Trail of Tears (part 3 of a 4-part series on Israel-Palestine)
by Bret Kincaid (http://www.esa-online.org/Article.asp?RecordKey=B4788181-8867-4FB1-B3BF-6537F9F958BB) [ESA = Evangelicals for Social Action, the Ron Sider group]
As we anticipate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel—what Palestinians commonly call “The Catastrophe”—it is important to take stock of the hardships for Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians, not to mention those in other countries who paid with their lives during the five wars since 1947.
We’ve recounted the challenge of security for Israelis as they live in the midst of Arab neighbors harboring varying levels of hostility toward them, despite the fact that the Egyptian and Jordanian governments have peace treaties with Israel.
Last week we also mentioned the millions of Palestinian refugees—many of whom now live in camps—who were either forced to leave their homes or left their homes rather than stay put as Israelis first established their state in 1948 and then victoriously occupied Judea and Samaria (or the West Bank), the Golan Heights, and Gaza beginning in 1967.
But there are other painful challenges for Palestinians.
First, there is the daily difficulty trying to navigate the hundreds of checkpoints, roadblocks, and other obstacles placed in the way of Palestinians by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the West Bank, ostensibly for security purposes. As the IDF attempts to stop West Bank Palestinians from terrorizing Israelis in Israel proper and attacking Israeli settlers in the West Bank, it has made life very difficult and humiliating for Palestinians, not to mention the pain it causes the young IDF soldiers who have to stand watch at checkpoints. This infrastructure of control has led to diminished livelihoods as it prevents free movement of goods, services, and people to and from family, jobs, shopping, and medical care. Many believe this is collective punishment for the terrorist acts of a small Arab minority. Many Israelis believe this is necessary until the Palestinian Authority—the ruling authority over parts of the West Bank—ensures security for Israelis against attacks.
Second, the Israeli Separation Barrier (or what many Palestinians call “the Apartheid Wall”) has compounded this problem as well. Begun in 2002, it was designed to stop would-be Palestinian terrorists from getting into Israel to bomb buses or otherwise attack Israelis. Though it is only about two-thirds complete, it has likely been the primary factor behind the severe reduction in terrorist incidents.
But it also has had the deleterious effect of gobbling up Palestinian land, separating Palestinian families and neighbors, and preventing Palestinian workers from providing labor for Israeli Jews and Arabs in Israel proper, which has kept the Palestinian economy depressed. Many believe that the wall—the trail of which may leave Palestinians with as much as 10% less land than the 1949 Green Line would have—will undercut final-status peace negotiations because Palestinian negotiators won’t accept even less land. The land within the Green Line and Gaza, where non-Israeli Arabs live, amounts to 22% of the total land of Israel-Palestine.
Third, life in East Jerusalem has been severely challenging for many Palestinians since the conclusion of the 1967 war. Not only are families separated and movement restricted by the Separation Barrier, but, for instance, Palestinians are permitted to build on only 7% of the land. The Israeli government has bulldozed thousands of existing Palestinian houses and refused thousands of permits to build, which has led to homelessness and substantial overcrowding.
And the list goes on. And it goes on largely because of a dynamic spiral of insecurity and oppression. People on both sides blame the other for initiating the spiral and both sides claim they are the real victims, which has kept at bay any sustained popular impetus for successful peace negotiations. The question for followers of Christ is “What does God want for Israelis and Palestinians suffering in the Holy Land?” Next week we will explore this question in the last of our series.
View this article online: http://www.esa-online.org/Article.asp?RecordKey=B4788181-8867-4FB1-B3BF-6537F9F958BB
Copyright ©2007 Evangelicals for Social Action, a ministry of The Sider Center on Ministry & Public Policy
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Matters to Remember about People of the Land
AT-TUWANI REFLECTION: The Stations of Shaadi
(April 7, 2008)
by Eileen Hanson
(Christian Peacemaker Teams)
[Note: According to the Geneva Conventions, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, and numerous United Nations resolutions, all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal.]
