Reflections from a Christian-Jewish Journey to Israel/Palestine

by Jay Rock, Coordinator for Interfaith Relations

Trip Purpose and Composition

From September 18-22, 16 Jewish and Christian staff from the United States traveled together to Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Ramallah. Jews came from the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Religious Action Center of the Union of Reform Judaism, and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Christians came from the Alliance of Baptists, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the National Council of Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church. This staff group has been meeting since May, 2004, to discuss divergent understandings and approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an issue that divides us and undermines our ability to work together for the peace we all desire.

The purpose of the trip was to enter more fully into each other's perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To this end, each group planned two days of the visit, and we accompanied each other to meet and interact with those who are our respective partners in this land, and our respective informants regarding the situation. The schedule (appended to this report) was exhausting, but provided a number of informative meetings and opportunities for meaningful dialogue.

As the final statement of the group said, "We came to see and we came to listen — and to try to understand the human dimensions of an unholy situation in a land most holy.... In session after session, we confronted the realities on the ground and gained new understandings of, and an appreciation for, the deep complexities of the conflict that consume Israelis, Palestinians and us alike."

General Observations

Taking this journey together fostered a significant deepening of relationships among participants. Though we did not have much time on any day to share as an entire group our reactions to the day's events or people, nor to discuss emerging insights and ideas, we were able to talk informally as we rode and ate together. Adversarial sparring was mostly absent. We were able to talk openly about what we were seeing and hearing, and discovered the complexity of each other's emotions, critique, principles and commitments in relation to the conflict. I hope that this will have positive results beyond this small circle of people, and lead to more positive engagements with each other as local and national communities. As the final joint news release noted, "While there were many difficult moments, our trust in each other deepened. We sustain hope in each other as agents of peace. We affirm hope and faith in our two religious communities as partners and advocates for a two-state solution."

We heard many voices, Israeli and Palestinian, critical of many aspects of current Israeli policies and of current Palestinian leadership. These same voices almost unanimously spoke in support of all who are working for a solution that will result in "a secure, viable and independent Palestinian state alongside an equally secure State of Israel," and of the necessity of such a peace for all the people of the region. Within this consensus there were many differences regarding how best to address certain issues, and what constitute the main obstacles to be overcome. We heard, in fact, much sense of pessimism about the possibilities and current realities, but general commitment to the goal.

Basic and deep differences remain in the perception of the Israelis and Palestinians with whom we spoke regarding what lies at the root of the conflict: While many Palestinians lifted up occupation as the primary issue that must be addressed, many Israelis saw occupation as unacceptable, corrosive to Israel and Israeli moral formation, but yet as something thrust upon them and necessary as a temporary measure. Many Israelis spoke of security as the basic issue, while Palestinians raised serious questions about the actual intent of measures that are a regular feature of the current situation, but seem to serve an agenda of expansion or division rather than security. There is no other course than to work together for peace. As the Rev. Mitri Raheb noted, "We need to take the prophetic stance that is in both of our traditions, and say that the current situation is a mess and unacceptable; and then we need to care about each other's freedom."

As I listened to many of our speakers, I heard Israelis talking about what is true for Palestinians, and describing what Palestinians believe, and I heard Palestinians talking about what is true for Israelis and describing what Israelis believe. Many used "you language" rather than "I language," offering their picture of the other, rather than commentary on their own community. It was sometimes difficult to get such speakers to talk about, and especially to critique, their own communities.

It is possible that a breakthrough in terms of trust might come if there were clear and continued Palestinian affirmation of the right of Israel to exist and the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in historic Palestine, and clear and consistent Israeli affirmation of the Palestinian right of return. Both people need a sense of the other's deep acceptance of their right to exist and to live in the land they share.

One of the strongest impressions from the trip for me is that of the plumes of dust everywhere, from the busy pace of current construction. The building of the security barrier, as a fence in the more open areas or as a wall in the more urban areas, goes on without stop. Construction is also continuous on by-pass roads for settlers and roads to take Palestinians from point to point without the necessity of going through certain pieces of territory. Buildings are going up all through and around Jerusalem, on both sides of the Green Line. Access barriers are still being built on roads, or moved from here to there. The ecological havoc is hardly counted, since the affects of all of this on social and economic life are large, and growing.

Specific Remarks

The impact on all participants of our visits together to experience the wall/fence and meet with people directly affected by it, and to experience the new Holocaust museum at Yad vaShem was significant. These experiences of the pain and scarring of both peoples are important parts of a basic understanding of the situation. Encountering these realities together led to a greater vulnerability with each other and greater openness to look at things afresh.

The human rights or humanitarian issues of concern include the lack of access for Palestinians, the route of the security barrier and the hardship it is inflicting on certain Palestinian villages and families, home demolitions, and the deteriorating economy in the Palestinian areas.

