Seeking Peace and Justice: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Few would argue against the proposition that the Israeli-Palestinians conflict is one of the longest-lasting, most difficult-to-resolve conflicts on the international scene. And it is one in which the United States is deeply involved due to our support for the Jewish state from its inception, our many interests in that volatile region of the world, and biblical prophecies that for many American Christians have a continuing relevance. There are, however, so many historic wrongs that continue to fester and bleed, so many conflicting claims seemingly impervious to negotiation, and so many feelings of past betrayals that one is tempted to despair of there ever being a solution.
Nevertheless, most observers are convinced that the path to a peaceful resolution of this conflict is not shrouded in mystery. Although the specifics would need to be worked out through a long and difficult process of negotiation, the general outlines of the only peace agreement that seems workable are clear. There are four main components of such a peace agreement. (1) A Palestinian state would be created in the West Bank and Gaza to exist alongside the Israeli state. (2) There would be what has been called a land swap, that is, there would be some adjustment of the pre-1967 borders so that some Israeli West Bank settlements would become part of Israel and the Palestinian state would receive some Israeli land in exchange. (3) A limited number of Palestinians (or their descendants) who were displaced either when the state of Israel was created or due to the 1967 Six Day War would be allowed to return to their original land and others would receive financial compensation from either Israel or an international fund created for this purpose. (4) Jerusalem would be divided between the Palestinians and Israelis, and the Temple Mount area with its sites holy to Jews, Muslims, and Christians would be under some form of international control under the supervision of an international body (perhaps NATO) and with guaranteed access for both Israelis and Palestinians.
These are the outlines of the peace agreement nearly reached at the 2000 Camp David Peace Summit convened by President Bill Clinton and attended by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. It is hard to conceive of a peace agreement that is even remotely likely to be achieved or that would come close to meeting the norms of a just settlement that does not contain these four elements.
Thus the problem is not that no one knows the way forward. The problem, rather, is finding among the leaders and the populace of both sides the will, the courage, and the commitment to a balanced justice essential to peace. So much blood has been shed and so much distrust and fear have been generated by years of conflict, that the way forward—even though known—is seemingly impossible to achieve. Now and in the past many leaders on both sides appear more interested in advancing their own careers by appealing to popular prejudices and fears than in summoning the courage to take steps, at the risk of their careers and—in a volatile region—even of their lives, to bring about peace.
In light of this stiuation what can or should American foreign policy do to encourage a peace process when the leaders and much of the populace of both the Israelis and the Palestinians seem unwilling to pay the price needed to achieve a just peace? I would suggest there are three things we as Americans, and as American Christians in particular, should do. One is to continue to work persistently for peace. We must not give in to the temptation to conclude that the challenges of bringing the two sides together are too great and the leaders of the two sides so short-sighted or so uncourageous that we should simply wash our hands of the whole mess and walk away. As Christians our God calls us to be peacemakers and the influence our country has can be enormous. We should work for peace persistently and without becoming “weary in doing good.” (Gal. 6:9) And there is reason for hope. Ultimately, our God–not Hamas, not the Likkud Party, not Benjamin Netanyahu, not Mahmoud Abbas—is in charge. Sometimes it is darkest just before the dawn.
Second, as our country seeks peace the bright light that should guide that effort is justice for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. We should work to assure that as much as possible both are given their just due. This is no easy task. In light of past and current wrongs even to see clearly what is due whom is enormously difficult. Currently, American efforts often seem to be guided more by calculations of American self-interest, pressures from the American Jewish lobby, and other domestic political calculations. Also, American efforts are understandably often influenced by the fact that Israel is the only stable democracy in the Middle East and that our historic, religious, and cultural ties are much closer to the Israelis than they are to the Palestinians. Nevertheless, this does not mean we should not seek justice for the Palestinians as well as for the Israelis.
