Phone: 972-2-626-6800 FAX: 972-2-628-5764 ADDRESS: Muristan Road P.O. Box 14076 Jerusalem 91140 via Israel
Pastor Siler
and His Wife Anne served the English-speaking Redeemer Congregation in
Jerusalem from August 2003 through June 2007.
He now continues his reflections about returning
to the US after 4 years in Jerusalem
Text of Speech given at Foundry Methodist Church, Washington, DC, 24 February 2008
Some years ago, at the beginning of a Confirmation class, one of the students approached me and said, with a tone of finality, “Pastor, I won’t be coming to every other Confirmation class. I have a Scout meeting.” My quick reply was, “No, Sean, what you will do is come to me outside of class and let me know you have a conflict. Then the two of us will sit together and work out a solution.” Needless to say, Sean was not happy the rest of the evening. The next morning I received a telephone call from Sean’s father. He related Sean’s assertion that I had said he couldn’t go to Scout meetings. Then he asked if that is what happened. I gave him my version. With no hesitation, Norm replied, “Thank you very much, Pastor.” Two weeks later, at the beginning of the next class, Sean walked up to me and said, “Pastor, I have a conflict with my Scout meeting. Can we talk together and work out a solution.” Without a trace of a smile, I answered, “Sure. We can do that.” And we did. Norm’s superb parenting still sticks in my mind as a great example of the absolute NEED to hear both [or all] sides of a story.
The greatest tool or resource a person, a people, a nation can possess is the means to control the story: that is, to control the way a context is built into which “facts” are placed.
The story of Jerusalem—and for that matter, all of Historic Palestine, is one of the best examples the world has ever known. Today I hope to turn the story ever so slightly in a different direction.
I. It is far beyond my knowledge and expertise to be able to define the relationship between what Karen Armstrong calls “sacred spaces” and the people who are drawn to them. Suffice it to say that such sacred spaces are at least as much about emotion, religion and self-understanding as they are about geography. They are the spots where we humans encounter that which is “wholly other.” There is none more dramatic or significant then JERUSALEM!
In concrete terms Jerusalem is held in highest esteem by:
1. Jews: Holy Zion, City of God, Place of Solomon’s Temple, where Abraham was called to demonstrate his obedience to Yahwah by sacrificing Isaac.
2. Christians: The place of the absolute essence of the birth of the faith: Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension.
3. Muslims: the place from which the prophet Mohammed [Blessed be His Name! as his followers would say] rose in his night journey to Heaven, and the site of the great and final judgment yet to come.
It is a city often conquered, long occupied, devastated, abandoned, restored, controlled…yet always appealing to people of faith to come and see—and often to take.
II. My first premise: Jerusalem is more than a city. It is a concept, an ideal, a revelation which seeks to enfold one into its grasp. So, it is no surprise that I—like just about every person who has ever called that city home—have a premise with regard to its life and future: Jerusalem will NEVER be a shared place in any lasting way (1) if we attempt to sort out competing claims on the city, determining their relative strengths as a beginning place for compromise is sought, or (2) if a sharing is forced or imposed on the claimants by “outsiders.”
I have come to believe that a shared Jerusalem can only become a genuine reality when all the three faiths and the two peoples are willing to sacrifice their claims so that the sacred city might be saved. [I think of the two women who came before King Solomon, each claiming that she was the mother of a baby. When Solomon in his wisdom offered to split the baby between them with his sword, the imposter readily agreed, while the true mother stood ready to relinquish her claim so that her child would live. (I Kings 3: 16-28)] Such sharing does not mean that anyone’s love for the city will diminish, but that each will come to see the image of God in the face and life of the others…and will humbly step aside so that brothers and sisters may enter.
III. A second premise flows directly from the first: A shared Jerusalem will never come to pass if it is assumed that such an arrangement will be based on each person’s tolerance of the others’ religious beliefs. Only when we all learn to embrace the “other” with acceptance and respect for her human worth, his culture, her religion, his ethnicity will we have laid the foundation for one holy place to be shared by all. I have watched Lutheran pastors observing the customs of Ramadan (refraining from smoking, drinking, eating during the day) and offering a sincere “Shabbat Shalom” to Jewish soldiers and police on their Holy Day. I watched while Muslim merchants whose shops were at risk come to see the Christian Bishop for assistance because of their trust and respect for him.
