Dear Friend,
1) The Presbyterian Church (USA) is recommending divestment from three companies profiting from the illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
Here is the official announcement. (It will be discussed and voted on at this year's General Assembly in Pittsburgh, PA).
2) There were six (6) responses to my "Discussion Starter" piece, which I'm attaching without comment, although I'd like to respond to several. It adds to the important discussion needs to take place. One thing I will say is that our Christian Palestinian friend in I/P is stressing the systemic cause of the conflict, whereas I was highlighting the "personal, and relational" aspect of the break down in human relations. Both aspects come into play in my view. (I'm also attaching the original "Discussion Starter" piece in case you missed it). JRK
Presbyterian Leadership Takes Historic Stand
LOUISVILLE, KY - February 17, 2012 - The General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted to send a recommendation to the July meeting of the 220th General Assembly (national Presbyterian voting body) to divest its holdings from Caterpillar, Inc., Hewlett Packard, and Motorola Solutions. The original recommendation came from the denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) at its meeting of September 2011. MRTI’s recommendation first went to the GAMC Subcommittee on Justice, who passed it on to the larger body by unanimous consent.
Brian Ellison, Chair of MRTI, made presentations to both the subcommittee and the larger body, covering the long and painstaking process of corporate engagement that led to this recommendation. A Presbyterian pastor from Kansas City, Ellison made it clear that MRTI’s attempts at engagement with the top executives of these companies over the years have borne no fruit and that according to the Presbyterian Church’s own investment guidelines, MRTI is left without any choice but to recommend divestment as the last step of the process. When asked why these companies are being singled out among all those that do business in Israel, Ellison said that these companies profit from non-peaceful pursuits by supporting illegal occupation, which is not in line with Presbyterian values or investment philosophy.
When a member of the subcommittee mentioned that she had received information by e-mail from a Presbyterian opponent of divestment suggesting that MRTI had not gone far enough in contacting company executives, Ellison disagreed and went on to say that MRTI and its ecumenical partners persistently contacted CEOs and top executives of the three companies over several years, and received no meaningful responses to their questions or concerns.
The Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) [IPMN]commends the General Assembly Mission Council for this historic vote. Much like the decision by Presbyterians in 1983 to divest from companies profiting from Apartheid in South Africa, this is an action that will send a clear message to the world that our Church will do everything in our power to make sure it does not profit from violence or the systematic violation of Palestinian human rights. If history is our guide, then such action, when combined with those of other religious bodies and individuals of conscience, will help bring change and transformation to the land that holds deep meaning for all the people of the three Abrahamic faiths.
About IPMN: In joyful obedience to the call of Christ, and in solidarity with churches and our other partners in the Middle East, this network covenants to engage, consolidate, nourish, and channel the energy in the Presbyterian Church (USA) toward the goal of a just peace in Israel /Palestine by facilitating education, promoting partnerships, and coordinating advocacy.
Our network speaks TO the Church not FOR the Church.
Presbyterian News Service on PC(USA) website
Friday, February 17, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
A Discussion Starter on the Root of Conflict
This slight study on Gen. 16 is meant as a discussion starter for those seeking resolution of conflict. Reconcilation is the goal. Patience and persistence is the rule and way forward. Peace to all. JRK
THE ROOT AND RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT
A Bible Study based on Genesis 16:1-10, by (Rev) John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
Such a presumptuous title from such a slight study! And yet here are helpful insights so we can cope with conflict—whether in our biological family, with our neighbors, or among those in a cross-cultural situation (like Israel/Palestine). This short study is meant as a discussion starter!
I THE ROOT OF CONFLICT
Sarai, Abram’s wife, was childless. This was a sore spot, an underlying inadequacy in her eyes and the eyes of her society. Abram didn’t love her any less, but she felt undervalued just the same. Furthermore, her children-bearing years were coming to an end. She was starting to panic and was desperate to have a family.
Hagar was an Egyptian maidservant in the employ of Abram’s household, attending especially to Sarai. She was hired at some point during the ten years that Abram had been living in the land of Canaan.
“Sleep with my maid”, Sarai suggests to Abram. “Maybe I can get a family from her” (v. 2). (This sounds like the origin of the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, when Eve invites Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit).
Abram agrees to do it (v. 2). There is no evidence of emotional entanglement with Hagar, no evidence of any agonizing over the ethics of it. (It sounds like a bid for “Open Marriage”!) He slept with Hagar, a lower ranking member of the clan; yet never denying his love (wholehearted?) for Sarai, his wife. But oh, what a rat’s nest was stirred up!
When Hagar becomes pregnant, Sarai was sure she detected a superior attitude in the actions of her servant (v. 4). Hagar had a smirk on her face in Sarai’s presence. Hagar held her in contempt. Sarai: She treats me like dirt; I’m a nothing to her (v. 5, The Message).
So Sarai begins a carpet-bombing campaign, aimed at Hagar. “Choose between her and me”, she demands of Abram. Abram wisely refuses to choose between them, but does give Sara the freedom to deal with her maid as she chooses (v. 6). Sarai becomes so abusive that Hagar flees to the desert (vs. 6b, 7). Sarai has the power. Hagar has no power. Who oppresses whom? If Hagar wanted to push Sarai into the sea, Sarai wanted to banish Hagar to the desert. Who wins in this contest?
Here we have the root of conflict between people. There is not only class warfare; there is a power imbalance. We constantly play the “Blame Game” (like Adam and Eve), and refuse to understand the issue or resolve it. Our well being (security) as humans come from being loved (valued). This comes about from God in the primary sense, and through parents, spouses, children, neighbors, fellow citizens, and outsiders. We are extremely sensitive when “others” act in such a way that throws our “value” into question. (As Tom Friedman puts it in a New York Times editorial on Russia and the Arab Spring: (P) olitical eruptions . . . are driven . . . by the quest for dignity and justice. Humiliation is the single most underestimated force in politics (NY Times, January 31, 2012).
Sarai was certain that Hagar despised her. Hagar was NOT an equal. Hagar was inferior, lower on the scale of valued persons. When Hagar was “successful” as a woman and child-bearer, it stirred up spiteful jealousy and a desire for reprisal in Sarai, the superior person in the network.
Conflict continues to fester when two parties each feel profoundly disrespected as persons. Rebellion is engendered when, in our view, our dignity in the scheme of things is being trashed. Fortunately or unfortunately, our self-image (how we understand and accept ourselves) is influenced by how others perceive us, giving it more value than may be warranted.
Instead of being reassured by the constant affirmations of love from Abram, Sarai allows Hagar’s haughty view of her to take precedence. Feeling abused, she abuses in return. Felling like she is “nothing”, she treats Hagar as “nothing”.
This is the huge Abyss that forms between persons and peoples if allowed to fester unchecked, unchallenged, and unchanged. This is the seemingly insurmountable chasm that leads to a widening gulf refusing to be bridged (Israel/Palestine!). It also happens in families or communities or among nations.
II THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT
Except that there is help. There is a way forward. It is in the word given to Hagar in v. 9. First some background. Hagar has fled. She feels she is being kicked out of her home and place in the scheme of things. She finds herself near a spring of water “on the road to Shur”—v.7) [The reader wonders if this is might be a separate account of the “well of water” that miraculously appears to Hagar in 21:17-19].
“God” asks her a question: What are you doing here? She might have replied, Because I’m not being treated with any dignity/respect by my mistress. But she replies: I’m running away from my mistress (v. 8).
God responds: Go back to your mistress. Put up with her abuse. I’m going to give you a big family, children past counting (vs. 9, 10, The Message).
The way forward is to be present in the oppressive situation, quietly outlast the abuse and experience how you are chosen, loved, and favored by God (and others). Keep hope alive that you will take your place in the family, in the neighborhood, in the family of nations. Hagar is also chosen and loved. Chosenness goes to all people, not just one person, family or nation.
Each of us has to confront abuse and overcome it, knowing we are loved and that our role will be vindicated when the time comes. (This is as much a way forward for Sarai as it is for Hagar. When the love deficit is filled there is no room for envy or jealousy).
I can whine all I want. I can launch a counter-offensive. Or I can see adversity through the eyes of faith and work toward reconciliation. I am more than my despised self. I too am a child of God.
God always comes alongside of the oppressed and outcasts, and works to bring them into the family.
Break Out Questions:
• In what way have you been (or at least felt) devalued?
• What ways have you used to cope?
• What are the ways you (and others) will now try to cope?
