NO THERE THERE
Pastoral letters are important matters to serious Christians. Most of us are keenly interested in the perspectives that our leaders can provide us on matters temporal or spiritual. We may agree with these letters or be angered by them but if great minds and brothers in Christ have written them, we will always be challenged.
Except, of course, if that “Christian leader” knows as little about, well, pretty much anything at all as Katharine Jefferts Schori doesn’t know. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has just issued a “pastoral letter” on the Middle East.
If you just can’t take her today(and believe me, I understand that feeling), it’s as comprehensive a collection of bad history, mindless emoting, shallow thinking, cliches and leftist bumper stickers as you’ve ever seen in one place on any one subject. You already know what’s coming since you could have written this thing in your sleep.
And she probably did:
The events of recent weeks have drawn the minds of many around the world once again to the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. New violence and hostility directed against the State of Israel from other neighbor states in the region, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements into the Palestinian territories, and the United Nations’ expected consideration of the matter of Palestinian statehood all are reflections of the untenable nature of the present reality. While optimism for meaningful and constructive negotiation between the two parties dimmed over the past year, the events of recent weeks – and the new opportunities they may present — invite us to reflect prayerfully on what each might do to bring new hope to those who live, move, and have their being within the daily reality of this conflict in the land called holy by all the children of Abraham.
True as far as it goes. But once again, we notice the perpetual equation. Everybody’s at fault which is basically saying that nobody is. Something bad is done to Israel which does something supposedly bad in response. And who knows who started it so why bother asking?
At the outset, it bears noting what The Episcopal Church has said repeatedly over the course of multiple decades: a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved only by bilateral negotiations between the two parties themselves. This important principle was reaffirmed just last month by a joint communiqué of the Patriarchs and Heads of Local Churches in Jerusalem. The contours of what such negotiations must produce are as clear as ever: a two-state solution that provides for the security and universal recognition of Israel and the safety of all its people, the viability and territorial integrity of a state for the Palestinian people, and a sharing of the holy city of Jerusalem.
“The contours of what such negotiations must produce?” Must produce? So we’ve already decided how the negotiations are to turn out, have we? What if the Jews don’t want to deny themselves access to their holy places again, which they were from 1948 until 1967, as anyone who’s studied any history at all knows?
Does the safe and comfortable West tell them, “Tough kosher dill pickles but you now have a state on the 1967 lines that we all agreed to(and which, not to interject any more actual history in here or anything, prompted threeattempts at Israel’s annihilation) and the Palestinians don’t hate you all that much, at least that’s what they tell us when we’re around. We all have to sacrifice for peace, ya know.
“The contours of what such negotiations must produce?” Really? Remind me to be somewhere around when you guys have to start unloading your barns. “Presiding Bishop, my lawyer and I have decided that the contours of our negotiations must produce the result of you signing over Trinity-Wall Street to me for $3.75. You also have to leave the bank accounts. You don’t get to take church property when you leave, you know!”
Unfortunately, the gulf between this outcome and the political and moral will needed to achieve it has proven wide. Only a year ago, hope existed that negotiations would commence, and that – particularly with the involvement of the President of the United States – the moment for a peaceful solution might finally have arrived. Tragically, the events of the past year have driven the parties further apart rather than closer together, leading some to question whether international efforts to support the peace process have lost credibility, and whether there is any meaningful path toward negotiations.
When you’ve decided in advance what the outcome of the “peace process” must be, you relieved yourself all over and then set fire to your credibility a very long time ago.
Yet even in the midst of such complexity and crisis, one can note two very powerful reasons to remain engaged. First, people on each side share a common dream for a future of peace and a common political support for the compromises necessary to achieve it. Second, even though each side is frustrated and believes that the present moment is untenable, nearly all agree that a future without peace is more untenable still. New discussions by Israelis and Palestinians over this past weekend about a resumption of negotiations in the near future are a reminder that we must maintain hope and actively support those seeking to make peace.
Agreed. So how to move forward? First, there’s that whole Palestinian statehood UN request.
As our Church’s Executive Council noted in a resolution passed in June, the Palestinian Authority’s efforts toward recognition of statehood at the United Nations are a response to the impasse of the present moment. They are not a repudiation of the need for negotiations but a response to the absence of negotiations. Palestinians share with Israelis the pain and frustration of a conflict that has now entered its seventh decade but lack the political right of self-determination to which all people are entitled.
And which they could have had a very long time ago if they had stopped wanting to kill every Jew they could get their hands on. Spend 60-some-odd years telling me that you hate me and want to kill me and you better not expect me to accept your sudden affirmations of friendship and affection, Presiding Bish0p, because that’s how life works. But what should we do if the Palestinians try to obtain official UN recognition? Easy.