I know it is heresy to some, but we will not walk together toward a Holy City for all if we are looking down on the faith o others or seeking to convert them to what we may see as a superior faith!
IV. The present occupation of East Jerusalem and the Old City of Jerusalem—indeed of the entire West Bank and Gaza—an occupation and annexation regarded by the rest of the world as illegal—is but the latest attempt by one people to elevate its values, its heritage, its beliefs over those of all others…But it is the insurmountable obstacle to a shared Jerusalem…and it rears its obstructionist head in so many ways:
Muslim Holy Day Prayers, Christian access for services and observances and Jewish Holy Day activities are entirely and totally controlled by Israeli authorities. What this means in real terms is that it is common for Muslim men under the age of 45 to be denied Friday access to the Al Aksa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Haram a Sharif—the Noble Sanctuary [the Temple Mount of Judaism]. It means that Christians can only enter the area of the Holy Sepulcher on the day before Easter IF they carry a ticket issued by the Israeli police. It means that on the Jewish Day of Yom Kippur--the Day of Atonement--traffic lights are turned OFF in the Arab sector with no one to direct traffic safely through intersections. It means that roads, not inside, but adjacent to Jewish neighborhoods, may be blocked to all cars. And there is NO recourse to a higher authority.
Apologists for Israel often point out that when the U.N. passed in November 1947 its partition plan for Palestine, Arab states rejected the proposal while the pre-Israeli leaders publicly accepted it. What they likely will fail to point out are two vital factors: (1) the Arab states had made it clear they they would not accept any plan imposed on them by others that meant taking away land which had been home to countless generations of Palestinians, Thus it was easy for Israel to accept; without Arab OK’s there would be no legal partition and (2) the records of the pre-national leaders of Israel make it eminently clear that despite the U.N. provision which formed a “corpus separatum,” an international trusteeship for all of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, they never intended to accept the planned inclusion of Jerusalem—regardless of whether the Arabs accepted or rejected the U.N. proposal.
If there is to be a shared Jerusalem, the occupation MUST END.
V. Finally, there is a way through which we can move toward one Holy City for all, with access to its holy sites open and guaranteed—with respect for the three monotheistic faiths—with the life of the city a beacon set on a hill for all the world to see and to emulate. (1) If the people of each faith will walk the path their beliefs set out for them: welcoming the stranger and the sojourner, respect for the commonalities of their traditions such as the prophets and scriptural heroes which are cherished by all, a deep and abiding sense of justice for the widow, the orphan, the prisoner, and the oppressed. (2) If the people there—Jews, Muslims, Christians, Palestinians, Israelis, Druze—can remember the ways they lived together before human craving for power forced them apart. [The story is often repeated of the murder of scores of Jews in Hebron by Arab extremists in the 1930s. Seldom told, however, is that more than 400 Jews were saved from death by their Muslim neighbors who hid them in their own homes. The oldest generation remaining are still young enough to recall the times before 1948. They know the peoples can live together in peace; they experienced it.
Lutheran Bishop Munib Younan has often stated his disagreement with apparent U.S. foreign policy in the area. He believes that the key to peace and democracy is not found in Baghdad or Tehran or Damascus or Amman.
The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Jerusalem!
May God grant us the grace to help make it so!
You have no idea how much I want to believe in the possibilities for peace in the Holy Land. I have walked, talked, played, worked, eaten, and lived with the people there. I have come to love the harsh, arid, occupied land [without, of course, loving the occupation]. Lasting peace with justice is my constant prayer. But as the words I read in the popular media form ideas and images in my imagining, I can run, but I cannot hide from the truths that also come to mind. Both Israel and the United States have, in recent months, made unequivocal statements supporting a future Palestinian state, living in interdependence with its closest neighbor Israel—each state’s security and prosperity dependent on the other’s liberty and safety. If only actions reflected the vision. Further, what you and I and the rest of the American people read, hear, and see in the news give the distinct impression that it is only a Palestinian penchant for violence that paralyzes the peace parade. Let me assure you, as I have many times in the past, that I deplore the use of violence by both sides. It accomplishes nothing but the guarantee of more violent acts, perpetuating the spiral of violence which draws everyone in its path toward destruction. At the same time it is vital that the world has a clearer understanding of what is fanning the flames of fear and hatred in the land. Let me illustrate.