• How might this apply to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians?
THE ROOT AND RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT
A Bible Study based on Genesis 16:1-10, by (Rev) John R. Kleinheksel Sr.
Such a presumptuous title from such a slight study! And yet here are helpful insights so we can cope with conflict—whether in our biological family, with our neighbors, or among those in a cross-cultural situation (like Israel/Palestine). This short study is meant as a discussion starter!
I THE ROOT OF CONFLICT
Sarai, Abram’s wife, was childless. This was a sore spot, an underlying inadequacy in her eyes and the eyes of her society. Abram didn’t love her any less, but she felt undervalued just the same. Furthermore, her children-bearing years were coming to an end. She was starting to panic and was desperate to have a family.
Hagar was an Egyptian maidservant in the employ of Abram’s household, attending especially to Sarai. She was hired at some point during the ten years that Abram had been living in the land of Canaan.
“Sleep with my maid”, Sarai suggests to Abram. “Maybe I can get a family from her” (v. 2). (This sounds like the origin of the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, when Eve invites Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit).
Abram agrees to do it (v. 2). There is no evidence of emotional entanglement with Hagar, no evidence of any agonizing over the ethics of it. (It sounds like a bid for “Open Marriage”!) He slept with Hagar, a lower ranking member of the clan; yet never denying his love (wholehearted?) for Sarai, his wife. But oh, what a rat’s nest was stirred up!
When Hagar becomes pregnant, Sarai was sure she detected a superior attitude in the actions of her servant (v. 4). Hagar had a smirk on her face in Sarai’s presence. Hagar held her in contempt. Sarai: She treats me like dirt; I’m a nothing to her (v. 5, The Message).
So Sarai begins a carpet-bombing campaign, aimed at Hagar. “Choose between her and me”, she demands of Abram. Abram wisely refuses to choose between them, but does give Sara the freedom to deal with her maid as she chooses (v. 6). Sarai becomes so abusive that Hagar flees to the desert (vs. 6b, 7). Sarai has the power. Hagar has no power. Who oppresses whom? If Hagar wanted to push Sarai into the sea, Sarai wanted to banish Hagar to the desert. Who wins in this contest?
Here we have the root of conflict between people. There is not only class warfare; there is a power imbalance. We constantly play the “Blame Game” (like Adam and Eve), and refuse to understand the issue or resolve it. Our well being (security) as humans come from being loved (valued). This comes about from God in the primary sense, and through parents, spouses, children, neighbors, fellow citizens, and outsiders. We are extremely sensitive when “others” act in such a way that throws our “value” into question. (As Tom Friedman puts it in a New York Times editorial on Russia and the Arab Spring: (P) olitical eruptions . . . are driven . . . by the quest for dignity and justice. Humiliation is the single most underestimated force in politics (NY Times, January 31, 2012).
Sarai was certain that Hagar despised her. Hagar was NOT an equal. Hagar was inferior, lower on the scale of valued persons. When Hagar was “successful” as a woman and child-bearer, it stirred up spiteful jealousy and a desire for reprisal in Sarai, the superior person in the network.
Conflict continues to fester when two parties each feel profoundly disrespected as persons. Rebellion is engendered when, in our view, our dignity in the scheme of things is being trashed. Fortunately or unfortunately, our self-image (how we understand and accept ourselves) is influenced by how others perceive us, giving it more value than may be warranted.
Instead of being reassured by the constant affirmations of love from Abram, Sarai allows Hagar’s haughty view of her to take precedence. Feeling abused, she abuses in return. Felling like she is “nothing”, she treats Hagar as “nothing”.
This is the huge Abyss that forms between persons and peoples if allowed to fester unchecked, unchallenged, and unchanged. This is the seemingly insurmountable chasm that leads to a widening gulf refusing to be bridged (Israel/Palestine!). It also happens in families or communities or among nations.
II THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT
Except that there is help. There is a way forward. It is in the word given to Hagar in v. 9. First some background. Hagar has fled. She feels she is being kicked out of her home and place in the scheme of things. She finds herself near a spring of water “on the road to Shur”—v.7) [The reader wonders if this is might be a separate account of the “well of water” that miraculously appears to Hagar in 21:17-19].
“God” asks her a question: What are you doing here? She might have replied, Because I’m not being treated with any dignity/respect by my mistress. But she replies: I’m running away from my mistress (v. 8).
God responds: Go back to your mistress. Put up with her abuse. I’m going to give you a big family, children past counting (vs. 9, 10, The Message).
The way forward is to be present in the oppressive situation, quietly outlast the abuse and experience how you are chosen, loved, and favored by God (and others). Keep hope alive that you will take your place in the family, in the neighborhood, in the family of nations. Hagar is also chosen and loved. Chosenness goes to all people, not just one person, family or nation.
Each of us has to confront abuse and overcome it, knowing we are loved and that our role will be vindicated when the time comes. (This is as much a way forward for Sarai as it is for Hagar. When the love deficit is filled there is no room for envy or jealousy).
I can whine all I want. I can launch a counter-offensive. Or I can see adversity through the eyes of faith and work toward reconciliation. I am more than my despised self. I too am a child of God.
God always comes alongside of the oppressed and outcasts, and works to bring them into the family.
Break Out Questions:
• In what way have you been (or at least felt) devalued?
• What ways have you used to cope?
• What are the ways you (and others) will now try to cope?
• How might this apply to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Interfaith Report from NYC to Isr/Pal to US
Ribbi Ammiel Hirsch reports on a Jewish, Muslim and Christian groups of religious leaders from NYC who spent five days in all parts of Isr/Pal. Here is his report. 1) The present status quo is not sustainable jumps out at you.
2) The need to bring hope to a situation that is hopeless.
3) We must turn enemies into friends, is the call of religious leaders
Turning Enemies Into Friends in Israel and the Palestinian Territories
Posted: 01/25/2012 4:38 pm on Huff Post
In early January, 15 senior rabbis, ministers and imams traveled together to Israel and the Palestinian territories. We are from among New York City's leading religious institutions. Collectively, our houses of worship are home to tens of thousands of prominent New Yorkers.
Anyone who appreciates the hectic schedules and unique demands upon congregational clergy realizes that it is no small matter to bring 15 spiritual leaders together for five days. So why did we leave our congregations for a week? Why did our congregants insist that we go and even pay for our mission?
In the post 9/11 world, religious rapprochement is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity. To ignore dialogue is to invite destruction. If we do not find ways to live together in dignity we will die together in agony. Religious moderates must build new bridges of coexistence or religious extremists will burn the last bridges of peace.
Our presence in the Middle East was intended to broadcast that we can live together, work together, travel together, dream together and build together. In a world awash in religious conflict, we wish to model a different way: the way of coexistence, respect and peace.
It was a tough trip. We did not paper over our differences. We visited the heart of the conflict. There were moments of despair. We met with presidents, prime ministers, members of parliament and mayors on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. We met with priests, imams and rabbis. We met with journalists, academics, students, villagers and farmers.
Daily headlines do not begin to tell the story. None of the people we met -- not one -- believed that the Middle East is closer to peace today than ten years ago. If this is the truth, we need to hear it. Progress rests upon the solid rock of reality, not the shifting sands of fantasy.
Despite it all, many of us returned to New York guardedly optimistic. None of the people we met -- not one -- felt that the status quo was sustainable. Everyone understood that a way must be found to break out of the suffocating reality. There is broad agreement that the present is not working and that a new future must be forged.
People of faith have a unique role to play. Both Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad urged us to engage. Both of them emphasized that religion could be a source of enormous support as the politicians seek a political solution. We can help to create a context that is conducive to peace.
Religion specializes in hope. We are good at articulating our common humanity and giving voice to the better angels of our nature. We were also cautioned that if we do not step up the forces of religious intolerance will continue to drag the rest of us towards war. Our era has placed a sacred obligation on the forces and figures of religious moderation to speak out and act out.
There are many good people working to build bridges. In Haifa we met Christians, Muslims and Jews who have built a true house of coexistence. In Tel Aviv we met doctors, nurses and hospital staff who treated illness without regard to race, religion or creed. Even on the Gaza border, in Israeli towns that were fired upon in a barrage of missiles, there were people who were reaching out to the other side.
Peace is made piece by piece, from the bottom up. Progress is advanced day by day, person by person, each laboring in their own corner of the universe, connecting with others who together create an irresistible force. We should connect with those people and strengthen their hand. This daily labor is heroic work.
