I am delighted to have been asked to join you today.  While I have some doubts about my legitimacy as a specialist in Jewish-Christian relations per se, I can talk with you about my own experiences and what I’ve learned. 

When I began working on Israeli-Palestinian peace issues, in 1978, the Camp David negotiations with Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat had just concluded.  I asked the AFSC personnel committee that interviewed me if they thought, in light of this diplomatic breakthrough, the job would be short- term.  My naïve question elicited laughter. Obviously I had much to learn about the complexity of the conflict, the virulence of its politics and the depth of the passions it evoked. 

My fundamental learning came from the Israelis and Palestinians who were sent on speaking tours by AFSC to introduce the notion of co-existence.  I worked under the direction of Gail Pressberg, who is now a senior policy adviser for Americans for Peace Now, from the AFSC office in Des Moines, Iowa. (That is when I met Ron, who then directed AFSC’s peace education programs.) I arranged the speaking and meeting schedules of those courageous Israelis and Palestinians and listened and learned.  In those north central states in the US twenty-five years ago, this was the first time that most in those audiences had ever heard in person real Israelis and real Palestinians, and the first time that those with deeply passionate feelings had the chance to publicly express their pain to the “other.”  The Palestinian geography professor in a small Midwest college, the Polish Holocaust survivor who taught world history to Des Moines high school sophomores, the Iowa Quaker who had worked in the Gaza refugee camps are still vivid in my mind. I was deeply moved and I quickly learned that the confines of ordinary rational discussion failed to capture the centrality of the human dynamics and psychological trauma that characterize the conflict and its victims and efforts to negotiate peace. 

It wasn’t until 1980, years after AFSC’s groundbreaking co-existence program work, that the National Council of Churches – the umbrella organization for mainstream Protestant churches, adopted a Middle East Policy Statement.  The statement -  I brought a few copies for Brit Tzedek v’Shalom’s reference libraries – followed extensive consultation with the Jewish colleagues who worked hand-in-hand with the NCC for civil rights and liberties, economic justice and opposition to the Viet Nam war.  The statement still today provides a solid grounding for the churches’ work. It affirms as essential, “the recognition by the Arab states and by the Palestinian Arabs of the state of Israel with secure, defined and recognized borders” and reminds the churches that relationships with the Middle East churches and with the Muslim and Jewish communities in the US are “a precious gift that must be nurtured, preserved and used to enhance a future of peace and justice for the peoples of the Middle East and to ensure that opportunities for peace are not lost.”

That is why you are gathered here today, and why I have joined you – to ensure that opportunities for peace are not lost, and so the peoples of the Middle East can see a future where their potential may be realized and their children may be safe.

I work for a coalition of American churches – 20 national churches and church agencies that include the mainstream and historic-peace Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics. Some of those national church organizations also have relief, development, solidarity programs and partner Palestinian churches. The coalition, Churches for Middle East Peace, known as CMEP, has a defined mandate – to be the ecumenical advocacy voice of the member churches directed toward the Administration and Congress and addressing U.S. policy and practices.  The CMEP Board members, most of whom are staff in the Washington public policy offices of their churches, engage in direct lobbying – meeting and communicating with Congressional offices and Administration officials. And, most importantly, CMEP provides guidance and encouragement to congregations and individual members of our churches – across the country – to lobby their own members of Congress and the Administration. 

CMEP was founded in controversy.  In 1984, the national churches did their Washington public policy work in an interfaith (at that time interfaith meant Christians and Jews) coalition which did not have consensus on Middle East issues. Recognizing the need for the churches to speak to the issue, the National Council of Churches and AFSC formed a working group of the directors of denominations’ Washington offices. This evolved into Churches for Middle East Peace which later expanded to include Catholic and Orthodox organizations.

Twenty years ago, a major and bitter Jewish-Christian divide was over the role of the PLO, which the NCC and CMEP saw as the only organized voice of the Palestinian people and the only body able to negotiate a settlement on their behalf. CMEP and the NCC called for the PLO to amend its National Covenant to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, for U.S. dialogue with the PLO and for direct negotiations between Israel and the PLO.  

