Articles

VIDEO: ISRAELIS, PALESTINIANS, COOPERATE TO SAVE CHILDREN WITH HEART AILMENTS

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:55:00 GMT

MEHANE YEHUDA MARKET, ONE YEAR LATER

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:46:00 GMT

by David Blewett
originally published as an NCLCI Backgrounder
August 1998

Once again the world has seen grim pictures of terrorist bombings, this time in Kenya and Tanzania. It is no accident that an Israeli search and rescue team took the lead in going through the rubble looking for survivors. The terrorist bombings in Israel have made them experts at that difficult task. But have you ever wondered what happens to survivors of such a bombing? Not long ago I learned what happens in Israeli hospitals, and it is a remarkable story.

Rev. Petra Heldt was recently in New York to speak to Hadassah’s annual convention about her experiences as a patient at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. When we met during some free time from the convention I heard first-hand about her experiences. Petra is a Lutheran pastor from Germany who has lived in Israel for twenty years working to improve Christian understanding and respect for Jews, Judaism and Israel. On July, 1997, she happened to be in Jerusalem’s Mehane Yehuda Market shopping for a dinner party that she and her husband, Malcolm, were hosting for Jewish and Christian friends. Two terrorist bombs almost blew her away (the subject of an August 1997 Backgrounder). Petra spent the next six weeks in the burn unit of Hadassah Hospital and is still receiving physical therapy there.

Petra heard the explosion and saw the fire ball from the first bomb. Her instincts told her to run away. As she ran she noticed that her friend Nissim, the fish seller, was shaking hands with a customer, but instead of releasing Nissim’s hand the customer was actually pulling him closer. Suddenly that person set off the second bomb. Petra was only three or four meters away. Second and third degree burns covered her body and pieces of the bomb were imbedded in her legs and feet but, thank God, she was alive.

Petra was the first one from the market to reach Hadassah Hospital in Ein Kerem, but the press was already there. A reporter asked her on the way into the hospital, “Why do you think you survived?” She told me that her immediate reaction was that she just wanted to get away from that guy. Who could blame her? Despite Petra’s obvious need for medical attention, this reporter wanted to interview her. The answer she gave to the question, however, was inspired: “To have an opportunity to speak about the greatness of God. We are His tools to bring reconciliation to the world.”

In the first few days after the bombings the burns on her face caused her eyes to be swollen shut. She told me that during that time of blindness she thought about the story of Daniel’s three friends who God had protected after Nebuchadnezzar threw them into a fiery furnace (Daniel 3). She wondered why is it that once they came out from the furnace the Bible never mentions them again. She came to realize that although the text records their conversation with the king before he threw them into furnace; it says nothing about what they said after they came out. Evidently only the king gave God credit. She came to believe that the biblical silence about them is because they gave no further witness to God, unlike their friend Daniel who never quit speaking about his God.

Mr. Avi Benjamin, the advisor to Israel’s Foreign Ministry on Interreligious Affairs, was watching the evening news at his home when he saw the reporter’s interview with Petra in the hospital. Within 30 minutes he was with Malcolm at her bedside. His secretary, Ahuva Oren, who also saw the news, arrived shortly after him. Together they stayed with Petra and Malcolm through the long ordeal of initial examinations and tests. Looking back on that first evening, Petra said, “As I came out of each examination room my friends were there to cheer me and accompany me each step of the way until we finished, which was well after midnight.” The nursing staff even made it possible for Malcolm to stay with his wife the first few nights, a real comfort to both of them.

For the first few weeks after the bombs Petra had no appetite and ate almost nothing, but then suddenly she had a craving for fried liver. Malcolm mentioned this to their friend Yehudit Sar-Shalom and asked her how he could satisfy it. Yehudit told him to stop by her apartment on his way to the hospital the next morning, she would have it cooked and packaged for him. Speaking of meals, all of Malcolm’s meals were provided by a haredi group that regularly brings meals to the families of patients. They continued this service for several months after Petra was released from the hospital.

It is one thing for friends to drop everything and get to the hospital; it is something else for strangers to do that. One visitor was a woman who had also seen Petra on the news and traveled all the way from Haifa to deliver a rose and an Israeli flag to her in the hospital and then went back home.

Two Israeli school girls from Beth El, as soon as they heard about the bombings, took it upon themselves to take the bus into Jerusalem each day during their school vacation in order to visit the eight patients from the Mehane Yehuda Market who were in Hadassah’s burn unit. They spent hours chatting with Petra and in the process became good friends. One afternoon they asked if there was anything they could bring her or do for her. She said that she would really like to hear music, which was one thing they could not do for her since it was the eve of Tisha B’av, a somber day that commemorates the destruction of the two temples and other disasters, and music is not allowed during that time. But, as soon as the fast day was over, the girls came back and sang to her for over an hour. “What a remarkable experience. Although I was unable to move in the bed, in my mind I was dancing.”

One patient in the burn unit was Said, a 15-year old Palestinian Muslim boy. He had suffered burns over 90 percent of his body and lost a leg. The burns healed but for Said, a talented basketball player, the loss of his leg stole his will to live. Everyone feared that he might commit suicide. Rabbi Pessach Krauss visited Petra often and one day he told him about Said. “I have had a wooden leg since I was hit by a car as a little boy,” he said. Petra had no idea since he walked and lived so normally. He immediately went over to Said and showed him his leg. When Said saw it his spirit returned and he began to heal. Rabbi Krauss continued to visit him and Said is walking freely today.

Across the hall from Petra’s room was a large Russian woman who had suffered third degree and some second degree burns over 80 percent of her body. The task of getting her in and out of bed was a horrendous experience. Because her burns were so severe she could not be touched without causing excruciating pain, her weight complicated the problem. Eventually a special hoist was rigged up to maneuver her in and out of bed but even so, each time she was moved everyone on the floor heard her screams of pain. One afternoon, after the lady had been returned to her room, the nurses asked Petra and several others if they would pray for her because the doctors did not know what else they could do. They prayed, the doctors continued to work and today she has resumed her normal life in Jerusalem.

Petra also told me about David, a man terribly disfigured by the bombs – one side of his face had been blown away, the other side had been full of nails. For months David spoke to no one and always worked alone in the rehabilitation center. Doctors and therapists had real concerns about his mental recovery. But suddenly one day David spoke. He came to Petra and said, “Look what I did today.” Everyone in the room was shocked and overjoyed as he began to emerge from his shell. When Petra was able to ask him what caused this happy change he told her that he had gone home over the weekend for his son’s bar mitzvah. While he was there with his family who were all celebrating his son’s coming of age and mature acceptance of the covenant, his mind snapped back and he joined in the celebration. At that point his ability to speak and his desire to be part of the community returned. It no longer mattered what he looked like; the continuity of the Jewish people was celebrated in an unbelievable way that weekend. The joy of the son’s bar mitzvah restored the father’s life.

Knowing that Petra had been injured in the terror attacks on the Mehane Yehuda Market put a face, a friend’s face, on those who had previously been individuals that I cared about but could not relate to. Now, having heard Petra speak about her experiences, I understand something of the physical and mental sufferings that survivors endure. I also understand for the first time the phenomenal outpouring of Israeli support for victims of terrorism. What I heard from Petra introduced me to a quality of community in Israel that is rare in today’s world.

Petra still wears pressure bandages on both arms and hands to reduce scarring from skin grafts, but most of the pain is gone and she has regained flexibility in her fingers. She has returned to her teaching assignments, to her work at the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel and to her ministry of being an instrument of reconciliation.

What about Nissim? In a bizarre twist of fate, the force of the explosion actually saved his life. Petra later learned that the blast blew his arm off, knocked him backwards into the trays of fish and buried him under a mountain of ice. Rescuers found Nissim and his arm under all the ice and acted quickly enough so that surgeons were able to reattach his arm. Today Nissim is back selling fish in the Mehane Yehuda Market.

MY FRIEND WAS IN THE MEHANE YEHUDA MARKET

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:44:00 GMT

by David Blewett
originally published as an NCLCI Backgrounder
August 1997

I have always recognized terrorism as a heinous criminal act against innocent people. Each attack has been like a kick in the chest that takes my breath away and steals any kind of happiness that I might have been feeling. But my reaction to last weeks’ terrorist bombs in the busy Mehane Yehuda market in central Jerusalem was different . . . my friend Petra was in the market when two bombs went off.

On Wednesday night, July 30, as I watched the news coverage of a bombing in Jerusalem, I heard the news reporter say that one victim “with burns over her entire body is a German woman who lived in Israel for twenty years.” When the report cut to someone speaking from a hospital bed I immediately recognized the voice but I could not recognize the picture. Her right hand and forearm looked like they were in a cast, her left arm was wrapped with the bandages used to dress serious burns and she seemed to be covered with a greasy ointment for her burns, her voice was muffled by an oxygen mask and she said that her left foot had been hurt. She looked like she had been through hell. Eventually, after seeing the pictures repeated on other news programs, it began to register that yes, underneath all the medication and bandages maybe I could recognize my friend.

It still seems beyond belief that Petra, a German Lutheran pastor, could be a victim of terrorist bombs. This remarkable person has worked in Israel for nearly twenty years to promote better understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as between Christians all over the world and Israel. The victimization of my friend, a true Christian peacemaker, made the horror of terrorism brutally real to me.

Several news stories about the day’s bombing closed with Petra saying that the “only thing people in Israel want is peace, the search for peace must proceed.” How she could maintain her composure after what she had been through I could not imagine, but even in that situation she delivered a clear message to the world.

Israelis, both Jews and Arabs, have the basic human right to live in a peaceful and secure environment, the same right as anyone else on the planet. Israel’s leaders, regardless of party affiliation, agree that no suicide bomber will take away the right of Jews, Christians or Muslims to live in a peaceful environment anywhere in the state of their choice, Israel. But this is precisely what Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others seek to deny. Their attitude has remained unchanged since the 1967 Conference of Arab leaders in Khartoum: No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No peace with Israel. It is normal peaceful life in Israel that is the target of terrorists. Human victims are the means to amplify the terrorists’ voice to a horrified world.

For Israel and the United States to now give up on the negotiations toward peace would grant victory to the terrorists who blew up the Mehane Yehuda market. It would mean that the innocent people who died in that attack as well as the other 218 Israelis who have been killed since the Declaration of Principles were signed in 1993 all died for nothing. It would mean that the innumerable victims who have survived suffer for no purpose. Such thinking is grotesque; there must be peace.

On the other hand, it is the unspeakable suffering of innocent people that makes the decision to persevere with the peace process so terribly difficult and heroic for the leaders who are responsible for the decision. It also explains why Israel has no choice but to proceed cautiously towards peace while prodding the Palestinian Authority to be more involved in security measures. To hurry into an agreement runs the risk of ending up with a peace treaty without a real peace. Those critics demanding that Israel move more quickly towards accommodating Palestinian demands are minimizing or completely disregarding the threat that fanatics pose to Israel and all Israelis, including the substantial numbers of Palestinians in Israel and under PA control, who truly want peace.

