Friday, January 27, 2012

IS RABBI LERNER A ZIONIST

                                                            By Gulamhusein Abba

“The conflict is due to Jewish nationalism- Zionism, which pre-dates  the holocaust ….. my relatives who were murdered by the Nazis did not die to give cover to Zionist crimes in Palestine, and did not die to give him (Lerner) his ridiculous argument” ….Rich Siegel 

Rabbi Michael Lerner's book discussion event on January 22 for his new book, "Embracing Israel/Palestine” went horribly wrong when it took a completely unexpected and shocking turn near the end.
Sponsored by Riverside Church Israel/PalestineTask Force, and Co-Sponsored by: Brooklyn For Peace, Jewish Voice For Peace,Tree of Life Education Fund, NY, Friends of Sabeel, North America, NY, and  The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, USA, it was meant to be a dialogue between Rabbi Lerner and David Wildman, with a Special appearance by  Rich Siegel, a former Zionist turned a peace activist, singing songs from his new CD “The Way to Peace”.  
Everything went smoothly as planned. Rich sang one of his songs. Rabbi Lerner and David Wildman discussed the book and the opics it dealt with. 
 Rich Siegel
Wildman, fhe executive secretary for Human Rights & Racial Justice with the United Methodist Church's General Board of Global Ministries, very well versed on the subject, interviewed Rabbi Lerner,

Lerner talked about the conflict being due to two traumatized people, the Jews traumatized by the holocaust, the Arabs traumatized by colonialism. He also mentioned Arab intolerance of Zionist settlement.
 After the discussion Rich was scheduled to sing another song. He stepped up to do so. This is where things changed dramatically. 
 Rich, to everyone’s surprise, launched into an unscheduled impromptu speech of his own. 
According to Rich, Rabbi Lerner is basically an apologist for Zionism pretending to be a peace activist. In his mini speech, Rich called Lerner on his “ridiculous” claims and stated firmly that the conflict in Palestine is due solely to Jewish nationalism, Zionism, which, he pointed out, predates the holocaust. 
Becoming emotional, he said that his relatives, who were murdered by the Nazis, did not die to give cover to Zionist crimes in Palestine, and did not die to give Lerner his “ridiculous” argument. 
According to reports, Lerner wanted to walk out but Wildman encouraged him to stay, and he did- through Rich’s speech and his song afterwards. 
The whole program was videotaped. The organizers of the event and/or the videographer should put it on the internet. It would make instructive and interesting viewing. 

 
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine, considered to be one of the most respected intellectual/cultural but also the most controversial magazines in the Jewish world.
He is chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in Berkeley, Ca. and author of eleven books, most recently the national best-seller The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country From the Religious Right.

David Wildman is the executive secretary for Human Rights & Racial Justice with the United Methodist Church's General Board of Global Ministries He visits Afghanistan and the Middle East regularly, serves on the board of the National Farm Worker Ministry and is active in corporate accountability work with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. 


Rich Siege, an accomplished pianist/vocalist/songwriter, He was brought up in a conservative Zionist family but, after educating himself about the history of Zionism, the events that lead to the establishment of Israel and the policy and actions of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians, became a peace activist speaking  out for justice to the Palestinians.
 He has made a very emotional video about the Children dying in Palestine. In it he mentions some of the myths that Zionists repeat ad nauseum . In the original CD, after the song  Rich and his fellow song-writer Dave Lippman speak their feelings about what is happening in Palestine and what justice demands. Rich makes out a cogent case for a single secular state solution where the Jews, Christians and Muslims live amicably together.

These can be seen on two separate videos on the YouTube at http://youtu.be/1x2axqjhI6g
And at http://youtu.be/ojv1FWFGCgw  

Rich carries out his activism through music, singing in bars, at peace events and other gatherings. 
He has just released a new CD “The Way to Peace”, featuring Gilad Atzmon (woodwinds), Eugene Moye (cello), Gary Ciuci (guitar), Cameron Brown (bass), and Anthony Pinciotti (drums). This CD features vocals in English, Spanish, Arabic, and Hebrew and features a new cello arrangement of “In Palestine.”  

Thursday, January 19, 2012

EXCHANGING ONE PRISON FOR ANOTHER



Shocking revelations
Editor’s note: This article was published in the German magazine Online  Spiegel on January 19, 2012. In this version, some of the photographs that were made available with the article have been inserted into the body of the article. The original can be seen at:  


A Contribution by Seema Saifee


The prison camp at Guantánamo in Cuba was set up by the US in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York and Washington D.C. President George W. Bush designated prisoners taken in the war on terror as "unlawful enemy combatants." They were held in Guantánamo for years with no recourse to legal assistance
Getty Images
Ahmad Tourson spent eight years in Guantánamo as an innocent man. Then, in 2009, he was shipped off to the tiny island nation of Palau. His new situation, though, is untenable -- but the US government seems unwilling to do anything about it.

