Christian prophetic voices face many battles
By Rami G. Khouri
Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Publicly supporting equal rights for Palestinians alongside Israelis has always been a risky venture in the United States, as an American professor who heads the only Middle Eastern studies center at an evangelical American university is discovering these days. The Reverend Donald Wagner, professor and director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies at North Park University in Chicago for the past 10 years, has had his tenure appointment blocked and, with two other prominent Palestinian clergymen, is being subjected to a campaign of criticism and vilification in the American and Israeli press.

I have known Reverend Wagner and his work for justice, peace and security for all in the Middle East for over 25 years. I have always known him to be a man of deep compassion, and of moral depth and equity toward all human beings. So I visited him in his office in Chicago last week to enquire about the nature of the attacks against him, and the reasons for them.

He thought that concern was growing among pro-Israeli groups about the impact of the Presbyterian Church's campaign to study selective divestment of investments in American and multinational companies that do business with the Israeli armed forces. Consequently, he charged, a public campaign had been launched to silence the voices of Christians demanding justice, peace and security for Palestinians alongside Israelis.

"There seem to be two levels of the current campaign. One in general is directed against professors and Middle East studies programs by Campus Watch and similar groups, using internal and external pressure on funders to reduce any kind of pro-Palestinian or justice-oriented program calling for a two-state solution and a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands," he said. "We felt this at our university, by local cones that copied Campus Watch, but Columbia University has been the major target of this campaign."

Part of this thrust, he feels, was the blocking of his own tenure two years ago by a handful of very conservative evangelicals representing a fringe element in the university, but in powerful positions, despite faculty support for his tenure. He feels this was due to his "controversial advocacy of justice for Palestinians, my opposition to the war in Iraq, and my theology."

The second level of opposition to Wagner then emerged around the Presbyterian Church's position to divest and his opposition to Christian Zionism and rightwing Christian fundamentalism advocacy of pro-Israel positions based on Armageddon theology, which he has done much writing on. He became very outspoken on those issues, wrote articles in the press, and did many radio and television appearances, speaking on behalf of the divestment question.

"We call for phased, targeted and selective divestment, or financial engagement, on a moral basis, reflecting 35 years of asking the U.S. government to have a consistent policy on human rights and international law," he explains.

This is not a totally new or unique church position. The Presbyterian Church for 35 years has had resolutions and a clear position, calling for a full Israeli withdrawal, the end of occupation and settlements, and a two-state solution.

"We finally said we need to take a bold act as a denomination and stand with our sisters and brothers who are suffering, and take a nonviolent, symbolic act on behalf of a just peace," he says. "This is where divestment from U.S. and multinational corporations doing business with the Israeli armed forces or any Arab terrorist group comes in. We will divest from any such firms, and as Presbyterian American clergy we will not benefit from another people's suffering. We see this as a consistent, ethical and moral position, though it's also very symbolic in view of the relatively small financial amounts involved."

The church has taken equally activist positions on South Africa, Sudan and other situations. A church committee continues to study the matter and is now engaging U.S. industries like Caterpillar, Motorola and others about their involvements with the Israeli Army, as well as some large American banks which may have been involved in dealings with Arab groups accused of terrorism, like Hamas.

He says that others who have been targeted along with him include the leading Jerusalem-based Christian Liberation Theology group Sabeel, headed by Canon Naeem Ateek, and the Reverend Mitri Raheb of Christmas Lutheran Church in Bethlehem and director of an international Christian center in Bethlehem.

Wagner says that a campaign of misinformation has been launched "based on a paper written by a Rabbi Poupko, who is a rabbinic adviser to the Jewish Federation in the Midwest. It accuses the three of us of being advocates of the theological argument about the Jews being the Christ killers and a whole history of anti-Semitism. What he's done is twisted a lot of our writings with a number of illogical analyses, trying to paint us into the corner of being anti-Semitic."

The attacks have spread into respectable newspapers in Israel and the United States, with the aim, Wagner says, of "trying to delegitimize us as spokesmen and make us look like extremists, and also to bait us into the anti-Semitic argument, so as to switch us away from the legitimate justice and anti-occupation arguments we're raising."