The goal of the negotiations is to end the war declared on Israel by the Arab nations in 1948. Negotiations toward peace must continue; there is no other logical alternative. That was the message that, so badly burned by the latest terrorist bombs, Petra delivered to the world from her hospital bed.

THE LANGUAGE OF ASSAULT VS. THE LANGUAGE OF DIALOGUE

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:08:00 GMT

By Franklin H. Littell
As originally published in Christian Ethics Today, December 1995

Dr. Franklin H. Littell is a well known author, lecturer, and Christian ethics activist. An ordained Methodist minister, he has been president of Iowa Wesleyan University and has held a number of significant teaching posts including a position last year as the Robert Foster Cherry Distinguished Visiting Professor at Baylor University. By action of the Israeli cabinet, Dr. Littell was given the first non-Jewish appointment to the International Council of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. By appointments from Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush, he served for fifteen years as a member of the council that planned and built the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The Center for Christian Ethics is pleased to be working collaboratively with him on matters of mutual concern.

The shocking assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, was a stunning and traumatic act. But it was no surprise. In fact, the murder was the culmination of months of verbal assault.

A hero in war, Rabin had been hated and threatened for forty years by the despots and dictators of the Arab “rejection front” and their terrorist hirelings. An officer in the War of Independence, he later played pivotal roles four times in the defense of his country against combined military attacks.

As a statesman in peace, he was verbally assaulted also by extremist cadres in the Jewish right wing. As the “peace process” inched forward, as their imperial dreams of an expansionist Israel began to recede, their vilification and threats became a crescendo in intensity and fury.

Like the Arab extremists, the Jewish extremists called Rabin “Nazi.” To this they added verbal blows like “traitor” and “betrayer” and “murderer.” Worst of all, from a religious perspective, they wrapped up their murderous political violence in the language of piety and orthodoxy.

This is the Language of Assault, which prepares the way and justifies physical violence. It can never be justified under a legitimate government. Some think assault and counter-assault are the only political recourse under despotisms and dictatorships. Against such illegitimate regimes they may be justified, although there are excellent scholars of politics who have concluded that massive Non-Violent Direct Action is superior – in the immediate present and in the long run – to any popular, violent revolt against tyrannies. In any case, the Language of Assault, with murder its logical end result, has no place among free and democratic peoples.

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin reminds us of the way the assassination of John F. Kennedy was prepared. Nationwide, Kennedy was subjected to the most shameless verbal assaults by American extremists groups. In the summer of 1963, the decibels increased in intensity. The John Birch Society and its allies plastered Dallas with posters showing the head of the President surmounted by cross-hairs from target practice. On November 22nd, JFK was assassinated. The nation was in trauma, but we had no excuse to be surprised.

Among free and responsible peoples, there is another language: the Language of Dialogue. As one of its keener students has pointed out, the Language of Assault is intended to shorten the life expectancy of its targets. By contrast, the Language of Dialogue is intended to tend the political covenant, to inform the public forum, to better the common welfare.

Using the Language of Dialogue, it is possible for fellow-citizens to articulate sharp differences of opinion – and to live with the solutions worked out. The words of assault, vilification, mendacity, and incitement have no place in democratic discussion, and they are out of place in the politics of democracy.

Those who use the Language of Assault against those of other opinion and policy, if the others are guided by civility and due process, have marked themselves as fit objects of the ban. Many confused citizens, their confusion deliberately compounded by the mercenary media and vagrant lawyers, cannot presently distinguish the Language of Assault from the Language of Dialogue. Seduced by babblings about “individual rights,” “First Amendment rights” and “freedom,” they are led to accept the idea that pornography, tobacco advertising, campaigns of verbal assault against political opponents – in fact almost any idea that has enough money back of it to pay for an advertisement or hire a wandering lawyer – should have free run.

The slow undermining of the moral and physical health of a society is more difficult to measure. Nevertheless, words have consequences in action. And the immediate result of a crescendo of irresponsible verbal assault can be marked in the burial of a hero and of peace a few weeks ago in Jerusalem.

The “wild tongues” have won a temporary victory. But the leaders of the free peoples are rallying to save the “peace process” which Yitzhak Rabin helped shape. And the responsible leaders of political groups in his own country are moving to isolate and quarantine the practitioners of the Language of Assault. Those who love the life of free and responsible men and women may again remind themselves, in the words of an American heroine, Sojourner Truth, “Freedom is a hard-bought thing.”

Today is a time for Israelis and lovers of Israel to recall the words of Rudyard Kipling’s “Recessional”:

“If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not thee in awe –
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law –
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget – lest we forget!”

THE RUSH TO JUDGEMENT: ISRAEL ACCUSED WITHOUT FACTS

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:14:00 GMT

Lest We Forget
by Dr. Franklin H. Littell
no date available

Who did it – and why? What were the circumstances? And who says so?
Those are the questions that we teach in every history class. Because trained minds do not make judgments based on rumor, we insist that restraint be exercised in reaching conclusions. First-hand information and evidence (“primary sources”) are demanded if historical incident is to be understood.

OF COURSE, “EVERYONE KNOWS” that the recent atrocities in Beirut were committed by “Christian Phalangists sent in by the Israelis” – as a current newspaper report put it. Leaders of the Phalange deny it. That the killers were “sent in by the Israelis” is almost certainly a lie. That, however, does not prevent the anonymous correspondent from passing his prejudices (hopes?) off as solid information.

Nor has the concern for verified truth stopped the deluge of pro-PLO propaganda which The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Inquirer (inter alia) has flooded readers within recent weeks. Statistics and incidents easily verified as false or even impossible have been headlined; rare corrections, if they follow at all, are buried deep in the back pages. Moreover, by selecting some data and simply refusing to print other information, popular journalism has created an hysterical situation in which a rush to condemn Israel is inevitable among the uninformed or malicious.

But who did it? The truth is: We don’t know, and we won’t know until investigative commissions (chiefly Israeli and Lebanese) complete their work.

AND WHY WAS IT DONE? What were the circumstances? The popular journalists, who never reported adequately the 1975-76 PLO and Syrian conquests of Lebanon, and who were simply untrained to understand the bitter hatreds between competing warlords and their private armies.

Lebanon has been for seven years a jungle. The assassination of the newly-elected President of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel, might be a clue to the latest outbreak. But the pro-PLO journalists have had to throw in Major Haddad’s forces as part of the killer teams. There is no evidence for it, and Haddad denies it, but they have waged a propaganda war against him for years. They resent his resistance to the PLO terrorists and his friendship for Israel. That is enough to justify passing on any rumor, any lie?

WHO SAYS SO? The BBC is rumored to have picked up a radio message from an Israeli officer to higher command, a message which would indicate Israeli prior knowledge and complicity. But has anyone remembered the BBC coverage of the Israeli police action in its initial stages? What is a credible witness? – even supposing the rumor is true.

The present rush to judgment upon Israel, orchestrated by the Communists and the militant Arab governments, has been prepared by weeks of false reporting, suppression of relevant facts – not to mention daily pictures of Yasser Arafat kissing babies. (Does the wretched little killer have time for anything else?)

BEFORE PASSING JUDGMENT, which sensible people will delay until investigation is completed and the facts verified, what are the background facts? What are the circumstances?

First, for many years Lebanon has been a jungle, without central government, ruled and schooled and taxed by warlords in their fiefdoms – three Christian, two Druse, four Muslim (not to counter splinters) and two invaders: PLO and Syria.

Second, from its training camps, serviced by Soviet equipment and training, the PLO has launched attacks upon unarmed civilians in Israel and Jewish synagogues and businesses all over Europe and South America. Terrorists from 33 nations were captured during the Israeli police action “Peace for Galilee.”

THIRD, IN SPITE OF LYING REPORTS of tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians killed in that IDF action, in spite of the obscene misuse of the “Holocaust” imagery against Israel, in spite of the lying claim that hundreds of thousands were rendered homeless, the truth is that although the PLO deliberately placed its installations in the midst of civilian centers, destruction – until the final action to dig the PLO out of Beirut – was minimal.

Fourth, as this writer published at the time, Lebanon was doomed to slide into the swamp of renewed fratricidal warfare – even before President Gemayel was murdered – unless the successful IDF action were followed up by occupation by U.S. troops (or an international force if politically necessary). The American Marines, a pitiable force of 1000, as against the 20,000 which President Eisenhower once sent in to prevent a previous Syrian takeover, should never have been withdrawn. They should have been reinforced, and would have been by a strong American President.

BUT HOW FORTUNATE it was that the Israelis were there to blame! Who blames the actual perpetrators? – assuming that we know who they were, which we can only guess. Breast-beating American Jews and endemically anti-Semitic American churchmen have all they need to rush to judgment – and against Israel.

Where do I stand? I intend to reserve judgment and to draw my conclusions when the evidence is in and guilt has been established. I don’t like lynch mobs!

MENACHEM BEGIN, whose policies we may like or dislike at will (hopefully selectively), is the head of a legitimate government, the only one in the entire area. Whether Lebanon can recover, disarm the private armies and clean up the jungle of warlords, is still debatable. In the meantime, we should mark the enemies of Israel, whether journalists or politicians, for what they are – our enemies. The IDF was doing a job for us, as well as for their own people, when they broke the back of the PLO terrorist machine. They also checked the Russian advance, with their satellite Syria, into that section of the Middle East.

When the facts are known about the recent atrocities, we can draw the necessary conclusions. In the meantime, we will do to remember well the names of those who lied about the facts of the action “Peace for Galilee” and could not wait when they finally found something to blacken Israel for.

DO AMERICANS STILL REMEMBER My Lai? Do they remember how high officers, colonels and generals and right to the Commander-in-Chief, tried to cover it up? Already, after the first shock of disbelief, the Israeli government is moving to establish the facts and deal with them – when the worst they can be accused of, truthfully, is a breakdown in police supervision.

What is this rush to judgment – if not an expression of raw hatred for the head of the government of Israel, our ally, or of the latent anti-Semitism of Christendom’s gentiles, who always seek to believe the worst of “the Jews,” any Jews?

WHAT IS DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE?

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:23:00 GMT

By David Blewett*
June 2009

Since the latest ceasefire between Israel and Hamas I have had many opportunities to speak about the war and the current situation in Gaza. During the discussions that follow each presentation there is one topic that always seems to come up – Israel and “disproportionate force.”

The claim that Israel used “disproportionate force” against Palestinians is not new; the same charge was made against Israel during the Lebanon War of 1982, the “Iron Fist” response to the 1988 intifada and during the Lebanon War of 2006. The accusation of “disproportionate force” has been made so many times by so many reporters and commentators that many people now believe it is true.

When I ask people what they mean by “disproportionate force,” some are honest enough to admit that they do not know – they tell me, “we hear it all the time in relation to Israel” and they want to understand why. Others think they know exactly what “disproportionate force” means and quickly point to the lopsided casualty numbers and the widespread destruction in Gaza as proof that Israel used excessive force against the Palestinians.