In an article this month in the Washington Post the reporter stated that “in recent months” Israel had virtually closed the border crossing points between Gaza and Israel. The clear rationale in the story is the barrage of homemade Khassam rockets raining down on parts of southern Israel, including the village of Sderot. What is missing from the story is the fact that the closings intensified immediately after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January 2006. The stranglehold was actually put in place in August 2005 after the much-heralded “disengagement” from Gaza by Israel. Disengagement was the term used by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to refer to Israel’s actions vis-à-vis Gaza, that part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories bounded by Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea, but not contiguous to East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel’s actions were to (1) remove the 7,000 Israelis in illegal settlements, (2) withdraw to just outside the border the thousands of Israeli troops who had made these settlements possible, and (3) strengthen the virtually impenetrable barrier which makes Gaza a prison for the 1.4 million Palestinians who live there. Please understand this: There was no end to the occupation in Gaza. Israel still controls completely, and often brutally, air, land, and sea spaces encircling Gaza. It controls the passage of goods—food, medical supplies, essential water filters, fuel—into the people there, allowing through only enough to avoid starvation and widespread death. In addition it controls the exports of the Gazans, mainly agricultural products they have long sold in Israel and elsewhere. Literally thousands of tons of produce have rotted by the gates when they were not allowed through. Fishermen were prohibited from plying their trade more than one mile from shore. By any definition of international law Israel still occupies Gaza and is responsible for the human needs of the people there. The “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza which so many sources have reported is the result of a series of carefully calculated political decisions.
If we are to understand the significance of the homemade rockets, we must know the circumstances under which they occur. It is never enough to hear and consider just one perspective on any situation, much less so one in which the stakes are so dramatically high.
And there is more.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli “peacenik.” Once an Israeli soldier, later a member of the Knesset [Israel’s Parliament], now the head of Gush Shalom [Peace Bloc] founded by Avnery and his wife in 1993. It is his contention that the rockets fired on the village of Sderot provide the necessary provocation for Israel to continue its oppression of this segment of the Palestinian people and of Hamas. As proof he reveals the fact that Hamas several months ago offered a truce to Israel. In return for a complete cessation of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza, Israel would end its military incursions into Gaza, stop its policy of targeted assassinations in Gaza, and end the blockade. Hamas repeated the offer last month. The problem is that for such a truce to take effect the two sides would need to talk. That Israel refuses to do. In fact both Israel and the United States are adamant in their refusal to have one word of conversation with those whom the Palestinian people elected to represent them. It was hoped that the Palestinian people would turn on Hamas and drive them from power. As so often happens, the opposite occurred: the people of Gaza—indeed all the Palestinian people—place the blame for their present suffering squarely on the shoulders of the Israeli leaders and on the shoulders of the government of the United States, who could intervene to ease the suffering but who refuses.
There is now an offer from Hamas on the table which goes far beyond that truce. They have offered a hudna, a ceasefire in which they pledge to end armed resistance in exchange for an end to the Israeli occupation. We all need to put aside our determined postures of who is to blame and who is the most violent. The world needs to open the dialogue, yes, talk with those who are sworn enemies. The alternative is simply more pain, more injustice, more fear, more death. If for no other reason, the children of Israel and the children of Palestine deserve to inherit life and hope from their parents—not fear and death.
As I read and ponder the constant stream of news and information flowing from people touched by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I try often to listen as I believe someone would listen who has only a limited amount of knowledge and information. Several matters literally jump off the page because of the way they distort or ignore some of the most critical issues and obstacles to peace with justice. It often occurs to me that the speakers, writers, reporters, and editors of such partial truths simply must be aware of what they are doing. Either that or they are not qualified to report on such consequential matters. Here are some examples.
While reading the Washington Post transcript of a “News Conference” held by President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held in Jerusalem on 8 January, I came on the reply of President Bush to a question about illegal Israeli settlements: “: Look, I mean, we've been talking about it for four years. The agreement was get rid of outposts -- illegal outposts. And they ought to go.” Sounds like he’s getting tough. Right? Actually what Mr. Bush is doing is playing out his role in the well known “diplomatic dance” regarding settlements. The reporter had set the stage by using the words “settlements” and “outposts” as if they are interchangeable. Of course the President chose the one he wanted to use and replied that the “…illegal outposts…ought to go.” The phrase “illegal outposts” refers only to those tiny clusters of trailers a few settlers have erected on fragments of Palestinian land. In most cases they have received electricity, water, telephones, and military protection from the Israeli authorities, even though they have never received permission from those same authorities to be in these outposts. That lack of proper permits is what makes them “illegal.” It therefore sounds as if Mr. Bush is saying that all the settlements must go, when in reality he is merely speaking about a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of Israeli dwellings on Palestinian land—housing enterprises which the rest of the world regards as illegal. In fact this charade has continued for years. Speaking firmly in public about outposts distracts concerned attention from the huge confiscation of Palestinian land that the settlements accomplish. There will be no peace if this confiscation is not addressed and corrected.
