The month of March has been a difficult one for communicating the needs of Palestinian justice. It has seen the challenge of suppression and most recently appropriation.

On March 18, the California State Board of Education approved an Ethnic Studies curriculum whose Arab American studies module was revised to exclude any mention of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and it completely erased the mention of Palestine. This suppression of language concerning Palestine has been preceded by adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism that has been commonly and falsely understood to mean that criticism of the State of Israel is antisemitic. Consequently, 27 States now penalize organizations or individuals within their jurisdiction that participate in boycotts targeting Israel.

Also on March 18 Alex Kane reported for Jewish Currents the creation of a new group called “Heart of a Nation” to tell the Israeli story “the right way” for a progressive audience. Rather than suppression this is an appropriation of communication, taking progressive language to tell a regressive story. The need for this is the increasing progressive anxiety over the distortion and erasure mentioned above as well as ongoing discrimination against Palestinian Christians and Muslims. The group “Heart of a Nation” is being formed by Jonathan Kessler who has stepped down as a senior AIPAC director.

The Episcopal Church is not immune from this nation-wide suppression of communication regarding Palestinian justice. It is not unusual to hear the argument that resolutions and communications respecting divestment, boycott, occupation and settlement expansion must be muted for fear of Israeli political pushback and its hampering of the ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem. The Bishop in Jerusalem however has made it very clear that only he speaks for his Diocese and the 30 some social, educational, and health organizations in the Middle East. The American Church cannot use his Diocese as a means of suppressing its own concerns for justice in Palestine.

Communication is at the heart of creative problem solving, respect, and dialogue. Efforts to suppress and appropriate in order to sustain inequities undermine the beloved community that the Palestine Israel Network seeks to build.

Thanks to EPF PIN member Cliff Cutler for this thoughtful essay.

Given the recent events in our nation’s capital, we might be forgiven to find ourselves a bit distracted. But we use this space on the 2nd Thursday to highlight Voices for Justice in Palestine/Israel. Since Joe Biden’s inauguration is next week, let’s spotlight some particularly important voices calling for justice: our own. 

If we choose to act, and be persistent, we can play an outsized role in addressing injustice in the lands where Jesus walked. Why us? We have a voice, a stake in what happens, because Christians are part of the land. Our sibling Episcopalians (together with Lutherans) have had a presence there since the late 1840s.  Our Orthodox, Catholic and Melkite cousins trace their history back even further, to the time of Jesus and his followers. 

We also have a voice, a stake in what happens because as Americans, we have supported, and are complicit in what happens in the land. The United States played an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel. For a variety of historic, religious and geopolitical reasons, we continue to provide more diplomatic, military and financial support to that State than any nation in the world. 

There is no question that the Trump years were a disaster for anyone not an ardent Zionist. The relocation of our Embassy to Jerusalem, the endorsement of Israeli claims on the Golan Heights, and the withdrawal of humanitarian aid for UNWRA and USAID were some of the most visible signs of US bias against Palestinians, culminating with Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century”.

A little over a month ago, the Third Thursday for Israel/Palestine email carried a letter with the endorsement of 17 American Christian organizations and denominations (including the Episcopal Church) which called on the incoming Biden/Harris Administration to take six concrete steps to change the course of US policy and undertake renewed efforts to achieve a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Those steps included:

“1) Ensure that all parties are respected and included in negotiations towards a just and lasting peace based on international law.

2) Restate the U.S. position that settlements are illegal under international law and take action to ensure that any further Israeli settlement construction and growth results in political consequences.

3) Resume funding to the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and other UN and humanitarian actors working in the West Bank and Gaza.

4) Ensure aid accountability such that no U.S. funding to Israel is used to further the occupation or to support human rights abuses perpetrated against Palestinians.

5) Reiterate the U.S. position that territory controlled by Israel following the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, are occupied territories subject to international law and are not recognized parts of Israel.

6) Make clear that criticism of Israel, including support for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions actions, is constitutionally protected and legitimate speech.”

All of the suggested approaches and actions could be adopted by President-elect Biden and implemented by Executive Order in much the same way as President Trump reversed decades of standing US policy. Whether he will do so, however, remains a question. Not surprisingly, many of Mr. Biden’s cabinet and advisor choices appear to share and reinforce his own Zionist impulses. And Ms. Harris has repeatedly affirmed her own support for Israel and Zionism. So if we hope to be successful we may need to be persistent in our approach. Concurrently, we also need to push our Senators and Representatives in the same direction to build momentum.

To that end I would suggest we add some specific requests. Some of them can probably be made without expending significant political capital. For example:

• Resume humanitarian aid through the UNWRA, USAID and the East Jerusalem Hospital Network; push Israel to include delivery of COVID 19 vaccine, tests, and PPE to the West Bank and Gaza;
• Reopen the PLO Diplomatic Offices in Washington, DC;
• Return the US Embassy to Tel Aviv and reopen the American Consulate in East Jerusalem;
• Replace the US Ambassador with someone reflecting US interests, not the Israeli Religious/Nationalist Right;
• Choose a Secretary of State and advisors unaffiliated with the extremes of the Christian or Jewish Religious Right;
• Reaffirm the long-standing, bipartisan US policy that defines the West Bank settlements as illegal as per UN resolution and international law;
• Reaffirm the long-standing, bipartisan US policy that the status of Jerusalem is subject to bilateral negotiations between the parties;
• Restore the use of the word “occupied” to describe East Jerusalem and the West Bank;
• Reverse the policy of labelling goods originating in West Bank settlements as being from Israel.