RULES OF WAR

According to the rules of modern warfare, a military operation is considered legal if it is directed at a “legitimate military objective” and “proportionate.” It is the word “proportionate” that causes confusion when used in reference to an armed conflict.

Much of the criticism of Israel’s defensive tactics seems to be based on the assumption that “proportionate” means to fight on a level of equality. According to that kind of thinking, what would be a proportionate response to the thousands of rockets fired at homes, schools, playgrounds and parks of innocent Israelis over the past eight years? It is ridiculous to think that Israel would respond in kind and launch rockets into populated areas of Gaza hoping to kill as many Palestinians civilians as possible for no military advantage. Addressing the misunderstanding of “proportionality,” Richard Cohen has written: “Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that proportionality is madness. For Israel, a small country within reach, we are finding out, of a missile launched from an enemy’s backyard, proportionality is not only inapplicable, it is suicide.”²

When military personnel speak of proportionate or disproportionate use of force, they are not thinking of revenge but a very complex and difficult military equation that is focused on the overall threat being faced. According to Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, proportionality “cannot be [understood] in relation to any specific prior injury – it has to be [understood] in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression.”³ In other words, proportionality is more about motive than numbers, that is, whether force was exclusively used to end the aggression. Use of force becomes disproportionate when it is intentionally used against civilians, or when “the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.”⁴

Military strategists accept the reality that in any armed conflict there will be unintended civilian deaths and they work to keep those deaths to a minimum or, as strategists put it, to make sure that those casualties are “not excessive” in relation to achieving the goals of the conflict. In the case of Israel’s war with Hamas, the calculation would have to do with assuring that the number of civilians killed not be excessive to the damage that would be caused if the firing of rockets into Israel were to continue, taking into consideration the likelihood that weapons smuggled to Hamas will undoubtedly become more advanced and threaten all of Israel.

RAPID DOMINANCE

Concern about proportionality in war is not an issue unique to Israel; the United States military also works with proportionality calculations. In an article published in Foreign Affairs⁵, General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action, which became known as “The Powell Doctrine.” His idea was not to match opposing power but to completely overwhelm it with planes, tanks, technology, manpower and will. He was convinced that force used this way would make the war short and victory certain.

General Powell’s battle plan was based on a military strategy known as “Rapid Dominance,” a plan that outlines the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dynamic maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force in order to confuse an adversary’s understanding of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

According to the men who developed this strategy, Harlan Ullman and James Wade, the goal of Rapid Dominance is

to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fit or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe . . . [To] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary’s perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels. An adversary would be rendered totally impotent and vulnerable to our actions.⁶

Clearly, Rapid Dominance is the model on which General Powell and his aides designed their battle plan for the Iraq War and on which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) developed its strategy against Hamas.

Proportionality calculations always look to the future and since the future is unknown, the best anyone can do, at least until the conflict is ended, is speculate about proportionality. That Israel was accused of using “disproportionate force” early on the first day of the recent fighting, before anyone could know how many people would be killed, indicates that Israel’s critics were more eager to accuse Israel of doing something evil than making constructive contributions to the situation. Speaking on this rush to criticize, Michael Walzer has said:

The commentators and critics using it [the term “disproportionate force”] today, however, are not being cautious at all; they are not making any kind of measured judgment, not even a speculative kind. “Disproportionate” violence for them is simply violence they don’t like, or it is violence committed by people they don’t like.⁷

That is important! Those who quickly objected to Israel’s tactics against Hamas are often those who are quick to criticize any Israeli response to terror under any circumstance.

To focus criticism only on the IDF in its fight against Hamas, while overlooking the culpability of Hamas in the current situation, enables Hamas to continue its outrageous behavior and moves any prospect of peace further away. One principle is clear to any honest analyst – as long as Israel, and not Hamas, is blamed for civilian casualties and property damage, Hamas will continue to use civilians as human shields and violate every basic rule of international humanitarian law.

* David Blewett is the National Director of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI)

Hamas is an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Arabic, “Hamas” is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamia – Islamic Resistance Movement.
Richard Cohen. “. . . No, It’s Survival,” The Washington Post, July 25, 2006.
Cited in “Responding to Hamas Attacks in Gaza – Issues of Proportionality Background Paper,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 2008.
Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, The Hague, February 9, 2008, http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf.
“U.S. Forces: Challenges Ahead,” Winter 1992/93.
Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade. Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (National Defense University, 1966), p. xxiv-xxv.
“On Proportionality,” The New Republic, January 8, 2009.

Divestment - the untold story

Fri, 14 May 2010 00:37:00 GMT

By David Blewett In July 2004, the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) addressed several issues that dealt with the Middle East conflict; one of those issues has dominated public discussion for the past several months. In an attempt to move the Palestinian cause from words to action, the Presbyterian General Assembly voted 431 to 62 to direct the church’s committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment to look into the possibility of selective divestment of church holdings in multinational corporations that do business in Israel. Use of the word “divestment” set off a fire storm of protest from a wide variety of Christians and Jews, including a large number of Presbyterian pastors, professors, and lay people in churches, colleges and seminaries throughout this country and in Israel.

    At the October 2004 meeting of the NCLCI Executive Committee, Dave Blewett presented the following paper on divestment, which was unanimously approved by the NCLCI Executive Committee.

Divestment – what is it?

   Simply put, divestment is when international groups remove financial support from select companies in order to promote certain behavior or policy. Over the past several years there have been many divestment actions against a wide range of issues, such as sweatshop labor, use of landmines, chemical and tobacco companies. But undoubtedly the best known example of divestment occurred in the 1970s and 1980s in response to the apartheid regime of South Africa. Some employees of groups that had investments insisted that their financial interests – retirement funds, mutual funds, investment institutions – sell their stocks (divest themselves) from companies that did business with South Africa.

   It was a generally accepted assumption that as public knowledge grew about the injustices and horrors of apartheid, the public would react and exert such intense pressure on invested companies that eventually, for the sake of the company, its shareholders or owners would pull the company’s investments out of South Africa causing a massive destabilization of the country’s economy that would ultimately force the government to give in to the public demand and put an end to apartheid. Recent studies are indicating that there is more to the story.

Divestment – the South Africa connection

   Divestment proponents compare Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians to South Africa’s control over its non-white majority population, an offensive and irresponsible comparison. Francis Boyle, the self-acknowledged founder of the divest from Israel campaign, stated his case this way:

Concerned citizens and governments all over the world must organize a comprehensive campaign of economic disinvestment and divestment from Israel along the same lines of what they did to the former criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. This original worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign played a critical role in dismantling the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa.

A worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel will play a critical role in dismantling its criminal apartheid regime against the Palestinian People (sic) living in occupied Palestine as well as in Israel itself.”1

Those who argue for divestment continually refer to Israel’s “apartheid” policy in order to arouse the same passionate hatred for Israel that was used against the white government of South Africa. South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu makes this link explicit when he says things like, Zionism has “very many parallels with racism,”2 or “Israel is like Hitler and apartheid.”3

The difference between South Africa and Israel could hardly be more obvious. Apartheid was a repugnant practice that legally allowed one race to suppress all other racial classes of people. In Israel, there is no legal distinction between citizens, all Arabs and Jews are equal.

Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have the same voting rights, including the right to organize political parties, the right to run for and the right to hold public office. Arabs currently hold 11 seats in Israel’s 120-seat Knesset; they have served, and are serving, throughout the government, including in some of the highest-level appointments in the Foreign Ministry and the Judiciary. As Alan Dershowitz pointed out in the Jerusalem Post, “Israel’s Supreme Court is the only court in the Middle East where an Arab can actually win a case against his government.”4

Arabic is one of the official languages of Israel, Hebrew is the other. More than 300,000 Arab children regularly attend Israeli schools. At the time of Israel’s founding, there was just one Arab school in the country, today there are hundreds.

Under apartheid, black South Africans were not even considered citizens of the country in which they were the overwhelming majority. Laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. And, in South Africa, the government imprisoned, and often killed, those who protested its policies. By contrast, Israel allows and protects freedom of movement, assembly and speech for all people.

The international divestment campaign against South Africa was specifically directed at companies that were using the country’s apartheid racist laws to their advantage. In Israel no such laws exist; companies doing business in Israel must comply with the same standards of equal working rights that exist in the United States.

   Divestment advocates bunch all Palestinians together, regardless of whether they are citizens of Israel or live in the Palestinian territories. They ignore the attitude of Israel’s Palestinian citizens toward their national home. When it looked as if a Palestinian state might actually become a reality in 2000, before Yasser Arafat rejected Israel’s offer, thousands of Israeli Arabs signed a petition to the government asking to remain citizens of Israel if a Palestinian state were to actually be created.5
The situation for Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories is quite different. Israel’s security requirements and a violent Palestinian insurrection in the territories have forced Israel to impose restrictions on Arab residents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians in the territories have typically rejected Israel’s right to exist; blacks never sought the destruction of South Africa, only the apartheid regime.

Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders deliberately sought to avoid the situation that prevailed in South Africa. David Ben-Gurion addressed this concern in 1934 when he spoke to Musa Alami, a noted Palestinian nationalist:

We do not want to create a situation like that which exists in South Africa, where the whites are the owners and rulers, and the blacks are the workers. If we do not do all kinds of work, easy and hard, skilled and unskilled, if we become merely landlords, then this will not be our homeland.6

Divestment – does it work?

   Those who are promoting the divest from Israel campaign would have us believe that the divestment campaign against South Africa was instrumental in ending apartheid there. In one sense they are right. There were those companies that chose, for a variety of reasons, to withdraw a total of $12 billion that had been invested in the country, a move that most economists cite as the main reason for South Africa’s 1988-1993 recession. However, the assumption that public pressure could force targeted companies to divest their holdings is not so clear.

Proponents of divestment suggest that public pressure exerted on targeted companies lowered those companies’ stock prices, forced them to comply with the divestment activists’ demands and thereby disrupted the South African economy to the point that the government had no choice but to submit. In 1996, a study in the Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance considered that question and found that, contrary to the generally accepted assumption, “stock prices of firms announcing plans to stay in South Africa fared better relative to stock prices of firms announcing plans to leave.”7

   Another study, conducted in 1995 by Siew Hong Teoh, Ivo Welch and C. Paul Wazzan, came to the same conclusion:

“We find that the announcement of legislative/shareholder pressure of voluntary divestment from South Africa had little discernable effect either on the valuation of banks and corporations with South African operations or on the South African financial markets. There is weak evidence that institutional shareholdings increased when corporations divested. In sum, despite the public significance of the boycott and the multitude of divesting companies, financial markets seem to have perceived the boycott to be merely a “sideshow.”8

   Professors Matthew Haigh and James Hazelton, in a study published in the Journal of Business Ethics expressed their basic agreement with that conclusion: “In their current forms, both [shareholder advocacy and managed investments] lack the power to create significant corporate change. Shareholder advocacy has been largely unsuccessful to date.” And once more, for emphasis: “Fundamentally, however, addressing social problems by targeting individual firms, either by way of shareholder activism or [socially responsible investment] fund investment, is not likely to result in systemic changes.”9

   Another consequence of divestment, pointed out by Professors David Beaty and Orin Harari,10 is that if divestment were to take place in Israel, it could be quite beneficial for local investors who would be able to capitalize on the “cache of grossly undervalued capital” that would flood the market if pressured companies decided to divest. Instead of eliminating businesses that are collaborating with the Israeli government, proponents of divestment would probably just cause targeted companies to sell their regional assets to local businesspeople at bargain prices, and the new owners would be free to continue making the same equipment as before, and for tremendous profits.

