self-determination and human rights for Palestinians, are discouraged and distrustful. 15

18 Advocating for a Two-State Compromise Ultimately, the principle of self-determination expressed in individual human rights and in the right of a people to their own sovereignty provide the theological and ethical grounds for a Presbyterian stance towards the Palestinian Israeli conflict. At the current time, lacking a viable and pragmatic alternative acceptable to both sides, a two-state compromise remains the most practical expression of self-determination for both peoples. Despite growing pessimism on all sides about the viability of achieving a two-state compromise, this is the current stance of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and should continue to be. First, a two-state solution is rooted in the principle and right of self-determination of Israelis and Palestinians as peoples. To advocate for the self-determination of one people is to affirm the self-determination of the other people. To undermine the self-determination of one people in promoting the self-determination of the other people is to undermine the principle and right of self-determination. Second, to insure the self-determination of individuals, and majority and minority populations within the two respective nation states of Israel and Palestine (West Bank/East Jerusalem/Gaza), individual human rights and freedoms must be respected within a pluralistic democratic political structure. Therefore, democracy can be compatible with the reality of a state with a Jewish majority, if the human rights and freedoms for Christian and Muslim Palestinians, and others, are vigorously upheld. Democracy within the confines of a Palestinian state would similarly need to vigorously uphold human rights and freedoms for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others. Fundamentally, both ethically and politically, the pursuit of a two-state compromise affirms that the destinies of these two peoples are intertwined. Therefore, those advocating for such a compromise are compelled to work on behalf of both peoples for their self-determination, and call upon both Israeli and Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza to adhere to democratic principles and practice. 16

19 However, pursuit of a two-state compromise will not work if the occupation of the West Bank and the unresolved status of East Jerusalem (to which Muslims and Jews both have an historic and religious connection), the embargo of Gaza, and the exile of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and other nations in the region continue; the use of military force, terrorism, or violence of any kind, is accepted as an inevitable or integral component of any viable and just long-term solution; ideological lines of argumentation are used to undermine the political selfdetermination of Israelis or Palestinians, or, conversely, to uncritically support their respective policies and practices; anti-judaic or anti-semitic language and lines of argumentation are used in the critique of Israel, and the support of the Jewish community of Israel, or anti-islamic or anti-arab language and lines of argumentation are used to critique the Palestinian community in the West Bank and Gaza; educational institutions and curriculum are used to distort the history, or demonize the humanity, of the other; tactics such as boycotts, divestment, or sanctions are used to undermine the legitimacy of Israel s right to exist, rather than to leverage reform of the policies and practices of Israel as a nation state; religious exceptionalism, in any of its manifestations (e.g. certain forms of Christian Zionism, messianic settler ideology, Islamism), is used as the basis for political exceptionalism in privileging the self-determination and human rights of one people over the other. Pursuit of a two-state compromise will only work if.political negotiation, and an intentional process of reconciliation, is embraced as the only viable and workable path to a tenable future; humanizing, not demonizing or stigmatizing, language is used in the political rhetoric; critiques of the policies and practices of the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank are specific in character; the empowerment and self-development of the Palestinian people, through the governance of their own authentic and independent leadership, is viewed by Israel as essential to a workable solution and receives broad political and material support from the international community; the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign and secure democratic Jewish state, alongside a Palestinian state, is recognized by the Palestinian people, the community of Arab nations, and the international community. 17

20 Taking such a stance for reconciliation does not mean that the relative power positions and current state of affairs for Israelis and Palestinians are equivalent. Conditions for both Jews and Palestinians within Israel are significantly better, in virtually every respect, than for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, or for Palestinians living and working in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and other Middle Eastern nations. Failing to acknowledge this inequality of power as a critical justice issue denies the Palestinian experience of suffering. Fear that Palestinians or the international community will use such an acknowledgement as moral high ground is not an acceptable justification for failing to acknowledge the distinctive suffering of the Palestinian people. Discussion of disproportionate power positions also requires acknowledgement of the military threat of nations surrounding Israel, and more pointedly, the justifiable fear of terrorism. Nevertheless, any lasting peace with Palestinians cannot finally be based on militarized strength. It should also be acknowledged that while there is a power differential, Palestinians in the West Bank, and especially Gaza, have posed a real security threat to Israeli citizens, though not to the existence of the Israel as a nation state. This discrepancy in hardship does not mean that Israelis and Palestinians are not equally responsible for their pursuit of a compromise that is just and peaceful in both its means and its ends. Both parties must do everything they can in service to a future that insures their respective self-determination, regardless of the character of their respective hardships. Using self-determination as the governing principle for the potential future stance of the PC (USA) in seeking a just and peaceful two-state compromise, frees the denomination from having to choose sides. Moreover, it compels the denomination to work on behalf of both sides for a just and peaceful compromise. Both creating the conditions that enable the pursuit of an equitable two-state compromise and eliminating the obstacles to such an agreement is crucial in achieving the desired goal. That means, for instance, any stances or actions taken by the PC (USA) must seek to insure Israel s right to exist, and the end of the military occupation of the West Bank, to resolve the question of East Jerusalem, and to reverse the economic embargo of Gaza by both Israel and Egypt. Conversely, opposing measures that create obstacles to a two-state compromise such as normalizing the occupation, or threatening the safety and well being of Israeli citizens must also be a part of the calculation. 18

21 Promoting the Conditions for a Just and Peaceful Future Given the current realities, and embracing the principle of self-determination for both peoples as both the means and the end, the Presbyterian Church (USA) can promote the conditions on the ground necessary for achieving a just and peaceful compromise. In other words: regardless of how Palestinians and Israelis seek to negotiate a compromise to this conflict, and: regardless of differing views on a one-state or two-state solution, Presbyterians can join together with their local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities, to actively and practically support empowerment of the Palestinian people; reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, from the grassroots up; the individuals and communities willing to take on this extraordinary task, in a courageous and selfless way.before it is too late. Practically speaking, then, for Presbyterians to take such a stance, means the following: Support Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers and their initiatives Presbyterians in cooperation with local Jewish, Palestinian Muslim and Christian communities can identify and support initiatives in the region and the US, where Israelis and Palestinians are working preferably together - for the economic and social development of Palestinians, and reconciliation on behalf of both peoples. For example: Work of the Children of Ibillin and Fr. Elias Chacour Palestinian Children s Relief Fund 19

22 Seek partnerships Presbyterians can seek partnerships regardless of ideological differences - with Jews and Palestinians in service to any aspect of securing a just and peaceful compromise of the conflict. For example: Oppose the sale of products from contested settlements in the West Bank. Petition Hamas to revise its charter in recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, refugee camps in Lebanon, and residents of Sederot. Humanize the other Presbyterians can get to know all the communities involved - Palestinian Muslim and Christian, and Jewish. They can respectfully engage those in any community who do not share their stance on resolving the conflict. Presbyterians should be vigilant speaking up when any of these communities are defamed or demonized. For example: Regularly visit and listen without comment to their concerns and hopes for a just and peaceful future in the Middle East. Collect and disseminate human-interest stories about the pain and suffering inflicted on both Palestinians and Israelis by the conflict. Collect and disseminate stories from those on the front lines working for empowerment and reconciliation. Establish relations locally Establish relations with local Jewish, and Palestinian Muslim and Christian, neighbors. Interreligious encounter is no substitute for working towards justice and peace, but it can pave the way for cooperation towards that end. Specifically (list): Visit each community during their religious and cultural celebrations. Express solidarity with each community in the midst of their own struggle or suffering. Encourage study groups focused on initiatives for empowerment and reconciliation. 20