Current U.S. Debate Lacks Palestinian Christian Viewpoint

The challenge has never been greater for advocates of Israeli-Palestinian peace. How do they sustain their commitment to both peoples, and their will to use what power they have as citizens to influence policy? American Christians can learn from the Palestinian Christians.

June 2002  

The challenge has never been greater for advocates of Israeli-Palestinian peace. How do they sustain their commitment to both peoples, and their will to use what power they have as citizens to influence policy? American Christians can learn from the Palestinian Christians.

Inspiration can be found in the example of the beleaguered Palestinian Christians. Even as the Church of the Nativity was under siege and their communities under attack, the Patriarchs and Bishops of Churches in Jerusalem met with Secretary Powell on April 13 in Jerusalem.  In the letter they gave him, they wrote, “We want to express the symbiotic relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians in this land. We want security for the Israelis and justice and freedom for the Palestinians.”
The considerable media attention given to the siege and standoff at the Church of the Nativity provides an opportunity for highlighting the presence and perspectives of Palestinian Christians.  Their example has the potential to shift the policy and opinion debates in the U.S. away from the current “us versus them” tone, and toward a more inclusive and constructive discussion.
 
THE BELTWAY BATTLES

Hostile, polarized debate is evident in street demonstrations and paid newspaper ads in Washington, D.C. and across the country. Contending administration factions vie for policy supremacy. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, according to press reports, seek to shape the administration’s involvement with Israeli-Palestinian matters to fit other objectives; i.e., the war against terrorism and overthrowing the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  

On the other hand, Secretary of State Colin Powell appears to some observers to be cautiously pressing for broader and more vigorous American involvement.  At times the President’s words encourage those who yearn for leadership toward peace. In his April 4 Rose Garden speech, he said that “Israeli settlement activity must stop” and that “the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries consistent with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338.”  However, his call for Israel to halt incursions and begin withdrawal from Palestinian cities was ignored by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon without consequence.

While the U.S. is now directly engaged, the administration’s words, actions and policy seem to shift with the prevailing winds.  It is a given that the United States is a principal, if not the essential, element for peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians.  Yet the constraints imposed by domestic politics are considerable for this administration.  Even though the Republican party has not traditionally had close ties with American Jewish communities, a new grouping of neo-conservatives, Christian conservatives and some Jewish supporters of Israel has coalesced among Bush supporters.  

“AMERICA AND ISRAEL STANDING TOGETHER AGAINST TERRORISM”

This was the theme of the annual policy conference of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) attended by some 5,000 of its members who lobbied their members of Congress. But taking to the halls of Congress wasn’t really necessary since more than half the Senate and 90 members of the House attended the conference banquet. AIPAC  provided the citizen lobbyists with talking points calling for “additional defense assistance for Israel” and new tough sanctions legislation against Syria and the Palestinian Authority.  Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s telecast message to the conference that he is waging his part of the war on terrorism was reinforced by AIPAC’s talking points: “Israel must defend against this terror just as surely as the United States must fight and destroy al Qaeda and other terrorist groups within global reach.”  

Washington Post staff writer Thomas Edsall wrote on April 30 that “Republican party strategists are hoping to capitalize on President Bush’s strong pro-Israel policies to crack the Democratic loyalties of Jewish voters and donors who have provided vital support to the Democratic Party for decades.”  

However, votes and donations are not the only forms of political currency. Old-fashioned horse-trading is still important. The Forward, a New York Jewish weekly, reported on April 26, that AIPAC’s executive committee voted to “court Bush and his party” by endorsing several key Bush initiatives opposed by Democrats.  Among them were missile defense development and increasing domestic production of oil, ” a thinly veiled reference to drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.”

THE HAWKS SPREAD THEIR WINGS

William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, along with other prominent conservatives, wrote to President Bush in early April urging him not to force Israel to negotiate with Arafat.   To do so, “would send a most dangerous signal to our adversaries that civilized states do not have the necessary courage to fight terrorism in all its forms.”

Neo-conservative hawks are inside the administration as well as being an important part of Bush’s core constituency. This element of the Republican Party began under Ronald Reagan, whose support for missile defense drew influential, pro-Israel neo-conservatives from the Democratic Party (including Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, his U.N. ambassador, and Richard Perle, an assistant secretary of defense).  The departure of Patrick Buchanan from the GOP reduced criticism of Israel in conservative ranks; Robert Novak is one of the few Republican-leaning commentators who is willing to criticize Israel.

Richard Perle, now chairman of the Defense Policy Council, played a fundamental role in the war against Saddam Hussein and has for a decade sought to line up political support for missile defense. When current Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was an official in the first Bush Administration, he argued that the U.S should march on Baghdad to eliminate Saddam.  

THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

The pro-Israel sentiment of the Christian Right is nothing new.   Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Ralph Reed and groups such as the National Unity Coalition for Israel have for years opposed Middle East peacemaking efforts. In 1997, they criticized Churches for Middle EastPeace’s “Shared Jerusalem” campaign with a New York Times ad proclaiming, “Christians Call for a United Jerusalem.” They assert that Jerusalem’s status is not subject to negotiation because Israel has a divine right to Jerusalem.     

Now, Christian Right voices and political power are linked with those of neo-conservatives and AIPAC in pressuring the Congress and administration.  A Gallup survey has shown that among white evangelical Republicans 62 percent favor Israel, compared with only 8 percent for the Palestinians.  Among secular Democrats, 26 percent favor Israel and 28 percent sympathize with the Palestinians. (Washington Post, May 14)

Both Capitol Hill news weeklies have printed articles about Christian conservatives’ support for Israel.  In the National Journal of April 20, Tish Durkin writes that “Christian conservatives have proven to be as vocal, energetic and unstinting, if not more so,” in their pro-Israel stance than their Jewish counterparts. She notes this is remarkable, particularly in light of the frequency with which “the Jewish Lobby” is attributed to be the source of American government support for Israel.  

Congressional Quarterly reports that there are “several Republican conservatives who believe U.S. policy toward Israel is predicated not on politics, but on religion.” Rep. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, in a March 4 speech, said: “This is not a political battle at all.  It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.”  Reporter Miles Pomper continues, “As Pence