Divestment – who really pays the price?

   There is, it seems to me, a rather significant question that those who support the idea of divestment from Israel are not asking – who really suffers from divestment? The South African experience teaches that divestment might help change policy, but it has a very poor record of actually improving the welfare of the people it intends to help. If proponents of the current divest from Israel campaign really want to help Palestinians, they should consider the likely impact of divestment on an already struggling economy.

   One must understand that the Israeli and Palestinian economies are very much intertwined. Before the current intifada both economies were booming, as the benefits of working together were finally being realized. Palestinians working in Israel supplied nearly a quarter of all the Palestinian labor income, the highest ratio of GNP/GDP differences for nations their size in the world. Eighty percent of Palestinian imports come from Israel, and 95 percent of Palestinian exports go to Israel – another ratio that is highest in the world. In this movement of Israeli goods to the Palestinians and Palestinian labor to the Israelis, the territories enjoyed positive GDP growth rates in the late 1990s, unemployment fell from about 26 percent to 12 percent and the Palestinian economy employed more Palestinians than Israel's. It is one of the tragedies of recent history that this brief period of peace did not last.

   It is an unavoidable economic fact that the intifada, now in its fifth year, is wreaking havoc on both the Israeli and the Palestinian welfare. According to Israel’s coordinator of activities for the territories, Major General Yaakov (Mendi) Or, “If the current situation continues, the gross domestic production of the PA will decline by about 25 percent of its normal rate.”11 The free movement of both Palestinian labor and Israeli goods across the borders is essential to the Palestinian economy and important to the Israeli economy. The Israeli economy has been suffering, not just from the drop in tourism, but also from the closure of access to one of its largest trading partners. The World Bank addressed this issue in a 2003 economic report:

Between 1968 and 2000, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza pursued a development strategy that featured the export of labor rather than goods. In June 2000, three months before the current Palestinian intifada began, 21 percent of all employed Palestinians worked in Israel, mainly in low-skilled construction and agricultural jobs. Net incomes from abroad provided more than 21 percent of Palestinian GNI, making it one of the most remittance-dependent economies in the world. This is why the loss of jobs in Israel in the past two years has had such a strong impact. Put another way, the intifada has demonstrated the vulnerability of a development strategy that relies so heavily on labor exports to Israel.12

In other words, as the Israeli economy worsens, so does the Palestinian’s in a vicious downward cycle.

   And so it is not at all clear how divestment of American funds from Israel, America being the source of Israel’s biggest investors, can help an already unstable region. If there are no jobs in Israel for Israelis, the prospects for Palestinians are even worse; Israelis certainly will not be able to employ Palestinians from the territories if they themselves are struggling financially. And don’t look to the Arab world for help – only three percent of Palestinian exports ever went to the Arab bloc.

Conclusion

   All of this indicates that the divest from Israel campaign seems to have more to do with creating anti-Israel emotions and headlines than with practical economic advice. It seems to me that if advocates of divestment want to be taken serious they will need to present hard evidence that will demonstrate the effectiveness of divestment as a tool for direct political change that really helps the oppressed, or tailor their claims to recognize that divestment is nothing more than a symbolic immoral antisemitic gesture.

This whole issue of divestment has recently taken on a new and interesting twist as fourteen members of Congress wrote to Clifton Kirkpatrick, the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian General Assembly and expressed their “terribly distressed” reactions to the church’s recent decision. Also, the Commerce Department is now investigating the divestment issue to see what makes it different from other attempts to support the Arab boycott of Israel and therefore illegal according to US law.

1. “In Defense of a Divestment Campaign Against Israel” May 20,2002;
www.counterpunch.org.

2. American Jewish YearBook 1988, p. 50.

3. Cited in Ha’aretz, April 29, 2002.

4 . July 11, 2004.

5. This was at the same time that, while the NCLCI Executive Committee was meeting in Jerusalem, several Palestinian Christian groups got word to us asking for our help in communicating their concerns to the Israeli government. They were desperately afraid that if Jerusalem were to be partitioned to accommodate a Palestinian state they might end up on the Palestinian side of the border and they were asking for our help to prevent this from happening.

6. Shabtai Teveth. Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War (London: Oxford University Press; 1985) p. 140.

7. Lytle, Laurian Casson and Joy, O. Maurice. “The Stock Market Impact on Social Pressure: The South Africa Divestment Case." Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance; 1996. See also Bates, David. “Business As Usual With Pretoria” Multinational Monitor, Vol. 9, No. 9; Sept. 1988.

8. Teoh, Siew Hong, Welch, Ivo and Wazzan, Christopher Paul. “The Effect of Socially Activist Investment Policies on the Financial Markets: Evidence From the South African Boycott” (December 1995). London Business School Institute of Finance and Accounting working paper 222.

9. Haigh, Matthew and Hazelton, James. “Financial Markets: A Tool for Social Responsibility?” Journal of Business Ethics; June 2004.

10. Beaty, David and Harari, Oren. Lessons From South Africa: A New Perspective on Public Policy and Productivity. (Ballinger/Harper, 1989).

11. “Intifada Costs Soar for PA and Israeli Economies” Ha’aretz, November 28, 2000.

12. “Twenty-seven months –Intifada, Closures, and Palestinian Economic Crisis: An Assessment, Vol. 1 of 1” http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_Ibank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000160016_20030714162552.

The National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI) is a coalition of Protestants, Catholics and other Christians who are pastors, priests, professors, writers, broadcasters and community leaders. The coalition exists to encourage and develop understanding and support for the people, land and state of Israel in the North American Christian community.

JIMMY CARTER, CHRISTIANS AND ISRAEL (by David Blewett)

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:33:00 GMT

Much has been said and written in recent months about former President Jimmy Carter and his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Most reactions have been highly critical. Over the past few months, some friends of Israel have been asking how Carter, whom they had respected as a successful peacemaker, could turn and present such an uncritical and biased case for the Palestinians, blaming Israel for practically everything that has prevented a peace settlement and Palestinian prosperity. Carter’s blatant partisanship is indeed troubling.

I was surprised by how often Carter referred to his Christian background throughout this book, especially his experiences in Sunday School, first as a student and later as a teacher. Like Jimmy Carter, I also grew up in the church and regularly attended Sunday School and many other church activities. I understand how those experiences can influence a life, in both positive and negative ways. I think that I can understand something about how Carter’s Christian background has influenced him because, in spite of denominational differences, there are many similarities in basic Christian education. While I can relate to his childhood Sunday School experiences, I can not relate to many of his adult ideas, based on his Sunday School experiences, regarding Israel and the Middle East.

AN INVITATION

An invitation from Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States at the time, made possible the Carters’ first visit to Israel; Carter was then Governor of Georgia, considering a run for the presidency. Regarding their preparations for the trip, he writes:

Having studied Bible lessons since early childhood and taught them for twenty years, I was infatuated with the Holy Land, and my wife, Rosalynn, and I arranged to accept his invitation in 1973. In preparing for this trip, we pored over maps and reviewed both the ancient and modern history of Israel. Our choice of how to spend the ten-day visit was a series of compromises because I was torn between the pleasure of visiting the Christian holy places I had always longed to see and the knowledge that I should concentrate on preparing for another political career.

Many of us who grew up in the church can relate to his “infatuation” with “the Holy Land.” After years of Sunday School classes, Vacation Bible Schools, church camps, youth groups and Bible studies, it was obvious that many of our favorite Bible stories were intimately connected to the land. The repetitive telling of those stories with their settings – Bethlehem, Hebron, Nazareth, the Sea of Galilee, Jerusalem – produced in many of us a genuine interest in those places and that land. We felt that to know the stories was to know the land, but we knew the land as Canaan or Judea, both proper historical names, or as “the Holy Land” – we did not know it as Israel. It is very possible for young Christians to go through years of Christian education feeling an attraction, even feeling “infatuated with the Holy Land” and never make a connection with Israel.

A lot of Christian confusion about Israel can be traced to this ambiguity between Israel and “the Holy Land.” Today many critics of Israel expect Israel to be more like “the Holy Land” of Sunday School memory, rather than like “Israel,” a modern nation dealing with citizens’ needs, and with real security threats and real enemies. This may be why some people feel that Israel is often held to a higher standard than other nations, i.e. one standard for all nations, a higher standard for Israel based on expectations of “the Holy Land.” Jimmy Carter demonstrates this double standard throughout his book as well as in his articles and speeches defending it.

REACTIONS TO HIS FIRST TRIP

The Carters’ first visit to Israel made a deep impression on the future president, but not necessarily a good one. Much of what he experienced fell short of what he expected from Israel, the Jewish State in “the Holy Land.”

Carter mentions several experiences he had while touring and meeting people, each referred to with a critical, judgmental attitude:

It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few remaining Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities – the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years ago.

In other words, according to Carter, the insensitivity of Jewish “Israeli authorities” to non-Jewish minorities in the area has not changed in over 2,000 years. It is odd that someone who could boast of teaching Sunday School for 20 years would not know that there is no mention of “Israeli authorities” in the Gospels.

Another incident that provided an opportunity to criticize the spiritual character of Israel and Israelis follows soon after:

The next morning was the Sabbath, and at the appropriate time we entered the synagogue, said a silent prayer, and then stood quietly just inside the door. Only two other worshippers appeared. When I asked if this was typical, Giora [their Israeli guide] gave a wry smile and shrugged his shoulders as if it was not important either way.

Referring to a graduation ceremony at an IDF training camp near Bethel, Carter found another opportunity to comment on what he considered Israel’s lack of a proper spirituality:

The soldiers stood rigidly at attention, and, as each name was called, the graduate ran at top speed to the reviewing stand, where the commander delivered a diploma and I presented a “Sword of the Spirit” (a Hebrew Bible), which was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit.

After their ten days of touring, the Carters met with Prime Minister Meir to thank her for her help in arranging their visit. The Prime Minister asked if Carter had any observations he cared to share with her.

With some hesitation, I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common biblical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government. She seemed surprised by my temerity and dismissed my comments with a shrug and a laugh.

This is quite a statement – not so much about Israel or Prime Minister Meir as it is about Jimmy Carter. Because Christians think of spirituality differently than Jews, Christians often assume that Jews are primarily “secular” rather than “religious” people. Carter made this arrogant mistake. Prime Minister Meir’s “shrug and a laugh” may very well have been her reaction to Carter’s naiveté in judging Israeli Jewish spirituality according to American Christian standards.