Other changes will require more than a reversal to the status quo ante. Some would argue that Trump and company simply unmasked years of pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian bias, including in the Obama/Biden Administration. Progress will require Mr. Biden to rethink his stated position that there should be “no light” between the positions of Israel and the US. For example, we should press to:

• Invite participation from the UN, EU and other international players in the peace process;
• Oppose both the de jure and de facto annexation of the West Bank, especially the newly proposed construction in Area E1 and Givot Hamatos;
• Reduce travel and trade restrictions on Gaza; and address humanitarian concerns of sufficient clean water, adequate sewage, restored electricity and sufficient housing;
• Pressure Israel to end the policy of Administrative Detention of Palestinians, including minors, without formal charges, access to lawyers or family contact;
• Reestablish working relationships with the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority;
• Support parties and persons on the Israeli Left and the Arab List, while pushing back against those not reflecting peaceful aspirations;
• Support free elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and respect the will of the Palestinian electorate regardless of who is elected;
• End the US policy of ignoring the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons, which shields it from other US laws and consequences;
• Cancel military sales to the Gulf States used as a reward for normalization; determine whether Sudan should be removed from the List of States Sponsoring Terrorism based on evidence; determine whether to acknowledge Moroccan control over the Western Sahara region based on factors other than Israeli interests;
• Reenter the international agreement with Iran that will reduce their nuclear material stockpiles.

In their letter to Mr. Biden, the Faith Forum wrote: “Over the last four years, U.S. policy has moved in directions that have alienated the U.S. from many of its international partners and supported the deepening of Israel’s occupation while undermining long term efforts to realize a just and lasting peace. If the U.S. remains committed to furthering peace with justice in Israel and Palestine, there is a need for an immediate change in policy and approach when the new administration enters office.”

If we hope to reverse the damage wrought during the Trump era and by previous administrations, it’s time to get busy.

Randall Heyn-Lamb is a member of the EPF PIN Steering Committee. 

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the position of the Steering Committee or the Palestine Israel Network.

We share a homily prepared for Friends of Sabeel North America’s Keep Awake! campaign to send us through Advent.  Check this link for Boyd Evans’s homily.  Boyd is an EPF PIN member and part of its Education work group.

EPF-PIN Commends CCSR on 50 Years of Service

The Episcopal Church’s Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility will celebrate 50 years of advocacy in 2021.  The committee was created by Executive Council in 1971 and oversaw the filing of the first ever shareholder resolution by a faith based organization. The resolution asked General Motors to withdraw from apartheid South Africa.  Presiding Bishop John Hines personally spoke to the resolution at GM’s annual meeting. A video is being prepared that will chronicle the faithful behind-the-scenes work of corporate engagement and action for responsible investing over the last 50 years.  This is a video that EPF PIN members won’t want to miss!  It will be an educational opportunity to learn about the quiet, persistent work of volunteer CCSR members supported by staff and consultants, who, working with interdenominational allies, bring Gospel values to the “worldly” process of investment.  

Since General Convention 2018, CCSR has worked to implement PIN-supported Resolution B016:  calling for a Human Rights Investment Screen for Israel/Palestine thus establishing a No-Buy List for church investments, and divestment from companies already in the portfolio.  B016 was adopted by the 2018 General Convention in Austin, Texas. According to the Episcopal News Service: Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada spoke in favor of B016 before the vote, saying it balances targeted divestment from companies when appropriate with shareholder activism when that might produce greater results. “There is a time to disinvest, and there is a time to do shareholder activism,” Edwards said. “This resolution provides for both of those. To do one without the other is to limp badly.”

Subsequently CCSR prepared and Council adopted the screen in October 2019.  As a result, Council approved divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola and the Israel Discount Bank.  Last month, CCSR recommended and the Executive Committee of Council added  Leumi Bank and DXC (formerly part of Hewlett-Packard), bringing to five the companies from which TEC has divested since General Convention 2018 on the basis of human rights violations.  Corporate engagement with several companies, including Trip Advisor and Booking will be on-going in the coming year.  These companies advertise in the illegal West Bank Settlements. Engagement involves an interdenominational presence at shareholder meetings, advocating for corporate compliance with international human rights.

The screen was made to apply to human rights issues globally, with specific criteria for Israel/Palestine. Thus CCSR is challenging companies to observe human rights wherever they operate, including Myanmar (on behalf of the Rohingya) and China (on behalf of the Uighur).  Environmental justice and human rights issues often overlap.  Currently, a new effort vis a vis Chevron has emerged.  Chevron has purchased Noble Energy, leader in gas drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean, including off the coast of Gaza.  Correspondence has been sent by interdenominational advocates to Chevron’s corporate headquarters requesting further information on its corporate human rights policy.