Jewish sages ask: Who is a hero? They respond: He who turns an enemy into a friend.
This is our task: person by person to help turn enemies into friends.
2) The need to bring hope to a situation that is hopeless.
3) We must turn enemies into friends, is the call of religious leaders
Turning Enemies Into Friends in Israel and the Palestinian Territories
Posted: 01/25/2012 4:38 pm on Huff Post
In early January, 15 senior rabbis, ministers and imams traveled together to Israel and the Palestinian territories. We are from among New York City's leading religious institutions. Collectively, our houses of worship are home to tens of thousands of prominent New Yorkers.
Anyone who appreciates the hectic schedules and unique demands upon congregational clergy realizes that it is no small matter to bring 15 spiritual leaders together for five days. So why did we leave our congregations for a week? Why did our congregants insist that we go and even pay for our mission?
In the post 9/11 world, religious rapprochement is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity. To ignore dialogue is to invite destruction. If we do not find ways to live together in dignity we will die together in agony. Religious moderates must build new bridges of coexistence or religious extremists will burn the last bridges of peace.
Our presence in the Middle East was intended to broadcast that we can live together, work together, travel together, dream together and build together. In a world awash in religious conflict, we wish to model a different way: the way of coexistence, respect and peace.
It was a tough trip. We did not paper over our differences. We visited the heart of the conflict. There were moments of despair. We met with presidents, prime ministers, members of parliament and mayors on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. We met with priests, imams and rabbis. We met with journalists, academics, students, villagers and farmers.
Daily headlines do not begin to tell the story. None of the people we met -- not one -- believed that the Middle East is closer to peace today than ten years ago. If this is the truth, we need to hear it. Progress rests upon the solid rock of reality, not the shifting sands of fantasy.
Despite it all, many of us returned to New York guardedly optimistic. None of the people we met -- not one -- felt that the status quo was sustainable. Everyone understood that a way must be found to break out of the suffocating reality. There is broad agreement that the present is not working and that a new future must be forged.
People of faith have a unique role to play. Both Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad urged us to engage. Both of them emphasized that religion could be a source of enormous support as the politicians seek a political solution. We can help to create a context that is conducive to peace.
Religion specializes in hope. We are good at articulating our common humanity and giving voice to the better angels of our nature. We were also cautioned that if we do not step up the forces of religious intolerance will continue to drag the rest of us towards war. Our era has placed a sacred obligation on the forces and figures of religious moderation to speak out and act out.
There are many good people working to build bridges. In Haifa we met Christians, Muslims and Jews who have built a true house of coexistence. In Tel Aviv we met doctors, nurses and hospital staff who treated illness without regard to race, religion or creed. Even on the Gaza border, in Israeli towns that were fired upon in a barrage of missiles, there were people who were reaching out to the other side.
Peace is made piece by piece, from the bottom up. Progress is advanced day by day, person by person, each laboring in their own corner of the universe, connecting with others who together create an irresistible force. We should connect with those people and strengthen their hand. This daily labor is heroic work.
Jewish sages ask: Who is a hero? They respond: He who turns an enemy into a friend.
This is our task: person by person to help turn enemies into friends.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Musalaha Get at the Issues
Dear Friend,
Our friend Salim Munayer works directly with Muslim, Jewish and Christian persons, to get at the underlying issues that wound and divide people in Israel/Palestine. Read his latest post and sense how real change is coming at the grass roots level. Thank you God for Salim and Musalaha. John Kleinheksel
A report on our Muslim-Christian women’s groups
We often share with you regarding our work between Palestinian Christians and Israeli Messianic Jews. But we have another area of work where we focus on bridge-building initiatives between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Romans 12, Paul calls us to live at peace with everyone. Our role as the salt of the earth requires us to reach out to our community and deal with the prejudice, offense and mending of relationships between us and others. Many times when the relationship between Muslims and Christians is highlighted in the news, we hear about clashes and conflict. In turn, we sometimes react with fear and suspicion of the other. In the face of religious and ethnic conflict, we often turn inward instead of turning outward and making overtures toward the other side.
Cardinal Francis Arinze addressed the issue of Christian-Muslim relations in an important talk given at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Georgetown University nearly 15 years ago. He emphasized that over half of the world’s population is either Christian or Muslim, and that a good relationship between the two matters not only to Christians and Muslims, but also the rest of the world. In short, he gave several guidelines for desirable relations between these two religious communities: 1) through better knowledge of the other, 2) acceptance of the other and respect for differences, 3) actual engagement in dialogue, 4) joint witness to shared values, and 5) joint promotion of peace.
He then detailed several obstacles and challenges: 1) the weight of the past, 2) lack of self-criticism, 3)manipulation of religion by politics, 4) religious fanaticism or extremism, 5) different approaches to human rights and especially to religious freedom, and reciprocity. Finally, he discussed some ways of meeting the challenges through: 1) healing of historical memories, 2) learning to exercise self-criticism, 3) liberating religion from political manipulation, 4) facing the phenomenon of religious extremism and 5) promoting religious freedom, 6) promotion of development and justice, 7) more attention to the spiritual dimension, 8) and joint concern over the use of the earth’s resources.
While Cardinal Arinze’s talk was addressing the global Christian and Muslim communities and we are working with a very specific and local group of participants, we have nevertheless found Cardinal Arinze’s talk instructive in our bridge-building initiatives. In this short report, we would like to share our recent observations of positive relationship-building encounters in recent meetings in Bethlehem between 25 Muslim and Christian women.
We met in the context of growing religious tension in the Israeli and Palestinian communities, and these women openly and candidly shared their perceptions of the other side. We observed that it was easier for the women to list the obstacles and challenges than it was for them to articulate the importance of having a good relationship between the two communities.
The women discussed the following obstacles and challenges:
· Mixed marriage – The Christian community of Bethlehem sees the marriage of Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem as very threatening to their small, minority community. Many Palestinian Christian men study overseas for a number of years, and some Christian women have begun to marry Muslim men. The Christian community sees Muslim men pursuing their women, but when there are instances of Christian men seeking to marry Muslim women, the Muslim reaction to this is much harsher than the Christian reaction to the opposite.
· Religious prejudice – Oftentimes Christians are not accepted to Muslim institutions (whether for work or for charity), while Christians are open to accepting Muslims into their charities and schools (but not as staff). Also, there is a new phenomenon where Christians in Bethlehem prefer to buy only from Christian vendors, and Muslims only from Muslim vendors.
· Exhibiting religious identity aggressively – Due to increased religious radicalism, people are beginning to show off their religious identity to the point that they are making the other side uncomfortable. For example, some Christian shops have so many crosses and icons hung up that Muslims feel that they are entering a church, not a store. Likewise, many Muslim shops are increasingly being decorated with verses from the Quran. Also, many Muslim women are dressing more conservatively as an outward expression of their religiosity.
· Outside propaganda – Religious channels on TV often broadcast Muslim and Christian shows from outside of the country that bring a message of intolerance, degrade the other religion, and often provide misinformation. This has a detrimental effect on the relationship of the local communities.
· Rise of Islamic political parties – In the past, national parties would bring both Christians and Muslims together. Now, religious parties are becoming increasingly prevalent, which results in excluding members of the community.
· Discrimination in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – The women discussed who the Israeli army favors more as evidenced in the number of permits Christians and Muslims receive. Some of the women wondered if this is a strategy of “divide and rule” or if this is the result of one side’s collaboration with Israel, a very serious accusation in Palestinian society. This affects the relationship between these two religious communities in Bethlehem.
· Historical narrative – Both sides emphasized the most hurtful parts of their narrative, which often exclude the other side. The Muslim women focused on the Crusades and colonization while the Christians focused on Arab expansion and various massacres, such as the Armenian massacre.
· Lack of information – Both sides lack knowledge and information of the other, as is seen in their understanding of one another’s religion and history.
In the beginning the women focused on how they hurt one another. When they began exploring their commonalities, they found that there are many areas where they can work with each other. Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem have many similar life challenges and can support each other if they have a relationship with one another. The women saw the need to strengthen the areas of commonality between them, readily acknowledging their responsibility toward their neighbors, and noted that it is important not to let outside sources influence their relationship.