Third, American evangelicals err when they read biblical prophecies in a way that leads them to put unwavering support for Israel ahead of justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike. We must be careful not to read certain biblical prophecies towards the Jewish people with a certainty that our limited knowledge and insights do not warrant. It is even more problematic to presume that God has called us in our time to work to bring about those events we have concluded biblical prophecy has predicted—even when doing so seems to violate the standard of treating all persons of all backgrounds with justice.
Writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a humbling experience. I have put forward some thoughts and suggested ways forward. They of necessity have had to be general. Even then I put them forward with hesitation for I claim no special insight into a seeming intractable problem. In spite of our best effort as Americans and as Christians, conflict and bloodshed may continue for generations to come as it has for generations past. But Christians ought never surrender to hopelessness for our God is a sovereign God. There is always hope.
Well said, Stephen. I appreciate, in particular, your recognition of the complexity of the issues made all that more difficult by the blood that has been shed. What I would challenge is your assumption that we need to "continue" to work for peace, as the premise it contains is the idea that we have been working for peace at all. What we need to recognize is that America's role in this conflict has rarely been that of peace-maker, linked particularly to the fact that we are so beholden to the Israeli narrative that even the small steps we've taken to challenge the illegal occupation and confiscation of Palestinian land have, in the end, proved futile as the Israeli lobby and Christian Zionist lobby is simply too powerful to allow that. The Palestinian move to become members of the UN was telling in this light, as not only did they ignore President Obama's threat of a veto (as we so often provide the sole veto to anything that might bring balance to this conflict), they did it deliberately as a way of saying: "we no longer feel the need to listen to America. They are part of the problem, not the solution."
In essence, the Palestinians have come to recognize that America can not be an honest broker in this conflict, that, if anything, we are like the spouse who enables her alcoholic partner by covering up his indiscretions.
Here's a joke making the circuits among those who are committed to peacemaking (as opposed to our government):
Why doesn't Israel want to become America's fifty first state?
Because she would only have two senators.
Well said, Stephen. I appreciate, in particular, your recognition of the complexity of the issues made all that more difficult by the blood that has been shed. What I would challenge is your assumption that we need to "continue" to work for peace, as the premise it contains is the idea that we have been working for peace at all. What we need to recognize is that America's role in this conflict has rarely been that of peace-maker, linked particularly to the fact that we are so beholden to the Israeli narrative that even the small steps we've taken to challenge the illegal occupation and confiscation of Palestinian land have, in the end, proved futile as the Israeli lobby and Christian Zionist lobby is simply too powerful to allow that. The Palestinian move to become members of the UN was telling in this light, as not only did they ignore President Obama's threat of a veto (as we so often provide the sole veto to anything that might bring balance to this conflict), they did it deliberately as a way of saying: "we no longer feel the need to listen to America. They are part of the problem, not the solution."
In essence, the Palestinians have come to recognize that America can not be an honest broker in this conflict, that, if anything, we are like the spouse who enables her alcoholic partner by covering up his indiscretions.
Here's a joke making the circuits among those who are committed to peacemaking (as opposed to our government):
Why doesn't Israel want to become America's fifty first state?
Because she would only have two senators.
Well said, Stephen. I appreciate, in particular, your recognition of the complexity of the issues made all that more difficult by the blood that has been shed. What I would challenge is your assumption that we need to "continue" to work for peace, as the premise it contains is the idea that we have been working for peace at all. What we need to recognize is that America's role in this conflict has rarely been that of peace-maker, linked particularly to the fact that we are so beholden to the Israeli narrative that even the small steps we've taken to challenge the illegal occupation and confiscation of Palestinian land have, in the end, proved futile as the Israeli lobby and Christian Zionist lobby is simply too powerful to allow that. The Palestinian move to become members of the UN was telling in this light, as not only did they ignore President Obama's threat of a veto (as we so often provide the sole veto to anything that might bring balance to this conflict), they did it deliberately as a way of saying: "we no longer feel the need to listen to America. They are part of the problem, not the solution."
In essence, the Palestinians have come to recognize that America can not be an honest broker in this conflict, that, if anything, we are like the spouse who enables her alcoholic partner by covering up his indiscretions.
