Seeking Peace and Justice: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

/9 Comments/in /by

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.   

Some Complexities of Geopolitics

/0 Comments/in /by

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a tragic example of the complexities of geopolitics. In this short essay, I will consider a few aspects of the historical background of the conflict to offer some context for thinking about current disputes and describe three ways in which domestic politics complicate the prospects of reaching peace in the region.

Some Brief Historical Context and Starting Points

The region currently occupied by the State of Israel and the surrounding areas has a complicated political history. Consider just a few key events from the last century. The British gained control of the area after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The British promised land to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration of 1917; in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the British also promised an Arab state in return for their help in the fight against the Turks. Both groups have claims to the land based on history, possession, and legal documents.

In the post-World War II conflict in Palestine, the Jews sought independence. The United Nations created a partition plan that divided part of the Palestine Mandate into two states: one for the Jewish people, and one for the Arabs who did not have a state of their own. The Arabs rejected the UN plan. When Britain left the region, Jewish leaders declared independence and created the state of Israel, and their neighbors immediately attacked in what we now call the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Since then, Israel has been involved in seven wars, two Palestinian intifadas, and many more conflicts.

In my view, conversations on this complicated issue should begin with acknowledgement of two key points.

First, Israel, a formally-recognized state and member of the United Nations, has the right to exist as a sovereign democratic nation. Israel’s Arab neighbors should acknowledge this right and not seek Israel’s destruction.

Second, the Palestinian refugees are the victims of real and sustained suffering. The hundreds of thousands of people who were living in the region of Palestine at the time of partition now comprise 4.8 million refugees dispersed in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip who are too often pawns in the geopolitics of the area.

Some Possible Impediments to a Lasting Peace

Domestic politics in the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories create significant impediments to peace in the region. Given space and time constraints, let me consider an example from each.

(1) Lack of Space for Conversation in the United States

By all accounts, the relationship between the United States and the state of Israel is a strong alliance. Although I believe that our commitment to Israel is well warranted, I don’t think it should be unquestioned. As should be the case in maintaining our relationship with any foreign country, we need open and honest conversation that acknowledges the complexities of the situation in the region and its complicated history. In short, we need more meaningful dialogue about what our role in the region should be.

American diplomats and political leaders need the political space to weigh various options and consider what short and long term policies are in the best interest of the United States and the state of Israel. Current domestic political pressures from both major parties make it incredibly difficult for U.S. leaders to weigh options and offer them very little political leverage when dealing with Israel. It is difficult to broker peace under such circumstances.

(2) Rethinking Settlements

One of the most significant barriers to peace talks is the issue of settlements, both the official Israeli government approved neighborhoods on land in the occupied territories and outposts, unofficial settlements not recognized by Israeli law. Ultra-orthodox groups create outposts for ideological and political purposes; they do so without the endorsement or consent of the Israeli government.

The word “settlements” can muddle the debate, as this category includes small villages, vast suburbs, and even some small cities. More than half a million Israelis live in settlements in the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.

The settlement issue is often a major sticking point in negotiations. For example, it was a key reason peace talks stalled in 2010. It is difficult for the Palestinians and for the international community to believe that Israel is genuinely seeking a two-state solution when they have built vast settlements on disputed land.

(3) Internal Political Divisions among the Palestinians

In the past decades, different groups and political parties have sought and gained leadership of the Palestinians. Corruption and terrorism have been common. Negotiation has been difficult or impossible.

Currently, two parties, Hamas and Fatah, vie for Palestinian loyalties. Conflict between the two parties escalated into the Fatah-Hamas conflict in 2006, which has left Fatah in control of the West Bank and Hamas in control of Gaza. This internal conflict creates significant division and weakens the Palestinians’ ability to seek genuine peace. To complicate matters, Fatah has a history of corruption and undemocratic ways that contributed to the shift in support toward Hamas. Many international actors (including the U.S. and the EU) regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. Hamas has a clear history of engaging in the tools of terrorism and refuses to recognize Israeli sovereignty.

Attempts are currently underway to resolve this dispute, but as of this writing, there has been little significant progress. Without unified Palestinian leadership, it will be quite difficult to move forward in the peace process.

The Role of Christians Seeking Resolution and Reconciliation

My comments have noted just a few of the many factors that complicate a path toward peace. The current conflict in Israel and Palestine has been raging for two generations. As followers of Christ, we should seek a deeper and more objective understanding of both sides of the conflict, we should stand against human rights violations wherever they occur, and we should seek opportunities to broker meaningful peace. Above all, we should join with the Psalmist who enjoins us to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

Israel and Palestine: What’s a Superpower to Do?