On her sixth birthday, Muslima had one wish: to see her dada. On that day, Ahmad Tourson, her father, was trying to sleep. But slumber was a luxury in the windowless metal box to which he was consigned for 22 hours a day, sometimes 24. On Muslima's sixth birthday, Ahmad was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He had been there for her last five birthdays as well.

Not long after her birthday, though, it looked as though Muslima's wish would come true after all. In June 2008, sunlight shone on the steel vault to which Ahmad was confined. Over six years of courtroom battles and cruel conditions of confinement later, the hundreds of men the US executive claimed the power to hold indefinitely won the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Ahmad's case was to be heard by a US federal judge
.
In consequence, the US government withdrew any pretense that Ahmad was an "enemy combatant," admitting it had no basis to hold the man and his 16 Uighur countrymen, all from China. With the case thus abandoned, remedy was the sole question remaining. The Uighurs sought their only possible remedy: freedom in the United States.

On the day of the hearing, US District Judge Ricardo Urbina decried assertions by then-President George W. Bush's top lawyers that executive discretion was almighty. He invited the president's lawyers -- several times -- to explain what the security risk would be to the nation should the Uighurs be freed in the US. "You've had seven years to study this issue," the judge admonished. The US government could not produce one single example.

At Liberty's Doorstep
Judge Urbina concluded that the detention of the Uighurs was illegal. Understanding that the men could not be returned to their native China, which may have tortured, or even executed, the members of the minority ethnic group, and that diplomatic efforts to lobby (and re-lobby) nearly 100 countries for their humanitarian resettlement had failed, Judge Urbina ordered the 17 men freed to the United States. Release was mandated within 72 hours. 

The prospect of freedom, once outside his reach, was now within Ahmad's grasp. The Uighurs, whose young faces had developed wrinkles from years of indefinite detention, imagined boarding a plane to freedom. A contingent of US marshals flew to Guantánamo to escort the men to their new home. Ahmad was at liberty's doorstep.

But 42 hours before Ahmad's scheduled release, the US government won an emergency stay to shelve the Uighurs' release until the case could be reviewed by a higher court. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that US federal courts exercising habeas jurisdiction were impotent to release men at Guantánamo whose confinement was admittedly unlawful. The Great Writ was defiled. Liberty, said the D.C. Circuit, had no guardian.

Ahmad embarked on his eighth year of indefinite detention because US judges concluded they did not have the power to end it. And two presidents agreed. In Guantánamo's Orwellian land of doublespeak, Ahmad was not detained, said Bush; the U.S. military was "harboring" him (inside a chain-link fence surrounded by barbed wire) because he "chose" not to return to China (a country whose government would have put a bullet in his head), and the president would honor this choice out of executive grace (as the US claimed it had no legal obligation not to refoule him to a country that tortures), until a safe nation granted him refuge (so long as that nation's president did not reside on Pennsylvania Avenue). And, once he entered office, President Barack Obama spun the same tale.

****************************************
Here, Ahmad (left) is seen with other Uighurs who were resettled to Palau in 2009. Their resettlement to Palau was originally intended to be only temporary. But so far, no third country has come forward to offer them a permanent home.

****************************************
Not a Durable Refuge
In the summer of 2009, the US State Department negotiated Ahmad's resettlement with the Republic of Palau, an isolated, impoverished island in the middle of the South Pacific. After multiple years of shopping Ahmad to foreign sovereigns, the US found a remote island, the only nation, it said, to offer him refuge. (Any nation that previously considered granting Ahmad asylum quickly reneged when Chinese diplomats threatened cessation of economic ties. Palau, however, is one of a small contingent of countries that maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan.)

The US and Palauan governments acknowledged that the remote island was not durable as a long-term refuge. Ahmad's relocation there, they said, was intended as a way station, a means to leave Guantánamo, a temporary solution until another country offered him sustainable resettlement. Ahmad thus accepted his only opportunity to leave Guantánamo, with the hope, one day, of finding a permanent refuge.

That hope has shriveled. Today, two years since his release and 10 years since he was sold into US custody, Ahmad remains in limbo in Palau. Despite his and the US State Department's assiduous efforts, he has no reasonable prospect of future resettlement. And the remote island is far from paradise.

