Palestinians Must Be Party to Gaza and West Bank Negotiations 

On April 14th, President Bush announced his support for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's "disengagement" plan. In return for Sharon's unilateral removal of the settlements and some military installations from Gaza, President Bush gave assurances to Sharon on three key issues that in previous negotiations had been left up to final status agreements:

• Palestinians would have no right of return to the state of Israel;
• Major Israeli settlements in the West Bank would remain;
• Israel would not be pressured to return to the Green Line (as stipulated by United Nations Security Council Resolutions).

By negotiating away three crucial final status issues without consulting the Palestinian Authority, the Bush Administration has destroyed any remaining faith on the part of the Palestinians that the U.S. could be an evenhanded mediator. The President continues to assert that he remains committed to his "Roadmap for Middle East Peace" with two states living in peace and security.  But acquiescing to the Israelis on the final status issues destroys the main beliefs on which the roadmap plan was based. 

The Sharon plan stipulates that Israel would withdraw  "certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank." Israel would keep the right to determine which military installations it will retain in Gaza and which settlements it will retain on the West Bank. The plan states that within 18 months Israel would end its Gaza occupation, but Israel would maintain control over security, reserving the right to act militarily. (Tanya Reinhart, the Alternative Information Center, April 22) Having declared the occupation over, Israel would no longer be subject to the humanitarian regulations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The plan states that "the disengagement move will obviate the claims about Israel with regard to its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." Sharon warned that after the Gaza withdrawal, Palestinians there could no longer explain violence against Israel by saying that the Jewish state is occupying their land, "and Israel's responses (to violence) would be much harsher" (Mark Lavie, Associated Press, April 28).  But on May 2, Sharon's own party, Likud, shocked the Israeli public and the Bush Administration by voting down the disengagement plan. In a move that further weakened the Bush Administration's credibility in the Middle East, Likud rejected the Gaza withdrawal and left the Sharon/Bush plan in shreds. 

In reaction, 53 former U.S. diplomats sent a letter to the President, admonishing him for his current policy in the Middle East and accusing him of sacrificing the credibility of the U.S. in the Arab world. That same day the Quartet (the European Union, United Nations, Russia and the United States) called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza despite its rejection by Israeli conservatives. The U.S., U.N., Russian and European officials also said that the final status issues-refugees, settlements, and boarders-must be negotiated by both Israelis and Palestinians. This was an admonishment of the assurances President Bush gave Sharon about maintaining West Bank settlements and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

The statement by the Quartet offers a positive step forward and does give some hope for a way out of the current impasse. The Quartet's acknowledgement that final status issues must be negotiated by both the Israelis and Palestinians recognizes the legitimate claims of both parties. As Serge Schmemann states in the New York Times, "a credible mediating role requires assuring Palestinians that the United States hears their grievances and will not give Israel a free hand to decide their fate unilaterally . . . by denying critical elements of the Palestinian's narrative, he [Bush] was stripping them of negotiating leverage and undermining whatever faith they still had in American mediation." (The New York Times, May 4)

Protecting the Sacred Gift of Air

The theme of this year's Earth Day Sunday, celebrated by thousands of Christian congregations on April 25, was "Life-Giving Breath of God: Protecting the Sacred Gift of Air." Many Presbyterian churches were active; incorporating the theme into worship, Sunday school, congregational clean-ups, and advocacy. How can Presbyterians-individually and collectively-celebrate and restore God's precious gift of air every day? 

Why should we be concerned about air, and the many other aspects of our creation? In 1990 the General Assembly adopted a report, "Restoring Creation for Ecology and Justice."1 It identified powerful reasons for engagement in restoring God's Creation:

• God's works in creation are too wonderful, too ancient, too beautiful, too good to be desecrated.
• Restoring creation is God's own work in our time, in which God comes both to judge and to restore.
• Human life and well-being depend upon the flourishing of other life and the integrity of the life-supporting processes that God has ordained.
• The love of neighbor, particularly "the least" of Christ's brothers and sisters, requires action to stop the poisoning, the erosion, the wastefulness that are causing suffering and death.
• The future of our children and their children and all who come after is at stake.
•  In this critical time of transition to a new era, God's new doing may be discerned as a call to earth-keeping, to justice, and to community. 

To address concerns about air quality, in 2002 the General Assembly passed a resolution "On Cleaning Up Power Plant Pollution," directing the denomination to educate Presbyterians about the environmental and health consequences of pollution from outdated coal-fired power plants, the benefits of ensuring that these plants adhere to tighter air pollution limits, and the economic consequences of such actions. In addition, the 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2003 Assemblies called for Presbyterians to take actions to curb global warming. 