He says that "many Zionist and pro-Israeli Christian groups are frightened by the church's phased divestment idea because it exposes the immorality of the occupation, and raises the justice issues. They see South Africa in the background, and they're afraid. More and more denominations are studying this issue now, so these groups are targeting us to try and nip this movement in the bud and taint those who advance this argument as extremists."

The significance of the case of Reverend Wagner and North Park University stems partly from the fact that this is the only Christian evangelical university in the United States with a Middle East studies center.

Wagner believes he and his colleagues are "raising legitimate issues about Israel-Palestine, critiquing Christian Zionism and end time theology, and trying to reach out to evangelicals and progressive forces in the Christian community. We're also saying that Christianity is disappearing in the Holy Land, especially in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, largely due to the results of the Israeli occupation and a lack of peace and justice. Christianity will vanish in the Holy Land if this trend persists, and it's interesting that our critics never even attempt to answer my argument about the consequences of occupation or the fate of Palestinian Christians. These pro-Israel and Christian Zionist groups try to shift the focus of the debate to accusing us of anti-Semitism, and saying that Christians are leaving because of Islam. We reject and resist that argument, and one result is this smear campaign we are being subjected to."

Wagner is worried that such campaigns, especially against Christian groups in Palestine, aim to "silence the prophetic voices of Palestinian Christians, like Sabeel, Canon Ateek and Rev. Raheb, so they can say that our friends in the Christian community are the Christian right and those who support the Sharon policies."

July 28, 2005

TO: Churches for Middle East Peace Email Network
FROM: Julie Schumacher Cohen, Legislative Assistant
RE: Advocacy During August Recess
( This email can also be found at: http://www.cmep.org/Alerts/2005July28.htm)

Tomorrow, Congress will go on its summer recess and it is an ideal opportunity for you to arrange district appointments with your Representative and Senators while they are home from Washington. Last Friday, during CMEP Staff and Board Hill visits, key staff aides asked us to remind all of you of how important your advocacy, as American Christians that care about peace in the Holy Land, is to your members of Congress. One suggestion we received was to have Christian constituents partner with church leadership when they go on Congressional visits. Another aide advised us that an effective advocacy strategy is actually postage-mailed letters that are personal, balanced and well-reasoned (we will be advising you in the months ahead on how to vary your advocacy through phone, email and mail). Just 5 of these letters could make the difference, he said!

So as we continue to wilt here in the Washington humidity, we hope you will make your voices heard around the country as Christians and as Americans who believe that U.S. engagement is crucial to a just and peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you are able to arrange a meeting in your district, email julie@cmep.org for background materials and talking points.

Below, I have included two articles discussing recent developments and positive shifts in Congress and U.S. policy from Rafi Dajani of the American Taskforce on Palestine and M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum (Ziad Asali of ATPF and M.J. spoke at Advocacy Days in March). As Rafi explains, “…the United States has started a paradigm shift in its policy: Washington increasingly understands that a viable, contiguous and independent Palestinian state that satisfies the national aspirations of the Palestinian people is critical to U.S. national interests and foreign policy goals in the Middle East.” Their analysis emphasizes the growing impact that grassroots advocacy can have on reinforcing constructive actions that policy-makers are taking.

Guidance on making appointments: http://www.cmep.org/Alerts/2005Feb15.htm

Information on district offices: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir

PROFIT FROM THE U.S. SHIFT ON PALESTINE
By Raafat Dajani
Daily Star, Commentary (Lebanon)
July 23, 2005

The conventional wisdom among many observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that time is fast running out - if it has not already run out - on the prospect of a two-state solution. The main reasons are Israel's accelerating the creation of facts on the ground and perceived U.S. support for this process. A closer look, however, reveals that, in parallel, the United States has started a paradigm shift in its policy: Washington increasingly understands that a viable, contiguous and independent Palestinian state that satisfies the national aspirations of the Palestinian people is critical to U.S. national interests and foreign policy goals in the Middle East.

This paradigm shift is at such an embryonic stage, however, that it can be easily aborted - deliberately by those who oppose the shift, and unwittingly by those unable to grasp the subtlety of the change, and therefore do not encourage and reinforce it.