/3 Comments/in /by

Why has there been so little progress on efforts to secure a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?  Why, 64 years after the establishment of the state of Israel, are we still confronted with the spectacle of one people ruling another without their consent and against their will?  Why does violence remain the norm in the region, despite repeated efforts to secure peace? 

Answers to these questions are elusive and frequently controversial.  One important factor of course is the weight of history: if there is any area of the world where history matters, it is Israel-Palestine.  In a region where ties to the land are frequently divinely established, it can be hard to establish the conditions for compromise.

But while history and a sense of divine right may explain the unwillingness of the parties to deal with the most pressing issues, these explanations are partial at best.  In my view, real progress on the Israel-Palestine question will require agreement on at least the following five points:

  • The establishment of an sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, legally and constitutionally independent of Israel.
  • The removal of all Israeli settlements from the West Bank.  By accepting the establishment of the Palestinian state, Israel must renounce any claim to West Bank territory.
  • A recognition of the legitimacy of an independent Israel—with no guaranteed right of return to Israel for Palestinians.  The Israeli people’s desire to live safely within their own borders must be accepted.
  • Both the states of Israel and Palestine must be viable and sustainable entities.  On the Israeli side, this will mean security, first and foremost.  On the Palestinian side, security is likewise required, but also considerable economic investment and support from Israel and from other parties.
  • Neither party can gain sovereignty over Jerusalem, certainly over the short to medium term, perhaps over the long term. 

Each of these issues alone can provide enough controversy to keep negotiations going for years (or more likely, bring those negotiations to an end).  What can be done?  And in particular, what can be done by the United States?

As one of the few actors that has any significant leverage with Israel, the role of the United States continues to be critical.  When parties to a negotiation are unequally matched, a hands-off policy permits the stronger party to dominate the other.  And let us be clear: the parties in the Israel-Palestine conflict are unequally matched.  Palestine consistently enters into negotiations with a dramatically weaker power position.  This has any number of consequences, but chief among them is that United States cannot act as a “neutral facilitator” and hope that the negotiation process will be seen as legitimate by the Palestinian side. 

One reason this is true is that because of the power imbalance, we can only expect that any agreement that might result will favor the more powerful actor.  But in addition, we can also expect that the stronger party will be able to take advantage of its dominant position, even while negotiations are underway, to change the very environment in which the negotiations are taking place.  This Israel did even this week, establishing more “facts on the ground,” when it formally recognized three settler outposts illegally built in the West Bank.  (The United States responded by asking Israel, through its embassy in Tel Aviv, for “clarification.”).  In this situation, even the appearance of neutrality cultivated by the United States further weakens the Palestinian position, as Israel’s negotiation position improves.  The legitimacy of the peace process is thus further undermined.

The United States needs to discontinue not only its behind-the-scenes support for Israel, but also its “neutral facilitator” face that undermines the very negotiations it is trying to support.  For real progress on the Israel-Palestine question to be achieved, the United States must suspend assistance to both parties, including the suspension of military aid to Israel, unless the parties can come to an agreement on the five points listed above.  Once that basic agreement is achieved, the United States, in conjunction with the UN and with other states, can begin to recommit its resources to the two countries as they try to imagine the shape of a sustainable peace.

Israel and Palestine: There is Hope

/0 Comments/in /by

Imagine living in a United States of America where every single citizen over the age of 18 is required by law to serve 2-3 years in the Army, Navy or Marines—not the reserves—regular combat service. Imagine the impact on the American psyche if every single citizen over the past 65 years was shaped by the theories and experiences of war. Imagine the impact on the average citizen’s view of everyday life and citizenship when shaped by the paradigm of war.

In a war paradigm, Israel’s June 2002 decision to erect a separation barrier seems sane. In a war paradigm, it is sane to cut through the heart of West Bank Palestinian communities with an electrified fence or barbed-wired wall that stretches 709 km. and permanently divides Palestinian families and separates farmers from their lands and livelihoods. In a war paradigm, Israel’s 520 check points are not so heartless.

After all, every Palestinian is a potential enemy—or so every Israeli is taught. And in war enemies are a threat to the self, and self-preservation is the highest goal.

In war, the systematic deprivation of the enemy seems sane. It comes as no surprise, then, that Israel would block most of the West Bank Palestinian’s water supply, as they did in 2009, or threaten to block it in Gaza as they did in late 2011. Nor is it a surprise that Israel would block passage of 60 percent of mundane supplies like cement into areas of the Gaza strip. Cement, after all, could be used to make weapons. In the war paradigm, it does not matter that as of September 2011 Gaza had a shortage of 250 schools and almost 100,000 homes, according to a January 2012 Human Rights Watch report.