What Is the State of Our Air? 

The EPA estimates that the U.S. alone emits 160 million tons of pollution into the air each year. As the National Council of Churches' Earth Day Resource noted:

While regulatory enforcement of the Clean Air Act has significantly reduced aggregate emissions (down 48 percent since 1970),2 over 130 million U.S. residents live in counties that violate federal air quality standards. Globally, 1.1 billion people breathe unhealthy air.3 Furthermore, the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the upper atmosphere is contributing to global warming and climate change. What is contributing to unhealthy air?  The EPA noted that emissions from factories, electric utilities, oil refineries, waste incinerators, smelters, dry cleaners, agricultural facilities, construction equipment, woodstoves, automobiles, trains, and lawnmowers, and other sources, contribute to outdoor air pollution. Electric power plants, including the particularly polluting old coal-fired power plants, are the single largest industrial emitters of air pollutants, including:

• Mercury (the cause for mercury contamination in fish, which, when consumed by humans, can cause neurological and developmental damage and is particularly harmful to infants and children);
• Sulfur dioxide (when inhaled with other fine particulate matters in pollution, SO2 has been linked to respiratory disease and premature death, and is linked to acid rain);
• Nitrogen oxide (contributes to ozone or "smog" pollution and exacerbates asthma and is linked to acid rain); and
• Carbon dioxide (one of the main "greenhouse" gases that causes global warming).  Legislation on power plant pollution (including the President's "Clear Skies" initiative, Sen. Jeffords' "Clean Power Act," and Sen. Carper's "Clean Air Planning Act") has not progressed in Congress and is not expected to be offered in this highly-charged election year. Changes on these issues have proceeded via Administrative channels, including EPA regulatory changes. For more information, visit the Legislative Library of Congress. [Read more] 

What can we do to restore God's precious gift of air? 

• Conserve energy. Give your church an energy audit and consider using "green" energy options such as solar or wind power. Become an Electric Stewardship Congregation. 
• Use more fuel-efficient modes of transportation, like walking, biking, using public transit, or driving a more fuel-efficient car.  Sponsor a "Bike to Church" or "Walk to Church" Sunday.
• Lift up the issues of caring for God's creation by incorporating these issues into worship, prayer, Christian education, and youth group activities.
• Advocate.  Call on your elected officials to provide public transportation alternatives and to strengthen the use of renewable energy. Tell them to enforce clean air laws (at the federal and state levels) and to enact new clean air laws for power plants to reduce pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, respiratory disease, mercury contamination, and global warming.  Go to the Presby Legislative Action Center for Urgent Alerts about environmental issues.  

Footnotes:

1. Order a copy of this valuable study paper through the online marketplace or call Presbyterian Distribution Service at (800) 524-2612 and ask for Item #OGA90002. The cost is $1.50 per copy.
2. Air Trend Highlights (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).
3. Children in the New Millennium (United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Children's Fund and World Health Organization, 2002).

The PATRIOT Act: Limiting Its Damage to Civil Rights

The USA PATRIOT Act, approved by Congress in October 2001, has been subject to much debate between civil liberties advocates, Members of Congress, and the Bush Administration. In his State of the Union address, President Bush stated: "*key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the PATRIOT Act." 1   

The President has been highlighting the importance of the Act in keeping terrorists at bay by giving the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department the tools needed to track and detain those who could pose a threat to the American people. Clearly, it is a priority for the Administration that the Act be extended past its current sunset of 12/31/05.   

Many advocates have decried sections of the Act. Critics cite increased instances of racial, ethnic, and religious profiling because of it, as well as denials of First and Fourth Amendment rights (the right to free speech, and the right to legal representation), and an imbalance of power resulting from the lack of judicial review in many DOJ surveillance investigations and trials.   David Cole, a Georgetown University professor and PATRIOT Act scholar, said "there is a lot of talk about 'sacrificing some liberty for security.'...But how that really plays out in the war on terror is that foreign nationals are stripped of rights and treated unjustly so that we, American citizens, may be safe. They sacrifice liberty for our security."2 

Challenges to the Act have made news and have caused the Administration to increase calls for renewal. Congress took action to limit the Act by voting 309-118 in July 2003 to prohibit funds for the DOJ (FY04) from being used to execute "sneak and peek" searches (allowed by Section 213 of the Act).3   Lawsuits have been brought against the legislation, and 299 communities in 40 states have declared themselves civil liberties safe zones, as have the legislatures of four states — which accounts for 51 million Americans who are concerned about protecting their basic civil rights.  Bills introduced this year that seek to repeal sections, or amend the excesses of the Act, include S 1709, the "SAFE Act." Introduced by Sen. Durbin (D-IL), it proposes changes to protect civil rights and liberties. It would revise sections that deal with "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps, surveillance of business records, and the use of "administrative subpoenas" at libraries, and would insert sunset clauses onto additional provisions. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee in October 2003, with 18 co-sponsors.  