A HISTORICAL PROBLEM

Jimmy Carter’s attitude towards Israel is in line with Christianity’s long history of wrong thinking about Jews, Judaism and a Jewish State, even when that state was nothing but a dream. That wrong thinking is the old idea of Christian supersessionism, sometimes referred to as replacement theology or Christian triumphalism.

Supersessionism was the dominant Christian theology towards Jews and Judaism through most of Christian history. It taught that when “the Jews” rejected Jesus as their messiah, God rejected them and replaced them with Christians who became the new people of God, the true recipients of all that had originally been promised to the Jewish people – including the promise of a land. In other words, according to this way of thinking, Jews have lost any right to their own state.

This principle has been expressed in two different, but related, ways:

Jews should not have a State

Prior to 1948, before the modern state of Israel existed, the general Christian attitude was that there should not be a Jewish State. Christians typically believed that because “the Jews” rejected God, they should live lives of poverty, misery and homelessness as an example of what can happen when people reject God. This attitude was most clearly expressed in 1904 when Pope Pius X told Theodor Herzl that the church could not support Zionism:

We are unfavorable to the movement. We cannot prevent Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we can never sanction it . . . The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people . . .

Jews do not deserve a State

Today, an independent Jewish State does exist and the general Christian attitude has had to adapt. Now, instead of teaching that Jews are not entitled to a state, there is an attempt to try to prove that Jews do not deserve the state they have. Jimmy Carter and other Christian critics of Israel are clearly affected by this view when they speak only of Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians with little or no mention of Palestinian mistreatment of Israelis.

A DIFFERENT TYPE OF RESPONSE

The Jewish connection to the land of Israel is not always easy for Christians to understand since there is nothing comparable in Christian thought. Left to our own understanding, Christians will never really understand what the land of Israel means to the Jewish people. But in a relationship of respectful dialogue with Jews, Christians can learn from their dialogue partners and come to understand the covenant relationship that binds God, His people and their land. Attitudes expressed by Carter and other Christians toward Israel indicate that this dialogue is at a rudimentary stage.

The lack of dialogue about Israel between Christians and Jews has left much of the liberal Christian church unable to understand and respond to the anti-Israel accusations and threats that continue to emerge around the world – and even from the church itself. We Christians need to develop the kind of sensitivity that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America called for in its “Guidelines for Lutheran-Jewish Relations”:

12. Lutherans need to understand the depth of Jewish concern for communal survival, a concern shaped not only by the Holocaust but by centuries of Christian apathy towards Judaism. Jews will thus feel strongly about topics such as the security of the State of Israel, intermarriage, and conversion, in which Jewish survival is seen to be at stake.

It is in a committed dialogue relationship with Jews that Christians can begin to understand why and how often the Jewish community thinks of Israel in terms of community survival. Dialogue can also help Christians understand how concern for community survival can influence how the Jewish community reacts to perceived threatening words and resolutions coming from some Christian churches and their leaders.

No one has addressed this challenge more eloquently than Dr. Franklin H. Littell, the noted Christian scholar of the Holocaust and Christian antisemitism, as well as a founder and corporate vice-president of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI). Writing in 1966, Dr. Littell said:

The central question after the Holocaust remains: “Where do you stand on the survival of the Jewish people?” The churches are now able to say they repent of expressions of denigration and contempt about the Jews, but they have not yet moved over to the affirmation of Jewish well-being and survival. The litmus test of antisemitism is the treatment of Israel and its problems.”

This is profoundly important, especially today! Dr. Littell’s question cuts through the layers of distractions and states the ultimate issue – “Where do you stand on the survival of the Jewish people?” This is a question that NCLCI takes very seriously as we speak up for Israel in our churches, in our communities and in all venues that are available to us.

Christians need to understand that while Israel is a nation with all the rights and obligations of any other nation, it is also a unique phenomenon that represents the survival of a persecuted people and the revival of an ancient culture in the modern world, complete with its religious and biblical overtones.

TODAY’S DANGEROUS REALITY

Israel today is in a very precarious position. On Israel’s northern border Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that Israel fought last summer in Lebanon, has now been resupplied by Iran and Syria with more lethal and sophisticated weapons. Hezbollah has had time to dig more and better tunnels and position more missile launch sites, all in preparation for what seems likely to be another round of fighting with Israel.

Syria has intensified its threat against Israel by pre-positioning troops and equipment on its Golan border. Today Syria has five highly trained military units on that border facing Israel’s one unit.
The recent Hamas takeover of Gaza and the ruthless brutality that continues against the civilian population there is a frightening demonstration of the real threat that now confronts Israel on its southwestern border.

Now that Hamas is separated from Fatah, at least temporarily, the money and support that Israel, the United States and the European Union had withheld from the Palestinian Authority is being released to Fatah, ignoring the many signs and voices that plead for caution. Insufficient attention is being given to the fact that Fatah has not dismantled its terror infrastructure, originally established by Yasser Arafat, nor has it amended its charter to eliminate those sections that continue to call for the destruction of Israel. According to Dr. Michael Widlanski, an internationally recognized expert and lecturer in Palestinian affairs at the Rothberg School of Hebrew University, “It’s the same old Fatah which has no desire to live with Israel.”

“Where do you stand on the survival of the Jewish people?”

This does not mean that there is no place for a possible Palestinian State. For years, Israeli governments have supported the goal of a two-state solution – Israel, living within secure and recognized defensible borders next to a terror-free, viable Palestinian State. Many of the difficult details of Palestinian statehood, i.e., borders, foreign relations, defense, Jerusalem, import-exports, etc., will need to be worked out in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians with the help of a third-party mediator.

Today, as Israel faces threatening neighbors on all sides, there should be no question about the Christian church’s commitment to the security and well-being of Israel and the Jewish people – but there is. There is a steadily growing majority of Christians in local churches all over the United States and Canada who do support Israel and the Jewish people. However, there are also Christians, including Christian leaders such as Jimmy Carter, who continue to write, speak and try to influence Christians in an attempt to undermine that growing pro-Israel support. That is why it is so critical today that Christians and Christian organizations, such as NCLCI, continue to make their opinions heard in churches, in church headquarters, in places of political power and in the general community.

Carter makes so much of his Christianity that at least one commentator wondered if his many criticisms of Israel might actually be an attempt to drive a wedge between Christians and support for Israel. (Jeffrey Goldberg, “What Would Jimmy Do?” Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2006).
p. 22 – All page numbers are from Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006) hard cover edition.
Through all my Sunday School and Bible Study experiences while growing up in the church, I do not remember ever hearing the land of the Bible referred to as Israel.
This intimate connection of Bible stories to the land of Israel should not be overlooked. Sunday School teachers and other Christian educators can be teaching supersessionism (more on this later) if they are not careful to teach biblical stories in their proper Jewish context. Taught in context, those lessons should develop a positive and respectful attitude for the Jewish people and Israel. The Jewish context of biblical stories must never be separated from the stories themselves. This may require Christian educators of all ages to learn more about Jewish history and Jewish beliefs in order to teach accurately. Two very helpful resources are:
The Children of Abraham, by Cheryl Hauer . An excellent 24-step curriculum for teaching Christians of all ages an overview of Jewish history from Moses to modern Israel. Contact Bridges for Peace for ordering information (www.bridgesforpeace.org).
Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith , by Marvin Wilson. One of the best introductions to Jewish thought, theology, history and practices. It is written by a Christian for Christian clergy, educators and laypeople. It can be found at www.Amazon.com.
It should also be noted that referring to Israel as “the Holy Land” is often a politically correct way to avoid the reality of Israel in today’s world.
“This is when I formed most of my lasting impressions of Israel.” p. 21.
p. 26
p. 26
p. 29
p. 32
Supersessionism has been soundly denounced by many mainline Protestant denominations and by the Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II. Pope John Paul II spoke often of the enduring covenant that exists between God and the Jewish people, citing or alluding to Romans 11:29 – “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” An example of John Paul’s statements:

“This people was gathered together and led by God, the Creator of heaven and earth. Thus, its existence is not a mere fact of nature or culture... It is a supernatural fact. This people perseveres in spite of everything, because they are the people of the Covenant, and despite human infidelities, the Lord is faithful to his Covenant.” (John Paul II, “The Roots of Anti-Judaism in the Christian Milieu” October 1997).

H. Lobenthal (ed.). The Diaries of Theodor Herzl (London: Jewish Publication Society, 1958), p. 426.
Although supersessionism has been officially repudiated in regard to Christian-Jewish relations, remnants of it still exist, especially in the area of Church-Israel relations.
“Guidelines for Lutheran-Jewish Relations” published by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1998.
Franklin H. Littell. The Crucifixion of the Jew (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1966), p. vi.
“Hizbullah’s military might is restored” Jerusalem Post online edition, July 23, 2007 (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766044844&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1184766044844).
CNSNews.com, June 25, 2007.
“The Israeli government remains committed to the two-state solution – Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security – as the key to peace in the Middle East.” (“Letter from Dov Weissglas, Chief of the PM’s Bureau, to National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice,” April 18, 2004. www.mfa.gov.il); “Israel Still Wants 2-State Solution With Palestinians” June 15, 2007 (www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L15874556.htm).
However, the continued activity of churches, such as the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church, to promote divestment from Israel indicates that there is a very clear need to promote Christian-Jewish relations that includes an on-going, honest and unambiguous dialogue on the significance of and the need for Israel, the Jewish State in its historic homeland.

* David Blewett is the National Director of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI). He is grateful for the valuable help of Rev. Dr. Bill Harter and Dr. Richard Lux for their help in preparing this text.

The Church, Israel and Divestment

Mon, 17 May 2010 07:53:00 GMT

By David Blewett*

On July 1, 2004, delegates to the 216^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted 431 to 62 to begin a process of phased, selective divestment from certain companies doing business in Israel that harm innocent Palestinians. In adopting that resolution, the 216^th General Assembly set off a firestorm of criticism from Christians and Jews around the country and in Israel, but nowhere is the criticism as severe as it has been within the Presbyterian Church USA[1] itself. Today the PCUSA is a church in trouble.

The anger, frustration and disgust that is now surging through the PCUSA contain some important lessons for Christians and Jews, especially for those denominations considering their own divestment resolutions. One very important lesson is the reality of widespread support for Israel in the Christian churches and communities of the United States.

Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations (PCJCR)

Leading the opposition to the divestment resolution is Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations, an informally organized network of Presbyterians who are committed to fostering relations of respect and under-standing between the two faith communities. Originally organized in 1983 to help pass the church’s statement, A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews (1987), the group is again exercising important leadership in the church. Shortly after the divestment vote last July, PCJCR issued a statement in protest, Presbyterians Disagree on Israel. In part, that statement says:

“We are deeply distressed by any suggestion that divestment policies of the church relating to Israel should uniquely target that country in ways that do not apply to every other country, including Palestine. We must be careful not to attack the economic life of the Israeli people or to undermine Jewish survival in any way.”[2]

The Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations website (www. pcjcr.org) has their statement, several articles and sermons that present opposing views to divestment and a petition to be signed by Presbyterians. The petition is carefully written and, in accordance with Presbyterian Church policy, calls for an immediate moratorium on all divestment activity and for a vote to rescind the divestment resolution at the next General Assembly, in 2006.