Likewise, it seems a reasonable expectation in a war paradigm that armed Palestinian groups would launch hundreds of rocket attacks into the heart of their “enemy’s” territory killing two civilians and injuring at least nine others in 2011. For, in a war paradigm there are only friends and enemies; those who are like the self and those who are threats to the self.

But, according to international law, the war paradigm requires legality and legitimacy to be invoked. Legality requires adherence to the international rules of war as outlined in the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols. These rules have been breached on both sides.

The Geneva Conventions Protocols I and II prohibit indiscriminate attacks. Thus, the Palestinians’ launching of rockets into Israeli civilian territories breached the Protocols. And nearly 110 suicide bombing attacks carried out by Palestinian between 2001 and 2003 represented a grave breach.

Likewise, the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of torture, an inhumane method of information extraction documented on both sides of this conflict. Gerald Staberock, Secretary General of the World Organization Against Torture, recently published an Open Letter to Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel that called him to reject a draft bill currently under positive consideration that would exempt Israeli security from its international obligation to record interrogations. Staberock notes that credible accounts of “methods amounting to torture” have been used by the Israeli Security Agency (ISA), and he calls on Netanyahu to reject the current legislation because it would only exacerbate the problem.

Similarly, credible allegations of the use of torture by the Palestinian Authority have been cited in connection with the unlawful arrest and detention of journalists who were critical of the authority.

But the question of legality only matters if the war is legitimate in the first place. International law requires that a legitimate war involves the active participation of at least two recognized nation-states. In the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, there is only one nation-state and several armed non-state actors. The Palestinian people have not been recognized as a sovereign state by the United Nations. Thus, the war paradigm in this conflict is not legitimate.

The war paradigm is not the paradigm of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. It is not the paradigm of the Cross. And it is not the paradigm of shalom, a Hebrew concept grounded in the book of Genesis and woven throughout every book of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. For more on these biblical paradigms, please see my chapter on War and Terrorism in Left, Right, and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics.

I was asked recently, “Is there really any hope for Israel?” The answer is yes, there is.

First, the state of Israel has lived its entire existence in the foxhole of the war paradigm. It is time to come out of the foxhole. It is time for Israel to exercise profound concern, not only for its own security and its own peace, but also for the security and peace of its neighbors—the Palestinians.

It is time for the state of Israel to look into the faces of every Palestinian and see itself. There was a time when Israel was a people without a land. There was a time when the Hebrew people had their property confiscated and families were separated. There was a time when they were disowned by the world. How beautiful it would be for Israel to look on the Palestinians today with compassion, empathy, and the determination that they will not be party to the perpetuation of violence in our world.

Second, It is time for Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to be secure. Israeli mothers should never have to worry if their daughters and sons will return from a walk to the market. Every Israeli should not have to live in extreme fear and the ever present threat of war.

I read a story recently about a group of women living into this vision. A growing movement of Israeli and Palestinian women is beginning to say “no” to the war paradigm through non-violent resistance to the laws that separate them. They are defying the powers by going to the beach … together.

Surrounded and contained by the separation barrier and checkpoints, most landlocked Palestinians are never permitted to leave their cramped quarters. Only 60,000 permits to visit Israel were issued in 2011, twice as many as 2010, but still a far cry from the total population of 2.5 million. As a result, most Palestinians have never seen the beach.

Ilana Hammerman, an Israeli woman heard her Palestinian friend say she just needed to get out of the West Bank, even for a day. Hammerman smuggled her friend past the checkpoint guards and took her friend to the beach. She wrote about it and the idea caught on. Now a movement of Israeli and Palestinian women are defying the trenchant loyalties drawn by illegitimate lines of war. They are joining hands across these lines and walking into the deep together; splashing in the waves by day and singing music and dancing together in the evening.

New York Times reporter, Ethan Bronner reported:

In a newspaper advertisement, the group of women declared: “We cannot assent to the legality of the Law of Entry into Israel, which allows every Israeli and every Jew to move freely in all regions between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River while depriving Palestinians of this same right. They are not permitted free movement within the occupied territories nor are they allowed into the towns and cities across the green line, where their families, their nation, and their traditions are deeply rooted.

They and we, all ordinary citizens, took this step with a clear and resolute mind. In this way we were privileged to experience one of the most beautiful and exciting days of our lives, to meet and befriend our brave Palestinian neighbors, and together with them, to be free women, if only for one day.”

Hanna Rubinstein shared with Bronner: “What we are doing here will not change the situation. But it is one more activity to oppose the occupation. One day in the future, people will ask, like they did of the Germans: ‘Did you know?’ And I will be able to say, ‘I knew. And I acted.’ ”

There is hope.