The question of how the community of nations should handle the bid for Palestinian recognition at the United Nations is more complex than whether a statehood resolution should be affirmed or rejected. What is clear is that the diplomatic isolation of Israel that could result from a vote in which only a handful of nations refuse recognition of Palestinian statehood would not be productive to achieving peace. At the same time, it is also clear that a vote in which the United States, as a principal international agent in the peace process, votes – either by itself or with other members of the Security Council – against even symbolic recognition of Palestinian statehood would be deeply unproductive.
So. The Palestinians shouldn’t move forward with this idea but if they do, the US shouldn’t do anything about it. Right. It’s an incisive mind like that one which makes western liberal Anglicanism the theological and intellectual powerhouse that it is.
The most responsible course for the United Nations would be for member states to think beyond the question of symbolic recognition of Palestinian statehood and instead offer a new, creative, and consequential proposal for a negotiations process that can produce durable and meaningful results. If the negotiations process is broken or has lost credibility – as indicated by nearly all present evidence – it is not only appropriate but imperative that world leaders, including Israeli and Palestinian leaders, work to fix it. The time for symbolic statements has passed. As the heads of local Churches in Jerusalem said in their recent statement, “negotiations are the best way to resolve all outstanding issues between the two sides,” and the moment to “intensify the prayers and diplomatic efforts for peace” is here.
We need to do something right away but we don’t know what that something is yet so let’s have Security Council meetings out the wazoo until we figure out what we needed to do so urgently the day before yesterday. It’ll take us a year or twelve but these things take time. Never sell Mrs. Schori short; they gave Barack Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for a whole lot less than that.
The question for each of us, then, is what we can do to contribute to the creation of peace in the Holy Land. How, in this case, do we live into our baptismal covenant to strive for justice and peace and promote the dignity of every human being?
For a start, we could STOP USING MEANINGLESS PHRASES LIKE “LIVE INTO,” FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!
We will ultimately need to address how to advocate with our own political leaders. But first I want to emphasize the particular responsibility we have as Christians to stand in solidarity with the Christian communities of the Holy Land who suffer the pains of the conflict and consistently act as agents of peacemaking. Bishop Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, at a recent conference in London on Holy Land Christians, put it this way, “As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers, to continue to provide hope where it is dim, to be voices of the voiceless, and to be advocates for a just and durable peace. We must work together with people of other faiths to encourage the politicians to put politics aside and meet midway, where all people are equal; the marginalized and the powerful, the poor and the wealthy, men and women, children and the elderly, regardless of faith or social status.”
No argument there. But how do we bring that about?
Unfortunately, the Christian presence in the Holy Land has declined precipitously over the course of the past several decades. The causes of this are complex and varied, and relate in many ways to the realities of the conflict that have afflicted the area and the surrounding communities. If we are to help sustain the Christian presence, the “living stones” in the land in which Our Lord walked and in which the Church was born, we must energetically support the Christian communities in their varied witness.
What kind of practical steps can we take?
The Diocese of Jerusalem is involved in multiple critical initiatives to improve the life of all persons in the Holy Land, particularly through education, healthcare, and the creation of religious dialogue between people of each of the three great Abrahamic traditions.
I don’t want to be even more of a doofus than I already am but does anybody see a problem there? Exactly how does “religious dialogue between people of each of the three great Abrahamic traditions,” as noble as that is, enhance the position of Christians in the Holy Land? Shouldn’t Christians be talking about their own tradition? You know, the one with Jesus Christ dying on the Cross for the sins of the world and rising to life again and all the rest of it?
As Bishop Dawani reminds us, Christians also have a responsibility for advocacy with their governments, calling politicians into new and creative solutions midway between the old and stubborn positions that divide them.
What are some of these “new and creative solutions?” Well…uh…these.
Urging the President of the United States to devote significant diplomatic capital to working in the coming days and weeks to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to come to the negotiating table around the parameters proposed by the Quartet. These include the resumption of direct negotiations within one month, agreement on borders and security within three months, and the resolution of all final-status issues by the end of 2012. It is vitally important that the President stand by the proposal for borders based on the 1967 lines, with accompanying land swaps, and that he insist that other critical issues not explicitly covered in the Quartet’s proposal – like the status of Jerusalem – play a central role in discussions.
Great. Have Israel move back into the undefensible borders that came close to getting it wiped off the map. And wrap things up by the end of next year. What’s not to like?