As Presbyterians around the country continue to learn of the opposition spearheaded by PCJCR, many are seeking to join the group and identify with its balanced approach of opposition to the church’s divestment plans. The number of churches and presbyteries that are signing onto the PCJCR petition indicate that opposition to the idea of divestment is church-wide and still growing.

Sampling of Other Presbyterian Critics

Some delegates at the 2004 General Assembly did speak out against the divestment resolution but The Rev. Mitri Raheb, a Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem and an ecu-menical guest at the General Assembly, convinced most delegates that it was “important for churches to take direct action and stop simply issuing statements.”[3] His words gave the necessary support for divestment advocates to proceed to the vote.

Many Presbyterian leaders from across the country and from throughout the church have been expressing their outrage at the idea of divestment.[4] A sample of the reactions includes an outspoken reaction from The Rev. Mark Brewer, pastor of Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. Speaking to his congregation on a Sunday following the divestment vote, Rev. Brewer said: “The [General Assembly] fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch coming down. The idea that withholding funds is going to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is ridiculous.” The standing room only crowds at each of the three Sunday morning services “greeted his remarks with applause and laughter.”[5]

At its first meeting following the General Assembly, The Session[6] of New York’s historic Brick Presbyterian Church approved a statement opposing the divestment resolution. In part, that resolution read:

“We as a Church strongly support efforts to advance the peace process in the Middle East. As residents of New York City who lived through the September 11 attack on innocent people, we especially share the pain of victims of terror . . .

“The action of the General Assembly, however well intended, undermines our balanced concern for all people in the Middle East. Its failure to expressly condemn terror does not represent the views of many Presbyterians and has caused misperceptions and pain in the Christian and Jewish communities. We are saddened that the proposed selective divestment is now being cited as support for a broader divestiture from Israel.”[7]

The Session of River Road Presbyterian Church in Richmond, Virginia, released a statement acknowledging that the action to divest from Israel was “instituted capriciously and with misguided intentions.” Their statement calls on the General Assembly “to suspend, renounce and nullify the proceedings leading to the implementation of the General Assembly action toward divestment of legitimate investments of American corporations engaged in commerce with the state of Israel.”[8]

In An Open Letter to the Baltimore Jewish Community, the signers of the letter, The Revs. John Sharp, Peter Nord and Christopher Leighton, said, “Many of us Presbyterians were surprised by these actions and wish to go on record stating that they do not fairly represent our views . . . The actions of this Assembly dealt a disturbing setback to the vitally important relationship between our communities.”[9]

The Rev. Gregg Meister, a Presbyterian pastor in Haddonfield, New Jersey, has said that the resolution does not reflect the attitude of most Presbyterians: “My experience with people in the pew, as a pastor, as one who produces educational resources, as one who gives seminars, is that people in the pews are quite strongly pro-Israel.”[10]

There is overwhelming evidence that The Rev. Meister is correct.

Many statements and letters of protests echo the sentiments of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio and a number of other Texas Presbyterian congregations who issued a statement that expressed their opposition to divestment. Their statement concludes by saying: “We cannot support a resolution that appears to focus blame on Israel alone.” [11]

The Session of Hope Presbyterian Church in Richfield, Minnesota, in a strongly worded open letter to Clifton Kirkpatrick, the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church USA, that said, in part:

“. . . We reject the General Assembly’s notion that Israel is morally equivalent to South Africa during its years of practicing apartheid. The people of Israel have endured years of terrorist attacks, at times on almost a daily basis. This does not mean that they are above criticism, but it does mean that we must grasp – and empathize with – the reality of daily life in Israel before we judge Israeli responses to terrorism.

“We ask you to remember that in the mystery and plan of God, we Christians are bound to the Jewish people and the nation of Israel in a unique way. The 216^th General Assembly helpfully focused on the plight of the Palestinians, a number of whom are our brothers and sisters in Christ. But this focus was unbalanced, and has unfairly compromised Israel’s standing in the world.”[12]

A surprisingly large number of congregations have chosen to stop funding the general budget of the Presbyterian Church, choosing instead to carefully designate how monies sent to the church headquarters are to be spent, since they no longer trust the national church leaders to decide church priorities. While continuing to support church schools, camps, foreign missionaries, welfare agencies and other worthwhile programs, they refuse to further support those programs that they perceive to damage a true Christian witness in today’s world and work against the stated objectives of the Presbyterian Church USA.

Clayton Presbyterian Church in Clayton, Georgia, sent a public letter to the Presbyterian Church USA national headquarters in Louisville on August 14, 2004, that simply said:

“We reject the Presbyterian divestment resolution against Israel and the Jewish people as being reckless and indefensible. We call for its immediate revocation, a statement of apology for the action, and a meaningful request for forgive-ness for the pain caused by this ill-conceived action. Further, as the PCUSA has chosen to withhold financial support from Israel, the Clayton Presbyterian Church, PCUSA, will withhold apportionment from the denomination until this action is reversed, and we encourage other churches to join us in this protest and the withholding of apportionment from the PCUSA."[13]

The Investment Committee of the 5,300 member Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago has put its own unique spin on divestment. The church’s Session has voted to selectively divest from the national Presbyterian Church and “seek appropriate corporations whose business in Israel is positive . . . and make appropriate investment . . . in such businesses.”[14]

The Presbyterian Church USA Reacts

Knowing that it was facing unexpectedly harsh criticism from American Presbyterians, the PCUSA organized a conference in Louisville, from February 10-12, 2005, to train Presbyterians how to speak about divestment in their home congregations and communities. Over 200 church members, representing all 16 synods of the church and nearly half of the 173 presbyteries, came to hear presentations on Middle Eastern history, Christians Zionism, divestment, and Palestinian Christians in what they expected to be fair and open discussions.

However, the bias of the Presbyterian Church soon became obvious to many of the participants. No one from Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish-Christian Relations was invited to speak at plenary sessions or on a panel, nor were any other opponents to divestment. The only Jewish voice that was heard was that of Rabbi Arik Ascherman, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, who spoke via phone from Jerusalem.

One attendee from the Central Florida presbytery said that he was “saddened that we didn’t have Jewish representatives here to give their side . . . It is a multi-faceted problem. How can we learn and understand if these voices are absent? How does one discern truth when critical voices are gone?”[15] Another participant, Susan Wittjen, echoed those feelings of frustration. She told a reporter from the Presbyterian News Service that she had wanted to hear a Jewish voice. She said, “We were told that this would be a balanced presentation,” but to many participants it seemed to be nothing more than an apologetic for the Presbyterian position.[16]

Christian Support for Israel Remains High

It is understandable that most people would believe that the words of church leaders or the actions of General Assemblies faithfully represent the attitudes of church members. However, the divestment issue is an example of how wrong that conclusion can be. While Presbyterian Church leaders are promoting one idea, a surprisingly large number of local Presbyterian Church members are saying and doing things in direct opposition to the leadership’s position.

Many times when I am invited to speak, organizers have commented that they are not sure how many people will attend, but inevitably, when the topic deals with Israel, the attendance is larger than expected. This is not only my experience; I hear from many of my colleagues on the NCLCI Executive Committee that they are experiencing the same thing in their part of the country.

This Backgrounder has focused on the Presbyterian Church USA since it was the church that publicly voted to begin exploring the divestment process. Other mainline Protestant denominations are quietly drafting their own divestment resolutions and, as copies of the drafts leak out, my NCLCI colleagues and I see the same kind of turmoil stirring in each of those denominations. Across the country, support for the people, land and state of Israel remains high in local Christian churches throughout the United States – regardless of what church leaders say.

The Bigger Issue

I believe that the divestment issue in mainline Protestant churches is a symptom of a much larger problem – Christian arrogance.

Jews tend to see Israel as an issue of survival. After years of dialogue, if Christians do not understand the profound significance of Israel to their dialogue partners, they simply have not been paying attention. On the other hand, after years of dialogue, if Christians do understand the significance of Israel for their Jewish partners, and still promote the idea of divesting from Israel, their concern for their dialogue partner is quite superficial. No wonder Jewish leaders are getting fed up trying to dialogue with some Christian leaders.

In a letter sent to Protestant leaders on April 22, 2005, a number of mainstream Jewish leaders said:

“Any Protestant denomination that would consider the weapon of economic sanctions to be unilaterally and prejudicially used against the State of Israel, or those who would hold the State of Israel to a standard different from any other sovereign state, creates an environment which makes constructive dialogue almost impossible.”[17]

Christian arrogance has caught up with the dialogue and is threatening to end one of the most dynamic and enriching experiences of church history, one that has opened exciting new vistas for understanding who we Christians are and how we should be reading our Bibles. Christian arrogance is obviously still very real when it comes to Christian attitudes toward Jews, Judaism and, especially, Israel.

Dr. Barbara Wheeler, President of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York, spoke to this when she said: “We talk as if we have superior moral status, as if we are in a position to define . . . what this conflict is ‘about’ from a Jewish perspective, and even what God does or should ‘forbid’ with respect to positions taken by Jews on Israel. Instead of delivering moralizing pronouncements and symbolic body blows, Presbyterians should offer partnership – listening, support and encouragement – to Jews, Muslims and other Christians who are working for reconciliation.”[18]

Dr. Cynthia Campbell, the President of Chicago’s McCormick Theological Seminary, told the church’s General Assembly Council meeting in Louisville this past September, “We as a Presbyterian church need to take this opportunity to really listen to why it is this divestment issue has occasioned such a negative reaction in the Jewish community . . . The divestment strategy is a strategy that has, I think, unnecessarily moved in a direction that alienates us from people that we need very seriously to be in a relationship with.”[19]

I have not found a better expression of Christian repentance than that written by The Reverend Doug Huneke, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tiburon, California. In a letter to The Jewish Weekly of Northern California, Pastor Huneke wrote:

“My denomination must again try to earn the trust and friendship of the Jewish community. The vast majority of Presbyterians are not anti-Semitic and most are either deeply troubled or confused by the [General Assembly] actions. We are profoundly disturbed by our leaders and by the delegates who favored these anti-Israel, anti-Semitic actions. Be certain of this. We are also committed to challenging the actions of the denomination and working for meaningful sensitivity in the church and its congregations regarding Israel and the unquestionable spiritual integrity of Judaism. As I repent and repudiate those actions, taken in my name, I commit myself to continuing efforts to bring a just peace (in governance and territory) to Israelis and Palestinians, and respectful understanding between Christians (especially Presbyterians) and Jews in America.”[20]

This is the work that all conscientious Christians now have before us.

[1] Also known as PCUSA.

[2] www.pcjcr.org.

[3] “Assembly Endorses Israel Divestment” News. Presbyterian News Service, July 2, 2004.