Propositions Related to Israel and Palestine

/12 Comments/in /by

In this contribution to Harold Heie’s wonderful Alternative Political Conversations series, I will seek to distill what I think I believe about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a series of propositions. These are drawn from my study of the region as well as one lengthy visit. They are of course provisional and subject to correction.

#1 The Israeli-Palestinian situation is the most complex political, moral, and foreign policy problem in the world today from a US Christian perspective.

#2 The United States plays a uniquely important role in relating to that problem, more than any other single nation in the world.

#3 The evangelical Christian community in the United States plays a uniquely important role in shaping United States foreign policy in relation to this problem, perhaps a more important role than on any other foreign policy challenge.

#4 Israel was born as a modern state as a result of longstanding efforts on the part of the Jewish Zionist movement, sympathy for that movement from Great Britain and the United States, a need for a refuge for Jewish Holocaust survivors, a deep sense of guilt for doing so little to prevent the Holocaust or save its victims, and the dogged efforts of Jews to establish a state and prevent it from being strangled in the cradle in 1948.

#5 The birth of the modern state of Israel was simultaneously a great accomplishment for the Jewish people and a great tragedy for the local Palestinian population. The seeds of the 64-year Israeli-Palestinian conflict were sown in 1948, not just with the events that occurred, but through the symbolic reality that Israeli Jews celebrate what Arabs and Palestinians consider a great catastrophe. What is “sign” to one population is “countersign” to the other.

#6 Both the Israeli and Palestinian populations contain absolutists and pragmatists. That is, one can find among both Israelis and Palestinians elements that yearn for total occupation of every square inch of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. But one can also find pragmatists, who have come to terms with the need to share the land between the two populations.

#7 Israel today has the misfortune of being led by a governing coalition that contains a too sizable representation of the absolutists and not enough of the pragmatists.

#8 Israel’s population appears to be slowly swelling with absolutists, many imported from the United States, religiously motivated, and coming to join the settler population in the occupied territories. These developments are looked upon with alarm by many thoughtful Israeli pragmatists and peacemakers.

#9 Palestinians have responded to the undesired seizing of what had once been their land (now Israel), and continued occupation of what still is their land (West Bank), by a variety of forms of resistance, all of which are predictable under the circumstances and many of which have been brutal, deadly, and immoral.

#10 My visits with Palestinians in 2011 led me to believe that their leaders are confident that they have the moral high ground at this time, that they are gaining international favor, that their cause is progressing, that they can make progress using nonviolent resistance, and that the worst thing they could do at this time would be to return to violence.

#11 The United States has at times played a profoundly constructive role by discouraging Israeli and Palestinian absolutists and encouraging pragmatism and peacemaking. The administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were especially notable in this regard, but it has been the overall posture of the US government.

#12 However, as Israeli settlement and occupation policies have worsened–into steady defiance of international law and steady mistreatment of Palestinians–the United States has not altered its posture sufficiently. This means that our posture gradually has slipped from the steady mooring of justice and has become distorted in a direction that leaves us out of touch with most international opinion as well as with the realities on the ground.

#13 Religiously fueled Christian absolutism in the United States has contributed profoundly to this problem. End-times dispensationalism together with a broader misunderstanding of what it really means to “love God’s chosen people” have distorted conservative evangelical Christian thinking which thus has contributed to distorting US foreign policy.

#14 A growing minority of evangelical Christians has in recent years become increasingly uneasy with the situation in Israel and Palestine; lost confidence in the current Israeli political leadership; grown alarmed at the distortion of Judaism we have encountered in some extremist Zionist settlers; met and come to care about Palestinians (including Christians) and their suffering; and moved toward a posture of resistance to both US foreign policy in the region and right-wing Christian Zionism.

#15 I am one of the resisters discussed in #14.

TOPIC # 5: ISRAEL AND PALESTINE

/0 Comments/in /by

Please consider the following potential leading questions

 

#1: What would “justice” for both the Israelis and the Palestinians look like?

 

#2: What are the contours of a potential two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

 

#3: What are the major impediments to a two-state solution and how can these impediments be overcome?

 

#4: In a situations where there have been provocations and charges of unjust actions on both sides, what role, if any, does the idea of forgiveness play, if a peaceful solution is to be found?

 

#5: How has the influence of Christians in the United States influenced, for good or for ill, the prospects of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

 

#6: How have the policies and approaches to addressing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict of the Obama administration and previous presidential administrations helped or hindered the quest for resolving this conflict?

 

#7: How should a Christian’s understanding of “biblical prophecy” about the “end times” influence, or not, his/her perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?