What we gleaned from this meeting is that we have made progress in relationship building and communication, but there are still areas for growth and further discussion. We found the meeting to be promising as the women openly communicated with one another and listened to each side voice their perceptions. We were able to address some of Cardinal Arinze’s guidelines for desirable relations through beginning to get to know one another better, beginning to engage in dialogue, and realizing our shared life situation. The women renewed their commitment to meeting together as they realized their communication empowers them to be agents of change in their society, and helps them build bridges within their communities.
When faced with ethnic or religious conflict, we should engage with one another, listen to each other, and respectfully learn to make room for each other even when we do not agree on everything. We see this all the time in our reconciliation initiatives between believers, and many of these same principles hold true in our bridge-building initiatives between other segments of society. We are on a journey of reconciliation, and this journey is made with little steps in the right direction.
By Salim J. Munayer, PhD
Musalaha Director
Our friend Salim Munayer works directly with Muslim, Jewish and Christian persons, to get at the underlying issues that wound and divide people in Israel/Palestine. Read his latest post and sense how real change is coming at the grass roots level. Thank you God for Salim and Musalaha. John Kleinheksel
A report on our Muslim-Christian women’s groups
We often share with you regarding our work between Palestinian Christians and Israeli Messianic Jews. But we have another area of work where we focus on bridge-building initiatives between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Romans 12, Paul calls us to live at peace with everyone. Our role as the salt of the earth requires us to reach out to our community and deal with the prejudice, offense and mending of relationships between us and others. Many times when the relationship between Muslims and Christians is highlighted in the news, we hear about clashes and conflict. In turn, we sometimes react with fear and suspicion of the other. In the face of religious and ethnic conflict, we often turn inward instead of turning outward and making overtures toward the other side.
Cardinal Francis Arinze addressed the issue of Christian-Muslim relations in an important talk given at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Georgetown University nearly 15 years ago. He emphasized that over half of the world’s population is either Christian or Muslim, and that a good relationship between the two matters not only to Christians and Muslims, but also the rest of the world. In short, he gave several guidelines for desirable relations between these two religious communities: 1) through better knowledge of the other, 2) acceptance of the other and respect for differences, 3) actual engagement in dialogue, 4) joint witness to shared values, and 5) joint promotion of peace.
He then detailed several obstacles and challenges: 1) the weight of the past, 2) lack of self-criticism, 3)manipulation of religion by politics, 4) religious fanaticism or extremism, 5) different approaches to human rights and especially to religious freedom, and reciprocity. Finally, he discussed some ways of meeting the challenges through: 1) healing of historical memories, 2) learning to exercise self-criticism, 3) liberating religion from political manipulation, 4) facing the phenomenon of religious extremism and 5) promoting religious freedom, 6) promotion of development and justice, 7) more attention to the spiritual dimension, 8) and joint concern over the use of the earth’s resources.
While Cardinal Arinze’s talk was addressing the global Christian and Muslim communities and we are working with a very specific and local group of participants, we have nevertheless found Cardinal Arinze’s talk instructive in our bridge-building initiatives. In this short report, we would like to share our recent observations of positive relationship-building encounters in recent meetings in Bethlehem between 25 Muslim and Christian women.
We met in the context of growing religious tension in the Israeli and Palestinian communities, and these women openly and candidly shared their perceptions of the other side. We observed that it was easier for the women to list the obstacles and challenges than it was for them to articulate the importance of having a good relationship between the two communities.
The women discussed the following obstacles and challenges:
· Mixed marriage – The Christian community of Bethlehem sees the marriage of Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem as very threatening to their small, minority community. Many Palestinian Christian men study overseas for a number of years, and some Christian women have begun to marry Muslim men. The Christian community sees Muslim men pursuing their women, but when there are instances of Christian men seeking to marry Muslim women, the Muslim reaction to this is much harsher than the Christian reaction to the opposite.
· Religious prejudice – Oftentimes Christians are not accepted to Muslim institutions (whether for work or for charity), while Christians are open to accepting Muslims into their charities and schools (but not as staff). Also, there is a new phenomenon where Christians in Bethlehem prefer to buy only from Christian vendors, and Muslims only from Muslim vendors.
· Exhibiting religious identity aggressively – Due to increased religious radicalism, people are beginning to show off their religious identity to the point that they are making the other side uncomfortable. For example, some Christian shops have so many crosses and icons hung up that Muslims feel that they are entering a church, not a store. Likewise, many Muslim shops are increasingly being decorated with verses from the Quran. Also, many Muslim women are dressing more conservatively as an outward expression of their religiosity.
· Outside propaganda – Religious channels on TV often broadcast Muslim and Christian shows from outside of the country that bring a message of intolerance, degrade the other religion, and often provide misinformation. This has a detrimental effect on the relationship of the local communities.
· Rise of Islamic political parties – In the past, national parties would bring both Christians and Muslims together. Now, religious parties are becoming increasingly prevalent, which results in excluding members of the community.
· Discrimination in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – The women discussed who the Israeli army favors more as evidenced in the number of permits Christians and Muslims receive. Some of the women wondered if this is a strategy of “divide and rule” or if this is the result of one side’s collaboration with Israel, a very serious accusation in Palestinian society. This affects the relationship between these two religious communities in Bethlehem.
· Historical narrative – Both sides emphasized the most hurtful parts of their narrative, which often exclude the other side. The Muslim women focused on the Crusades and colonization while the Christians focused on Arab expansion and various massacres, such as the Armenian massacre.
· Lack of information – Both sides lack knowledge and information of the other, as is seen in their understanding of one another’s religion and history.
In the beginning the women focused on how they hurt one another. When they began exploring their commonalities, they found that there are many areas where they can work with each other. Muslims and Christians in Bethlehem have many similar life challenges and can support each other if they have a relationship with one another. The women saw the need to strengthen the areas of commonality between them, readily acknowledging their responsibility toward their neighbors, and noted that it is important not to let outside sources influence their relationship.
What we gleaned from this meeting is that we have made progress in relationship building and communication, but there are still areas for growth and further discussion. We found the meeting to be promising as the women openly communicated with one another and listened to each side voice their perceptions. We were able to address some of Cardinal Arinze’s guidelines for desirable relations through beginning to get to know one another better, beginning to engage in dialogue, and realizing our shared life situation. The women renewed their commitment to meeting together as they realized their communication empowers them to be agents of change in their society, and helps them build bridges within their communities.
When faced with ethnic or religious conflict, we should engage with one another, listen to each other, and respectfully learn to make room for each other even when we do not agree on everything. We see this all the time in our reconciliation initiatives between believers, and many of these same principles hold true in our bridge-building initiatives between other segments of society. We are on a journey of reconciliation, and this journey is made with little steps in the right direction.
By Salim J. Munayer, PhD
Musalaha Director
Friday, January 6, 2012
The Case For Sanctions (Minus the US)
Dear Friend,
Good Jew that he is, Henry Siegman strips away the illusion that Israel ever intends to give up the Occupied Territories if only the Palestinians will "recognize" the Jewish state (as they did as early as 1988).
He further strips away the illusion that the US would use its influence to get Israel to fulfill its promise to give up the Occupied Territories, thus abiding by international standards (no sign of this even under President Obama).
Since the Occupation continues unabated and the present conversations between the parties are in no way a reopening of the "peace process", Mr. Siegman comes to this startling conclusion:"I)nternational sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable" (last paragraph).
It is now clear that more and more UN Security Council members are willing to stand apart from and even agaisnt the US and consider boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli state. Instead of being on the side of justice for the oppressed, the US is siding with the oppressors, to the wonderment and even disgust of the "international community" the US supposedly leads. The narratives continue to compete. As usual, the Israeli narrative prevails against a growing tide of disapproval, frustration, and impatience.
The Israeli lobby will be pressuring the United Methodist's National gathering and the PCUSA General Assembly this summer to desist from any talk of BDS. My own view is that the time has clearly come for us to begin talking in earnest about applying nonviolent BDS to the present untenable, unsustainable situation in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, we can't expect the US to lead any of these efforts for the present (as we reluctantly did viz a viz the S. African regime in the 1980s). Yours truly, JRK
The National Interest
January 6, 2012
The Mideast Peace Process in 2011: Hopes and Disillusionment
By Henry Siegman
This past December, four European countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Portugal, all members of the UN Security Council—harshly faulted Israel for its violation of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people by continuing the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel’s intemperate response to that criticism exposed for all to see the moral and political obtuseness of its settlement policy, telling these European countries to mind their own business instead of interfering in Israel’s“internal” affairs.