Israel's separation barrier, land confiscation, the encirclement of East Jerusalem and continued settlement expansion all seriously threaten the viability of any potential Palestinian state. These actions, coupled with public statements made by senior Israeli officials, heighten fears that the Gaza withdrawal will be followed by a political "deep freeze" and Israel's consolidation over areas of the West Bank it intends to eventually annex.

Concurrent to this, however, have been increasing public statements from high-ranking former U.S. government officials and members of Congress that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to U.S. national interests - something unheard of in the past. Two recent examples illustrate this point. Earlier this year, dozens of leading members of the foreign policy establishment, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Lawrence Eagleburger, and former Defense Secretary William Cohen, sent a letter to this effect to President George W. Bush.

The letter stressed "that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [along the lines of a two-state solution] is critical to U.S. national security interests and essential to reduce the threat posed by international terrorism." The letter has evolved into an Internet campaign to gather a million signatures to demonstrate the support of the American public.

The second example was a June 30 hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the "road map." Here again, the first sentence of committee chairman Richard Lugar's opening statement reiterated that "advancement of the two-state solution is urgently needed by the Israelis and Palestinians and is critical to U.S. success in the global war on terrorism." Lugar added that terrorists "use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to enlist fresh recruits to conduct terrorism around the globe."

The hearing itself revealed a Senate with an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the obstacles to the road map. In addition to the expected and legitimate focus on Palestinian responsibilities in security and reform, equal emphasis was placed on Israeli actions. This included ending settlement activity, changing the route of the separation barrier, particularly around Jerusalem, and avoiding that the Gaza withdrawal become a quid pro quo for retaining significant parts of the West Bank.

Bush's views on resolving the conflict have also evolved. Standing next to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the White House Rose Garden on May 26, Bush explicitly referred to the 1949 Armistice lines as the starting point for negotiations, emphasizing that any changes must be negotiated with the Palestinians. He stressed that the route of Israel's West Bank barrier must be security-oriented, not political, and that Israel refrain from actions prejudicial to both the road map and final status negotiations. He included Jerusalem under the latter rubric for the first time.

The implications of this statement are profound. By making negotiations and mutual agreement a priority over unilateral acts, Bush put in context his previous references to Israel's right to hold West Bank "population centers" and make border adjustments. It meant - the administration's letters of assurance to Israel on this matter notwithstanding - that the president's position is really no different than the Clinton parameters, which the Palestinians accepted as the basis for negotiations.

Unfortunately, most Palestinian, Arab and Arab-American supporters of a two-state solution have missed the significance of this shift. Understandably jaded by relentless Israeli settlement expansion and land confiscation, they have reacted in a muted way.

The Israeli right and its supporters in the U.S., on the other hand, very quickly caught on to the significance of the shift. At a briefing held on July 28 at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington - featuring speakers such as former Israeli UN ambassador Dore Gold and former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle - there was much resistance to linking U.S. national interests with a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main arguments put forth were that the 1949 Armistice lines would make Israel "indefensible" and that the Jordan Valley was critical to Israeli security. On terrorism, there was a complete rejection of any link between the U.S. war on terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Such opposition was predictable, and proponents of this line will seek to reverse the trend in U.S. policy before it matures. Equally damaging to the prospects of the paradigm shift's gaining momentum is the failure of supporters of the two-state solution to seize the moment by sensing the drift in the Bush administration and reinforcing it. Instead, these supporters routinely attack the U.S. for its support for Israel, failing to appreciate what is changing. In this way, they are as much stuck in the past, and in a zero-sum game, as those opposed to a two-state solution.

There is no shortage of blame to go around for decades of U.S. support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians - and that encompasses the Palestinians themselves. Altering American attitudes, though not to exclude Israel but to include Palestinian concerns as well, will not be an overnight phenomenon. But the mood is slowly turning and the reason is a new perception in Washington of U.S. national interests.

It is up to all those who support the concept of a truly secure Israel and a truly independent Palestine, living side by side in peace, to seize this moment and exert the utmost effort to help achieve it.

Raafat Dajani is executive director of the Washington-based American Task Force on Palestine (http://www.americantaskforce.org/)