Here's a joke making the circuits among those who are committed to peacemaking (as opposed to our government):
Why doesn't Israel want to become America's fifty first state?
Because she would only have two senators.
I wish to thank John Hubers for his comments. I agree with him to the extent he argued that it is inaccurate to say there is no pro-Israeli bias in American policy over the years. There is. But I think it is also inaccurate to say that the United States has not tried to play a peace-making role in this conflict. To do so is to ignore, for example, the 2000 Camp David Peace Summit convened by President Bill Clinton and the 1978 Camp David Accords in which President Jimmy Carter played a major role.
I wish to thank John Hubers for his comments. I agree with him to the extent he argued that it is inaccurate to say there is no pro-Israeli bias in American policy over the years. There is. But I think it is also inaccurate to say that the United States has not tried to play a peace-making role in this conflict. To do so is to ignore, for example, the 2000 Camp David Peace Summit convened by President Bill Clinton and the 1978 Camp David Accords in which President Jimmy Carter played a major role.
I wish to thank John Hubers for his comments. I agree with him to the extent he argued that it is inaccurate to say there is no pro-Israeli bias in American policy over the years. There is. But I think it is also inaccurate to say that the United States has not tried to play a peace-making role in this conflict. To do so is to ignore, for example, the 2000 Camp David Peace Summit convened by President Bill Clinton and the 1978 Camp David Accords in which President Jimmy Carter played a major role.
Touche, Stephen. You are correct to say that there have been those rare moments when the US did, in fact, show signs that they might play a positive role in the conflict. But even in these cases what the Palestinians discovered is that America will always back down if Israel decides they don't want to follow a particular plan of action.
The settlements are a case in point. We have had a long standing policy of opposing the settlements. Yet we have done nothing to attempt to stop them, even though we have tremendous leverage given the huge amount of aid we give Israel every year – more than any other country in the world. President Obama himself has made strong statements opposing the aggressive settlement activity undertaken by Netanyahu. When it was clear that Netanyahu was going to do it anyway, Obama backed down. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Bush's – everyone has failed to put teeth in our stated policy. And Israel knows it and the Palestinians know it, and now the Palestinians have finally said "enough already. We have no hope from this quarter."
If American Christians wish to make a difference for peace it will need to be over against American policy, not in conjunction with it.
Touche, Stephen. You are correct to say that there have been those rare moments when the US did, in fact, show signs that they might play a positive role in the conflict. But even in these cases what the Palestinians discovered is that America will always back down if Israel decides they don't want to follow a particular plan of action.
The settlements are a case in point. We have had a long standing policy of opposing the settlements. Yet we have done nothing to attempt to stop them, even though we have tremendous leverage given the huge amount of aid we give Israel every year – more than any other country in the world. President Obama himself has made strong statements opposing the aggressive settlement activity undertaken by Netanyahu. When it was clear that Netanyahu was going to do it anyway, Obama backed down. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Bush's – everyone has failed to put teeth in our stated policy. And Israel knows it and the Palestinians know it, and now the Palestinians have finally said "enough already. We have no hope from this quarter."
If American Christians wish to make a difference for peace it will need to be over against American policy, not in conjunction with it.
Touche, Stephen. You are correct to say that there have been those rare moments when the US did, in fact, show signs that they might play a positive role in the conflict. But even in these cases what the Palestinians discovered is that America will always back down if Israel decides they don't want to follow a particular plan of action.
The settlements are a case in point. We have had a long standing policy of opposing the settlements. Yet we have done nothing to attempt to stop them, even though we have tremendous leverage given the huge amount of aid we give Israel every year – more than any other country in the world. President Obama himself has made strong statements opposing the aggressive settlement activity undertaken by Netanyahu. When it was clear that Netanyahu was going to do it anyway, Obama backed down. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Bush's – everyone has failed to put teeth in our stated policy. And Israel knows it and the Palestinians know it, and now the Palestinians have finally said "enough already. We have no hope from this quarter."
If American Christians wish to make a difference for peace it will need to be over against American policy, not in conjunction with it.