The Israeli notion that the Occupied Territories beyond the 1967 border are “internal,”allowing Israeli governments to do with them as they please without regard for the rights of the Palestinian people or for international law, has not just “complicated” the peace process,as the United States and other governments have often put it. It has turned the peace process into a farce, for it exposes the strategic choice of Israel’s current and previous governments of territory over peace, and leaves no doubt that the goal of Israel’s settlement project is the prevention of Palestinian statehood.
Mostly ignored or forgotten is the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran on a Likud party platform that explicitly opposed Palestinian statehood; later, after he made his speech claiming to have been converted to acceptance of a two-state solution, key members of his government established the “Entire Land of Israel” parliamentary caucus whose official goal is the prevention of a Palestinian state anywhere in the West Bank. It is the largest of the Knesset’s many caucuses. There is no record of Netanyahu ever having criticized this caucus or having ordered members of his government to leave it.
Even as Netanyahu proclaims how desperately he wishes to renew peace talks with President Mahmoud Abbas, his government distributed hateful and defamatory accusations against Abbas, describing him as a “radical” who glorifies and perpetuates violence and terrorism—this of the man who not only publicly opposed the violence of the second intifada but whose collaboration with Israeli security forces put an end to violence and terrorism in the West Bank. A “circular note” issued to foreign governments by Israel’s Foreign Ministry in October 2011 reaches the “inescapable” conclusion that “no agreement will ever be possible [with the Palestinians] as long as Mahmoud Abbas leads the Palestinian Authority.”
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asserted that Palestinians can achieve statehood only through direct negotiations with Israel,effectively subjecting the Palestinian right to national self-determination to Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman’s veto. If Netanyahu and his government choose to present Abbas terms for an agreement that no Palestinian leader could conceivably accept—which, by insisting on Israel’s annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem is exactly what they have done—they will be able to keep the West Bank and its population under permanent subjugation.
Before demanding that Palestinians return to bilateral talks with Israel, and certainly before punishing Palestinians for refusing to do so, President Obama had an obligation to answer a simple question: What would he have done if Palestinians acceded to his demand and resumed bilateral talks, but continued to encounter Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate territorial issues from the 1967 border, or to limit changes in that border to territorial swaps? Would he then have allowed the Security Council to address Israel’s rejection without resorting to a veto? His September speech left little doubt about the answer to that question.
So as 2011 ended, the Middle East peace process became history. Despite the U.S.administration’s rhetorical objections to Israel’s settlements and its equally rhetorical support of Palestinian statehood, Obama’s rejection of international intervention and his insistence that a Palestinian state can come about only as the result of a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreement sent a clear message to Netanyahu’s government. For all practical purposes, a Palestinian state is no longer on America’s political horizon.
But for this very reason, 2011 was the year in which the international community, including America’s most important European allies, realized the groundlessness of their long-standing belief that the United States is uniquely positioned to leverage its unprecedented support for Israel into pressure to accept a just and balanced peace accord. The international community now sees that the United States is uniquely preventing an agreement, repeatedly using its Security Council vote, or the threat of a veto, to shield Israel from international pressure that might have changed its cost-benefit calculations.
It is this new awareness of an intolerable American bias that provoked four European members of the Security Council to drop the pretense that their governments believe Netanyahu is committed to a two-state solution. Following a closed meeting of the Security Council at which its members received a briefing on Israel’s newly announced construction plans, which would effectively exclude a Palestinian state from any part of East Jerusalem,and therefore rule out a two-state solution, these key European governments described Israel’s continued territorial confiscations as sending “a devastating message” about Israel’s intentions. One senior European official who did not wish to be identified said, “We don’t know where this government is leading Israel to, or what its position is regarding the peace process.” That is diplomatic-speak for “We know where this government is leading Israel and what its position regarding the peace process is, and it can no longer count on our complicity.” India, Brazil and South Africa also condemned Israel’s behavior, as did Russia’s UN envoy.
As long as the peace process was based on the illusion that Israel was always ready to return the Occupied Territories in exchange for Palestinian and Arab recognition, and that America would use its leverage to bring Israel into line if it failed to do so, there was no chance that the peace process could lead to a two-state solution. Now that Netanyahu and Obama have put an end to these two illusions, international sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable. If such intervention were now pursued by an international community no longer willing to accept an American Middle East peace policy that is hostage to its Israel lobby, a Palestinian state living in peace alongside an Israel reconciled to its internationally recognized borders may yet be achievable.
Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Source:www.bit.ly/yIsuaD
Good Jew that he is, Henry Siegman strips away the illusion that Israel ever intends to give up the Occupied Territories if only the Palestinians will "recognize" the Jewish state (as they did as early as 1988).
He further strips away the illusion that the US would use its influence to get Israel to fulfill its promise to give up the Occupied Territories, thus abiding by international standards (no sign of this even under President Obama).
Since the Occupation continues unabated and the present conversations between the parties are in no way a reopening of the "peace process", Mr. Siegman comes to this startling conclusion:"I)nternational sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable" (last paragraph).
It is now clear that more and more UN Security Council members are willing to stand apart from and even agaisnt the US and consider boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli state. Instead of being on the side of justice for the oppressed, the US is siding with the oppressors, to the wonderment and even disgust of the "international community" the US supposedly leads. The narratives continue to compete. As usual, the Israeli narrative prevails against a growing tide of disapproval, frustration, and impatience.
The Israeli lobby will be pressuring the United Methodist's National gathering and the PCUSA General Assembly this summer to desist from any talk of BDS. My own view is that the time has clearly come for us to begin talking in earnest about applying nonviolent BDS to the present untenable, unsustainable situation in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, we can't expect the US to lead any of these efforts for the present (as we reluctantly did viz a viz the S. African regime in the 1980s). Yours truly, JRK
The National Interest
January 6, 2012
The Mideast Peace Process in 2011: Hopes and Disillusionment
By Henry Siegman
This past December, four European countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Portugal, all members of the UN Security Council—harshly faulted Israel for its violation of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people by continuing the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel’s intemperate response to that criticism exposed for all to see the moral and political obtuseness of its settlement policy, telling these European countries to mind their own business instead of interfering in Israel’s“internal” affairs.
The Israeli notion that the Occupied Territories beyond the 1967 border are “internal,”allowing Israeli governments to do with them as they please without regard for the rights of the Palestinian people or for international law, has not just “complicated” the peace process,as the United States and other governments have often put it. It has turned the peace process into a farce, for it exposes the strategic choice of Israel’s current and previous governments of territory over peace, and leaves no doubt that the goal of Israel’s settlement project is the prevention of Palestinian statehood.
Mostly ignored or forgotten is the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran on a Likud party platform that explicitly opposed Palestinian statehood; later, after he made his speech claiming to have been converted to acceptance of a two-state solution, key members of his government established the “Entire Land of Israel” parliamentary caucus whose official goal is the prevention of a Palestinian state anywhere in the West Bank. It is the largest of the Knesset’s many caucuses. There is no record of Netanyahu ever having criticized this caucus or having ordered members of his government to leave it.
Even as Netanyahu proclaims how desperately he wishes to renew peace talks with President Mahmoud Abbas, his government distributed hateful and defamatory accusations against Abbas, describing him as a “radical” who glorifies and perpetuates violence and terrorism—this of the man who not only publicly opposed the violence of the second intifada but whose collaboration with Israeli security forces put an end to violence and terrorism in the West Bank. A “circular note” issued to foreign governments by Israel’s Foreign Ministry in October 2011 reaches the “inescapable” conclusion that “no agreement will ever be possible [with the Palestinians] as long as Mahmoud Abbas leads the Palestinian Authority.”
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asserted that Palestinians can achieve statehood only through direct negotiations with Israel,effectively subjecting the Palestinian right to national self-determination to Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman’s veto. If Netanyahu and his government choose to present Abbas terms for an agreement that no Palestinian leader could conceivably accept—which, by insisting on Israel’s annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem is exactly what they have done—they will be able to keep the West Bank and its population under permanent subjugation.
Before demanding that Palestinians return to bilateral talks with Israel, and certainly before punishing Palestinians for refusing to do so, President Obama had an obligation to answer a simple question: What would he have done if Palestinians acceded to his demand and resumed bilateral talks, but continued to encounter Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate territorial issues from the 1967 border, or to limit changes in that border to territorial swaps? Would he then have allowed the Security Council to address Israel’s rejection without resorting to a veto? His September speech left little doubt about the answer to that question.