**************************************
The Uighur prisoners were not the only innocent prisoners in the Guantánamo prison camp. This is an old image of Lakhdar Boumediene -- taken before he was arrested in Sarajevo. Born in Algeria, he held a senior position in an aid organization operating in Bosnia. He was arrested on Oct. 19, 2001 because he had allegedly planned a bomb attack on the US Embassy. Although a Bosnian court found him not guilty, he was kidnapped by US agents and taken to Guantánamo








           ****************************************

Ahmad holds a diploma from a technical college in China. He has experience as a management technician at an oil refinery and as a restaurant owner. He has advanced English language skills. But, in Palau, Ahmad cannot find work that provides a living wage. He is excluded, under Palauan law, from access to the same job opportunities available to Palauan citizens. What is more, he is not covered by Palau's minimum wage law, which is, itself, a trifling $2.50 an hour. Ahmad has no path to citizenship; under Palau's constitution, citizenship is conferred only to individuals with native Palauan ancestry. Even if Ahmad could access gainful employment, Palauan employers have refused to hire him. Many raise concerns about losing customers; others call the men terrorists. With a population of just 20,000, the entire island knows the Uighurs. The men cannot blend in; they suffer a unique prominence they would not face in most nations.

Seeking Refuge in Kabul
The scale tips further. Ahmad is a transtibial amputee. Prior to being sent to Guantánamo, Ahmad had been living as a refugee in Kabul. Uighurs have been subjected to torture and arbitrary arrest in China and Ahmad says he was lashed with electric sticks and his wife was threatened with a forced abortion. With modest resources, he sought asylum in neighboring countries, but most Central Asian nations had deals to deport Uighur refugees to China.

But Afghanistan did not forcibly repatriate Uighurs. Thus, in 2000, Ahmad along with his two-year-old son and pregnant wife took refuge in Kabul, one year before the US and NATO began combat operations in Afghanistan. US cargo planes dropped leaflets offering significant rewards to locals for catching "enemies" -- and Ahmad was traded to US forces for $5,000. He was taken to an Afghan prison where his left leg was shattered in a bombing run. Once in Guantánamo, his leg was amputated below the knee and Ahmad, a young man in his early 30s, was forced to use a walker.

Amputees require lifetime prosthetic care, routinely available in many nations. But no level of prosthetic care exists in Palau. Indeed health care is so limited that Palauan nationals must travel overseas to obtain specialized or emergency care. But Ahmad is unable to travel outside Palau -- even for medical care. He has no reasonable means of procuring travel documents or permission to enter another nation. According to orthopedists, without access to this essential prosthetic care, Ahmad will not achieve full mobility and is unlikely to find gainful employment. Life on the island is, and will remain, untenable.

Stranded in Palau
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Handbook, resettlement as a durable solution must be accompanied by a meaningful prospect of local integration, which involves more than safety from refoulement. Local integration includes the enjoyment of legal, economic, medical, and social rights, none of which are available to Ahmad in Palau. Indeed, the limitations of the conditions in Palau are precisely the reason the island was not proposed as a durable solution and why relocation there was intended to be temporary only.

Ahmad wants to forget the years he spent without being charged at Guantánamo, but he can't. The sheer isolation of Palau, which has no Uighur or refugee population of any kind, reminds him hauntingly of Guantánamo. And one memory he can never forget is that of the 171 men who remain at Guantánamo, including five of his countrymen.

Ahmad's only ray of dawn during this dark decade came in 2010, when he was reunited with his family. Muslima, who was born after Ahmad's capture, embraced her dada for the first time shortly before she turned nine. But the rosy-cheeked girl, whose radiant smile hardship has not obscured, is stateless. She has been mandated as a refugee by the UNHCR. But with no reasonable prospects of resettlement in another nation, she may remain stranded in Palau for the rest of her life.

About Seema Saifee
Seema Saifee is a lawyer in New York. She represents four Uighurs who spent seven years in the US prison at Guantánamo Bay: Ahmad Tourson, Abdulghappar Abdulrahman, Adel Noori and Abdulrazaq. No proof of their guilt has ever been offered. Three of them were resettled in Palau in 2009 with Abdulrazaq and four other Uighurs still being held in Guantánamo 

Related Topics

Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links

Monday, January 16, 2012

NONVIOLENT GLOBAL MOVEMENT LAUNCHED



A report by Robert J. Burrowes



(Editor’s note: You can read 'The People's Charter to Create a Nonviolent World' and, if it feels right to you, sign the pledge at http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com)

On 11 November 2011, the 93rd anniversary of the armistice of World War 1,a new movement to end human violence was launched around the world. 'The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World' was launched simultaneously in Australia, Malaysia, the Philippines and the United States and has already gained signatories in twenty-two countries.

The aim of the Nonviolence Charter is to create a worldwide movement to end violence in all of its forms. According to Anahata Giri, the Charter gives voice to the millions of ordinary people around the world who want an end to war, domestic violence, oppression, economic exploitation, environmental destruction, and violence of all other kinds. The Charter is also designed to support and unite the courageous nonviolent struggles of ordinary people all over the world.

People who wish to join the movement are invited to sign a pledge to take personal action to progressively eliminate the violence they inflict on themselves, others and the Earth, and to engage in acts of nonviolent resistance and/or creation to bring about a nonviolent future.  