The work of CCSR demonstrates that the way we deal with our money and investments witnesses to our grounding in the spiritual gifts which are ours in Baptism.  Among the many gifts given for spiritual discernment, such as teaching, prophecy, and healing, is administration or oversight.  Those charged with oversight are called to be exemplary in love.  This means that God’s love for Creation must shine forth in all of our decision-making, including the ways we invest our treasure to further our mission.  Therefore, attention must be paid to social responsibility in investments.  The ultimate question faces us:  does this investment promote abundant life for all Creation or does it underwrite death-dealing forces that prey on the human community and the natural world?   EPF PIN believes that justice is love in action.  We are thankful for the dedicated work of CCSR, putting love in action over 50 years.  We look forward to celebrating that witness in 2021. 

Antisemitism in Real Time

Introduction

Antisemitism is lived in real time. It unfolds in a matrix of Judaism, Zionism, Christian Zionism, Israel, white supremacy, the Palestinian narrative and its censorship. Because of this it is extremely important to know what antisemitism is, and what it is not. We are seeing how difficult it is to define antisemitism as an objective legal construct. As such it tends toward the silencing of speech. What is needed is more dialogue about what is being lived out in real time.

Antisemitism

President Donald Trump debated his challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden on September 29. When asked about white supremacy and the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group, the President told that group to “stand back and stand by.” They took this as an affirmation and command to stand ready to act. The next day Israel’s Jerusalem Post, a centrist, English language paper, asked “Are the Proud Boys anti-Semitic?” (sic) According to the article, the founder of the Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes, “went on an anti-Semitic (sic) rant in 2017, in which he defended Holocaust denial and repeated anti-Semitic (sic) stereotypes. The rant came in a video he originally titled ’10 things I hate about the Jews.’” ^1. (See the note on spelling of antisemitism)  Antisemitism, as McInnes makes clear, is hatred of and violence toward Jews because they are Jews, part of which is Holocaust denial. But it is not so simple.

White Supremacy and Antisemitism

Reaction to the debate linked antisemitism and white supremacy. White supremacy, racism, and antisemitism exist on common ground where race-based binaries are the rule – White over Black, Gentile over Jew, Israeli over Palestinian, and so on. Supremacy is about the privileged keeping out the other. It builds walls whether along the Mexican border or in Israel keeping out those who “don’t belong.” One message on the Palestinian side of the Israeli barrier says: “Walls don’t work here, and they won’t work in America.” Standing up for Black Lives Matter is like standing up for Jews in Charlottesville is like standing up for Palestinians in the occupied territories. One can imagine an anti-racist world, but it won’t happen on its own. It will take action. Every good work no matter how small is essential. It adds its own momentum or intention toward every other in creating a place of inclusion and equality.

“How to fight antisemitism” 

On November 11, 2019 Senator Bernie Sanders published an article in Jewish Currents entitled: “How to Fight Antisemitism.” ^2. He spoke of himself as a “proud Jewish American.” Antisemitism, he said, is “a conspiracy theory that a secretly powerful minority exercises control over society.” Hence the white nationalist slogan against Jews in Charlottesville, “You will not replace us;” and the shooter at the Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018 blaming Jews for a supposed non-white invasion of immigrants from Latin America that would “replace” the white race. The day after this killing of eleven synagogue worshipers Christian-Jewish Allies for a Just Peace for Israel/Palestine met in Philadelphia. Among the gathered Jews and Christians that day were broken hearts, shared empathy, and the strength that comes from closeness. Susan Landau with Noushin Framke in a paper “On Antisemitism” ^3. “conclude that the best way to stand against antisemitism is to stand in solidarity with all struggles for justice against all racism, bigotry, oppression and injustice.”

Indeed Sanders in his paper added that “while antisemitism is a threat to Jews everywhere, it is also a threat to democratic governance itself.” Antisemites “hate the idea of multiracial democracy… of political equality.” He states unequivocally, “We should be very clear that it is not anti-Semitic (sic) to criticize the policies of the Israeli government.”

Antisemitism is attributing to Jews the fantastical power to replace a majority segment of the population. Ironically it is also the inverse. It attributes to Jews such inferiority that justifies their domination. “To consider Jews as better than or worse than other people is antisemitic,” say Landau and Framke.

Antisemitism and criticism of Israel

On the same day that Sanders published his article, I was in the West Bank village of Taybeh. The television ran news reports on the anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s death. The next morning, Mondoweiss reported that during a commemorative march in the Al-Arroub refugee camp Israeli forces killed a Palestinian man.^4. The soldiers fired live ammunition, tear gas, and stun grenades into the camp that is one of the most crowded areas in the world. A tear gas canister exploded next to the house of Omar al-Badawi, causing a small fire. When al-Badawi went out with a bottle of water to douse it, a soldier fired hitting him in the abdomen and killing him. It is not inherently antisemitic to criticize Israeli policy that de facto permits the shooting of unarmed Palestinians. 

It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel’s wall that has been ruled illegal by the International Court for annexing 10% of occupied land. Israel’s 2018 Jewish Nation State Law passed in 2018 declared that Israel is the national home of Jews only, establishing racial discrimination against its Palestinian citizens. It is not in itself antisemitic to challenge Israel’s racism, and lack of equal rights for all its residents.

Antisemitism and Zionism

It is not inherently antisemitic to criticize Zionism, or even to be anti-Zionist. Zionism is a political ideology that aligns itself “with the goals of the modern state of Israel, some through cultural, economic and political means, some through military and other violent strategies.” (https://www.palestineportal.org/learn-teach/israelpalestine-the-basics/glossary/) Not all Jews support the policies of the State of Israel. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Jews outside of Israel believe they are in exile. Political scientist Dov Waxman in Trouble in the Tribe writes: “the vast majority of American Jews reject the basic elements of classical Zionism – that Diaspora Jews live in exile, that Jewish life in Israel is superior to life in the Diaspora, and that Diaspora Jewish life is doomed to eventually disappear. American Jews do not think they live in exile and they do not regard Israel as their homeland.”^5. Clearly, anti-Zionist critique of discriminatory practices in Israel and valuing of life in “diaspora” is not antisemitic.

Antisemitism and Christian Zionism

Christian Zionists believe that the covenant with Abraham is still in effect. They point to Genesis 12: 1-3 where God sends Abram to a land revealed to him. Christian Zionism is a public theology that supports Israel in all its actions. To do so is an act of blessing. In verse 3 of chapter 12, God says: I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’” (NRSV) Christian Zionism fuses religion with politics, rather than places them in dialogue or in prophetic challenge. The removal of Israeli settlers for them is not blessed by God. Any criticism of the State of Israel for them is not only antisemitic but also against God’s will.

For Christian Zionists the promise of the land is permanent and unconditional. They will not accept any peace that would weaken Israel’s hold on the land. The settler colonists of Israel came to stay. Settler colonialism asserts state sovereignty over occupied lands and typically seeks to cleanse as far as possible the indigenous population. Settler colonists foster the falsehood that the land was without people before their arrival while also ironically setting up defenses (think “wall”) against the people whose land had been colonized. It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Christian Zionism. In fact I believe that it is the responsibility of mainstream Christians to stand against Christian Zionism that misuses scripture to fan the flames of separation, inequality, and injustice.

The Challenge of Codifying Antisemitism

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism was originally composed to help police in their identification of hate crimes. It was meant as a guide. Its current political usage has caused confusion and silenced Israel-critical speech. The IHRA holds that: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The content of the definition can be interpreted as overly broad. But of the eleven examples that follow (not meant to be part of the definition) some imply that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Even the Palestinian narrative itself can be interpreted as antisemitic. Rebecca Ruth Gould in an article ^6. worries that the use of this definition for antisemitism erases Palestinians. She writes: “In the US, Donald Trump’s executive order directing government agencies to consider the IHRA definition, signed on December 2019, immediately resulted in three complaints filed with the Department of Education targeting Palestine advocacy on university campuses.”

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions

An example of Palestine advocacy that is being silenced is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “By then end of November 2018, twenty-six states had taken official action to discourage, punish, or prevent participation in boycotts targeting Israel.” ^7. The BDS movement was begun in 2005 by Palestinian activists to place non-violent, international and economic pressure on Israel to end the occupation, grant equal rights to all residents of Israel, and to assure a right of return for Palestinian refugees. Today the movement is made up of unions, academic associations, churches, and grassroots organizations across the world. Ian Lustick, professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania in his book Paradigm Lost explains that BDS focuses “on realizing Palestinian rights to equality and nondiscrimination under international law and the laws of the state that governs them.” ^8. Lest there be any misunderstanding, he adds: “There is today one and only one state ruling the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and its name is Israel.” ^9. 

Summary

Antisemitism is not a definition that is imposed on a situation from outside that can be used to carry out a political agenda such as shutting down a boycott, a people’s story, or a demand for equal rights. Rather it is lived in real time. We see it in the intersectional territory of white supremacy where hatred and violence are carried out upon Jews because they are Jews, where race-based binaries exist: Black over White, Gentile over Jew. Antisemitic beliefs encompass the irony that Jews have fantastic, hidden power to control society and that Jewish inferiority begs their control and domination.

Antisemitism is not criticizing Israeli government policy. It is not denouncing military shooting of unarmed Palestinians or the detaining of their children. It is not inherently antisemitic to challenge Israel’s racism. It is not antisemitic to criticize Zionism, or Christian Zionism.

What is necessary is for all people of goodwill to stand in solidarity, to draw strength from one another, in order to oppose hatred, oppression, and injustice. Every action, even if all we can do is something small, makes a difference. It adds heft to the larger world effort to create places of inclusion and equality.

Notes

1. Sales, Ben/JTA; Are the Proud Boys anti-Semitic?; The Jerusalem Post;   September 30, 2020 15:47; https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/trump-told-far-right-group-proud-boys-to-stand-back-stand-by-at-debate-643930

A note on the spelling of antisemitism. Although The Jerusalem Post uses the spelling anti-Semitism, this article will follow the policy of Jewish Voice for Peace who choose not to use the European-created racial category “Semite.” Nell Irvin Painter observes that today “biologists and geneticists (not to mention literary critics) no longer believe in the physical existence of races – though they recognize the continuing power of racism…” (and one might add antisemitism) (Painter, Nell Irvin; The History of White People; New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010; p. 12). The statement of Jewish Voice for Peace is as follows: “We have chosen to use the spelling ‘antisemitism,’ following the advice of scholars in Jewish Studies who have made a compelling case for this spelling. The category ‘Semite’ was developed as part of European pseudo-scientific theories of race in the 19^th century. We want to be clear that the spelling of ‘antisemitism’ should not be used to further the separation of ‘Arabs’ and ‘Jews.’” (Framke, Noushin and Landau, Susan; “On Antisemitism;” The Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); September 2, 2020; http://new.israelpalestinemissionnetwork.org/80-home/407-on-antisemitism). Further, Jewish Voice for Peace explains, “the use of the hyphen and upper case, as in ‘anti-Semitism,’ legitimates the pseudo-scientific category of Semitism, which sorts humans into different races, justifies racial hierarchies, and argues for discrimination, supremacist policies, and worse.” (Framke, Noushin and Landau, Susan, editors; Why Palestine Matters: The Struggle to End Colonialism; Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2018; p.10n.)

2. Sanders, Bernie; “How to Fight Antisemitism;” Jewish Currents; November 11, 2019; https://jewishcurrents.org/how-to-fight-antisemitism/

3. Framke, Noushin and Landau, Susan; “On Antisemitism;” The Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); September 2, 2020; http://new.israelpalestinemissionnetwork.org/80-home/407-on-antisemitism/

4. Patel, Yumna; “Israeli forces kill another young Palestinian man ‘for no reason’ in Hebron refugee camp; Mondoweiss; November 11, 2019. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/11/israeli-forces-kill-another-young-palestinian-man-for-no-reason-in-hebron-refugee-camp/

5. found in: Brownfeld, Allan C.; “Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism, And Never Was;” Americans for Middle East Understanding; 2017 – Volume 50. Ameu.org/current-issue/2017-volume-50/anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitism,-and-never-was.aspx/

6. Gould, Rebecca Ruth; “The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: Defining Antisemitism by Erasing Palestinians;” The Political Quarterly; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2020.
7. Lustick, Ian S.; Paradigm Lost: From Two-State Solution to One-State Reality; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019; p. 69.

8. Ibid., p. 125

9. Ibid., p. 8

Last week, the Steering Committee for EPF PIN voted unanimously to endorse the Palestinian Letter to Congress issued by the Invest in Justice for All Coalition. The letter, signed by dozens of Palestinian leaders in the work for justice, is meant to send a message from the Palestinian American community to the members of Congress demanding an end to US military funding for Israel and to support the struggle for Palestinian rights. 

Those leaders then asked their own and other Palestinian-led organizations to endorse the letter. Nearly 50 organizations have done so by the time of this writing. With Palestinian voices representing both the authorship and endorsement of the letter, your EPF PIN and nearly 40 other allied organizations raising consciousness about, and support for, justice and human rights for Palestinians also agreed to endorse the letter. EPF PIN is excited to lend its support and encouragement to these US-based Palestinian leaders. 

We agree with the letters’ authors that our elected officials have “excluded Palestinians from policy conversations,” continue to “sideline and dehumanize the Palestinian people” and are increasing efforts in this country to “criminalize any resistance to Israel’s ongoing military occupation and dispossession” of Palestinian lands.  The result of this undemocratic exclusion of Palestinian voices has lead our government to support a foreign policy which “perpetuates violence and prevents a just resolution for all.” 

EPF PIN encourages its members and friends to support this effort to raise the voices of Palestinian-Americans concerned for justice. The letter, we note, was signed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian American elected to Congress. It builds on grassroots efforts supported by EPF PIN earlier this year to oppose Israeli threats of de jure annexation of additional Palestinian land, for legislators to end US military funding to Israel, and to reinvest in local community needs. The letter also follows efforts by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, leading lawmakers in committing to introduce legislation to reduce Israeli military funding, as well as Rep. Betty McCollum’s recent bill to prevent US funding of further Israeli land theft in Palestine. 

The Invest in Justice for All Coalition including the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), the Adalah Justice Project, Eyewitness Palestine, MPower Change, Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA), and the Democratic Socialists of America Palestine Working Group.    The link to sign on can be found here.

On Wednesday, September 23rd, the internet meeting platform company Zoom refused to allow San Francisco State University professors Rabab Abdulhadi and Tomomi Kinukawa from airing their scheduled classroom presentation entitled Whose Narratives?: Gender, Justice, and Resistance. Zionist and pro-Israel critics had objected to the planned participation of Leila Khaled, a leader in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Attempts to move the presentation to other platforms, including Facebook Live and YouTube were either rejected or blocked. In response to these actions, the Episcopal Peace Fellowship’s Palestine Israel Network (EPF PIN) has issued the following statement:

EPF PIN calls attention to recent action by the popular media platforms YouTube, Zoom, and Facebook that resulted in the censoring and suppression of voices for justice. The Steering Committee of EPF PIN

• unequivocally condemns the action,
• calls upon our network of supporters and followers to also oppose this and similar actions,
• and endorses the denunciation of the action by Jewish Voice for Peace.