Then there is the question of Hamas. As you recall, the Palestinian people, encouraged by the United States to hold democratic elections, voted Hamas into power by giving them a clear majority of the National Assembly. Remember also that the United States uttered not one word of warning about just whom the people should elect. In a democratic process the people decide for themselves. And two years ago the people did. But from that day to this both Israel and the United States have done everything they possibly could to guarantee that these elected representatives of the people would not be allowed to govern. Yes, I am aware of the violence between Fatah and Hamas. Yes, I am aware of the homemade rockets from Gaza, crashing down near or on Israeli villages. I am also aware of the hundreds of millions of Palestinian dollars illegally held by Israel with the blessing of the United States—dollars which were to be used to pay teachers, doctors, nurses, and other public servants. I am aware that, without giving the elected leaders one chance, the United States pressured the entire world to withhold all assistance from the Palestinian people if even one dollar was touched by a Hamas member. I am aware that over one and one-half years ago Israel imprisoned nearly 40 Palestinian legislators. Many of them are still in prison with no charges whatsoever filed against them. They are simply in prison.
Now put all that aside, along with all the rhetoric from everybody about who says what about the other. Put aside what you think you know about suicide bombings and house demolitions and targeted assassinations, and ask yourself these questions: Is there even the slightest hope of a just peace and settlement of the issues if we continue to ignore perhaps one-third of the Palestinian people? If we actively support the isolation and thus the hunger and great medical and employment needs of the people in Gaza? If we negotiate only with leaders in the West Bank? If we keep pushing those same West Bankers toward armed conflict with their sisters and brothers in Gaza? If we continue to send the message to the Palestinian people that we will support their efforts only if we approve of the leaders they elect? This type strategy has never worked for us…and probably not for anyone else either. We have called people communists, terrorists, leftists, and every –ist imaginable, but in the end we sat at the table with them and made our demands while listening to theirs.
I have no way of knowing if there was any kind of agreement between Israel and the United States, but if there were, it could not have worked out better for Israel. Gaza and the West Bank are now separated in all but heritage. The barrier between Palestinians in Jerusalem and those in the West Bank grows stronger and more impenetrable each day. The possibility of a vibrant Palestinian state existing alongside a strong, secure Israel diminishes by the hour.
Then there are the concessions, usually referred to by Israeli politicians as “painful concessions.” When we look beneath this phrase, we find that such concessions include sharing Jerusalem between two peoples and among three faiths; returning stolen land to rightful and lawful owners, ending the illegal occupation, naming borders [There are none now named.] acceptable to the world’s nations, and somehow providing justice to those people who have been refugees from their ancestral homes for almost 60 years.
It is my firm belief that the large majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians will accept a fair agreement which brings justice and security for all. It is also my firm belief that the constant distortion of the issues and disguising of the realities will continue to push away both that justice and that reality.
First I read the headlines and follow the stories that make the popular media: newspapers—both those delivered to the driveway and those delivered via the magic of electronics—television news and commentary, and magazines. Then I move to some alternative sources: Israeli newspapers, press releases from peace organizations and research outfits, list serves, and posts from friends and acquaintances still living and working in Israel-Palestine. It takes a tremendous amount of data, analysis, observations, and opinions from the second set of sources to guide the meandering streams of snippets, misconceptions, and partial truths of the first source into pools of reality.
So it was that I began to look for signs of hope growing out of the Annapolis conference. It was after all a “gathering of lowest expectations.” Reading between the lines of pre-conference announcements, one quickly got the impression that the Bush administration would judge its success on which nations they were able to persuade to take part. No clear mission. No real agenda. No Hamas, so only a portion of the Palestinian people were to be represented. Yet we must give credit for simply accomplishing what they did: getting most of the parties at interest and most of the parties who hold the power to bring about positive change to sit together and make promises to move forward.