 USA (Seattle)

A report from a launch organizer in the United States, Tom Shea, included photos taken by fellow organizer Leonard Eiger. The launch, which took place in Seattle, involved several groups: the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, the Puget Sound Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Declaration, Seattle Veterans For Peace Chapter 92, Collective Voices for Peace USA, Collective Voces Ecologiacas Panama, and the Buddhist Peace Fellowship Seattle Chapter. Tom reported that it was a great gathering.

After a moment of silence at Seattle’s Wall of Remembrance (which lists the names of Washington State military killed in major US Wars), Tom reported, 'we began our spoken presence'. Even amid a cold rain, over twenty people representing a broad variety of peace people assembled. These included four from Occupy Seattle (two of whom were dressed in military garb), the Colgans – who’ve been holding a vigil in front of the Seattle Federal Building every Tuesday since 2004, in honor of their son killed in Iraq – a woman in a wheelchair and the Buddhist chair of the Seattle Peace Team (a group that does training and is active as peacekeepers in places of conflict in town). 'We spoke briefly about The Charter, how individuals can participate ... and shared information about six of the groups present.'

Malaysia

The launch in Malaysia was organized by the International Movement for A Just World (JUST International) and was held as part of the Inter-civilizational Youth Engagement Program (IYEP) 5 held at the Shah’s Village Hotel in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. It was organized by Professor Chandra Muzaffar, Helen Ng and Nurul Haida Dzulkifli.

On arrival, guests were welcomed, shown the video 'Do unto others' and given hand-made poppies. This was followed by dance performances of the Indonesian 'Thousand Hands Dance' and the Korean 'Sorry Sorry', the music video 'Wonderful World', and the poem 'I Want to See What I Saw Again'. Guests then heard a talk by Dato Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi on 'The Violence of Capital Punishment', a guitar performance of 'That’s Why I Love You', a drama performance of '500 Days of Violence', a talk and video by Mr.Khampi on the Zomi Education Centre for Myanmar Refugees, before the song 'We Are The World'. Finally, 'The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World' was read out, with the dramatization of selective clauses, the pledge was taken, the Charter was signed and poppies were placed on a 'field' on their Charter banner.

Phillipines

In the Philippines, the launch took place in ten barangay (village) halls in Quezon province and involved the praying of the rosary and lighting of eleven candles. It was organized by Dr. Tess Ramiro who is Director of the main nonviolence organization in the Philippines, Aksyon para sa Kapayapaan at Katarungan (Action for Peace and Justice) – Center for Active Nonviolence, at the Pius XII Catholic Center in Manila. In her report, Tess indicated that, according to the base groups, the activity was very successful. One base group alone reported an attendance of 100 persons and the event was supported by the parish priest.

Australia (Melbourne)

The launch in Melbourne, Australia, was organized by Anahata Giri, Anita McKone and myself. Eight ordinary people spoke about why they are going to work to end human violence and what they are going to be doing differently from now on.

The speakers included a diverse range of people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds including Samah Sabawi, a Palestinian born in Gaza; Kijana Majok Piel, a Sudanese Muslim who spent 17 years living in a refugee camp in Kenya; Karen Thompson-Anderson, who teaches nonviolent communication; Frank Ruanjie, a Chinese pro-democracy activist now exiled in Australia; Tenzin Lobsang, a Tibetan Buddhist who fled Tibet as a child; John McKenna who relies on a wheelchair for his mobility and works
with intellectually disabled people; Isabelle Skaburskis, a Canadian woman who did rehabilitation work (yoga therapy) with women and children who had been sexually trafficked in Cambodia; and Annie Whitlocke, a woman of Jewish heritage who has suffered much violence throughout her childhood
and married life.

The launch also featured Samah Sabawi reading her evocative poems 'The Liberation Anthem' and 'A Confession' (which was accompanied by sound effects, including a recording of the Israeli bombing of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, managed by her nephew Omer Elsaafin). Tenzing Yeshi sang his powerful song 'Cho Sum Mirik' about the life of His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. Anita and Anahata sang 'Freedom for Palestine/Everyone', and 'We Sing Nonviolence' written by Anita specifically for the Charter launch.

My own talk, explaining the purpose of the Nonviolence Charter, included the following words:

'So what is unique about "The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World"? The People’s Charter is an attempt to put the focus on human violence as the pre-eminent problem faced by our species, to identify all of the major manifestations of this violence, and to identify ways to tackle all of these manifestations of violence in a systematic and strategic manner. It is an attempt to put the focus on the fundamental cause – the violence we adults inflict on children – and to stress the importance of dealing with that cause. (See 'Why Violence?' http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence) It is an attempt to focus on what you and I - that is, ordinary people - can do to end human violence and "The People’s Charter" invites us to pledge to make that effort. It is an attempt, as Anahata said to me the other day, to combine the deeply personal with the deeply global: to listen to our deep inner selves to restore humanity. And it is an attempt to provide a focal point around which we can mobilize with a sense of shared commitment with people from all over the world. In short, as of tonight, it is a new, worldwide movement and its specific focus is ending human violence....