That probably sounds reasonable to you today, but then, when the PLO was carrying out horrendous acts of violence against Jews, it was seen by most Jews, and by many Christians, as worse than despicable. 

During those years, I was very involved in inter-religious dialogue in the U.S. – a founding board member of Ron Young’s U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East and on the steering committee of an umbrella organization of grassroots Jewish-Christian-Arab dialogue groups.  It was a wonderful experience to be with people as they genuinely listened to each other and discovered their shared goals and their common humanity, but it took sustained involvement to build trust.  All too often, for the sake of goodwill and recognition of each other’s sensitivities, the toughest issues – such as Jerusalem – were unmentionable.

I saw clearly the limits on how far people, as individuals and in organizations, could move ahead of the political realities and the political debate.  Many people, including the US Congress, then and now, find it impossible to see Palestinian leaders as partners in peacemaking while militant extremists are cast as martyrs for killing Israeli citizens in despicable acts of violence. It seemed to me that a political resolution of the conflict – or at least the hope for such – was absolutely necessary before reconciliation between the peoples, in meaningful numbers, could unfold. So, I came to the decision that my work, my energies, would focus on mobilizing people – specifically the leadership and membership of the churches in CMEP -  to work for a more constructive United States policy toward the conflict and the region.

Around the CMEP Board table, it is usually surprisingly easy to find consensus on policy and priorities related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, although I can’t say the same about Iraq. CMEP does policy, not theology. With our membership ranging from Mennonites to Episcopalians and Catholics it would be very difficult to agree upon the use of theological terminology in CMEP’s work. But on policy matters where they have consensus, the members of CMEP do speak with an ecumenical voice. It has long been the position of the churches in CMEP to support the self-determination of both peoples, an end of the occupation based on UNSC Res.242, sharing of Jerusalem by the two peoples and three religions, and the right of both peoples to live in peace and security, free from fears of violence. 

The two-state, shared Jerusalem position is held by a number of other groups, including Brit Tzedek v’Shalom. Regularly, individuals get the idea, which seems perfectly logical, that if only these organizations would join together under a big tent, their political power would be able to trump that of the so-called “Jewish Lobby” which is assumed to manipulate Congress into pro-Israel – anti/Palestinian positions. But it is not so simple. There is considerable agreement among those who have long labored in these fields that it’s not doable and instead of increasing clout, the coalescing effort sucks up enormous amounts of time and energy with endless meetings and deliberations. The subtle differences in the organizations – their history, the tone of their rhetoric, policy differences, political differences, structural differences, personality conflicts – all become evident and suddenly important. CMEP, being a coalition itself, would have to get agreement by all twenty members before agreeing to even the mission statement of a broader coalition. Another factor to consider is each organization’s objectives relative to its own identity and credibility. It is important to CMEP to be seen as the advocacy voice of an ecumenical coalition of established Christian organizations. We think that is important for members of Congress to hear an alternative Christian voice to that of the Christian Right.

Instead, the mode of operation that we who walk the halls in Washington have agreed upon is collegial cooperation.  I think that an advocacy message is louder and more likely to be heard when many organizations and their individual members are on the same page and singing variations of the same tune. Generally there is good indirect and direct communication, and good will, across the organizational lines – a sharing of news and views – and an unorganized coordination of issue focus and advocacy message. As an example, I rely on American for Peace Now’s lobbyist, Lara Friedman for accurate news on what’s happening and we share info on Hill staffers. As CMEP formulates advocacy messages for our grassroots, we strive to build upon and strike common chords with the points that like-minded organizations and opinion shapers – such as M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum - are making.  