As we accompany shepherds in the South Hebron Hills, a place of great beauty, they often speak of the land they knew as children. Recently, as we accompanied one of them, Shaadi, he pointed out some of the landmarks in his memory along the way.
From a hilltop, we can see the nearby settlement and outpost. Although he does not mention it, we are looking across at a place where settlers have repeatedly attacked his children while they walked to school.
As we pause at the cistern to water the flocks, he recounts the time when three masked settlers from the outpost attacked him and his nine-year-old son there. The settlers arrived in a truck and began firing stones at them with a slingshot, hitting his son. They also broke the legs of two of his sheep. When he called the Israeli police to report the attack, the police refused to come to take his report saying they were afraid of the settlers, "We are only two police. We need a whole army to go in there. The settlers will break our windows." Shaadi replied, "If you are afraid of the settlers, how do you think I am?"
We pass by the place where three years ago a settler from the Hill 833 settlement outpost stole fifteen sheep from his flock.
As we approach his home, he talks about the forced removal of several hundred people from this area. On 7 April 1998, over one hundred families in the area, including Shaadi's, were served orders to abandon their homes. After they refused to leave, military confiscated their meager belongings and offered to return them if they agreed to leave. They refused. Armed settlers once shot up the village, wounding his mother and brother. In May of 2006, the Israeli Civil Administration issued a demolition order for the family's outhouse. A few days later, a bulldozer destroyed it.
In January of this year, while Shaadi was out grazing his flocks with a few other local shepherds, settlers came out from the outpost and fired six shots at them. The flocks scattered, and the shepherds fled. The Israeli police refused to respond, saying they "had better things to do."
A few weeks ago, Shaadi was one of several shepherds that went to graze their flocks in a valley called Mshaha, south of the Hill 833 settlement outpost. Israeli soldiers demanded that the shepherds leave. The shepherds responded that that they wanted to appeal to the commander to decide the issue. The soldiers ran toward the flocks and kicked several sheep, trying to drive them away. Several sheep sustained internal injuries and broken teeth. Shaadi lost two lambs later that week from injured ewes.
As we were finishing this long walk, we paused along the way as a young lamb was born. Shaadi tended gently and expertly to the newborn, and invited us back to his house for a meal. We rejoiced in the new birth.
(April 7, 2008)
by Eileen Hanson
(Christian Peacemaker Teams)
[Note: According to the Geneva Conventions, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, and numerous United Nations resolutions, all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal.]
As we accompany shepherds in the South Hebron Hills, a place of great beauty, they often speak of the land they knew as children. Recently, as we accompanied one of them, Shaadi, he pointed out some of the landmarks in his memory along the way.
From a hilltop, we can see the nearby settlement and outpost. Although he does not mention it, we are looking across at a place where settlers have repeatedly attacked his children while they walked to school.
As we pause at the cistern to water the flocks, he recounts the time when three masked settlers from the outpost attacked him and his nine-year-old son there. The settlers arrived in a truck and began firing stones at them with a slingshot, hitting his son. They also broke the legs of two of his sheep. When he called the Israeli police to report the attack, the police refused to come to take his report saying they were afraid of the settlers, "We are only two police. We need a whole army to go in there. The settlers will break our windows." Shaadi replied, "If you are afraid of the settlers, how do you think I am?"
We pass by the place where three years ago a settler from the Hill 833 settlement outpost stole fifteen sheep from his flock.
As we approach his home, he talks about the forced removal of several hundred people from this area. On 7 April 1998, over one hundred families in the area, including Shaadi's, were served orders to abandon their homes. After they refused to leave, military confiscated their meager belongings and offered to return them if they agreed to leave. They refused. Armed settlers once shot up the village, wounding his mother and brother. In May of 2006, the Israeli Civil Administration issued a demolition order for the family's outhouse. A few days later, a bulldozer destroyed it.