'So, together with people in Malaysia, the Philippines and the United States, tonight many of us will choose to pledge ourselves to a new, concerted and worldwide effort to end human violence, in all of its
manifestations, for all time.

'This is undoubtedly a monumental endeavor. Perhaps, it is the greatest endeavor in human history. I feel privileged to share it with you all. And I love you all for making that endeavor....

'We are committed to leave here tonight to struggle to end human violence. In my view, there can be no greater calling than this. Whatever our differences, ending human violence is our compelling and unifying dream.'

Robert J. Burrowes flametree@riseup.net

Thursday, January 12, 2012

In search of Palestine. BBC documentary


In search of Palestine. BBC documentary
Follow my videos on vodpod

This is a MUST SEE documentary which brings to light the reality in Palestine, demonstrating visually the the injustices being inflicted on the Palestinians on a daily basis by the Israelis while the world watches indifferently, some of them embracing the perpetrators of all this misery.

Friday, December 16, 2011

A call to Christians
at Christmas 2011
Virginia Tilley
14 December 2011




















A Call to Christians at Christmas 2011
By Virginia Tilley



Introduction: Finally, we have someone prepared to call the
Christian Churches out on their feeble caution and empty
prayers on Palestine. Virginia Tilley does it with the razor
sharpness of one who knows her business - not prepared to
mince words or pay lip service to mealy-mouthed assurances
of Christian concern for Palestinian suffering while doing 
nothing to hold Israel to account. It is long overdue as one
denomination after another pussyfoots around Israel too
afraid to call a spade a spade. In recalling the 1985 Kairos 
document composed by Archbishop Tutu during South
Africa’s anti-Apartheid struggle, Virginia Tilley says it should
be read “just to show how clear-headed Christian activism can
get when it truly girds its loins. The 1985 Kairos had no truck
with empty talk of ‘peace’, ‘reconciliation’ and ‘dialogue’.” 
Tilley’s article is an important expose of how the Christian
church, for all its efforts in giving succor to the Palestinians,
has been woefully lacking in moral fortitude. As Tilley says 
so eloquently, “the tasks in Palestine have long been plain.
The evangelical Christian right must be approached about its
gullible equation of a modern military state with spiritual
rebirth. Israel’s instrumental deceit about Jewish life in the
Holy Land constituting a path to Christian salvation must be
exposed. The sins of ethnic cleansing and state-sponsored 
bigotry must be confronted. The malevolent whispers
circulated by Zionist plants in Jerusalem and Palestine, which
attempt to demonize Islam for Christians and Christianity for
Muslims, must be openly and unanimously denounced. In the
spirit of the 1985 Kairos, the true meaning of Christian love
 must show its moral fist to reject false symmetry and the sinful
notion of reconciliation with oppression.” It is something to
think about as we gear up for the usual Christmas festivities
celebrating the birth of Jesus more than 2000 years ago in
Bethlehem, long before walls, barbed wire and checkpoints
imprisoned the city from the rest of Palestine. Perhaps it will 
make for more sober reflection about the part we all have
played in perpetuating the intolerable Palestinian predicament.
At five minutes to midnight, it is really time for the Christian
church to “gird its loins” and call for true justice for the
Palestinians. 

Sonja Karkar
Editor
http://australiansforpalestine.com

***********************
The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned that the Arab Spring is threatening the safety of Christian communities in the Middle East. He did not realise it, but this public warning—much as President Obama’s UN speech in September struck the death knell for US credibility in the Middle East—has dealt still another fatal moral blow to other central Middle East actors: the world’s Christian Churches, already suffering from a wobbly posture regarding ethnic and religious relations in the Middle East. For those within the faith, it impels a collective “j’accuse” to Christian leaderships and an unqualified call for principled action. For it must now be said plainly, and confronted honestly: it is morally unacceptable for the Christian churches to continue to dither and wander morally on sectarian relations in the Middle East by ducking the question of Palestine.


Anyone familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict knows the painful back story to the Archbishop’s concerns. The Middle East is a pastiche of religions and sects which have coexisted mostly peacefully through the millennia, except when some exogenous factor stirred things up. Invading empires and crusades occasionally have done so, from the Persians through the infamous US interventions in Iran (1953) and Iraq. But one such sin has stood for the past century as a seeping sore, aggravating sectarian tensions and provoking religious polarisation throughout the region. That is the creation of Israel as an ethnic state in the Levant and the resulting Palestinian-Israeli conflict which springs from explicitly religious bigotry. For a Church leader of the Archbishop’s stature to pretend that this conflict does not enter the Arab Spring equation is both disingenuous and unacceptable.