The circumstances, explained in detail in the JVP statement, silenced important voices in the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice while also denying listeners the opportunity to be exposed to dissenting views. The importance and terrible cost of this action extend far beyond concerns about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Censorship and the attempted control of discourse exemplified by the action weaken the framework of a healthy republic and undermine its most precious freedoms. In a time when our national conversations openly tout voter suppression, refusal to guarantee peaceful transition of power, and divisive affirmations that only some lives matter, actions like that of YouTube, Zoom, and Facebook add momentum to a dangerous trend toward authoritarianism in our country. They cannot be ignored and must be opposed.

In recent years, EPF PIN has stood with JVP and many other human rights organizations, as well as with a growing number of national and international leaders, in opposing legislation that criminalizes criticism of the state of Israel. Such criticism is neither antisemitic or unwarranted. Indeed, the difficult and uncomfortable truth is that many policies, laws and practices of the state of Israel demand criticism; for example,

• The detention of Palestinian children without charge or access to legal counsel or contact with parents,
• Near daily instances of collective punishment and violations of international law including home demolitions, shoot-to-kill laws, construction and expansion of Jewish only settlements and occupation of the West Bank;
• The settler colonial practices of stripping Palestinians of legal and human rights while appropriating their lands and homes,
• Dozens of discriminatory laws against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and
• The inhumane, catastrophic siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip.

EPF PIN joins the JVP call for corrective action from San Francisco State University and demands an end to the censoring of Palestinian voices.”

13 August 2020

We invited EPF PIN member Cliff Cutler to follow up on FOSNA’s #CounterCUFI: Invest in Justice campaign which EPF PIN endorsed.  He reviews the tenets of Christian Zionism and sets out how we might take next steps in countering CUFI.

Domination or Liberation: Christian Zionism or the Jesus Movement?

I met liberation theologian Naim Ateek at Saint George’s Cathedral in East Jerusalem in 1996. The worship was in Arabic, but he translated his homily for the several of us who were visiting from the U.S. Afterwards he graciously invited us to join a small base community Bible Study. There he shared his fear of the evangelical influence of the Christian right. This struck me as odd. The Moral Majority had disbanded in 1989, some seven years before! The Christian right to my mind was in decline. I was wrong: a year later in 1997 Bibi Netanyahu keynoted a massive rally organized by Jerry Falwell protesting then-President Bill Clinton’s attempt to pressure Israel into withdrawing from settlements on the West Bank. Ten years after my first meeting with Naim Ateek, Texas mega-church televangelist John Hagee founded the Christian Zionist “Christians United for Israel” . An earlier organization, perhaps not as well known in the U.S., is the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem  founded in 1980 as a world-wide arm of Christian Zionism. 

While Christians United for Israel (CUFI) has sought to distinguish itself from the theology of dispensationalism, it has not quite managed to shake the connection. Senior Editor at Breitbart News, Joel Pollak, wrote an exclusive four days after President Trump relocated the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He quoted John Hagee who explained, “Christians believe that Jerusalem will be the capital city in the Eternal Kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ.” As if to make this clear, Pollak adds in parenthesis, “Religious sources tell Breitbart News that this belief is a tenant of dispensational theology…”

Dispensation

Many Christian Zionists are dispensational evangelicals who adopted a Christian version of Zionism in the 20^th century following the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973. They believe that the final dispensation, or era in God’s plan (the Millennial Reign of Christ), began with Israel returning to the land (1948) and capture of Jerusalem by the State of Israel (1967), as a result of the pre-emptive Israeli strike known as the Six-Day War. According to the pre-millennial view, Christ will return at the height of a climactic battle called Armageddon, to begin a 1000 year rule from the capital city Jerusalem. For these Christian Zionists, this second coming is the apex of God’s plan. With Israel’s return to the land and the unification of Jerusalem the stage is set. Nothing should stand in the way even if the Middle East be thrown into war. Jesus’ second coming is contingent upon the fulfillment of God’s promise to bless Israel with land, security, and prosperity. This second coming is that of a “Deus gloriosus” a victorious God whose rule resembles empire. The awaiting of an imperialistic Christ has distorted the ethics of Christian Zionists and eclipsed any concern for Palestinian justice. The fact that 4 million Palestinians living under occupation, and at least that many living as refugees or in exile (some of whom are Christian) are suffering losses is inconsequential to the Eternal Kingdom about to be won.

The Land

Christian Zionists see the 1948 war establishing Israel and the 1967 pre-emptive war, returning to Jerusalem, as literal fulfillments of Zechariah 8: 3 “³ Thus says the Lord: I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts shall be called the holy mountain.” (NRSV) For Christian Zionists this was a theologically ordained event worthy of Christian awe.

Christian Zionism is a public theology that supports Israel in all its actions. To do so is an act of blessing. Christian Zionists refer to Genesis 12: 1-3, “12 Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. ² I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. ³ I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’” (NRSV)

For Christian Zionists the promise of the land is permanent and unconditional. They will not accept any peace that would weaken Israel’s hold on the land. The settler colonists of Israel came to stay. Settler colonialism asserts state sovereignty over occupied lands and typically seeks to cleanse as far as possible the indigenous population. Settler colonists foster the falsehood that the land was without people before their arrival while also ironically setting up defenses against the people whose land had been colonized (Both the United States and Israel among other countries are settler colonial states.). Christian Zionists believe they have a divine mandate to support the modern state of Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse.” Christian Zionism fuses religion with politics, rather than places them in dialogue or in prophetic challenge. The removal of settlers for them is not blessed by God. Any criticism of the State of Israel is not only anti-Semitic but also against God’s will. Christian Zionists hold to a theological exceptionalism that sets Israel apart from the requirements of behavior expected of other nations. 

Is the land a commodity for annexation or conquest? In a highly significant verse from the Book of Leviticus, God gave the land to Moses and his followers clearly not as a commodity. “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants” (Lev. 25: 23). There seems little warrant in the Bible for the modern State of Israel to claim a deed to ownership of the land.

The covenant

Christian Zionists believe that the covenant with Abraham is still in effect. The “new covenant” of Christ exists concurrently. To criticize the modern State of Israel and its covenant with God is to engage in “replacement theology,” they would argue, a loaded term that suggests Gentiles replace the Jews. Clearly, God does not replace one race with another. But what if instead of replacement or concurrence, the covenant with God and God’s people is ongoing? One’s understanding of the covenant continues broadening and becoming more inclusive.

As a Christian one needs to ask who is this God with whom we make covenant? How has God revealed God’s self? Christian Theologian John R. Franke sought to answer this in a book Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth (2009). The significance of Christ, he argues, is the Trinity that reveals the plurality that has always been at the heart of God. He quotes approvingly Lamin Sanneh of Yale, “For all of us pluralism can be a rock of stumbling, but for God it is the cornerstone of the universal design.” (p. 88) “As finite creatures,” Franke goes on, “we must surrender the pretensions of a universal and timeless theology.  And where we are unwilling to do this, we propagate forms of cultural, ethnic, and racial imperialism under the guise of theology and the Word of God.”  (p. 99) This, I believe, is the error of Christian Zionism.

The inclusive love that is at the heart of God is not an assimilating love. God’s covenant is one that embraces diversity. Franke writes, “The Father, Son, and Spirit are one by virtue of their independent relationality, but this unity does not make them the same.  They are one in the very midst of their difference.” (p. 61) As a Christian I believe this is the God with whom we are in covenantal relationship. This covenant seeks a harmonious relationship with the other. More than that, it is open to the voice of the other. Again in Leviticus one reads, “you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 19: 34).

Next Steps You Might Wish to Take

Know the Lord your God. Jesus does not come again as an imperial ruler who seeks to dominate God’s subjects as dispensational Christian Zionists would have us believe. Serving such a God sets us on the path of dominating and oppressing others. By contrast, as Episcopalians, we “center our lives on Jesus and following him into loving, liberating and life-giving relationship with God, each other and creation… In all things, we seek to be loving, liberating and life-giving—just like the God who formed all things in love; liberates us all from prisons of mind, body and spirit; and gives life so we can participate in the resurrection and healing of God’s world. TRY THIS: Begin your day by asking: How could my words, actions and heart reflect the loving, liberating, life-giving way of Jesus? Ask God to help you, especially at decision points. At day’s end, with genuine curiosity and zero judgment, ask: When did I see myself or others being loving, liberating or life-giving today? Where do I wish I’d seen or practiced Jesus’ Way?”   For more on the Jesus Movement, check out this link.

Intersectionality. Because both the United States and Israel are settler colonial states that have commoditized the land so that it could be annexed, look for intersectionality. Intersectionality seeks to understand how connected systems and structures of power interact. Notice for instance how Black Lives Matter connects with Palestinian aspirations; or how Israeli control over Palestinian water resources mirrors the imposition of the Dakota Access oil pipeline through unceded lands of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe bringing potential harm to their drinking water and sacred sites.

Value Diversity while Letting Go of Unearned Privilege. God’s covenant is not tribal but inclusive. Paul wrote to the Galatians saying, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3: 28). The Prophet Ezekiel delivered God’s message of diversity in the land, “You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as citizens of Israel… says the Lord God” Ez. 47: 21-23).

For further information critical of Christian Zionism, you may wish to explore this website.   To turn your knowledge of Christian Zionism to action there Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA) offers “Confronting Christian Zionism: A Toolkit for Activists and Local Leaders”.  There you will find resources for education, non-violent direct action, how to reach out to Representatives in Congress, worship materials, how to hold a Counter-CUFI event and much more.  The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights offers resources around intersectionality here.

DEFEND FREE SPEECH & THE RIGHT TO BOYCOTT

PLEASE JOIN THE MAY 19 WEBINAR OFFERED BY THE PEACE & JUSTICE COMMITTEE OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF CHICAGO

On November 23, 2019 at the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, delegates approved by unanimous voice vote Resolution G-182, Freedom of Speech and the Right to Boycott. This resolution calls upon federal and state legislators to oppose bills that penalize or criminalize support for nonviolent boycotts on behalf of Palestinian human rights. Such legislation undermines First Amendment protections and paves the way for other attacks on our Constitutional rights.