In January of this year, while Shaadi was out grazing his flocks with a few other local shepherds, settlers came out from the outpost and fired six shots at them. The flocks scattered, and the shepherds fled. The Israeli police refused to respond, saying they "had better things to do."
A few weeks ago, Shaadi was one of several shepherds that went to graze their flocks in a valley called Mshaha, south of the Hill 833 settlement outpost. Israeli soldiers demanded that the shepherds leave. The shepherds responded that that they wanted to appeal to the commander to decide the issue. The soldiers ran toward the flocks and kicked several sheep, trying to drive them away. Several sheep sustained internal injuries and broken teeth. Shaadi lost two lambs later that week from injured ewes.
As we were finishing this long walk, we paused along the way as a young lamb was born. Shaadi tended gently and expertly to the newborn, and invited us back to his house for a meal. We rejoiced in the new birth.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Divestment News
Methodist Church Renews Drive For Divestment From Israel
By Nathan Guttman
In The Jewish Daily Forward
January 30, 2008
http://www.forward.com/articles/12587/
Tensions are re-emerging between Jewish organizations and some mainline Protestant churches in the wake of a renewed drive for churches to divest from companies doing business with Israel.
The United Methodist Church opened discussions last Friday on a resolution calling for divestment from Caterpillar, the tractor manufacturer, because the company supplies Israel with bulldozers used in building the separation barrier and in demolishing Palestinian homes. The divestment resolution comes only months after the publication of a church-sponsored report referring to the creation of the State of Israel as the “original sin.”
Relations with the Presbyterian Church (USA) are also strained, following remarks by church officials criticizing Israel because of the Gaza closure. A recent study by an affiliate of the Presbyterian Church called on American Jews to “get a life” instead of focusing on defending Israeli policies.
“This reflects a very disturbing trend in these churches,” said Ethan Felson, assistant executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “These developments are a result of work of several very wicked forces that play in the church.”
The divestment campaign, thought by many in the Jewish community to be dormant, is still active among mainline Protestant churches and is re-emerging as a main issue on the agenda of Jewish groups. Attempts to block the divestment drive, which began four years ago, have proved only partially successful. Interreligious dialogue efforts and public pressure managed to mute some churchwide calls for divestment, but other initiatives are still gaining support.
The Methodist meeting, held on January 25 in Fort Worth, Texas, was an initial orientation meeting for delegation heads who will lead their groups at the church’s quadrennial conference in April. Delegation leaders were presented with speakers both supportive and opposed to the draft divestment resolution, which calls for removing all Methodist pension fund holdings from Caterpillar.
“The United Methodist Church holds $141 million of pension funds in companies that sustain the occupation,” said Susan Hoder, a member of the church’s Interfaith Peace Initiative. “This has to stop. We have to cut our ties to the occupation.”
Hoder, who strongly favors passage of divestment measures, went on to claim that American taxpayer dollars are used to fund Israeli military. “A lot of this money goes into the pockets of Israeli military leaders and politicians who get rich while the population of Israel suffers,” she said.
With 11 million members, The United Methodist Church is the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. The upcoming April general conference, the church’s main forum for making policy decisions, will first discuss the divestment resolution in a subcommittee. Afterward, the panel’s recommendations will be put to a general vote to make them official policy.
A spokesman for the United Methodist Church did not return calls from the Forward seeking comments on the divestment drive.
Arrangers of the pre-conference meeting last Friday in Fort Worth allowed a representative of the organized Jewish community to speak on the issue. Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, the American Jewish Committee’s director of interreligious affairs, told the Methodist delegates that the Jewish community was concerned about the resolution. “I told them that while they may think it is not anti-Israel and not anti-Jewish, for us it feels anti-Israel and feels anti-Jewish,” Greenebaum told the Forward after the meeting.
