      |
June 16, 2005
Stated Clerk responds to Presbyterians in Dialogue for Peace
June 13, 2005
Presbyterians in Dialogue for Peace
1110 Lovett
Houston, TX 77006-3824
Dear Friends in Christ,
Let me begin by thanking you and your colleagues in New Covenant Presbytery for your extensive efforts in building relationships with the Jewish community in the wake of the distress caused to many by the actions of the 216th General Assembly. Your decision to put yourselves in the hands of the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Houston Rabbinical Association as a way to see something of the situation "on the ground" in Israel-Palestine demonstrates your interest in getting a fuller understanding of the complexities you describe.
Before responding to your substantive concerns, I do need to express to you my disappointment in your characterization of the 216th General Assembly and the staff of our church who work for peace and justice in the Middle East. This seems to me to be a significant matter, since you offer the judgment that actions of the 216th General Assembly in calling for an end of the occupation were "naïve and hollow," and you assert that the commissioners, by approving the actions they did, presented the situation in a way that was neither fair nor balanced.
You make the very serious charge that "some" (unnamed) General Assembly staff are "biased," and that they are "driving the church with little concern for all parties in this conflict." Based on my experience in working with our staff, I can assure you that this is a false characterization. The staff, many of whom have worked for years toward a peace marked by security for all parties within boundaries that are internationally recognized and honored, have acted faithfully in response to over 35 years of General Assembly policy that expresses concern for all the parties involved.
I would like to make a brief response to some of the "bullet points" that you make in your letter:|
You are correct in pointing out that the majority of pictures show the wall. Obviously, that is the most dramatic way to demonstrate the impact of the security barrier. Apparently, you were not taken by your hosts to Bethlehem, where the barrier that is now almost completely encircling the town is a wall, not a fence. For the people there, statistics about what percentage of the barrier is a steel fence with razor wire, guard towers and a broad "no-man's land" is irrelevant. Furthermore, for people who are prevented from getting to a hospital or school, or to go harvest their crops, the difference between high walls and high fences matters little. You might also be interested to know that in some places, such as the approach to the Ramallah check point, where enterprising youth have found ways to cut the fences, those portions are being replaced with concrete walls. A related fact is the role played by Israeli-only highways, which cut through Palestinian communities and form another barrier to the movement of the people who live on both sides. 2. The "electrified fence." While it is true that some portions of the barrier are electronically monitored, portions of the barriers which have been constructed in the Occupied Territories have, at times, been charged with enough electricity to harm or even kill those who try to breach or climb them. 3. The "permanence" of the barrier. It is theoretically true that the barrier is not permanent. Having said that, there is no credible evidence that Israel plans to remove any portion of it in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, the barrier is being added to daily, and the response to the Israeli Supreme Court was only to relocate the barrier, not take it down. 4. The divestment decision. As for the application of the divestment action of the General Assembly, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee, last November, adopted guidelines for their engagement with corporations. These guidelines already include attention to corporations whose activities are deemed to support violence by Palestinian groups. Moreover, there are efforts underway, in concert with the Presbyterian Foundation, to create channels through which investments can be made with the income supporting programs in Israel-Palestine that work with both Palestinians and Israelis to make a positive contribution to the peace process. |
On another matter, you state that "since house demolitions have ended, the General Assembly Council should advise the MRTI Committee that the concerns presented by Caterpillar no longer exist." That statement does not reflect reality. Demolitions continue. In fact, within a few days following Sharon's promise to end the demolitions, a couple of major Palestinian-owned structures in East Jerusalem were destroyed. The pastor of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in Jerusalem has also reported the destruction in the last couple of weeks of two Palestinian homes, built legally with Israeli permits, but which the Israeli's decided were too close to the "no-man's land" they wanted to clear around the barrier. Those are only a couple of examples of a continuing practice, albeit perhaps a more selective one.
Finally, let me say that any call for fairness and balance between two parties always involves differences of perception. Whether successful or not, one of the consistent intentions of General Assembly policy on Israel-Palestine has been fairness and balance. Over and over again the Assembly has insisted on the security of Israel. It has expressed our abhorrence of terrorist acts against innocent people. The 215th General Assembly (2003) acknowledged the recalcitrance of the leaders of both the Palestinian Authority and the government of Israel and called for them to step down if they could not make compromises leading to peace.
Having said that, General Assemblies have long understood that when one group with immense power, oppresses another group, keeping them in desperation and poverty, the question of "fairness and "balance" becomes much more complex. Such occupation, whether it is imposed out of the desire for hegemony or out of fear, is nonetheless, a form of violence, and until that is recognized and condemned, along with acts of terrorism by those who are oppressed, there can be no way to peace.
Andrew Phillips, (Lord Phillips of Sudbury) a pro-Israeli British citizen, who volunteered to fight for Israel in 1973, recently returned from a trip there and commented: "On the ground, this much is clear: the initiative for preventing disaster rests mainly with Israel, which has overwhelming power and control."
The ability to be "fair" and "balanced" rests upon the recognition that at present, things are grossly out of balance with respect to issues of power, economic stability, living conditions and even the issue of daily survival. Until that imbalance is acknowledged and addressed, rather than exacerbated, there will be no resolution. Indeed, as Phillips remarked: "I returned with two others who were with me, believing that in the name of security, Israel is destroying security."
I believe that we, along with most Presbyterians, long for the same outcome for the people of the region, which is a secure future for both Israelis and Palestinians within viable, internationally recognized borders, in which there is no justification or need for violence, one against the other. Or, as the Bible puts it, "…neither shall they learn war anymore; but they shall all sit under their own fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid." (Micah 4:3-4)
It is my hope that as you pursue your church wide advocacy initiative, you will join us all as we seek to become more fully informed about what is happening on a daily basis "on the ground." I would urge you to take advantage of the listserv of our mission co-worker Douglas Dicks crsdoug@netvision.net.il, which provides excerpts on a daily basis from both Jewish and Arab news sources. Another thing that might be helpful is for you to send another group to the region, this time hosted by a Palestinian group or by a Jewish peace group such as Rabbis for Human Rights, Gush Shalom or Women in Black, or the Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions (ICAHD).
Perhaps as everyone becomes more fully informed about what is actually happening there and gain a fuller knowledge of the policies of our General Assembly vis-a- vis the region, we can work more effectively together toward the goal of peace and security for both Palestinians and Israelis. That is the common goal shared both by Presbyterians in Dialogue for Peace and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Cordially yours,
Clifton KirkpatrickStated Clerk of the General Assembly
cc. Elder Rick Ufford-Chase
Elder John Detterick
Presbytery Executives and Stated Clerks
editor@presbyweb.com
back to Presbyweb's Home Page
Copyright (c) 2005 by Presbyweb. All rights reserved