So as 2011 ended, the Middle East peace process became history. Despite the U.S.administration’s rhetorical objections to Israel’s settlements and its equally rhetorical support of Palestinian statehood, Obama’s rejection of international intervention and his insistence that a Palestinian state can come about only as the result of a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreement sent a clear message to Netanyahu’s government. For all practical purposes, a Palestinian state is no longer on America’s political horizon.
But for this very reason, 2011 was the year in which the international community, including America’s most important European allies, realized the groundlessness of their long-standing belief that the United States is uniquely positioned to leverage its unprecedented support for Israel into pressure to accept a just and balanced peace accord. The international community now sees that the United States is uniquely preventing an agreement, repeatedly using its Security Council vote, or the threat of a veto, to shield Israel from international pressure that might have changed its cost-benefit calculations.
It is this new awareness of an intolerable American bias that provoked four European members of the Security Council to drop the pretense that their governments believe Netanyahu is committed to a two-state solution. Following a closed meeting of the Security Council at which its members received a briefing on Israel’s newly announced construction plans, which would effectively exclude a Palestinian state from any part of East Jerusalem,and therefore rule out a two-state solution, these key European governments described Israel’s continued territorial confiscations as sending “a devastating message” about Israel’s intentions. One senior European official who did not wish to be identified said, “We don’t know where this government is leading Israel to, or what its position is regarding the peace process.” That is diplomatic-speak for “We know where this government is leading Israel and what its position regarding the peace process is, and it can no longer count on our complicity.” India, Brazil and South Africa also condemned Israel’s behavior, as did Russia’s UN envoy.
As long as the peace process was based on the illusion that Israel was always ready to return the Occupied Territories in exchange for Palestinian and Arab recognition, and that America would use its leverage to bring Israel into line if it failed to do so, there was no chance that the peace process could lead to a two-state solution. Now that Netanyahu and Obama have put an end to these two illusions, international sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable. If such intervention were now pursued by an international community no longer willing to accept an American Middle East peace policy that is hostage to its Israel lobby, a Palestinian state living in peace alongside an Israel reconciled to its internationally recognized borders may yet be achievable.
Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Source:www.bit.ly/yIsuaD
Saturday, December 31, 2011
A Prayer for the New Year
Dear Friend of peace with justice,
Of the scores of articles I've read during the last week, this Xmas homily by the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem is the truest, most noteworthy.
Read it and prophet from its insights, building them into actions in the New Year. At least scan sentences that I have highlighted. Thank you for your readership and semper fi: always remain faithful to the unfinished task. JRK
“A child is born to us, a son is given to us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonderful-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Is, 9, 5
"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace
to those on whom his favor rests.” (Lk 2:14)
President Abu Mazen, Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Government,
H.E. Nasser Judeh, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs representing King Abdullah of Jordan,
Excellencies, Ambassadors, and Consuls,
Fellow representatives of the various churches,
Dear brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the Holy Land:
From the Church of the Nativity, close to the Holy Grotto where the Virgin Mary swaddled her son and laid him in a manger, I greet you all, the faithful here present, the viewers, our brothers and sisters of the Diaspora, especially those whom I have met recently. I extend a special greeting to President Mahmoud Abbas and congratulate him in his unfaltering efforts to achieve a just peace in the Middle East, a main thrust of which is the creation of a Palestinian State. I recognize his collaborative efforts with His Majesty, King Abdullah of Jordan who expressed his great concern for Jerusalem, its holy places and especially its inhabitants.
Dear brothers and sisters,
The song of the angels in the sky above Bethlehem more than two thousand years ago still echoes: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth” (Lk 2:14). This hymn, with its celestial aura fascinates and instructs us.
Glory to God and peace on earth. The glory of God and the peace of the world are inseparable being bound together by cause and effect. If we glorify God, we shall enjoy his peace. If we glorify ourselves, we shall be denied this peace. Indeed, the glory and adoration of God is a duty and a debt we owe. God promises his peace to those who adore him in spirit and in truth. What reassures us is that God never fails in his promises.
It is true that God does not need us to extol him in order to grow in his majesty, or our praises to perfect his glory. We grow and become better people through our humility before his infinite greatness. The Lord is glorious in himself, his glory coming from his innermost being and from creation, the work of his hands. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands. Day unto day pours forth speech; night unto night whispers knowledge.” (Ps 19: 2-3).
Our faiths – Muslim, Jew and Christian – are as one in saying that the adoration of God is a fundamental duty of love: “Give to the Lord, you sons of God, give to the Lord glory and might; give to the Lord the glory due his name. Bow down before the Lord’s holy splendor!” (Ps 29:1-2).
We may be proud, for among all the continents and countries of the world, God chose Palestine, our beloved land, to be the homeland of the Saviour, the awaited Messiah, who is his Word and the substance of his glory. And so, we are duty-bound to follow the host of angels in forever repeating: “Glory to God in the highest”. Glory to Him, “for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” (Titus 2:11). Indeed, it appeared a few footsteps away from this holy place where we are gathered this evening.
Of the long awaited Christ, the prophets foretold, “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him … but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the lands afflicted.” (Is 11:2,4). The good news also concerns enemies: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.”(Is 2:4)
Dear faithful, we do not want Christmas to be a subjective and purely emotional sweet memory of an event from a distant past. No, because Christ lives among us, he lives by his resurrection, in his sacraments and in his message: a message of love, of justice and of peace for all peoples, all individuals and all families, a peace that we need more than ever.
Our region is undergoing radical changes that affect our present and our future. We cannot stand by as mere spectators. We, the spiritual leaders and those who hold in their hands the destiny of peoples, must do everything in our power to protect our people, to work for their survival, and to realise their aspirations. We are one with our people, for their suffering and their hopes are our own.
We, who live in the Holy Land, in Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Cyprus hope that the celebration of Christmas may put an end to the culture of violence and death, and that it may inspire a solution to national and international divisions. History teaches us that the will of the people, with their aspirations to peace and freedom, is stronger than the power of injustice. Furthermore, the power of the Almighty is stronger than evil. For this reason, we hope that with the grace of God and with the support of people of goodwill, the physical and psychological walls that men build around themselves may disappear. God wants bridges that unite rather than walls that separate that which God has united. Dear brothers and sisters let us tear down the walls of our hearts in order to tear down walls of concrete!
The Palestinians have recently turned to the United Nations in the hope of finding a just solution to the conflict with the intention of living in peace and in safety with their neighbours. They have been asked to re-engage in a failed peace process. This process has left a bitter taste of broken promises and of mistrust.
Brothers and sisters, at this time of Christmas and by the power of the Prince of Peace, whose incarnation we celebrate, we raise our voices to God, crying out to him in our need. We ask for peace and nothing but peace.
- We ask for peace for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people.
- We ask for peace, stability and security for the entire Middle East so that our children and their children may live their childhood in innocence, in a healthy environment where they may play together without fear or complex.
- We ask that the road travelled by our ancestors – the Magi and the shepherds – to Bethlehem should remain open, without barriers or hindrance, open to the pilgrims of the whole world, including the Arab world. They will be welcome. Together we shall pray and sing: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests”. (Lk 2:14)
- And on this holy night, the children of the Holy Land, fellow citizens of the Infant Jesus, beg us: “Let us grow up as normal children, grant us the time to play in the squares and market places of our towns and villages far from political intrigue.”
However, praying for peace is not enough. Good intentions and fine speeches do not suffice. Let us seek peace with all our strength. Peace is given to men of goodwill. It does not come about without true and courageous builders of peace, ready to sacrifice themselves in so noble a cause. Peace is received and granted at the same time.
Let us listen to the voice of Jesus: “Fear not, I am with you.”(Is 41:10) “Lord, if you are with us, who can be against us?”(Rm 8:31)
Yes, in accordance with your word, Lord, we cast our nets and we recognize that Christmas is a day of celebration.
- According to your word, we invite all to rejoice with us.
- According to your word, we light up the Christmas tree in our churches and in our homes as a sign of hope and of joy. Nothing can take away our hope: neither fear, nor threats, nor the arrogance of men.
O Child of Bethlehem, in this New Year, we place in your hands this troubled Middle East and, above all, our youth full of legitimate aspirations, who are frustrated by the economic and political situation, and in search of a better future. We implore you to grant their wishes and fill their hearts with courage and wisdom together with a spirit of responsibility.