At the same time, Greenebaum warned the Jewish community against overreacting to anti-Israel sentiments in the church. Protestant churches, he said, “care very deeply about their relations with the Jewish community.”
What prompted Jewish activists to take action was not only the renewed divestment drive but also a report from the women’s division of the Methodist church, which addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 225-page report, compiled by the Rev. Stephen Goldstein, attempts to outline the historical and current contours of the conflict, but according to Felson, the report amounts to “the most egregious thing that has crossed my desk that was not put out by an overt hate group.”
Among the statements in the report that irked Jewish community activists are a reference to the founding of the State of Israel as “the original sin,” a passage calling Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion an “extremist” and a passage defining Israeli actions as acts of “terror.” Discussing the impact of the Holocaust on Israeli society, the Methodist report claims it has been the cause for “hysteria” and “paranoiac sense” among Israelis.
“Are we not called to testify when oppressors use their identity as the oppressed with stories of sixty years ago but through some failure of perception cannot see what transpires now in the shadow of the Holocaust?” the report goes on to ask.
After letting four months pass without a formal response, last week four Jewish women’s groups sent a letter to heads of the Methodist church, calling the report “inflammatory, inaccurate, and polemical.” Hadassah and women’s groups affiliated with Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism and United Jewish Communities signed the letter.
Another expected step by Jewish organizations is the launching of a new Web site that will call for a “return to civility” and condemn anti-Israeli voices among Protestant churches.
The Presbyterian Church, the first to come up with resolutions calling for divestment, has so far avoided taking action on this issue, but it still supports a line seen by Jewish activists as anti-Israel. In recent weeks, a heated exchange of letters took place between Jewish community leaders and heads of the Presbyterian Church, following the church’s criticism of Israel over the situation in Gaza. In a letter to the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, head of the church’s general assembly, 12 Jewish organizational leaders complained that “the anti-Israel tone of your statement calls into serious question whether the season of mutual understanding we welcomed in July 2006 has yet arrived.”
Kirkpatrick responded with a letter asking the Jewish organizations, “Do you not share our concern that such regular violent responses by Israel, despite their intent to safeguard security, and no matter how carefully conducted to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, only lead to continued violence in return?”
This exchange came shortly after a presentation of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, a group chartered by the Presbyterian Church though not formally speaking for it. In a slideshow presentation calling for “reframing the debate,” the group argued that the “Jewish community in the Diaspora must get a life,” referring to Jewish reactions to Christian groups’ calls for changes in policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
By Nathan Guttman
In The Jewish Daily Forward
January 30, 2008
http://www.forward.com/articles/12587/
Tensions are re-emerging between Jewish organizations and some mainline Protestant churches in the wake of a renewed drive for churches to divest from companies doing business with Israel.
The United Methodist Church opened discussions last Friday on a resolution calling for divestment from Caterpillar, the tractor manufacturer, because the company supplies Israel with bulldozers used in building the separation barrier and in demolishing Palestinian homes. The divestment resolution comes only months after the publication of a church-sponsored report referring to the creation of the State of Israel as the “original sin.”
Relations with the Presbyterian Church (USA) are also strained, following remarks by church officials criticizing Israel because of the Gaza closure. A recent study by an affiliate of the Presbyterian Church called on American Jews to “get a life” instead of focusing on defending Israeli policies.
“This reflects a very disturbing trend in these churches,” said Ethan Felson, assistant executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “These developments are a result of work of several very wicked forces that play in the church.”
The divestment campaign, thought by many in the Jewish community to be dormant, is still active among mainline Protestant churches and is re-emerging as a main issue on the agenda of Jewish groups. Attempts to block the divestment drive, which began four years ago, have proved only partially successful. Interreligious dialogue efforts and public pressure managed to mute some churchwide calls for divestment, but other initiatives are still gaining support.
