Ralph A. Webb
Note: This is a longer version of an article from the Summer 2007 Anglican Action Briefing.
About 150 activists from various denominations attended the annual Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) advocacy conference in Washington, DC, on May 6–8, 2007. Episcopalians were well-represented among the attendees and speakers.
Participants came together to learn about, network concerning, and lobby for a particular vision of Middle East peace. The conference, “For the Peace of Jerusalem,” centered on Jerusalem this year because a “shared Jerusalem” is central to the group’s vision of Israeli–Palestinian peace.
Founded in 1984, CMEP describes itself as “a coalition of 22 Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant church bodies and organizations.” It is devoted to advocating for “sound United States policy … crucial to achieving and maintaining just and stable relationships throughout the Middle East.”
Historically, CMEP has been more harshly critical of Israeli actions that it regards as undermining peace, and much less critical of the Palestinian Authority and neighboring Arab states. (See Faith & Freedom, Summer 2002, p. 8.) This latest CMEP conference featured some attempts at a more balanced approach; however, the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel bias showed through on occasion.
Former Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold was the second of three homilists at the opening Sunday evening worship service. He spoke upon the topic, “Jerusalem, City of Peace.” The other two homilies concerned “Jerusalem, House of All Nations” and “Jerusalem, City of God.” CMEP President Corinne Whitlach said that the service was designed to reflect the Christian community in Jerusalem and help American Christians feel closer to that community.
The following day primarily was devoted to briefings on the issues. The morning’s plenary session, “Geneva Accord Negotiators Reflect on Jerusalem and Prospects for Peace,” was followed by workshops on similar subject matter. In the afternoon, the plenary topic of “American Credibility in the Middle East” preceded additional workshops and a final plenary session preparing conference attendees for Tuesday’s all-day lobbying on Capitol Hill.
Whitlach said that the purpose of the following day’s lobbying was to get “[m]ore and more members of Congress [to] understand that their constituents in the mainline Christian churches are supporters of Israeli–Palestinian peacemaking and a better future for both peoples.” Maureen Shea, CMEP board chair and director of the Episcopal Church’s Office of Governmental Relations, further affirmed CMEP’s hope that Congress would support a “two-state solution … in [which] both are fully recognized.”
Two-State Solution
Shea’s comment echoed a major theme of the conference as a whole: a two-state solution for achieving peace. Former senator Lincoln D. Chafee (R–RI), an Episcopalian, stressed that any solution would work only if both Palestinians and Israelis were provided with the reassurances that they seek. Palestinians need to know that there will be a viable Palestinian state, while Israelis require assurance that any agreement will truly bring peace rather than serve as a prelude to further attacks against Israel.
Charles Lutz, co-author of Christians and a Land Called Holy, and CMEP Program Consultant Anna Rhee led a workshop on practical ways that individuals and congregations can work for Middle East peace. They listed five “Ps”: pay attention to what’s happening in the Middle East, pray as a congregation for Middle East peace, engage in political advocacy, go on a pilgrimage and meet with Christians in the Middle East, and establish a relationship with a parish in the Middle East.
Like Chafee, Lutz and Rhee advocated a peace that takes into account both Israelis and Palestinians. They quoted the bishops of the Anglican and Lutheran churches in Jerusalem as saying, “We do not ask that you become pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, but that you become pro-justice and pro-peace for Palestinians and Israelis.”
Differing Voices
At least one speaker was not as balanced. Judith Kipper, a Middle East concerns adviser to the Council on Foreign Relations and consultant for ABC News, claimed that Israel has “a historic and painful choice”: either to hold on to the West Bank in the futile hope that Middle East problems would subside, or to opt for “whole peace with the entire neighborhood” of Arab nations. Kipper expressed certainty that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict “is not at all a religious conflict” and only concerns land. She also was convinced that Saudi Arabiaand other Arab nations “are absolutely ready for peace.”
And while she painted the picture of both Israelis and Palestinians as “deeply traumatized, frightened, insecure people,” Kipper also one-sidedly advised her audience, “We all have to help Israel to have a positive imagination of its future.” (She did not make any similar statement concerning the Palestinians.) This imagery of a fearful, hostile Israel unwilling to work with resolutely peace-loving Palestinians and other Arab nations contradicted the tone of much of the rest of the conference. Furthermore, it ignored the demonstrable hostility shown toward Israel by many Arab factions and governments.
Kipper likewise proved negative toward the United States. She characterized America as “big, powerful, self-righteous, and arrogant,” and only concerned about “me, me, me, me, me.” She urged the U.S.government to return to “three core values of morality, peace-making, and peace-keeping.” She clearly implied that the current administration was immoral (at least with regard to its Middle East policy) and not desirous of peace in the region.
Chafee did not take such extreme positions but presented a mixture of views. While he lamented that theUnited States had lost credibility in the Middle East, the former senator also portrayed this nation as “committed” to the cause of peace. Yet other comments suggested that he saw any movement toward peace as occurring in spite of, not because of, President Bush. When asked what advice he would give the president, Chafee replied, “Resign!”
So while CMEP sometimes demonstrated a praiseworthy concern for both Israelis and Palestinians, the message as a whole was not seamless. The differences expressed may in part reflect differences among CMEP’s members. Whitlach said that CMEP does not take a stand concerning various issues on which its members hold differing views, including Christian just war theory and whether the United States should remove troops from Iraq.
CMEP and the Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church has had a long association with CMEP, having been one of the early members of the organization. Former Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning is a member of CMEP’s leadership council. CMEP’s website contains many statements made by former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold on Middle East issues.
The Episcopal Church also regularly issues resolutions on Middle East peace through its General Convention and, when the convention is not in session, Executive Council. Most recently, resolution INC 016, Middle East Peacemaking, and INC 017, Iraqi Refugees, were passed by the Executive Council during its March meeting in Portland, OR. (See Anglican Action Briefing, Spring 2007, p. 4.) When asked to comment on resolutions INC 016 and INC 017, Shea said that she found them consistent with past Episcopal Church positions regarding the Middle East.
Shea was one of two Episcopalians who visited Iran last February as part of an ecumenical delegation of Christian leaders organized by the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). The MCC delegation wrote a May 15letter to Congress on Iran–U.S. relations. In it, the delegation members asked Congress to “[pass] legislation now that (1) prohibits military action against Iran without congressional authorization and (2) requires the U.S. to … engage diplomatically with Iran and to provide progress reports to Congress.”
The letter, posted on the Episcopal Public Policy Network (EPPN) website, acknowledges some concern aboutIran’s nuclear program. But it does not suggest any non-military means of pressure to dissuade Iran from pursuing that program. The letter minimizes or ignores concerns about Iran’s interventions in Iraq andAfghanistan, its threats against Israel, and its human rights abuses against its own citizens.
While the MCC delegation apparently shares those concerns to some degree, it may be uncertain about how to approach them. According to Shea, the delegation expressed its dismay over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust in the Iranian leader’s presence. But when the delegation later attempted to revisit the issue, Ahmadinejad dismissively refused to discuss the matter. In any case, the MCC delegation’s activism clearly is not centered on speaking out against Iran.
As of mid-July, both CMEP and EPPN were urging constituents to contact senators and request that they support Senate Resolution 224, on Israeli/Palestinian peace. The resolution favors a two-state solution, calls on President Bush to advance peace efforts, urges an “unwavering commitment to Israel’s security” and a recognition of Israel by the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and asks all sides—Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs—to work for peace.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply