The Palestinians are gaining the higher moral ground. They do have the right of return if the political systems in both Europe and the U.S. are used as the measure.
In an article by H. Sacher, published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1919, under the title “A Jewish Palestine,” the author, a Jewish Historian, argued in support of the founding of a Jewish State, and envisaged a harmonious and peaceful society in which all live together well. Jewish Palestine, he insisted, “will do justice between all the nationalities within its borders. It will establish the equality of men and men, and work toward democracy, political and economic. It will be one of the pillars of the League of Nations, and by its relationship to all the scattered communities of Israel, it will forge powerful links for the brotherhood of the peoples. In the Near East and the Middle East, it will strive to replace the broken tyranny of the Turk by a harmonious cooperation between Jew, Arab, and Armenian.”
Sacher’s vision of Israel that “will do justice between all the nationalities within its borders,” has faded away. Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza are deprived of their basic human rights, and subjected to a set of standards that is far removed from the ones administered in the Israeli settlements. The Israeli government applies Israeli law to the settlers and the settlements, practically annexing them to the State of Israel. The Separation Wall serves as an instrument for such annexation. The resulting system is a regime of legalized separation and discrimination. “This regime is based on the existence of two separate legal systems in the same territory, with the rights of individuals being determined by their nationality.” Palestinians who apply for building permits are often turned down, and when they build their houses without building permits they are demolished by the Israeli Civil Administration, even when the construction is done on private land.
The Israeli Civil Administration facilitates, on the other hand, the construction of Jewish settlements and bypass roads, even when these encircle Palestinian towns and villages, and make movement in the West Bank extremely difficult. In the last eight years, the numerous checkpoints that were constructed in the West Bank (and Gaza until the Israelis' unilateral withdrawal) have made the life of Palestinians miserable, and destroyed the already weak Palestinian economy.
The squeeze policy adopted by the Israeli government against Palestinians did not stop at denying permits for new housing, but extends to confiscation of Palestinian land. The construction of what Israel calls a Security Barrier, and what its critics refer to as the Apartheid Wall, is being used to confiscate Palestinian lands, and has often resulted in separating families, and occasionally making commuting between Palestinian localities extremely difficult, if not impossible.
During Dec. 2003, then Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Nahum Barnea of “Yediot Aharonot,” “Israel will soon need to make a strategic recognition . . . We are nearing the point where more and more Palestinians will say: ‘We’re persuaded. We agree with [right-wing politician Avigdor] Lieberman. There isn’t room for two states between the Jordan and the sea. All we want is the right to vote.’ On the day they reach that point,” said Olmert, “we lose everything. . . . I quake to think that leading the fight against us will be liberal Jewish groups that led the fight against apartheid in South Africa.” Now serving as Israel’s prime minister, he repeated his concerns, albeit in more ambiguous language, upon his return from the Annapolis Conference by telling “Haaretz” (28 Nov. 2007) that “the State of Israel cannot endure unless a Palestinian state comes into being.”
... In a special meeting with the UN Security Council in Geneva in September 1988, Arafat produced a document that “proved” Israel’s expansionist goals: "This document is a ‘map of Greater Israel' which is inscribed on this Israeli coin, the 10-agora piece." Describing Israel’s boundaries as they appeared on that map, Arafat stressed that they include "all of Palestine, all of Lebanon, all of Jordan, half of Syria, two-thirds of Iraq, one-third of Saudi Arabia as far as holy Medina, and half of Sinai." (Middle East Quarterly, March 1994).
"[T]hese days it is not right but might which prevails,” noted David Ben-Gurion. “It is more important to have force than justice on one's side," he added. He went on to say that in a period of "power politics, the powers become hard of hearing, and respond only to the roar of cannons. And the Jews in the Diaspora have no cannons." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 191).
Europe has already turned the page on its nationalist politics and colonial ambitions, while the Middle East is still engulfed in destructive wars rooted in religious differences and national aspirations. Furthermore, the appeal to religion for establishing political structures has inspired other actors to privilege religious affiliation over a system of rights and law. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if not quickly resolved, threatens to galvanize the world along religious lines and transform itself into a global conflict.
There is little debate on the reality and consequences of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jimmy Carter pointed out in his recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that the political debate about the policies of the Israeli government is much more open and lively in Israel than it is in the US. “There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank,” Carter claimed, “but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.”
The solution to the conflict must not be based on Jewish, Christian, or Muslim prophecies that would only inflame hate and mistrust among the followers of the three religious traditions. It should, rather, be based on the prophetic principles cherished by the three religious traditions. It must be based on the shared commitment to the sanctity of human life, and the universally accepted principles of equal dignity, freedom of religion, democracy, and the rule of law.
Will prophetic principles triumph over self-styled and self-fulfilled prophecies? I do not know the answer, but I do not believe it is preordained as the fundamentalists of the three religions would like us to believe. I do, rather, believe that the answer to the question hinges on the actions of the members of the three communities. I do hope that people of reason and deep faith privilege the clear principles demanded by their religions and international conventions over vague prophecies interpreted by fallible and rationally limited and emotionally charged human beings.
Dr. Louay Safi serves as the executive director of ISNA Leadership Development Center, an Indiana based organization dedicated to enhancing leadership qualities and skills. He writes and lectures on issues relating to Islam and the West, democracy, human rights, leadership, and world peace. His commentaries are available at .
Source: "ELUSIVE PEACE: 60 Years of Pain and Suffering: Will Prophetic Principles Triumph over Prophecies?" and , by Louay Safi. Online Journal. April 28, 2008. Insight.
Dr. Safi did use the term "fundamentalists" in regards to Christianity.
The real prophecy of Christianity is not as expressed by the militant dominionists at all. It is entirely non-coercive. It is entirely peaceful on the part of Christians, by definition.
Jesus didn't come to bring peace but division and to save the world. He came to highlight the stark differences between those who are causing all the trouble (the greedy, violent, and sexually depraved) and the rest of humanity who hear his voice and know he is telling the truth.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)