The obvious question now is “What next?” My observation over time is that, while many Palestinian and Israeli leaders continue to act as if ongoing suffering and conflict is their true aim, the vast majority of ordinary people are—to use a colossal understatement—more than ready and willing to make the tough compromises needed if two secure, interdependent nations are to emerge from the seemingly endless tunnel of death and despair they are traversing together. So, it was with faint smiles of hope that all justice and peace seekers greeted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s comment on the way home from Annapolis, “If the two states solution collapses, the state of Israel is finished.” This sentiment, long held by realists around the globe, emerged from the lips of a key political figure who in the past has done precious little to enhance any peace process. Lots of people have realized that, quite possibly, the best motivation for Israel to get serious about peace with justice is to understand that their nation’s long term security cannot sustain this constant occupation and consequent oppression. And now Olmert has chosen to give voice to the whisper. I’m certain that his words were spread widely to listening and hopeful watchers. However, one would have had to be listening far more closely to hear the next pronouncement.
To use a tired old image, the ink on the Annapolis agreement was barely dry when the Israeli government announced that 307 housing units would be built in the settlement [euphemistically termed a “neighborhood”] of Har Homa, just a handful of kilometers from Jerusalem’s Old City. If one does not know the whole story, such a step could be seen as routine and incidental to any broad peace efforts. But the whole story places the announcement in a much different light. When the Oslo Accords were signed in the mid-90s Har Homa was known as Jabal Abu Gheneim, land owned primarily by Arab Christians living in the Bethlehem area. Residents who grew up in its shadow have told me of its beauty then as a hill of pine and cedar, rising majestically outside the Arab Christian village of Beit Sahour, the town which is enshrined in the Bible as the site of the angelic Christmas proclamation to the shepherds. Beit Sahour residents who worked in Jerusalem could drive past it on their very short commute. In 1997 then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu underscored his opposition to the peace process begun at Oslo by ordering the leveling of the trees of Jabal Abu Gheneim and the erection of the settlement now known as Har Homa. I recall the many times I stood on the rooftops of friends’ homes under the looming bulk of Har Homa, and I began to grasp its significance. It is a clearly visible monument to the illegal Israeli settlement movement, building heavily-subsidized Israeli homes on Palestinian-owned land with total impunity.
The United States immediately sought “clarifications” on the settlement building plan.” This is diplomatic code for, “We don’t like what you are proposing, but we won’t say so publicly.” Very quickly thereafter, however, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made this much stronger and more pointed statement, “I've made clear that we're in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence between the parties, and this doesn't help to build confidence.” It would be absurd to assert that this episode embodies the totality of the conflict and the future, but it certainly does give some clues. Under the guidance of the old adage that it is often more enlightening to watch what one does rather than listening to what he says, we need to watch closely to see which is closer to the truth: Olmert’s words or his government’s actions. In the same way our administration could demonstrate its level of commitment to a just peace by backing up its objections to the settlement building. If it does, it would be a departure from its previously empty rhetoric whereby its “concerns” are duly noted by Israel which then proceeds to bring on the construction cranes.
We share a hope, wish, and prayer that the world has at long last turned its face toward Jerusalem to walk together for peace with justice for all. But oft times we need to know just a “pinch” more about things than the popular media is willing to give us if we are to know the ways in which our voices can do the most good.
This latest letter takes a markedly different approach to the situation in the Holy Land. In fact it is so different that I hesitated a long time before plunging ahead. For four years I have written of my experiences, my observations, and my reflections on the land of Israel-Palestine and its people and the conflict which threatens to devour all who are touched by it. The only thing I have asked of you is that you consider a different perspective on things than you normally receive through the popular media. Then you have been urged to share your views with the people who make our nation’s decisions. This time, however, I am presenting a need and an opportunity to help. Please know that this is a one-time detour off the path I have followed these months. I ask your indulgence and your attention. Next month I return to my more familiar form of communication.