From this church, we express our gratitude and the promise of our prayers to all those who have contributed to peace and justice, to all our friends who have shared our hopes and fears for the Arab revolutions. On this night, we pray for all the world leaders and those who govern us, that they may have wisdom, insight and a spirit of selflessness towards their countrymen. We pray for the return of calm and reconciliation in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in North Africa.
From this church on this holy night, we call on the faithful and the pilgrims to unite with us in prayer for Jerusalem. As its name indicates, it is the city of peace. Its vocation is to bring together believers from all over the world, the sons of Abraham, in one single family. It is the Holy City, the city of prayer. Millions of pilgrims come to pray for peace and reconciliation. We pray that we may receive both and “have them more abundantly.” (Jn 10:10)
From this holy place, I call upon all our brothers and sisters throughout the world. The world is suffering from a lack of charity and human kindness. Our wish for the year is that: “We should love one another as God has loved us and that we may be reconciled with one another as God has reconciled us in Christ”(Ep 4:32) This reconciliation allows us to recognize the image of Christ in others.
May the Peace of the Child of Bethlehem and the song of the angels of heaven “that surpasses all understanding fill your hearts and minds” (Phil 4:7) now and for all the days of your life.
† Fouad Twal
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Of the scores of articles I've read during the last week, this Xmas homily by the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem is the truest, most noteworthy.
Read it and prophet from its insights, building them into actions in the New Year. At least scan sentences that I have highlighted. Thank you for your readership and semper fi: always remain faithful to the unfinished task. JRK
“A child is born to us, a son is given to us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonderful-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” Is, 9, 5
"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace
to those on whom his favor rests.” (Lk 2:14)
President Abu Mazen, Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Government,
H.E. Nasser Judeh, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs representing King Abdullah of Jordan,
Excellencies, Ambassadors, and Consuls,
Fellow representatives of the various churches,
Dear brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the Holy Land:
From the Church of the Nativity, close to the Holy Grotto where the Virgin Mary swaddled her son and laid him in a manger, I greet you all, the faithful here present, the viewers, our brothers and sisters of the Diaspora, especially those whom I have met recently. I extend a special greeting to President Mahmoud Abbas and congratulate him in his unfaltering efforts to achieve a just peace in the Middle East, a main thrust of which is the creation of a Palestinian State. I recognize his collaborative efforts with His Majesty, King Abdullah of Jordan who expressed his great concern for Jerusalem, its holy places and especially its inhabitants.
Dear brothers and sisters,
The song of the angels in the sky above Bethlehem more than two thousand years ago still echoes: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth” (Lk 2:14). This hymn, with its celestial aura fascinates and instructs us.
Glory to God and peace on earth. The glory of God and the peace of the world are inseparable being bound together by cause and effect. If we glorify God, we shall enjoy his peace. If we glorify ourselves, we shall be denied this peace. Indeed, the glory and adoration of God is a duty and a debt we owe. God promises his peace to those who adore him in spirit and in truth. What reassures us is that God never fails in his promises.
It is true that God does not need us to extol him in order to grow in his majesty, or our praises to perfect his glory. We grow and become better people through our humility before his infinite greatness. The Lord is glorious in himself, his glory coming from his innermost being and from creation, the work of his hands. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands. Day unto day pours forth speech; night unto night whispers knowledge.” (Ps 19: 2-3).
Our faiths – Muslim, Jew and Christian – are as one in saying that the adoration of God is a fundamental duty of love: “Give to the Lord, you sons of God, give to the Lord glory and might; give to the Lord the glory due his name. Bow down before the Lord’s holy splendor!” (Ps 29:1-2).
We may be proud, for among all the continents and countries of the world, God chose Palestine, our beloved land, to be the homeland of the Saviour, the awaited Messiah, who is his Word and the substance of his glory. And so, we are duty-bound to follow the host of angels in forever repeating: “Glory to God in the highest”. Glory to Him, “for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” (Titus 2:11). Indeed, it appeared a few footsteps away from this holy place where we are gathered this evening.
Of the long awaited Christ, the prophets foretold, “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him … but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide fairly for the lands afflicted.” (Is 11:2,4). The good news also concerns enemies: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.”(Is 2:4)
Dear faithful, we do not want Christmas to be a subjective and purely emotional sweet memory of an event from a distant past. No, because Christ lives among us, he lives by his resurrection, in his sacraments and in his message: a message of love, of justice and of peace for all peoples, all individuals and all families, a peace that we need more than ever.
Our region is undergoing radical changes that affect our present and our future. We cannot stand by as mere spectators. We, the spiritual leaders and those who hold in their hands the destiny of peoples, must do everything in our power to protect our people, to work for their survival, and to realise their aspirations. We are one with our people, for their suffering and their hopes are our own.
We, who live in the Holy Land, in Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Cyprus hope that the celebration of Christmas may put an end to the culture of violence and death, and that it may inspire a solution to national and international divisions. History teaches us that the will of the people, with their aspirations to peace and freedom, is stronger than the power of injustice. Furthermore, the power of the Almighty is stronger than evil. For this reason, we hope that with the grace of God and with the support of people of goodwill, the physical and psychological walls that men build around themselves may disappear. God wants bridges that unite rather than walls that separate that which God has united. Dear brothers and sisters let us tear down the walls of our hearts in order to tear down walls of concrete!
The Palestinians have recently turned to the United Nations in the hope of finding a just solution to the conflict with the intention of living in peace and in safety with their neighbours. They have been asked to re-engage in a failed peace process. This process has left a bitter taste of broken promises and of mistrust.
Brothers and sisters, at this time of Christmas and by the power of the Prince of Peace, whose incarnation we celebrate, we raise our voices to God, crying out to him in our need. We ask for peace and nothing but peace.
- We ask for peace for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people.
- We ask for peace, stability and security for the entire Middle East so that our children and their children may live their childhood in innocence, in a healthy environment where they may play together without fear or complex.
- We ask that the road travelled by our ancestors – the Magi and the shepherds – to Bethlehem should remain open, without barriers or hindrance, open to the pilgrims of the whole world, including the Arab world. They will be welcome. Together we shall pray and sing: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests”. (Lk 2:14)
- And on this holy night, the children of the Holy Land, fellow citizens of the Infant Jesus, beg us: “Let us grow up as normal children, grant us the time to play in the squares and market places of our towns and villages far from political intrigue.”
However, praying for peace is not enough. Good intentions and fine speeches do not suffice. Let us seek peace with all our strength. Peace is given to men of goodwill. It does not come about without true and courageous builders of peace, ready to sacrifice themselves in so noble a cause. Peace is received and granted at the same time.
Let us listen to the voice of Jesus: “Fear not, I am with you.”(Is 41:10) “Lord, if you are with us, who can be against us?”(Rm 8:31)
Yes, in accordance with your word, Lord, we cast our nets and we recognize that Christmas is a day of celebration.
- According to your word, we invite all to rejoice with us.
- According to your word, we light up the Christmas tree in our churches and in our homes as a sign of hope and of joy. Nothing can take away our hope: neither fear, nor threats, nor the arrogance of men.
O Child of Bethlehem, in this New Year, we place in your hands this troubled Middle East and, above all, our youth full of legitimate aspirations, who are frustrated by the economic and political situation, and in search of a better future. We implore you to grant their wishes and fill their hearts with courage and wisdom together with a spirit of responsibility.
From this church, we express our gratitude and the promise of our prayers to all those who have contributed to peace and justice, to all our friends who have shared our hopes and fears for the Arab revolutions. On this night, we pray for all the world leaders and those who govern us, that they may have wisdom, insight and a spirit of selflessness towards their countrymen. We pray for the return of calm and reconciliation in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in North Africa.
From this church on this holy night, we call on the faithful and the pilgrims to unite with us in prayer for Jerusalem. As its name indicates, it is the city of peace. Its vocation is to bring together believers from all over the world, the sons of Abraham, in one single family. It is the Holy City, the city of prayer. Millions of pilgrims come to pray for peace and reconciliation. We pray that we may receive both and “have them more abundantly.” (Jn 10:10)
From this holy place, I call upon all our brothers and sisters throughout the world. The world is suffering from a lack of charity and human kindness. Our wish for the year is that: “We should love one another as God has loved us and that we may be reconciled with one another as God has reconciled us in Christ”(Ep 4:32) This reconciliation allows us to recognize the image of Christ in others.
May the Peace of the Child of Bethlehem and the song of the angels of heaven “that surpasses all understanding fill your hearts and minds” (Phil 4:7) now and for all the days of your life.