In January, Attorney General Ashcroft took the unusual step of writing to Sen. Hatch, chair of the Judiciary Committee, declaring DOJ's opposition to the SAFE Act. Mr. Ashcroft declared that senior members of the Administration would recommend that the SAFE Act be vetoed if it reaches the President's desk in its current form.  

The S 1709 revisions to controversial sections of the PATRIOT Act would protect civil liberties, without interfering with the constitutionally permissible tools needed by law enforcement. S 1552 pro- poses similar changes. (For information on it, refer to our 4th quarter 2003 civil rights bulletin.)  

In claiming our identity as Christians and citizens, we must affirm communities that are safe and secure for all persons, and support policies that uphold civil rights and protect against ethnic, racial, or religious profiling and other forms of discrimination. The PATRIOT Act upsets the balance of power between the three branches of the government, and erodes civil liber- ties. Action must be taken to limit it or to repeal controversial sections, as proposed by S 1709 and S 1552. 

What Can You Do?

• Contact Congress. Urge them to reassess the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, taking into account proposed legislative changes, like the SAFE Act.  
• Stay informed of the status of these and other issues relating to civil rights by joining our Stewardship of Public Life E-Serve Networks. Call (202) 543-1126.
• Initiate dialogue within your congregation about ways to seek elimination of discrimination and racism from our communities and government policies.
• Write a letter to the editor on infringements of civil liberties. Focus on erosion of the following principles:
  • The right to due process,
  • The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure,
  • The right to privacy,
  • The right to free speech and assembly,
  • The right to religious liberty.
• Christians are obligated by the loving will of God to seek to ensure that the basic needs of Persons for food, clothes, shelter and safety are met (Matt. 25-35-40).
• Christians believe in the intrinsic worth of each human as a person made in the image of God. 
• Christians have the responsibility to challenge and to shape government policy regarding refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants. [Excerpts from "Transformation of Churches and Society Through Encounter with New Neighbors" (1999).]

Footnotes:

1. Remarks by the President at State of the Union. Jan. 20, 2004. www.whitehouse.gov.
2. Cole, David. "Civil Liberties and the War on Terror." Speech given to the Churches' Center on Theology and Public Policy in Washington, D.C., Feb. 19, 2004.
3. "Congressional Action to Limit the USA-PATRIOT Act," Friends Committee on National Legislation. 

Are we being a bit presumptuous when we say we are "Speaking Truth To Power"? 

The Washington Office began to use this term as a motto on our brochure about 10 years ago. It was taken from the 1981 General Assembly environmental policy entitled, "The Power to Speak Truth to Power." It is a phrase often used by the Quakers.

The foundational statement of the PC(USA) 1981 policy: "The power to speak truth to power comes from the Kingdom of God. This power which we seek to employ is the power of one who came as a servant to redeem the creation, who loved, who was crucified. This is not the power of majorities, of military might, of technical expertise, nor of uniformed enthusiasm. It is a power of faithful life and witness which flows from human communities where worship, prayer, study, and action sustain new life together. We Presbyterians are called to speak the truth and to exhibit it concerning the urgent problems of our day*" 

"The foundation of our power to speak and live with the power of the Kingdom is our faith in Jesus Christ.  Faith is a relationship to God which has three dimensions: God's gift of community, repentance, and belief." (Mark 1: 14-15)

It is the last word that gives us pause— belief. Those who have been labeled "liberals" are often charged that it is difficult for them to say what they believe with any certainty when it comes to social witness discussion. Is this true? Are liberals truly unwilling to claim 'truth' - to say what is believed and believe what it proclaimed of what was once called the 'social gospel'?   

Matthew 25 contains a truth that we often proclaim, that: "Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a Shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.  Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come. O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; *" 

Everyone claims to be the sheep on the right side of Jesus with the truth supporting them. No one claims to be the goats. But Jesus gives us a job description of what it means to be a sheep on his right side, "*for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." The nations shall be judged by this and this is the truth to be proclaimed! 

To speak to powerful government officials about poverty and justice is to speak this truth (Matthew 25). Many have given up on the church and say that it no longer speaks this truth with determination. The recent rise in religious interest means that many of the public are looking for truths. We should share these with them. 

While battles continue over what is the real truth, questions about the appropriateness of this phrase come from both so-called liberal and conservative quarters. Most people like the phrase and are happy that the Washington Office is not afraid to use it.