Urging that the President and the United States Congress reach an agreement to forego all efforts to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority as a response to their actions at the United Nations. Cutting aid would have disastrous consequences not just for Palestinians, but also for Israel and the region. Among other effects, it could end current security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which has allowed Israel to enjoy historically low levels of violence and terrorism in recent years.
Well that and that wall you lefties hate so much. That’s what’s really stopped the ambulatory exposives, you prattling dolt.
Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has expressed opposition to the termination of aid to the Palestinian Authority, and yet Congress has reiterated its threat to move forward with this course of action as a response to actions at the United Nations.
And I also love it when other people insist on picking up the tab. But you may or may not have heard that there’s a recession on and free money for Middle Eastern kleptocracies is a bit limited these days. You’re an Episcopalian, Kate. You want mad jack, you can pick up the phone and get as much as you want tomorrow. For once in your life, put your money where your mouth is, Presiding Bishop.
Particularly as the parties themselves discuss the possibility of resuming negotiations, it is imperative that U.S. lawmakers walk back from that threat, given the disastrous consequences it could produce.
Because all those payouts have been SO successful up to now.
It must be made abundantly clear that aid to the Palestinian Authority is not only in the interest of Palestinians, but it is also very much in the interest of Israel and the United States.
Whatever you say, Kate. Anything else?
Urging the President to devote significant diplomatic energy to working with the Israeli government to once again implement a freeze on all settlement activity – within both the West Bank and Palestinian East Jerusalem – as a signal that it is serious about negotiations with the Palestinians. While the Quartet is correct to request negotiations without preconditions, it is clear that 1967 borders with land swaps are an essential component of a final peace agreement and that continued settlement building imperils the likelihood of coming to agreement.
Sigh. Presiding Bishop, you are aware, aren’t you, that “East Jerusalem” is a concept that dates all the way back to 1948? Webster Groves, Missouri is older than “East Jerusalem,” for God’s sake.
Besides, as I said previously, if you spent twenty years unable to access the holiest sites of your faith and then you suddenly could, you’re not likely to easily give them up again just because a bunch of people who neither live in your country or share your faith think you should “make sacrifices for peace.”
You and I both know what’s involved here, Presiding Bishop. The moment the “Palestinians” take over “East Jerusalem,” no Jew will be allowed anywhere near the Temple Mount. Oh, there will be numerous letters of “concern” written, meetings held, open letters posted on the Internet and all the other totally meaningless gestures at which Episcopalians are international grand masters.
In other words, absolutely nothing will happen. But everything will be copacetic as long as we can still worship at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Make Hamas stop being genocidal. Can’t see any problems there. And did Kate happen to mention that the Congress should continue to give money to the “Palestinians,” no strings attached?
Urging robust aid to the Palestinian Authority from all donor governments. The European Union is currently the world’s largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Authority’s fiscal health is untenable in its present state and will grow much more so if the U.S. Congress blocks or reduces aid. The United Nations should encourage all member states with the ability to contribute to the Palestinian Authority to do so, particularly the several members of the Arab League who have made numerous pledges but have not yet honored them.
Anything else? No, not really.
There is little doubt that the impasse of the present moment has brought frustrations in all quarters to new highs. For Palestinians, the challenges and burdens of life under occupation, and a shrinking footprint for a future Palestinian state, are untenable. For Israelis, the fear that changes in the region will lead to increased violence and hostility from all directions after a decade of relative harmony is equally untenable. For those of us who love both Israel and the Palestinian people,
One clearly more than the other but…you know.
the frustration of continual advocacy for political solutions that don’t come to fruition is disempowering and demoralizing. It is fair to say that we are not just at an impasse, but a real crisis.
A Middle Eastern crisis? Wow. There’s a first.
The faith shared by the children of Abraham, however, demands a different response. It demands that we see that retrenchment itself, in all quarters, is precisely what has created the crisis of the present moment, the crisis of generation upon generation of conflict.
“Retrenchment…is precisely what has created the crisis of the present moment, the crisis of generation upon generation of conflict.” Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the cherry of stupidity on the top of the Schorian banana split.
The Middle East conflict has nothing to do with the fact that Israel won itself a state in a place where it has every historical right in the world to be. It has nothing to do with the Muslim world repeatedly trying to wipe Israel off the map, organizing itself to do so four times!!
It has nothing to do with repeated attempts to kill or brutally maim Israelis who just want to ride the bus or have a nice dinner out someplace. It has nothing to do with electing to be ruled by a genocidal cult that would like to emulate Hitler.
It has to to with “retrenchment.” Whatever the hell that means.
Just stop saying things, Presiding Bishop.
No comments:
Post a Comment