As you all know, mobilizing public opinion in support of two viable sovereign states living side by side and sharing Jerusalem has been, and still is, a highly-charged and controversial action. Calls for the United States to pressure Israel to change policies and practices are interpreted by some as being anti-Semitic and intended to subvert the state itself. Most churches, nationally and locally, are committed to maintaining warm relations with Jewish religious institutions and people. Within many church congregations there are people who exclusively hold Israel and the Jewish people close to their heart and faith. There are also within some congregations, people who feel exclusive solidarity with Palestinians, often with close attachment to Palestinian Christians. And, regrettably, there are people in our churches who are consumed with anger at Israel, and/or hold onto vicious canards about Jews. It’s tricky to get it right. If a church’s activism meets with a firestorm of criticism within and from outside the congregation, it is likely to scare off other churches from taking on the issue. An outspoken activist’s efforts to engage their congregation can fracture peace and justice committees resulting in a principled avoidance of the topic.

Churches for Middle East Peace’s resources and guidance encourages congregations, and individuals, to become and stay engaged in advocacy and activism that is moderate in language and reflects the churches’ hopes that both Israelis and Palestinians might have viable and thriving states that live side-by-side within secure and recognized borders. I appeal to Christians to hold both peoples close to their hearts – to have compassion for each and to look toward the future that Israelis and Palestinians must share.

There is one segment of the American public that is of particular concern to Churches for Middle East Peace, and to you too, I’m sure. That is the politicized Christian right, which twists Zionism to fit their end-time prophecy, raising money for settlements and insisting on the sanctity of the Greater Land Of Israel. The chasm between the mainstream church bodies in CMEP and the Christian-Zionist Right is deep and not easily bridged. CMEP has reached out to Christian Evangelical leaders who share our commitment to justice and peace and has advocated cooperatively with them. We sponsored a conference in November 2003 at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena.  In January, CMEP initiated a letter to the President that was signed by 57 Christian leaders representing a very broad spectrum of Christianity, including evangelical leaders. While being careful to not label all evangelical Christians as theological supporters of Israel, CMEP does place great significance on countering and challenging the apocalyptic politics of Christian Zionism. 

On this topic especially, CMEP is mindful that it is not only American public opinion that we want to influence.  Public opinion in the Arab and Muslim majority countries is very important not only for Americans but also for the Arab Christian minorities in those countries.  We are reaching out to the Arab media that is represented in Washington, seeking to broadcast the news that there are American Christian churches and Christians who are dedicated to peacemaking and Palestinian rights,  as well as a secure future for Israel - and are pressing our government to change its policies and practices.

However difficult, working together as interfaith partners has proven to be possible and helpful. There is certainly a strong will, that I hear from our grassroots activists, to work on Israeli-Palestinian issues jointly with Jews, and, since 9-11, with Muslims as well.  At the national level, the National Inter-religious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East has managed to get a large group of high-level national religious leaders – Jewish, Christian and Muslim – to agree on a statement and meet together with key US officials.  The active participation of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in that initiative is unusual and significant.

The religious leaders all recognize, as do we gathered here today, that U.S. policy and practice has been not only deficient, but at times destructive. Now, in this new year, we can reasonably believe that U.S. policy has changed and that both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership and a majority of their populace are ready to get on board and make the most of the current moment of opportunity. I think that until we’re proven wrong, we must act on the belief.

One of the most contentious issues to be resolved is the future of Jerusalem. In 2005,  Jerusalem has been in the news again and again. Would Palestinians in East Jerusalem be able to vote in the election? Would Israel use the Absentee Property Law to seize Palestinian land in East Jerusalem? CMEP will be placing more emphasis on Jerusalem in our work this year. I am heartened to read Brit Tzedek v’Shalom’s founding principle on Jerusalem, and will be interested to learn about the response you’ve received from both your supporters and critics. It would be a great contribution to the climate for peacemaking for American Jews, Christians and Muslims to be able to jointly promote the concept of sharing Jerusalem as a key to peace and mutual respect. I agree with Danny Seidemann, and think it likely that you do too, that cutting off East Jerusalem from the West Bank would “render nearly impossible the creation of as sustainable Palestinian state.” Jerusalem is not only at the heart of the conflict, I believe it is also at the core of a political resolution; and with time and healing, of reconciliation among the Jewish, Christian and Muslim people.