[4] The Rev. William Harter, a co-convener of Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish-Christian Relations and Secretary- Treasurer of NCLCI, has commented that opposition to the divestment resolution has succeeded in doing what no other issue has done – it has united all segments of the church.

[5] “Presbyterians Ignite Divestment Uproar” The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, July 30, 2004.

[6] A Session is the governing body of a local Presbyterian congregation.

[7] “The Session of the Brick Presbyterian Church in the City of New York Regarding the 216^th General Assembly’s Actions on Israel and Jewish-Christians Relations.” www.brickchurch.org/SpecialEvents/050115PresbJewishRelations.

[8] “Session Calls on G.A. to Nullify Action on Israel Divestment, Censure ACSWP,” The Layman Online, Nov. 24, 2004.

[9] Rudin, A. James. “Presbyterians Have a Double Standard When It Comes To Israel,” Commentary; Religious News Service, Sept. 23, 2004.

[10] “Presbyterians Decry Resolution Calling for Divestment From Companies in Israel” New York Sun, Aug. 12, 2004.

[11] “San Antonio Statement Opposes PCUSA’s Divestment Resolution,” The Layman Online, Dec. 13, 2004.

[12] Copy of letter received from a member of The Session.

[13] www.presbyweb.com/2004/News/0816-Clayton+GA+PC-Israel+Resolution.htm.

[14] “Protestant Church Fights Back on Boycott” The Jewish Week, Jan. 21, 2005.

[15] “PCUSA Training Sessions on Divestiture Air Views From Churches, Presbyteries,” The Presbyterian Outlook, Feb. 14, 2005.

[16] “Middle East Conference Distributed Wealth of Resources: Some Participants Still Longed For Jewish View.” News. Presbyterian News Service, Feb. 15, 2005.

[17] “As Protestant Divestment Drive Heats Up, Jews Express Their Ire” Focus on Issues, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 5, 2005.

[18] “Divestment Strategy is Unwise, Ineffective” Christian Century, Feb. 8, 2005.

[19] “Responses to Divestment Decision Discussed at GAC” Presbyterian Outlook, Sept. 24, 2004.

[20] “Presbyterian Pastor Takes Issue With Church’s Actions: A Local Voice” The Jewish Weekly of Northern California, Sept. 17, 2004.

*David Blewett is the National Director of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI).

Don't Jews have right to Jerusalem?

Thu, 13 May 2010 23:59:00 GMT

Of all the problems that have confronted, or will confront, the Israelis and Palestinians in their peace process, none can compare with that of the city of Jerusalem. More than a few observers have held that it should have been taken up first, not last, on the peace agenda, and this for the simple reason that it is not at all impossible that such a crucial problem may end in a stalemate that could nullify the progress already made and revive enmities and violence of the past.

    Israeli leadership has made it plain that the whole city will remain as Israel’s capital, while Yasser Arafat ceaselessly promises Palestinians that it will be the capital of a Palestinian state. Just a few weeks ago this is what he said, “When we stopped the intifada, we did not stop the jihad (Islamic holy war) to establish Palestine with Jerusalem as our capital. We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad. We are in conflict with the Zionist movement.” This about a city mentioned 825 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and not once in the Koran, a city to which Jews have been fervently attached for three millennia, a city that has suffered five multinational Arab wars since 1948, which handed Israel her fifth defensive war for possession of the city.

   There are some Christians who are little affected by that background of violence and are apparently willing to risk another anti-Israeli war rather than let go of their political and religious interests in the city. The Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah (a Palestinian), told a Roman Synod that the Middle East “needs the resources of all its peoples and religions. Christianity and Islam.” Didn’t he forget Judaism? No, a little later he said, “A new reality has been established in the Holy Land, the Jewish fact . . . which is the main cause of what is wrong in the region.” Incredible!

   Cardinal William Keeler, then president of the U.S. Catholic Conference, together with eight other clerics, urged President Clinton to press Israel “to stop expanding its presence in Jerusalem,” a statement that angered Jewish organizations and, I can assure you, not only Jewish organizations.

   Is it only Catholics who take such positions? Not quite. Last Dec. 21 a huge number of mainline Protestant leaders and members, plus a sprinkling of non-representative Catholics, had a full-page ad in The New York Times entitled “Christians Call for a Shared Jerusalem,” wherein they made plain that they are calling for a divided city. A “shared” Jerusalem today is at best a mirage.

   It was reported in The New York Times of Dec. 17 that Leah Rabin, widow of the slain prime minister, had a private audience with Pope John Paul, who told her that he acknowledges Jerusalem’s “double role” as “capital of Israel” and “holy city of Jews, Christians and Muslims.” His approach is similar to Israel’s, which recognizes Jerusalem as her capital and guarantor of the religious rights and security of the three faiths. The problem here is Arafat, who is now trying to delude Christians into believing that “Jesus was a Palestinian,” thus revealing his ignorance of the fact that Jesus lived two centuries before that region was named “Palestina” by the Roman emperor.

   Would it not be better if all the churches, synagogues and mosques tried to pacify the situation and resorted to common prayer for peace and an inclusive fraternity. Have they excluded the possibility that the Almighty One who gave the Holy City to the Jews and brought them back to it may be in their front line of defense today?

“Mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about his people, both now and forever.” (Ps. 125)

The Rev. Edward H. Flannery was director of the office of Catholic-Jewish Relations for the Diocese of Providence and a President of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.

ON “ARAB EAST JERUSALEM”
By David Blewett*

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 03:02:00 GMT

At a recent Executive Committee meeting of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI) in Washington, D.C., most of one day was spent discussing the current situation in Israel and, as expected, we had committee members on both sides of the debate. Some thought the peace process had gone too far and was endangering Israel’s security. Others felt that the peace process had not gone far enough and was on the verge of collapse, a situation that would endanger Israel’s security. Some felt that the construction at Har Homa was unnecessary and provocative; others felt that due to the critical housing shortage in Jerusalem the construction is necessary and no more provocative than any other action that demonstrates Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. However, no one questioned the Israeli government’s legal right to build at Har Homa.

Our discussion was enlightening for everyone and we all learned from each other’s insights. We came away feeling that we had participated in something good and useful, a feeling that is often missing in discussions today about the Middle East peace process.

In analyzing our experience we realized that it is necessary to respect all views on how the peace process should be implemented because no one, including North American Christians, has the final word on how peace can best be realized between Israelis and Arabs in the Middle East. It is only through respectful dialogue that all ideas can be explored and understanding developed. But dialogue, if it is to be useful, must be based on historical accuracy, not on historical revisionism.

There are words and phrases being used in discussions about the Middle East today that obstruct dialogue and distort reality. NCLCI asserts that any discussion, if it is to be beneficial, must be based on historic and linguistic accuracy.

For example, the phrase “Arab East Jerusalem” suggests that it is a separate municipal entity from Jerusalem, in the same way as East St. Louis is separate from St. Louis. To help support their argument, those who defend the phrase “Arab East Jerusalem” point out that in 1967, “the Jewish population of East Jerusalem . . . stood at zero in 1967” (National Catholic Reporter, April 25, 1997). That is because in the 1948 War of Independence, when the Jordanian army captured the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the ancient walled city, they expelled all Jews who lived or worked there, they also confiscated homes, desecrated graves and ruined 58 synagogues, turning others into chicken coops and stables. In 1967 Israel reunited Jerusalem and the city began to revive and develop again.

Jerusalem is one city made up of a wonderful rich mosaic of peoples, cultures, traditions, religions and languages. In the Old City there are the four quarters that maintain unique Armenian, Arab, Christian and Jewish traditions. What gives the Old City its vitality is that these are not four isolated ghettos but four areas that overlap and, if it were not for the occasional outside interference, coexist peacefully together.

The more modern city of Jerusalem is even more diverse. There are unique neighborhoods throughout the city. The up-scale artistic neighborhood of Yemin Moshe, the historic Russian Compound with its magnificent Cathedral, the ultra-Orthodox community of Mea She’arim, Mt. Scopus with its hospital and university, the Bukharian Quarter, the American Colony built in the nineteenth century and the eastern part of Jerusalem are only a sample of Jerusalem’s rich diversity. To imply that eastern Jerusalem, because of its distinctive Arab character, is a separate entity from Jerusalem makes no more sense than to imply that the Armenian Quarter, because of its own distinct character, should be an independent city.

The phrase “Arab East Jerusalem” implies that it has always been the exclusive Arab area of Jerusalem. The reality is that prior to 1865 the city’s entire population lived in eastern Jerusalem, inside the Old City walls. After 1865, due to the growing population of Jerusalem, both Jews and Arabs began to develop new areas of the city outside of the walls.

Before 1949 there was a flourishing Jewish community in the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem. That part of the city contains all the historic sites of importance to Judaism including the original city of King David, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. The original Hadassah Hospital and the first campus of the Hebrew University were on Mt. Scopus – in eastern Jerusalem.

The only time eastern Jerusalem was totally Arab was a brief period from 1949 to 1967 after the Arab world rejected the 1949 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and launched a war to annihilate the newly reborn State of Israel. In that war, Jordan occupied the eastern part of the city and expelled all Jews. However, during those 18 years no Arab nation recognized Jordanian control over “East Jerusalem.”

NCLCI repudiates any suggestion that would ultimately divide or in any way minimize Israeli sovereignty over its capital city, Jerusalem. Use of the phrase “Arab East Jerusalem” does that by implying that there are two Jerusalems, one Arab and one Jewish, an implication that is to be rejected because it is historically false and because it has a malicious intent, which is to deny the city’s history of wholeness.

Jerusalem, except for a brief period of 19 years, has been one city made up of many diverse neighborhoods and peoples. It is important to the healthy future of the city, of Israel and the Middle East that Jerusalem remain undivided under Jewish sovereignty.

* David Blewett is the National Director of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI)

Interfaith dialogue opens new doors

Fri, 14 May 2010 00:09:00 GMT

The Jewish-Christian dialogue of the last 30 years has made great strides in mutual understanding along social, ethical and interpersonal lines. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of theological understanding. Christian members of the dialogue have fared better here, as they moved from the anti-Judaic negations of the past to an affirmation of the eternal validity of Israel’s Covenant and of Judaism as one of the main foundation stones of Christianity.

   It is understandable, given centuries of disregard and persecution visited upon Jews, that Judaism should proceed more cautiously in approaching Christianity theologically. There have been, for all that, great thinkers in Jewish history who expressed positive evaluations of Christianity. And in the last few years, Jewish theologians have affirmed that God has entered into covenant relationships with other peoples and nations, including Christianity.

   Dr. Michael Kogan, a Jewish theologian and founding member of “The Rainbow Group” (Jewish and Christian theologians), does not think that goes far enough. Dissatisfied with the impasse that has beggared our relations, he believes the time has come for Judaism to go beyond the many-covenants stage and seek out the special relationship that exists between our two faiths.

