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.