As most of you know, my work in the Holy Land was part of the ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land [ELCJHL]. When I first arrived, I knew literally nothing about how things worked. One of my first requirements was a reliable printing operation where I could secure business cards, worship bulletins, letterhead, and the like. It took only one question to find precisely what I sought. In the basement of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in Jerusalem’s Old City sits a print shop. Its expert staff—consisting of one pretty amazing woman—produces materials for all of the ELCJHL: congregations, schools, administration, plus numerous other entities. Its output is in Arabic, English, German, a smattering of other languages, and a bit of Hebrew. When large projects are underway, other administrative staff pitch in at times to cut, collate, fold, and staple, for, you see, once the press has poured out its pages, the remainder of the operation is done entirely by hand. There were days when I would stare in amazement at the heaps of publications—from booklets to brochures, from reports to re-prints—which just a wink of time ago were stacks of blank paper stock. More than once the thought came to me of how much could be accomplished if only we could provide essential new equipment and update the serviceable incumbents. Then, in spite of the certainty of checkpoints impeding the way to work for the staff and the all burdens and uncertainties that the occupation imposes on people who labor in and for the church, at least the scope of the work could grow tremendously. So much, if only…
Now I must confess that I am often prone to lament what is not, while my wife Anne is likely the one to say, “Sure. We can do that.” So, beginning with a conversation she had with our friend and colleague, Pastor Mark Nelson of Minneapolis, the Redeemer Print Project was born. Now a joint undertaking of Lutheran Partners in Global Ministry [LPGM] and Global Mission of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [GM-ELCA], we have high hopes that a new print operation can be up and running in Jerusalem late next spring! The total price tag is $30,000.00 and the money has already started to come in. However, we are well aware that there are so many worthy efforts, so many requests for our gifts, and so many responsibilities on each of us that any single proposal needs lots of supporters. Both LPGM and GM-ELCA have a multitude of projects all around the world. And so this one must find its own path to completion. Because of my deep and abiding concern for the well-being of all the people—including the church—in the Holy Land, I decided to let you know of this opportunity to share your gifts where I am absolutely certain they will do immense good.
Not only will the Project provide new collator, stapler, and folder, as well as a modern, up-to-date computer system and other equipment, but it will bring hope where there is despair and could even lead to one or more new jobs among a people who so sorely need them. What a Christmas gift it would be if we are able to let the Church in Jerusalem know by the end of the year that the Print Project will actually happen!
If you decide to help, you can contribute on-line at www.lutheranpartners.org by designating your gift for the “Holy Land Printing Room Renovation Project.” If you would rather send a check, use the same designation on the check, make it out to Lutheran Partners in Global Ministry, and mail it to
Lutheran Partners in Global Ministry 122 W. Franklin Ave., Suite 518B Minneapolis, MN 55404.
LPGM is acting on behalf of itself and the Global Mission Unit of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and will forward all donations to the ELCA. If you would rather make your gift directly to the ELCA, make it out to “ELCA” and mark on the memo line “Level : Holy Land Printing Project. Mail the check to: ELCA Global Mission ATTN: The Rev. Twila Schock
For the most part I grew up in the 1950s and 60s. During these two dramatically different decades most of the foundations were laid on which the building blocks of my personal spiritual, philosophical, and political self found solid footing. In my country the civil rights of African-Americans were a dominant focus as the entire nation was compelled to come face-to-face with our ugly history of oppression, degradation, and abuse of those who were different in superficial ways from those who held the power and made most of our national and local decisions. In spite of great reluctance we learned to be far more honest than ever before as we confronted the realities of our human relationships. I personally learned that a commitment to truth in both our internal and our international dealings and decisions is an essential element if we are to uphold those values we say we hold sacred. A second formative force was my growing awareness of the horror and sheer magnitude of both the Holocaust and my world’s great and constant history of prejudice, bigotry, and monumental maltreatment toward any individual or group identified as religiously, ethnically, or culturally Jewish. Even at a young age, I was aware of the genesis of the state of Israel. My national ego swelled with pride as I watched my country stand resolutely with this infant nation as it joined the community of nations. The link between the unspeakable history of injustice, abuse, and death toward the Jewish people and the establishment of the state of Israel was absolute and incontrovertible.