The Methodist meeting, held on January 25 in Fort Worth, Texas, was an initial orientation meeting for delegation heads who will lead their groups at the church’s quadrennial conference in April. Delegation leaders were presented with speakers both supportive and opposed to the draft divestment resolution, which calls for removing all Methodist pension fund holdings from Caterpillar.
“The United Methodist Church holds $141 million of pension funds in companies that sustain the occupation,” said Susan Hoder, a member of the church’s Interfaith Peace Initiative. “This has to stop. We have to cut our ties to the occupation.”
Hoder, who strongly favors passage of divestment measures, went on to claim that American taxpayer dollars are used to fund Israeli military. “A lot of this money goes into the pockets of Israeli military leaders and politicians who get rich while the population of Israel suffers,” she said.
With 11 million members, The United Methodist Church is the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. The upcoming April general conference, the church’s main forum for making policy decisions, will first discuss the divestment resolution in a subcommittee. Afterward, the panel’s recommendations will be put to a general vote to make them official policy.
A spokesman for the United Methodist Church did not return calls from the Forward seeking comments on the divestment drive.
Arrangers of the pre-conference meeting last Friday in Fort Worth allowed a representative of the organized Jewish community to speak on the issue. Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, the American Jewish Committee’s director of interreligious affairs, told the Methodist delegates that the Jewish community was concerned about the resolution. “I told them that while they may think it is not anti-Israel and not anti-Jewish, for us it feels anti-Israel and feels anti-Jewish,” Greenebaum told the Forward after the meeting.
At the same time, Greenebaum warned the Jewish community against overreacting to anti-Israel sentiments in the church. Protestant churches, he said, “care very deeply about their relations with the Jewish community.”
What prompted Jewish activists to take action was not only the renewed divestment drive but also a report from the women’s division of the Methodist church, which addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 225-page report, compiled by the Rev. Stephen Goldstein, attempts to outline the historical and current contours of the conflict, but according to Felson, the report amounts to “the most egregious thing that has crossed my desk that was not put out by an overt hate group.”
Among the statements in the report that irked Jewish community activists are a reference to the founding of the State of Israel as “the original sin,” a passage calling Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion an “extremist” and a passage defining Israeli actions as acts of “terror.” Discussing the impact of the Holocaust on Israeli society, the Methodist report claims it has been the cause for “hysteria” and “paranoiac sense” among Israelis.
“Are we not called to testify when oppressors use their identity as the oppressed with stories of sixty years ago but through some failure of perception cannot see what transpires now in the shadow of the Holocaust?” the report goes on to ask.
After letting four months pass without a formal response, last week four Jewish women’s groups sent a letter to heads of the Methodist church, calling the report “inflammatory, inaccurate, and polemical.” Hadassah and women’s groups affiliated with Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism and United Jewish Communities signed the letter.
Another expected step by Jewish organizations is the launching of a new Web site that will call for a “return to civility” and condemn anti-Israeli voices among Protestant churches.
The Presbyterian Church, the first to come up with resolutions calling for divestment, has so far avoided taking action on this issue, but it still supports a line seen by Jewish activists as anti-Israel. In recent weeks, a heated exchange of letters took place between Jewish community leaders and heads of the Presbyterian Church, following the church’s criticism of Israel over the situation in Gaza. In a letter to the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, head of the church’s general assembly, 12 Jewish organizational leaders complained that “the anti-Israel tone of your statement calls into serious question whether the season of mutual understanding we welcomed in July 2006 has yet arrived.”
Kirkpatrick responded with a letter asking the Jewish organizations, “Do you not share our concern that such regular violent responses by Israel, despite their intent to safeguard security, and no matter how carefully conducted to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, only lead to continued violence in return?”
This exchange came shortly after a presentation of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, a group chartered by the Presbyterian Church though not formally speaking for it. In a slideshow presentation calling for “reframing the debate,” the group argued that the “Jewish community in the Diaspora must get a life,” referring to Jewish reactions to Christian groups’ calls for changes in policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)