COMMENTARY: Taking Exception: Christian churches seek a shared Jerusalem

DALE L. BISHOP, MARK B. BROWN AND TERENCE W. MILLER (Dale L. Bishop is the area executive for the Middle East for the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ; Mark B. Brown is assistant director for advocacy governmental affairs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and Terence W. Miller is the […]

DALE L. BISHOP, MARK B. BROWN AND TERENCE W. MILLER

(Dale L. Bishop is the area executive for the Middle East for the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ; Mark B. Brown is assistant director for advocacy governmental affairs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; and Terence W. Miller is the chair of Churches for Middle East Peace and director of the justice and peace office of the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers.)

UNDATED _ Rabbi A. James Rudin’s commentary on the Dec. 21, 1996, advertisement in The New York Times calling for a”shared Jerusalem”and signed by over 600 U.S. church leaders and members is long on invective and woefully inadequate in conveying either the content of the ad or the record of the ad’s coordinator, Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP).


The commentary characterizes the ad as a”plan,”whereas even the most cursory reading of its text would clearly indicate that it is an articulation of principles. The principles do indeed involve”sharing,”which the article characterizes as a”fuzzy”concept, but churches have long asserted to be a necessary foundation behind any durable settlement of the issue of Jerusalem.

Although the commentary is quick to impugn the motives of the ad’s signers, the commentary itself gives no indication of a solution for the question of Jerusalem that involves sharing the city and its holiness.

Why should we focus on this question of sharing if, as the commentator asserts,”it took Israeli sovereignty over the city to finally achieve full religious freedom and access to the holy places?”In fact, for those of us from the West and for other visitors from outside the region, Israel has ensured free access to the holy places, and for this Israel is to be commended.

But for Christian and Muslim Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, such access is denied, not only to the holy places but to hospitals and schools that have long served the Palestinian population. It is for this reason that the ad raises the importance of a solution that assures that the city will be shared.

The commentary further asserts that CMEP favors dividing the city into two capitals: This is a mischaracterization both of the ad and of the policy of the churches who constitute CMEP membership. The ad points out what the stated positions of both Israel and the PLO are toward Jerusalem, and then goes on to call for a solution that recognizes the attachment of both peoples to the city.

While CMEP does not advocate a particular plan for sharing Jerusalem, we are encouraged by the work of many Palestinians and Israelis who seek common and inclusive solutions to the problems that have divided the city in the past and divide it today. We argue that the holiness of Jerusalem demands a creative approach by the negotiators and by those who sponsor the peace process.

The bulk of the commentary, however, involves not a discussion of the issue at hand, but consists of an attack on CMEP, and again, by extension, the churches that participate in the organization. It is true that CMEP opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1991, for the same reason that the Bush administration imposed strict conditions on such guarantees.


That opposition had nothing to do with the immigration of Russian refugees, but rather with the settlement policy of the Israeli government, which seemed intent on building a new settlement every time Secretary of State (James) Baker visited the area seeking to advance the peace process.

The commentary’s characterization of the churches’ call for a multilateral moratorium on arms to all countries in the Middle East as somehow seeking to prevent Israel from defending itself from SCUD missiles is downright wrong. Does it make sense to pour arms into one of the most volatile areas of the world? Do Middle Eastern countries purchase arms to serve as museum pieces?

It is true, CMEP opposed moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for the same reason that all but two countries in the world have refused to move their embassies, because as the commentary points out, Jerusalem is on the negotiating table. And yes, CMEP did not speak out about Jewish rights in pre-1967 Jerusalem because CMEP did not exit until some 18 years later. CMEP has consistently called for respect for all religious groups’ rights in the Holy City.

We come finally to the commentary’s assertion that CMEP is engaging in a”ploy”of religious equivalency, imputing to the churches the idea that all religious groups have an equal attachment to Jerusalem. This is not the case. We have consistently recognized the uniqueness of each group’s attachment to the city without trying to quantify it. But what seems to bother the commentator the most is the idea that Christians have any claim at all to the city, even if that claim is a plea that it be shared.

That is what is so sad, and so disturbing, about the commentary’s response to The New York Times ad.

MJP END RNS

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!