In June 2012 Leon Spencer reflected on ‘to whom do we listen?’ in the context of divestment in South Africa and divestment in Palestine.  This reflection expands the question to include to whom do we listen in the Jewish community and who listens to us and on what terms does the listening occur.  No answers, just some things to ponder as we work for a peace with justice in Palestine and Israel and as TEC Executive Council’s B019 committee works on implementing the resolution passed at last year’s General Convention.

In October 2012 fifteen Christian leaders sent a letter to Congress calling on it to investigate and evaluate Israel’s use of the $3 billion annual military aid it gets from the US.  The Council for the National Interest reports on it here.  The letter, to which The Episcopal Church was not a signatory, set off a wave of protest from parts of the Jewish community.  Because of the letter, Jewish organizations involved in dialogue with the Christian denominations suspended further dialogue and a resumption of conversations has not been announced.  However, the President and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a key constituent group in the dialogue, met with The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops in September 2013 as part of a panel on Palestine/Israel where he presented on Christian-Jewish partnerships.

Rabbi Brant Rosen, a congregational rabbi in Evanston IL and a speaker at Sabeel’s ‘A Wide Tent for Justice’ gathering in Chicago 3-5 October, wrote about some push back concerning some of the speakers at the conference, including Naim Ateek of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem.  We shared that link in the 3 October PINontheGo.  If you missed it, you can read more here.

Rosen comments, “[M]any in the Jewish establishment world continues to vilify Rev. Dr. Ateek and the Sabeel Institute. While I certainly understand that many are challenged – often profoundly – by Palestinian liberation theology, it grieves me that the “official” Jewish communal response to this movement has been to publicly excoriate its leaders as anti-Semitic rather than to engage them in real and honest dialogue.  I do believe this kind of posturing has everything to do with politics and very little to do with actual interfaith dialogue.  True dialogue occurs when respective communities agree to explore the hard places – the tension points – no matter how painful. In my own dialogue with Palestinian Christians (and those in the Protestant church who stand in solidarity with them), my own sensibilities have been challenged and broadened – but I’ve also found that my participation allows me to have a similar kind of impact on my Christian partners. And while we might not agree on every issue, we ultimately emerge from our encounter strengthened by our common commitment to universal prophetic values of justice.”

He reflected further in a conversation with a member of his congregation who had concerns about what he viewed as hateful language towards the Jewish community when describing the Palestinian community as undergoing a crucifixion through the Israeli Occupation.  (This link includes links to Ateek’s statement the congregant is questioning and to an article in the Huffington Post written by Ateek in response to a congregation withdrawing its invitation to host a regional Sabeel conference in New Mexico last year.)

Rosen comments, “I’ll just say I fully understand how and why some find his rhetoric hateful. I do not. Through my own study of his work and my personal dialogue with Naim, I have come to understand that as a Christian he refracts his personal experience among other things, through the crucifixion narrative. And as a Palestinian, it has very real relevance to his peoples’ experience in Israel/Palestine. I do not believe he invokes this narrative in order to make an accusation of deicide/blood libel against the Jews. He is using it in a genuinely faithful way, as part of a theology of liberation, to understand/frame a very real oppression against his people.”

Rosen’s congregant concludes that, assuming Naim Ateek has something important to teach him and ‘other like-minded Jews like [him],’ ‘he will never succeed unless he changes his rhetorical approach.’

One wonders if the obligation of use of language and content works only one way or both ways or all ways in difficult conversations.  Paul Eisen in ‘Speaking the Truth about Zionism and Israel’ paraphrases Jewish liberation theologian Marc Ellis on the ‘ecumenical deal’ “which translates also into a political deal... It goes like this: To the Christian and to the entire non-Jewish world, Jews say this: 'You will apologise for Jewish suffering again and again and again. And, when you have done apologising, you will then apologise some more. When you have apologised sufficiently we will forgive you ... provided that you let us do what we want in Palestine.'”

Finally, Philip Weiss, co-editor of Mondoweiss, “a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective,” writes about the recent J Street conference -- setting out its achievements as well as shortcomings -- "[T]he Jewish community doesn’t want to hear from voices outside the Jewish community except on its own terms."

What has been your experience in engaging with what Rosen calls ‘the Jewish establishment world,’ much of which is dedicated solely to the defense of the State of Israel, while a growing chorus of Jewish voices outside this establishment supports more justice-oriented dialogue and action?  Where have you found opportunities to deeply engage with members of the Jewish community beyond learning about beliefs and practices?

We invite you to join the conversation.