MK Yitzhak Herzog, Labor party minister of housing, said that he has reduced construction of various types in the settlement blocs that are near the Green Line. He said he could do nothing about projects that were approved in earlier administrations. He suggested that the government may pull out of many settlements that are further within the occupied territories. He and many other Israelis and Palestinians identify key settlement blocs that are likely to be retained as part of Israel, perhaps with some recompense of land within what is now Israeli territory.

Mitri Raheb noted that "we are standing behind vertical divides, rather than looking at horizontal divides that cut across both communities." He was commenting on the failure of leadership on both sides, and on the need on both sides for those who support peace to convince those who take more hard-line positions. He went so far as to suggest that both the original Israeli Zionist dream and the dream of early Palestinian nationalism have failed. How can we find what Rabbi David Rosen called a "mutuality in critique and in efforts toward peace"? How can we work together "to care for each other's freedom"?

Bishop Munib Younan suggested that while Israelis and Palestinians must let go of what has been done, there can not be a forgetting. What is needed is an accounting, such as that attempted in South Africa through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, followed by a forgiving and then moving forward. This idea met with a very mixed reception among the Israeli and American Jews who heard him, but is intriguing.

The Rev. Mitri Raheb, political leaders Mustapha Barghouti and Hanan Ashrawi, journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and Potnifical representative Msgr. Sambi, and others raised a consistent critique of the Palestinian leadership. They noted the difficult challenges they face, such as establishing sufficient law and order, disarming the many security units that Arafat established, and building social and democratic institutions to serve the Palestinian people. They spoke openly of the corruption among senior Palestinian Authority leadership (that serves to foster the people's support for Hamas, which is seen as "incorruptible"), and of a lack of focus among leaders. All were highly critical of the goals and methods of Hamas, while noting the local social institutions they have built. Many recommended that those interested in peace consider direct involvement in building Palestinian democratic institutions and in doing economic and social development in local Palestinian villages.

We saw clear evidence of the contemporary use of classic and repulsive anti-Semitic themes and images in Arab newpapers and periodicals, to describe the actions of Israeli government officials.

We heard very sharp critique of Israeli unilateralism, from some Israelis as well as from Palestinians. If Israel and the U.S. cannot support a multilateral approach, which many affirmed as what is needed, why can there not at least be support for a "parallel unilateralism?" If Israel would simply make access and travel easy for Palestinians, it would vastly improve the situation.

Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Social Research, discussed his polling results showing that Palestinians see the right of return as a "sacred value," but very few would want to exercise that right in actual fact, and especially not within territory controlled by Israel. Only 10% said that they would return to a place within Israel, but 50% of that number would do so only to areas in Palestinian control. Over 50% are against the use of violence. Shikaki was the person who most clearly suggested that the right of return is for Palestinians what the right to a Jewish homeland in Israel/Palestine is to Israelis and to Jews.

The dialogue between Jewish colleagues and Naim Ateek and others from Sabeel, was sharp and confrontational. The Jews lifted up three concerns: a) the use of images in Ateek's theology that seem to echo themes of anti-Semitism (e.g., his presentation of Palestinians as a crucified people, implying that Israel, like the Jews of old, is the crucifier); b) his rejection of the right of modern Jews to a homeland in the land of the historical state; and c) the lack of invitations of "mainline" Jewish speakers to Sabeel events. Ateek defended his use of imagery as classically Christian, and not at all making the anti-Jewish statement that the Jews heard. Then he made it completely clear that he accepted the existence of Israel now as a neighbor with whom to be at peace by way of a two-state solution, but does question whether Jews had a right to do what they did in Palestine in 1948. His objection, he said, was to the creation of a state "on the ashes of the Palestinian people." In later conversation, Ateek made clear to me that he accepts the right of Jews to create a state, just as he believes in the right of Palestinians to create a state. The confrontational conversation at this visit raises the question of how we all can accept and affirm the historical claims or "right" of both peoples, in order to move to mutual respect and peace.

The commitment to non-violent resistance among Palestinian leaders with whom we talked is strong and consistent. Understandably, the Israeli fears of violence are not easily put to rest, even after 9 months of relative calm, the construction of a barrier, etc. It is essential to support those Palestinians and Israelis who are working for reconciliation and a two-state solution with concrete actions that will help sustain their work.

Ideas For Consideration

Explore the possibility of further jointly planned trips such as this one for selected Jewish and Christian leaders. These sorts of journeys are expensive in terms of the time and planning involved, as well as financially costly, but expose people to a much broader range of people and realities than trips conducted by either Christian or Jewish groups alone. To expand the circle of people who have had the opportunity to travel together in such a carefully planned way may foster better informed advocacy in both communities.

Explore further the idea of more direct investment, in consultation with our partners in the region, in building social institutions and in social and economic development projects. This could be one fruitful avenue for Jewish-Christian co-investment, as well as an avenue for more concrete engagement of the churches in building the possibility for peace.

Consider crafting a fresh assessment of the situation, rather than continually referring to the statements and protocols of the past.

See the itinerary of the trip.