In February the Secretary of Convention communicated the text of G-182 to legislators representing Episcopalians resident within the Diocese.

On Tuesday, May 19 from 6-7:30 pm, join the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago Peace & Justice Committee for an informational webinar on Resolution G-182 and its implementation. Learn how you can be involved in defending the First Amendment.

Your participation in the webinar will be much enhanced if you read Resolution G-182 and its explanation in advance, and scroll down to G-182.

Register for the webinar here. 

15 May is Nakba Day.  It’s been 72 years and there is still no justice in the land.  Many say the two-state solution is long dead.  Others say to move ahead with annexation and then there will be one apartheid state and workers for justice can move towards a one-state solution  EPF PIN member Steve France reports on a program where the founders of the One Democratic State Campaign reflect on next steps.

Activists and others who long for real change in the Israel-Palestine horror show generally agree that BDS is by far the most effective available strategy to press the issue. The proof, of course, is the rage and ferocity of Israel and the discomfort it causes even the most liberal of Zionists.

The sad part is that BDS reigns supreme because everything else seems almost useless. Israel is running the table on the ground and in its rhetoric and happily defying all diplomatic critics. It must seem like 1948 and 1967 all over again, in many Zionists’ minds.

From the Palestinian perspective, the situation “has returned to its existential roots,” before 1948, when all Palestinians faced the same threat of exile or subjugation. Those were the words in February of more than 80 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza polled by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

From the perspective of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have 70 years of experience living inside the Jewish State as a despised non-Jewish minority, the original existential moment has been their daily reality. “We show that Israel has not been normal ever. We expose the inherent Apartheid nature of Israel,” Awad Abdelfattah says. He is the coordinator of the One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC).

But Abdelfattah has a bigger, far more important message. Along with his ODSC colleague Jeff Halper, an Israeli Jew who founded the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, he believes this moment will see ’48 Palestinians take a leading role. They plan to spark a mobilization of all Palestinians worldwide – along with what they call “global freedom partners” and civil society – to press for “One Democratic State” (ODS) for all the people from the River to the Sea.

The two veteran opponents of Israel were interviewed online in April by Mike Spath, director of the Indiana Center for Middle East Peace in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Green Line Palestinians never had much hope for Oslo, Abdelfattah said. The “Marxist Nationalist” group of which he was deputy secretary-general from 1986 to 96, Abnaa Albalad, “always wanted one democratic state.” It helped form the National Democratic Party (Balad) in 1995, of which he was secretary-general from 1997 to 2016.  “We always viewed Oslo’s two-state program as a catastrophe.” Aside from being “a big illusion,” it left out “internally colonized Palestinians inside the Green Line,” like himself, and it marginalized refugees in camps outside Palestine. “Every family inside the Green Line, including mine, has relatives who are refugees and cannot come home,” he said. His point is that ’48 Palestinians connect intimately to all segments of the Palestinian people.

Sadly, “the ’48 Palestinians have always been considered an internal domestic issue for Israel to deal with,” he told Spath. “We have been marginalized three ways, first, by the Israelis; then, by other Palestinians, who have seen us as forgetting our Palestinian identity; and finally, by the larger Arab world. But we never forgot our identity.”

Halper believes, “It’s natural for those Palestinians to take the lead. Plus, they have more space to move around and organize. They don’t get interference from the Palestinian Authority,” not to mention Hamas. Other Palestinians seem inclined to agree, Abdelfattah emphasized. Recently, he heard from groups in Gaza and Ramallah that his group inside the Green Line should lead the ODS Campaign.

“Things are changing. The mindset is changing,” Abdelfattah said. “If Hamas and Fatah can’t work together, we should start from below at the grassroots for mass mobilization.” Moreover, united support for the democratic vision “can capture the imagination of certain sections of Israeli society – and also freedom partners and civil society around the world.”

“Our whole [ODS] plan … is based on a settler-colonial analysis,” Halper said. In that analysis, “the Palestinians never really were a side.” In that sense “this really isn’t a conflict with two sides arguing over something they could compromise about. … With settler-colonialism there’s really only one side and that’s the way Israel has always seen it … this country belongs to the Jews exclusively.” The upshot is that “conflict resolution doesn’t get to the problem. The only way you can resolve this is through decolonization.”

In light of Israel’s reveal of its sweeping ultimate goals, along with the manifest impotence of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, as well as of the surrounding Arab nations, ODS supporters see the potential for a massive reorientation of the Palestinian struggle in their direction.

“We can’t just stay on BDS and protests all the time,” Halper said, though, like other ODS leaders, he strongly supports BDS. Abdelfattah noted that BDS pulled its three key points from the Balad Party platform. In fact, the ODS leaders are eager for the BDS leadership to formally endorse One Democratic State.  “We’ve got to have a political program,” Halper said. “And the Palestinians have to lead.”