Thus it was that I grew into adulthood with two parallel benchmarks for measuring and assessing personal, national, and international relationships, priorities and actions: The utter and absolute intolerance for Racism and anti-Semitism. One Sunday last month I preached at a congregation which is very interested in the work of the church in the Holy Land and in the circumstances under which that church struggles to live. At the conclusion of the worship, the pastor and I were offering the traditional handshake and greeting at the back door. Everyone was friendly and cordial. Some expressed agreement with the views I put forth; others disagreed somewhat; still others spoke of their confusion over the generations-old conflict in the Middle East. Then a woman about my age came out, shook my hand, and said, “I disagree with what you said. You’re anti-Semitic.” I replied that I was sorry she felt that way, and reminded her that I had clearly articulated both the Israeli and the Palestinian perspectives on the situation. Then I gently reminded her that most of the individuals I identified for their courage and integrity in my sermon were Israeli Jews. She nodded and said that she had agreed with me most of the way through. She refused my offer to talk further, simply waving her hand in dismissal as she strode away. It took me a while to grasp just what she was saying, and then it hit me. All was well in her estimation until I told the congregation that, in my opinion, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, as well as its brutal control of the Palestinians’ land and lives, was just “plain wrong.” In other words a presentation of the what I had seen, heard, and experienced while living in the Holy Land was more than acceptable, but when I dared to offer criticism of the nation of Israel I became—in her eyes—an anti-Semite. Such an identification—where one equates any critique of the actions of a nation with an immoral prejudice toward a whole people of faith—is simultaneously wrong, illogical, and ultimately harmful to both the nation and to the people. In my years in Jerusalem I was so often moved by the laments, often tearful and always anguished, of Jews who were forced to be witnesses to injustices perpetrated on others in the cherished name of their faith. I remember one Orthodox Jewish woman, so troubled by what she saw every day, who sadly testified, “This government is robbing my faith of its soul.” Jews and Lutherans, I have learned, have one thing in common: If ten of either group are gathered in one place discussing any matter of significance or consequence, there are automatically at least twelve opinions represented. Rather than being a flaw, that is a measure of strength for any such group, religion, or nation. It is on the anvil of differing, often conflicting opinions that a powerful consensus can be forged, truth brought forth, and morality shaped. When a group or nation attempts to protect itself and its actions by a refusal to allow or even consider dissenting ideas, that nation is undermining its own existence. Let none of us be guilty of supporting such destructiveness.
I started reading The Washington Post regularly when I was in high school. It’s been sort of a “local paper” for me for many years. Thus it was very natural when I first moved to Jerusalem to bookmark the Post on my Web browser and to check in almost every day. I would read a variety of entries from local news to sports to comics to editorials, but what I looked for the most were the articles and items regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For the most part I was satisfied that the newspaper was providing pretty balanced coverage, at least when it provided coverage at all. It was gratifying when, during my first year there, the Post published a front-page series on the Separation Wall. The articles presented both the Israeli justification for the barrier on the basis of “security concerns,” as well as the excesses of confiscation of Palestinian land and water and the devastating effect it was beginning to have on life for the entire Palestinian population. Upon our arrival back in the United States not only did I continue this deeply ingrained reading habit, but I was able to hold an actual newspaper in my hands! [What can I say—I’m an old codger, and my habits began long before the Internet.] Marvelous! But as the weeks went by I found myself more and more dismayed by what I was reading. Initially I attributed this perception to two possibilities: (1) that by the mere fact of relocation my expectations had changed; or (2) the Post had inexplicably shifted its posture on the conflict. It required a lot more thought and reflection before I could discard those possibilities and reach a far different conclusion. In Jerusalem I could read an article and my mind would fill in the blanks and flesh out the nuances. In addition most of my colleagues and friends would fashion the same mental modifications. We were able to do so, because we were living in the situation—experiencing the realities of the occupation daily and surrounded by a host of other sources of information. Without even thinking about it we would read such items from a different perspective by smoothing out the wrinkles of distortion, embedded either by choice or by ignorance or by careless editing.
But here…what a huge difference! That article about a rocket fired from Gaza or an Israeli military raid or targeted assassination or the editorial about some aspect of the conflict is read by most people utterly without the assistance of additional information or the mitigating effects of the visible, tangible realities. Two Post entries illustrate. The first was an editorial on 4 September, entitled “Israel’s Example.” The posting purports to criticize the Bush Administration’s detention and treatment of “unlawful combatants” by contrasting its behavior to that of Israel in what the editorial writer deems to be like circumstances. The writer plainly states, “Nothing in the Israeli system prevents a lengthy and potentially indefinite detention of an enemy combatant. But unlike the state of play in the United States, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that these combatants can be held only so long as the state can prove they are an imminent danger. If the state fails to make that case, the detainees must be released.” It sounds good, but what the editorial fails to tell us is that Israeli military commanders in the West Bank can hold individuals in administrative detention for six months, and then can extend that detention for additional six month periods indefinitely—regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled. Even though such detention was widely used in the 90s, the practice has not been commonly used in recent years, but the absolute authority continues. What Israel has done recently are things like this: In June 2006, just after the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, the Israeli army rounded up and placed in detention 45 members of the Palestinian National Council [PNC]. Twenty-two of them were still in detention as of last month. Then in May of this year Israel arrested several dozen more senior Palestinian officials, including two government ministers. Many of those detained were eventually charged with the “crime” of “…membership, activity, and holding a position…” in an “unauthorized association” [Hamas]. Yet the government of Israel raised no such concerns when in January 2006 these same individuals publicly announced their intentions to run for election as members of that association.