   Toward this end, he credits Christianity with breaking open Israel’s Covenant to include the nations of the world, for it is through Christianity, he holds, that most of those who know the God of Israel do so through the “Christian interpretation.” The churches have brought “central propositions of the Jewish faith” to the nations, and in this way God’s promise to Abraham that through Israel “all the nations of the earth be blessed” has been realized. In this light, “Christianity is not a threat to Judaism but a Jewish outreach to the world.”

   At this point Kogan invites Jewish theologians, secure in their own faith, to take the next step and “reexamine Christian claims in the light of Judaism’s textual traditions” and to discover to what extent they can be seen in a positive light. He is convinced that, given the circumstances, Judaism could not have looked favorably on Christianity in earlier times, but in an age of interfaith dialogue the way has been opened to understanding and appreciation. In the Middle Ages, for example, Jesus was referred to as the “nameless one”; in our time He has been hailed by Martin Buber as a “great brother.” Kogan esteems him as a “giant of Jewish religious history.”

   The real test comes, however, with theological differences. What can Jewish theologians do with Christian beliefs in Incarnation, Redemption and Resurrection? Space allows but a glimpse of the richness and penetration of his answer to this question; so we must summarize:

   While insisting that such beliefs cannot become part of Judaic faith, Dr. Kogan contends that an open-minded study of the Torah reveals similarities that show them “not as alien as we thought,” and “mistakes labeling them as false more difficult.”

   “Our views that the divine hand guides Christianity as well as Judaism,” he explains, “leads us to entertain the possibility of their being true. If God has chosen to break open the Covenant to include the nations and had done so through Jesus, then God may have determined to accomplish this by means of events claimed by Christianity to have taken place.” Briefly, they are not true for Judaism, but are or may be for Christianity.

   It comes as no surprise that he accepts Christianity as a “sister faith” and a “partner in witnessing and building up the Kingdom of God.”

   A remarkable achievement of Jewish-Christian dialogue!

The Rev. Edward H. Flannery was director of the office of Catholic-Jewish Relations for the Diocese of Providence and a President of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.

A theological reflection on "Israel reborn"

Fri, 14 May 2010 00:22:00 GMT

By Edward H. Flannery

The epochal return of the Jewish people to sovereignty in their ancient homeland in our time has been greeted with relatively little attention from Christian theologians. A few have questioned whether there can be a theology of today’s Israel at all. A goodly number, however, covering a wide spread of Christian thought, have taken up the subject with results that, while tentative and incomplete, are nonetheless promising.

The task facing these pioneers is centered on two problems: first, that of the applicability of Israel’s biblical covenants and promises to the present return to Israel, and second, that of the present-day Israel’s secularity. Most of these scholars agree that the people of Israel is endowed in the Scriptures with an “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:19) and a promise of the land as a “permanent possession” (Gen. 17:8). This is backed up in the Christian Testament by Paul’s assurance that “his kinsmen,” the Jews, “have the covenants and promises” and “God’s gifts and call are irrevocable” (Rom. 9:4 & 11:1).

Some scholars have no doubts. Paul van Buren, Protestant, holds that “the church has no choice but to affirm the promise of the land if it believes God to be faithful.” John Oesterreicher, Catholic, agrees: “Today’s Israel is new proof that God stands by his Covenant.” And Clarence Wagner, Evangelical, assures us that, “Prophecy is being unfolded before our eyes.”

Others are more cautious and base the return more on providential grounds than on prophecies. Eva Fleischner, Catholic, hesitates to affirm the return as a prophetic fulfillment by reason of the conditional nature of the land-promise, which warns that in cases of infidelity, Israel could be “plucked off the land” (2 Chron. 7:20). Walter Harrelson, Protestant, takes an eschatological approach: “God keeps bringing Israel back to this place, for there is to be the scene of a new and glorious transfiguration of life on earth, with the holy land at its center.” Hendrik Berkof of the University of Leiden takes another view: “Israel’s vocation is not complete so long as it remains just a state among many others. God’s promise will be fulfilled when it reflects his will for human fellowship as a whole and becomes a “blessing in the midst of the Earth.”

The present writer has put forward this question: If it is a Christian belief that Israel’s Election and Covenant are irrevocable gifts founded on the Scriptures, and the land-promise is an essential component thereof, should not a return of the Jewish people to Israel characterized by a prominent spiritual dimension be accepted as a possible prophetic fulfillment? Simply to accept such a possibility would at least serve as an explicit ecclesiastical rejection of the anti-Judaic theologies that infiltrated the churches in the past, portraying the Jewish people as guilty of deicide, deprived of their Covenant and destined to perpetual wandering.

The major problem is obviously Israel’s largely secular make-up. Must it be seen as a lapse from the biblical call that Israel be a “holy nation,” a “light to the nations?” (Ex. 19:6), a “light to the nations” (Is. 51:4)? Or can it not be seen as a “sign” or “first stage” of things to come? Van Buren, for one, is undeterred by Israel’s secularity and gives his reason: “It will not last.” He is, we can all hope, right. Israel’s secularity is not to be exaggerated. A spiritual core is always there, so that even in her more secular moments one can sense a resonance of her messianic past.

The Rev. Edward H. Flannery was director of the office of Catholic-Jewish Relations for the Diocese of Providence and a President of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.

Arab-Israel peace: a matter of cooperation

Fri, 14 May 2010 00:20:00 GMT

To take a troubled view of the obvious progress made in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace process may appear, to many, unwarranted. So far the process has gone so well, true, but at what price for Israel? Some friendly critics have a foreboding that the peace may be lost up ahead, and go so far as to claim that Israel is seeking peace at any price. She is seeking peace, I believe, at the right price.

   But what gives one pause is that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO are not doing the same. The danger is that this imbalance may not come fully to light until final negotiations, which may well result in the breakdown of the peace process and a revival of the conflict that has harassed Israeli-Palestinian relations from their first days.

   Is this a pessimistic view? What is there to back it up? First, the imbalance of the negotiations. Thus far, Israel has conceded much in rights and territory, while the PLO has given promises that have not been fulfilled. The promise, twice asked for, that the clause calling for the destruction of Israel in the PLO Charter would be eliminated is one of them. Then there is the matter of terrorism. Promises were made but little undertaken to stop it. Yasser Arafat, now president of the interim government, had promised peace and has recently lauded a slain terrorist as a “holy martyr.”

   Israel has given over Gaza, Jericho and several areas of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority for self-rule and toward the formation of an independent Palestinian homeland. More territory will be given before final negotiations. By that final stage, when Jerusalem and final borders will be taken up, Israel may well have become a negotiator with no chips left to bargain with – except the Old City of Jerusalem.

   For three millenniums, the Old City and its immediate environs, “Holy Zion,” was once the capital of Israel, and it has remained the sacred center of Jewish religion, culture and consciousness. After the present state of Israel was established by the United Nations in 1947, five Arab armies marched on it to destroy it and Jordan took possession of the Old City, thus creating a divided Jerusalem. Israel defeated the Arab armies and declared the new city of Jerusalem as its capital. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel retook the Old City and declared the reunited city as its capital. In 1947 the United Nations had proposed that Jerusalem be internationalized but never followed through to implement the proposal.

   Arafat, meanwhile, has continued to promise Palestinians a state with Jerusalem (the Old City) as its capital. At a recent rally he stated, “Today we begin our path to a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.” It is a promise of future trouble.

   It is not to be expected that Israel will relinquish sovereignty over that part of Jerusalem to which Jews and Judaism have been historically so attached, and which is the site of major holy places of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The dangers attending the final negotiations should be clear: The peace process and the progress made in Jewish-Palestinian relations could be destroyed.

   What can be done about it? It has been suggested that these problems should be confronted now. This could be done by initiating the final stage of negotiations (slated for 1996) immediately. In this way, the imbalance could to some extent be corrected. Palestinian demands for more territory and acceptance of refugees could then be balanced with Israel’s insistence on its own integrity. All this in the hope that Palestinians will have their own independent homeland, Israel will remain Israel and the peace process will survive.

“If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand be withered” (Psalm 137).

Author: Rev. Edward H. Flannery

Originally published: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
February 30, 1996

The Rev. Edward H. Flannery is director of the office of Catholic-Jewish relations for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

Jerusalem is a sovereign Israeli concern

Fri, 14 May 2010 00:25:00 GMT

By Edward H. Flannery

A few months ago 12 Christian denominational heads in Jerusalem issued a statement calling for a “special statute for Jerusalem which reflects the universal significance of Jerusalem . . . with international guarantees.” More recently eight American Christian leaders sent President Clinton a letter questioning Jewish sovereignty over the city and pressing the government to take up the status of Jerusalem “as son as possible.”

   These surprising demands were greeted with anger and shock by major Jewish organizations and occasioned a response by Prime Minister Rabin, who assured them that all religious rights will be carefully addressed and reiterated that “Jerusalem is and will remain a united city under Israeli sovereignty and the eternal Capital of Israel.” President Clinton’s response simply recited what has been done to aid the peace process and promised to continue such efforts.

   It has been well known for some time now that Israel and the PLO have agreed to place the subject of Jerusalem last on the peace agenda. And with good reason. When other difficult issues have been dealt with, chances of agreement on this most difficult one will be greatly enhanced. Militant Palestinians have insisted on having it first on the agenda, which has been generally interpreted as a stratagem for derailing the peace process. This dangerous possibility should not be overlooked.

   The main weakness of these statements is their call for a statute on Jerusalem “established in common by local political and religious authorities . . . guaranteed by the international community.”

   It is a leap into the past. Israel has been a sovereign nation and a member of the United Nations since 1949 with Jerusalem as its capital. Both statements apparently reject this. The American letter, in fact, accuses the United States of “backing away from the long-term U.S. policy that East Jerusalem is subject to a U.N. Security Council resolution of 1967.”

   The United States, true, has based its policy on the original U.N. policy of “territorial internationalization,” but things have changed since then. The U.N. initiated the policy in 1949, but did nothing to implement it and in the early 1950s moved away from it. It reconsidered it briefly after the Six Day War and then dropped it.

   E. Lauterpacht, a noted scholar of the subject, attributes the change to a “gradual realization beginning in the 1950s that it was not acceptable to Israel or Jordan and besides could never be enforced.” He also explains that as a result of the U.N.’s relinquishing its jurisdiction over the city and Israel’s gaining possession of the Old City in a defensive war initiated by Jordan, Israel alone is entitled to sovereignty over the whole city.

   The general trend today is toward “functional internationalization,” an arrangement that would concede special rights to Jews, Christians and Muslims over their own holy places. It is here that the Christian statements could be of help. As the peace process finally takes on the question of Jerusalem, that would be the time for the Christian leaderships to present the concerns and proposals they outlined in their statements. Israel on more than one occasion has manifested its openness (before the U.N. General Assembly and the Knesset) to some form of interfaith or international involvements regarding free access and protection of the holy places.

It is difficult at this stage of the struggling peace process to see how calling for an obsolescent, if nor obsolete, policy for Jerusalem can avoid being considered troublemaking and futile as well.

*Originally published in the Providence Journal Bulletin