by Linda Gaither
Background:
The Episcopal Peace Fellowship [EPF] is an independent, member-funded association of Episcopalians who share a commitment to nonviolence, not only in terms of conflict management and resolution, but also effectively engaging, through critical thinking and action, the complexity of the culture of violence that predominates in our world today. Our mission is to do justice, dismantle violence and strive to be peacemakers.
Responsibility for decision making in EPF, including policy decisions, is exercised by the National Executive Council [NEC] . Our primary constituency is our membership and the wider Episcopal Church, which we seek to serve with nonviolence training programs, resources for peacemaking, networks, advocacy, and legislative initiatives. Our constituency also includes those with whom we make common cause in promoting nonviolent peacemaking.
In February, the co-chairs of EPF’s Israel/Palestine Action Group brought a request to NEC officers, as expressed in a letter from The Rev. Naim Ateek, Sabeel Jerusalem, to do three things: read and study the Kairos document; share it in our church and peace group; respond with prayer and advocacy. Naim Ateek is the 2006 recipient of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship’s highest award for leadership in nonviolent conflict resolution, The John Nevin Sayre Award. The May 5 Statement is part of our faithful response to that request.
Some Considerations:
1. The NEC considered the concerns of Jewish leaders, such as the Council of Rabbis (Reformed), that the Kairos Document’s theology and call for divestment, boycott and economic sanctions are anti-Jewish, extending the arc of the long tradition of Christian anti-Semitism. In light of that history, this concern is something that must be taken very seriously. We agree with the Kairos document principle: God desires life with love and dignity for all people; the occupation keeps both Israelis and Palestinians from seeing God in each others’ faces. The cycle of violence continues. We appreciate the 1991 General Convention’s call to distinguish “between legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government and anti-Jewish prejudice, and denounce expressions of anti-Semitism.” In this we join our voices with those of a growing American Jewish public at large who are expressing opposition to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and questioning unconditional support for Israeli government policy. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/us/politics/06jews.html
2. The NEC considered the effect that support for divestment, boycott and economic sanctions may have on relationships that the Episcopal Church has built up through interreligious dialogue. We acknowledge that those who are involved in dialogue and those who advocate for effective change have different goals and often different constituencies. A key question is whether there are ways in which those voices raised in advocacy can add, rather than detract, from current work taking place in interreligious dialogue? Two things strike us here. First, pressure brought to bear by the work of advocates for change, along with the pressure of facts on the ground, may function positively as a reality check on dialogue. The proverbial elephant in the room becomes too large to ignore. In this case, can dialogue continue with integrity in the absence of serious conversation about concerns for basic human rights and dignity for all communities in the occupied territories? Second, faithful Episcopalians are building partnerships with faithful Jews, in growing numbers, at the grassroots levels of advocacy work: what do these relationships mean for dialogue? That is a question that might fruitfully be addressed.
3. The NEC recognizes that the existing policy of The Episcopal Church, expressed in resolutions of General Convention and Executive Council, as well as in study documents, especially “Corporate Engagement by the Episcopal Church of Issues Related to Israel and the Palestinian Territories” (2005), is the result of long and serious engagement with the issues raised by the Kairos document and the Occupation itself. Summations of that policy belong among the resources EPF offers to our membership. Five years ago, while putting forward no recommendation for divestment, the “Corporate Engagement” study noted that “the opportunity for a viable Palestinian state is rapidly diminishing” and “the Occupation is devastating to Palestinians and harmful to Israelis and comes at an enormous cost to both sides of the conflict.” In 2010, the crisis has intensified. The Kairos document is a cry from the heart of the suffering with its “enormous cost to both sides.”
Kairos is the Greek word for a moment when God is present in opportunity. The Episcopal Church has many leaders today who were not in place five years ago, with fresh perspectives and energy to intensify our engagement. Our nation has new leadership in the Obama administration and strategies for peacemaking in the Middle East are evolving. American military leaders recognize that the national security of our nation is wrapped up with a just and secure peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, with “an ironclad commitment to nonviolence,” is engaged in a two-year program of institution building in preparation for Palestinian statehood in 2011.
This is the context for the NEC’s May 5 Statement and our belief that economic sanctions, applied at just this critical and fragile moment, can inspire a more useful dialogue and negotiation towards a just and lasting peace. We are standing in the darkness of the Easter vigil, waiting and praying for the promised light of peace to dawn.