For decades, it has been a quiet scandal that individual Christians and Christian projects regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, labouring on doggedly with courage and principle, have been consistently crippled by pabulum statements, strategic over-caution or sheepish silence by the major Church leaderships. This silence has not reflected any lack of information. It’s certainly no secret to Christian Palestinians, and therefore the Church leaders to whom they report, that Israel has deliberately sabotaged the ancient Christian axis of pilgrimage between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Thus shattering Christian community and impoverishing the old Christian mercantile sectors, Israel has also systematically and deliberately stoked tensions between Muslim and Christian Palestinians over the years. The combination has impelled steady Christian emigration in recent decades, reducing the once-formidable and culturally rich Christian community from some nineteen percent of Jerusalem’s population in 1944 to just over two percent today. As a package, Israel’s policies have indeed brought Christian Palestinians in the occupied territories under a sense of local siege and threat they have not experienced for centuries, while aggravating sectarian tensions with their Muslim neighbours in ways that have polarised and poisoned sectarian sentiments throughout the Middle East. Cries of alarm about this trend have issued from Christians in Palestine for decades and with increasing desperation, yet the Church leaderships have remained reticent and Israel’s suffocating compression continues.

It has further agonised those faithful who treasure Palestine’s awe-inspiring biblical landscape to see the Christian Churches stand silent while Israeli settlements and security installations pave that landscape over. Just twenty years ago, Christian pilgrims could still walk to the old city of Jerusalem or Rachel’s Tomb on ancient trails laid down over five thousand years among the rocky hills of Judea, following the footpaths of prophets and disciples that wove among the springs and valleys of biblical legend. Just twenty years ago, shepherds still tended their flocks by night around the hills of Bethlehem, playing on wooden flutes. Now these sacred landscapes are paved over, blocked off, and the West Bank is an uglified mess of four-lane highways, broken up by hideous concrete barriers and electrified fences, the old olive terraces crushed and buried under acres of monolithic Jewish-only apartment blocs. The shepherds are arrested, harassed and gone. The ancient trails are gone forever. Millennia of humanity’s historical heritage, razed and effaced in a scant few decades, to serve not natural population growth but an artificial state-sponsored project to take over land in the name of an exclusive ethnic nationalism. The loss is heartbreaking on so many levels that it cannot be expressed.

And the world’s great Churches, whose cathedrals are nested in all this? To Israeli authorities, quiet pleas, in stiff meetings behind closed doors, tactical manoeuvres to keep privileges and access. To the world, silence or token gestures, even as Israel’s construction and archaeological excavations press up against their churches’ very walls.

Some may quickly protest that the Christian Churches have not been silent. The World Council of Churches has regularly met, denounced, and called for action on Palestine. The Catholic Church has expressed concern in various ways. The Presbyterian Church launched some broad discussions. The Evangelical Lutheran Church has called for prayer, investment and education. Yes, yes. But a close read of Church statements finds in most of them a disturbing vagueness, language calculated not to offend, punches consistently pulled. The net effect? Complicity, and a spiritual crisis.

Examples of this net effect are myriad, but two will illustrate the problem: first, a small one, the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum’s It’s Time, which, despite a bold title, manages never to bruise the toes of the Israeli government. Take, for example, its gentle idea that “It’s time to assist settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to make their home in Israel” while not saying why or how. Or, “It's time for people who have been refugees for more than 60 years to regain their rights and a permanent home,” yet carefully not specifying where those homes should be. At some point, It’s Time slips into morally offensive symmetry that also violates common sense: e.g., “It's time for both sides to release their prisoners and give those justly accused a fair trial.” While adopting the profile of a call for action, the whole piece leaves one spiritually anaesthetised and bemused, as the illusion of real spiritual fortitude is derailed into vaporous ideals amounting to non-action. Over-all, the effect is like reading one of those pastel Sunday-school pamphlets.

Or, for a far more influential example, take the 2009 Kairos Palestine, which has drawn thousands of Christian signatures and the endorsement of some Christian world leaders, including Archbishop Tutu. Composed by a formidable line-up of theologians, it does offer some firm statements: e.g., “the military occupation of our land is a sin against God and humanity”. But the first warning flag arises in the first sentence of the preface, which refers blandly to “difficult times that we still experience in this Holy Land” and other vapid calls to “stand by” the Palestinians without saying much about how. Otherwise, it gives the bad impression of a co-written document whose moral momentum was curtailed by some timid gatekeepers. The bulk of Kairos Palestine is a recital of Israeli human rights abuses and a long-winded theological treatise on “hope”, “love” and “mission”. Alas, the journey thus suggested never gets anywhere. For example, under the subsection, “word to the Churches of the world”, we find an appeal: “We ask our sister Churches not to offer a theological cover-up for the injustice we suffer, for the sin of the occupation imposed upon us.” But instead of a clear call for action and an incisive statement of principle, this passage then waffles away to drain all but the mildest energy: “Our question to our brothers and sisters in the Churches today is: Are you able to help us get our freedom back, for this is the only way you can help the two peoples attain justice, peace, security and love?” The call to “Jewish and Muslim religious leaders” is equally void: “Let us together try to rise up above the political positions that have failed so far and continue to lead us on the path of failure and suffering.” But “rise up” how? And what action is urged regarding Jerusalem, which is affirmed to be “the foundation of our vision and our entire life”? None at all, except to urge that Jerusalem be “the first issue to be negotiated”. After a page or two of this fog, the mind numbs over and moral energy fades and turns inward to prayer circles and polite discussion groups.