† Fouad Twal
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
Friday, December 16, 2011
Former Senator John Sununu Speaks Out
Dear Friend,
John Sununu adds to our discussion of Newt Gingrich's comments in re the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The former Republican Senator from New Hampshire is a Palestinian Christian. Please read it and prophet. JRK
Gingrich's lie reveals his bigotry
John. E. Sununu
The Boston Globe (Opinion)
December 16, 2011
When bigots speak, their words have purpose. They intentionally choose phrases that inflame, denigrate, and marginalize other races, religions, or nationalities. They employ distortions and stereotypes to bolster false arguments. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich, who in an interview last week derided “an invented Palestinian people.’’ His comments were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slander, designed to curry favor with a constituency for which he cares by insulting one for which he does not.
With one callous statement he dismissed the plight of 4 million people and their desire for self-determination. Questioned about the controversial statement during a debate on Monday, he piled falsehood upon falsehood. The word “Palestinian,’’ he asserted, “did not become a common term until after 1977.’’ In denying the legitimacy of Palestinians’ identity, Gingrich’s only purpose was to deny any justification for a two-state solution for Middle East peace. If Palestinians are invented, the implication goes, so too must be their objection to the status quo.
During the debate, Gingrich claimed to “stand for the truth,’’ but that apparently does not require telling the truth. His statements are a complete fabrication. Documents prepared by the Arab Office in Jerusalem during the 1930s and ’40s refer frequently to “Palestinian Arabs,’’ “Palestinian Citizens,’’ and the potential formation of a “Palestinian State.’’ The 1973 CIA Atlas of Middle East Issues speaks of “Palestinians’’ and “Palestinian Refugees.’’
Contrary to Gingrich’s insinuation, Palestine is a real place found on maps of all kinds, created by people of all races, for hundreds of years; and the people living there have long been identified with it. The Official 1931 Census of Palestine, conducted under British auspices, counted 850,000 Palestinian Arabs - both Muslim and Christian - and 175,000 Jews. Gingrich noted that the Ottomans once ruled the region, as if that justified his statements. But the Ottoman Empire included Syria and much of the Balkans. Are they invented people too?
The egregiousness of Gingrich’s statement isn’t simply in its inaccuracy, but in its objective. It implies that the claims of Palestinians must also be invented — rights to land, to sovereignty, to self-governance. On Monday he asserted, “A right to return is based on a historically false story.’’ Although the right to reclaim or receive compensation for lost property is a question for Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, the historical facts are quite simple. And again, Gingrich has them wrong.
According to the CIA Atlas, the fighting that followed Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948 displaced 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. Several hundred thousand more were displaced in 1967. Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to find a path to a peaceful resolution since. My point here is not to litigate this struggle, but to recognize that the conflict is real, the people are real, and the grievances are real on both sides: Israel’s unquestionable right to security, and Palestinians’ right to self-rule.
My grandfather was born in Boston, but grew up in Jerusalem as a happy, well-educated Palestinian. As a Christian, he attended the French School and frequented the city’s historic YMCA. He returned to America in the 1930s and settled in New York. In 1948 the fighting forced his parents and cousins to leave their Jerusalem homes. They were never able to return; their houses were on the “wrong’’ side of the armistice line. Their property was taken, though today my cousins’ home looks the same as it did in photos from the 1930s. My great-grandparents lived out their lives in Lebanon. Does Gingrich consider the Lebanese an invented people too?
Gingrich is intelligent, which makes his bigotry all the more dangerous. He employs it not for self-satisfaction, but for political ends. His statements are wrong in fact — and contradict more than 40 years of bipartisan US policy. They reflect a cavalier attitude toward diplomacy, and send the message to allies in Europe and the Middle East that we are inconsistent and unreliable. They were designed to marginalize, not explain; and will be used by extremists on both sides to discourage reconciliation and compromise.
Language can be a wonderful and powerful tool — all the more reason for political leaders to use it thoughtfully and with care. Gingrich’s disgraceful behavior addressing such a difficult and sensitive issue demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to use words carefully. Why should anyone trust him with more?
John E. Sununu, a regular Globe contributor, is a former US senator from New Hampshire. He has not endorsed a presidential candidate. His father, the former New Hampshire governor John H. Sununu, has endorsed Mitt Romney.
--
John
jandskleinheksel@gmail.com
John Sununu adds to our discussion of Newt Gingrich's comments in re the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The former Republican Senator from New Hampshire is a Palestinian Christian. Please read it and prophet. JRK
Gingrich's lie reveals his bigotry
John. E. Sununu
The Boston Globe (Opinion)
December 16, 2011
When bigots speak, their words have purpose. They intentionally choose phrases that inflame, denigrate, and marginalize other races, religions, or nationalities. They employ distortions and stereotypes to bolster false arguments. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich, who in an interview last week derided “an invented Palestinian people.’’ His comments were a calculated — but demonstrably false — slander, designed to curry favor with a constituency for which he cares by insulting one for which he does not.
With one callous statement he dismissed the plight of 4 million people and their desire for self-determination. Questioned about the controversial statement during a debate on Monday, he piled falsehood upon falsehood. The word “Palestinian,’’ he asserted, “did not become a common term until after 1977.’’ In denying the legitimacy of Palestinians’ identity, Gingrich’s only purpose was to deny any justification for a two-state solution for Middle East peace. If Palestinians are invented, the implication goes, so too must be their objection to the status quo.
During the debate, Gingrich claimed to “stand for the truth,’’ but that apparently does not require telling the truth. His statements are a complete fabrication. Documents prepared by the Arab Office in Jerusalem during the 1930s and ’40s refer frequently to “Palestinian Arabs,’’ “Palestinian Citizens,’’ and the potential formation of a “Palestinian State.’’ The 1973 CIA Atlas of Middle East Issues speaks of “Palestinians’’ and “Palestinian Refugees.’’
Contrary to Gingrich’s insinuation, Palestine is a real place found on maps of all kinds, created by people of all races, for hundreds of years; and the people living there have long been identified with it. The Official 1931 Census of Palestine, conducted under British auspices, counted 850,000 Palestinian Arabs - both Muslim and Christian - and 175,000 Jews. Gingrich noted that the Ottomans once ruled the region, as if that justified his statements. But the Ottoman Empire included Syria and much of the Balkans. Are they invented people too?
The egregiousness of Gingrich’s statement isn’t simply in its inaccuracy, but in its objective. It implies that the claims of Palestinians must also be invented — rights to land, to sovereignty, to self-governance. On Monday he asserted, “A right to return is based on a historically false story.’’ Although the right to reclaim or receive compensation for lost property is a question for Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, the historical facts are quite simple. And again, Gingrich has them wrong.
According to the CIA Atlas, the fighting that followed Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948 displaced 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. Several hundred thousand more were displaced in 1967. Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to find a path to a peaceful resolution since. My point here is not to litigate this struggle, but to recognize that the conflict is real, the people are real, and the grievances are real on both sides: Israel’s unquestionable right to security, and Palestinians’ right to self-rule.
My grandfather was born in Boston, but grew up in Jerusalem as a happy, well-educated Palestinian. As a Christian, he attended the French School and frequented the city’s historic YMCA. He returned to America in the 1930s and settled in New York. In 1948 the fighting forced his parents and cousins to leave their Jerusalem homes. They were never able to return; their houses were on the “wrong’’ side of the armistice line. Their property was taken, though today my cousins’ home looks the same as it did in photos from the 1930s. My great-grandparents lived out their lives in Lebanon. Does Gingrich consider the Lebanese an invented people too?
Gingrich is intelligent, which makes his bigotry all the more dangerous. He employs it not for self-satisfaction, but for political ends. His statements are wrong in fact — and contradict more than 40 years of bipartisan US policy. They reflect a cavalier attitude toward diplomacy, and send the message to allies in Europe and the Middle East that we are inconsistent and unreliable. They were designed to marginalize, not explain; and will be used by extremists on both sides to discourage reconciliation and compromise.
Language can be a wonderful and powerful tool — all the more reason for political leaders to use it thoughtfully and with care. Gingrich’s disgraceful behavior addressing such a difficult and sensitive issue demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to use words carefully. Why should anyone trust him with more?
John E. Sununu, a regular Globe contributor, is a former US senator from New Hampshire. He has not endorsed a presidential candidate. His father, the former New Hampshire governor John H. Sununu, has endorsed Mitt Romney.
--
John
jandskleinheksel@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)