Thus, what was legal in January suddenly became unlawful in June. And, even if we set aside the cases of these persons, the two cabinet ministers and five members of the PNC are still being held in administrative detention, without charges and without a means to challenge their detention. Had the editorial writer chosen to use more of the facts, it might have been suggested that Israel and the United States were schooling each other in such techniques, but never that either nation was setting a shining example of justice for the other. The second is much simpler. Scott Wilson, Washington Post Foreign Service, wrote on 11 September about teams of Israeli and Palestinian officials beginning to work on the issues which will be dealt with in preparation for the U.S.-proposed conference this fall. He cited Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s reference to the “hard-core issues.” These, Mr. Wilson reported, include “…the final borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the claim by Palestinian refugees that they have a right to return to homes in Israel.” It would have been so helpful to the reader to know that (1) Israel has to this day refused to name its borders; it is just there. and () it is not merely a claim by the refugees that they have a right to return. It is a principle of international law, affirmed both by the United States and the United Nations on numerous occasions, that refugees displaced by war have the absolute right to return to their homes after the war ends. I wish that these were isolated incidents, limited to one publication, but, sadly, they are not. When consumers of information turn to their trusted publications, they have the right to expect and to demand that they be given a full and fair picture. So begins my journey of adjustment and re-entry.
We have now been back in the United States a little over two months.
We have experienced emotional ups and downs with two weddings and a
funeral. We have been involved with several large church events and
some smaller ones. Our attempt has been to ease back into the normal
flow of things without too much discomfort, and it has been
strange…not because it has proven to be difficult, but because it all
comes so easily. It begins very subtly as one day goes by…then two,
when ordinary life tasks take so much of one’s available time,
attention, and energy that it suddenly hits you that you haven’t seen
a newspaper article or a TV news item about what the people in
Israel-Palestine refer to as “the situation.” In addition your fellow
shoppers, travelers, and walkers in the market, the gas stations, and
the town center haven’t so much as mentioned the words Jerusalem or
Occupation. I haven’t seen even one armed “settler” or passed through
a single checkpoint, and my passport is nestled away in a secure
place, awaiting our next jaunt out of the country. And I realize with
a great sadness the immeasurable distance that separates my
comfortable existence on this side of the Atlantic from the fragile
life, tainted by fear and suffering, that our sisters and brothers
plod through on the other side of the ocean. The allure of gliding
through comfortable days here untouched by the brutality of life there
is powerful. We can grasp the relief of the priest and the Levite in
Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan as they were able to “…pass by on
the other side.” They had important duties to perform and the battered
body of the stranger would have been in the way.
Fortunately, this past week brought our first opportunity to make
presentations at a church. It was truly gratifying to have so many
people working with us to grasp the character of the human tragedy
relentlessly unfolding in the Holy Land. We were able to share with
them our perception that the Israeli government, with the full support
of our administration and Congress, had achieved precisely what it
intended, now that Palestine is divided against itself, and Gaza is
even more a prison world, a lifetime away from its sibling territories
in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. We were able to let them know, as
best we could, of the enormity of human suffering and loss when land,
life, and livelihood confiscation masquerade as “security measures.”
When discussing the Wall or, as others refer to it, the “Security
Barrier,” we were able to let people know that as many as 50,000
Palestinians will be cut off from their neighbors and families by the
wall. That is to say, they will be on the Israeli side of that which
is ostensibly being erected for the protection of Israeli people. Just
that single fact makes it apparent that the wall is more about
dividing the West Bank and taking much of its land than it is about
security.
It was a welcome weekend, but then it was past, and we, like all of
us, went back to those ordinary tasks…but with a difference. We are
once again enlivened and energized by people who are keenly aware that
what they read in the papers and hear on the TV carry, at best, a
partial story. What is