Lest it seem rude to denounce so well-meaning an effort, consider that the 1985 Kairos, composed by South African pastors and theologians in South Africa, targeted precisely this kind of slippery religious language as deployed by the major South African churches and the state to defend apartheid. For real Christian inspiration regarding Palestine, this famous Christian document from South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle should be reread in full, but a selection is worth reproducing here just to show just how clear-headed Christian activism can get when it truly girds its loins. The 1985 Kairos had no truck with empty talk of “peace”, “reconciliation” and “dialogue” and its reasoning on this point is worth quoting at length (readers are encouraged to substitute “Palestinians” for “South Africans” to suggest the comparison):

In a limited, guarded and cautious way [mainstream Church Theology in South Africa] is critical of apartheid. Its criticism, however, is superficial and counter-productive because instead of engaging in an in-depth analysis of the signs of our times, it relies upon a few stock ideas derived from Christian tradition and then uncritically and repeatedly applies them to our situation. The stock ideas used by almost all these Church leaders that we would like to examine here are: reconciliation (or peace), justice and non-violence. ...

Church Theology' takes 'reconciliation' as the key to problem resolution. It talks about the need for reconciliation between white and black, or between all South Africans. 'Church Theology' often describes the Christian stance in the following way: "We must be fair. We must listen to both sides of the story. If the two sides can only meet to talk and negotiate they will sort out their differences and misunderstandings, and the conflict will be resolved." On the face of it this may sound very Christian. But is it?

The fallacy here is that 'Reconciliation' has been made into an absolute principle that must be applied in all cases of conflict or dissension. But not all cases of conflict are the same. We can imagine a private quarrel between two people or two groups whose differences are based upon misunderstandings. In such cases it would be appropriate to talk and negotiate to sort out the misunderstandings and to reconcile the two sides. But there are other conflicts in which one side is right and the other wrong. There are conflicts where one side is a fully armed and violent oppressor while the other side is defenseless and oppressed. There are conflicts that can only be described as the struggle between justice and injustice, good and evil, God and the devil. To speak of reconciling these two is not only a mistaken application of the Christian idea of reconciliation, it is a total betrayal of all that Christian faith has ever meant. Nowhere in the Bible or in Christian tradition has it ever been suggested that we ought to try to reconcile good and evil, God and the devil. We are supposed to do away with evil, injustice, oppression and sin--not come to terms with it. We are supposed to oppose, confront and reject the devil and not try to sup with the devil.

In our situation in South Africa today it would be totally un-Christian to plead for reconciliation and peace before the present injustices have been removed. Any such plea plays into the hands of the oppressor by trying to persuade those of us who are oppressed to accept our oppression and to become reconciled to the intolerable crimes that are committed against us. That is not Christian reconciliation, it is sin. It is asking us to become accomplices in our own oppression, to become servants of the devil. No reconciliation is possible in South Africa without justice.

The 1985 Kairos is especially clear-headed about the true meaning of peace: “It would be quite wrong to try to preserve 'peace' and 'unity' at all costs, even at the cost of truth and justice and, worse still, at the cost of thousands of young lives. As disciples of Jesus we should rather promote truth and justice and life at all costs, even at the cost of creating conflict, disunity and dissension along the way.” And where Kairos-Palestine, It’s Time and other Christian Church resolutions skid around in “both sides’ language, the 1985 Kairos explicitly rejects any false symmetries and focuses on the central issue of oppression:

It would be quite wrong to see the present conflict as simply a racial war. The racial component is there but we are not dealing with two equal races or nations each with their own selfish group interests. The situation we are dealing with here is one of oppression. The conflict is between an oppressor and the oppressed. The conflict between two irreconcilable causes or interests in which the one is just and the other is unjust. ... This is our situation of civil war or revolution. The one side is committed to maintaining the system at all costs and the other side is committed to changing it at all costs. There are two conflicting projects here and no compromise is possible. Either we have full and equal justice for all or we don't.

With this noble language before us, we must finally see the truth and drop the charade. Most Christian Church statements regarding Palestine are embarrassing fluff by comparison.

Why the weak and woolly stance by Church leaderships in Palestine, where the moral issues are so stark and Christian concerns so keen? The reasons are too well known. The world’s major Churches have long walked on eggs with Israel. Some of this caution reflects well-warranted (if confused) guilt about centuries of anti-Semitism. Local churches may restrain themselves out of kindly and principled concern not to offend and ruffle relations with Jewish neighbours. Less noble motives include conservative concerns to preserve Church real estate and privileges in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Galilee and other Biblical sites, where an irate Israel can sever Christian access in an instant. It is also Not Done to criticise other Christian denominations, so even those Churches who view Israel’s practices as abhorrent will still avoid challenging the whole Zionist project, as this would insult the Zionist theology of evangelical churches that have fallen for Israel’s (cynically deployed) story of collective Jewish redemption of the Holy Land. Given that actual Christian life in Palestine is being graphically destroyed, however, one does not have to be a 666-er to see that Zionist propaganda has “led Christians astray” by successfully attaching Jewish state-building in Palestine to misty visions of Jewish life in a Biblical landscape and confusing Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (even Christian ones) with messianic prophecies about the End Times.

Some historically minded cynics might object here that Christian timidity and confusion about the conflict in Palestine should not be singled out. Courageous priests and Christian activists have always stood forth in the world’s conflict zones in selfless and sometimes martyred defence of the weak, and do so in Palestine, but the uncomfortable truth is that these heroic figures and groups have always been outliers. Overwhelmingly, over past centuries the major Christian churches have either linked their futures and finances to whatever states they operated within or simply operated in an illusory sphere of detached spiritual practice where they absolved themselves of moral responsibility for the suffering around them, except by offering spiritual solace to endure it. Here one might recall the old state-church alliance in Latin America, a system of totalitarian social control that has stood for five centuries as the edifice glowering over those grassroots liberation-theologians whose courage is always cited as the Church’s redeeming example, yet whose noble work the last Pope outlawed. Hence, for long-time observers of the conflict, it has been no surprise but still a bitter pill that the Archbishop of Canterbury, like most Church leaders, has been conspicuously silent, vague or reserved about Israel’s physical ruin of the Holy Land landscape and its progressive decimation of Christian community in Palestine.

Yet it is really too much that this same Archbishop now blames the Arab Spring, of all things, for an anti-Christian tilt that his own Church has, through neglect and caution of the Palestinian problem, systematically aggravated. For it is indeed a bitter scandal that the official Churches in Palestine, with their great properties embedded in the Jewish state and their slumbering but immense moral authority on the world stage, who could delegitimize and end Israel’s occupation overnight with one unified public denunciation, instead have opted—from timidity, caution, conservatism, internecine rivalries or merely a sloppy moral compass—to enable it. That this choice has fed heavily into the present sectarian mess in the Middle East is a given. The Archbishop may well worry that Christians in Egypt and elsewhere now feel “exposed and uncertain”, but he would do well to consider how much responsibility for those fears traces to his own desk.

It is up to the entire Christian community to end this confusion, abandon feeble caution and unintended hypocrisy, and reconsider the example of Jesus as set forth in the 1985 Kairos and in the Gospels themselves. The tasks in Palestine have long been plain. The evangelical Christian right must be approached about its gullible equation of a modern military state with spiritual rebirth. Israel’s instrumental deceit about Jewish life in the Holy Land constituting a path to Christian salvation must be exposed. The sins of ethnic cleansing and state-sponsored bigotry must be confronted. The malevolent whispers circulated by Zionist plants in Jerusalem and Palestine, which attempt to demonise Islam for Christians and Christianity for Muslims, must be openly and unanimously denounced. In the spirit of the 1985 Kairos, the true meaning of Christian love must show its moral fist to reject false symmetry and the sinful notion of reconciliation with oppression.

Each Christmas, it has become a seasonal ritual for Christians to call for new care and action on Palestine. Each subsequent year, the same empty, circumscribed, ineffectual gestures result. The courage of the Arab Spring exposes this shameful ritualised cycle of moral failure as a spiritual imperative. This year’s Christmas must be a time for spiritual renewal, frank self-examination, fresh insight, and new courage to set aside sanitised pleas and empty prayers, stop listening to the internal gatekeepers, reject Israel’s manipulation of Christian theology to serve militaristic ends, and demand that all Church leaderships, with one clarion voice, call for true justice in Palestine. If the teachings of Jesus mean anything today, surely they mean this: the salvation of all three Abrahamic faiths from the false gods of mutual fear and the scourge of oppression. The alternative is to stand before the Cross at Christmas 2012 with a deepening and well-earned sense of shame.


Virginia Tilley is associate professor and Director of the Governance graduate program at the University of the South Pacific. As Chief Research Specialist at the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, she convened and edited a major legal study of whether Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories are consistent with colonialism and apartheid, to be published in 2012 with Pluto Press. She is author of “The One-State Solution” (London Review of Books, 6 November 2003), The One-State Solution (U. of Michigan Press, 2005) and numerous articles and essays on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Email: virginia.tilley@gmail.com