 |
 |
SEPTEMBER 1999, pages 89-90 Christianity and the Middle East Churches for Middle East Peace to Focus on Oslo’s Final Status Issues
The organization Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) recently sent a letter to its member churches and individual supporters outlining its plan to focus advocacy and education efforts on the final status issues of the Oslo peace accords. The final status issues were spelled out when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993 after signing the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government, commonly known as the Oslo accords. Since the final status issues were those deemed most difficult to solve, the hope was that the first five years of peacemaking, which were to include partial territorial withdrawals and cooperation on numerous fronts, would build the necessary trust and confidence between Israelis and Palestinians. As defined in the Declaration of Principles, the final status issues include: “Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.”
In its appeal, CMEP cites the April 26 letter of President Clinton to Chairman Arafat calling for extension of the May 4, 1999 deadline for final status negotiations to be completed. Clinton’s letter called instead for final status negotiations to begin soon after Israel’s elections and the formation of a new government, and offered Clinton’s endorsement of the “aspirations of the Palestinian people to determine their own future on their own land.” Rev. Mark Brown of the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, who is chair of CMEP, notes that the December visit of President and Mrs. Clinton to Gaza and Bethlehem was a watershed moment. “It was inconceivable five years ago, even to the most optimistic of peacemakers, that a U.S. president would go to Gaza to address the Palestinian National Council,” writes Brown. He also is encouraged by signs among media and some members of Congress of a more even-handed approach to the Middle East peace process. Brown notes that this fresh approach was set forth by Clinton when he said in his December address to the Palestinian National Council: “The fulfillment of one side’s aspirations must not come at the expense of the other. We must believe that everyone can win in the new Middle East.”
Over the past few years CMEP has brought together leaders of constituent churches to write public letters on Middle East issues and has generated letters from individuals through periodic “Action Alerts”—all of which have endorsed this kind of balanced approach to Middle East issues. Perhaps the most visible of CMEP’s advocacy efforts is “Christians Call for a Shared Jerusalem” (see text below). This statement, signed by 600 individuals and organizations including numerous bishops of main-line Christian churches, was included as a full-page ad in the Dec. 21, 1996 edition of The New York Times. In 1998 ecumenical committees published this message in newspapers in Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, DC, San Francisco, Boston, and Los Angeles. In January of this year, CMEP wrote letters to members of Congress concerning budget allocations seeking balanced and responsible spending as a key to peace in the Middle East and the well-being of all its inhabitants (see April/May Washington Report, p. 84). In a May “Action Alert,” CMEP encouraged supporters to write senators cautioning them against proposals which would pressure the Clinton administration to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem—an action which was sure to upset the balance. Currently the CMEP is circulating “The Middle East Peace Resolution” (see box on next page) initiated by Americans for Peace Now, a dovish Jewish group, and the Arab American Institute. This resolution will be introduced in the Senate this summer by Senators Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and Spencer Abraham (R-MI). As in the case of most Action Alerts, CMEP encourages individuals to write their senators and representative concerning this legislation. CMEP also sees itself as having an important role in the education of church members on the complex issues of the peace process. Its May publication, A Guide to Oslo’s Final Status Issues for Advocates of Israeli-Palestinian Peace, therefore, attempts to provide short and relatively simple explanations concerning various final status issues concerning the city of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, water, and other issues. Several helpful maps of the Jerusalem area and the West Bank and a time line of the peace process are included. The guide also includes helpful hints for involvement in advocacy. Aware that short summaries are but a piece of the education, links with various Web sites are provided for further reading. CMEP also has its own Web site <www.cmep.org> where the Guide to Oslo Negotiations is available along with previous letters and action alerts and links to other organizations. CMEP is currently compiling an e-mail network to facilitate more efficient communication. CMEP director Corinne Whitlatch invites those interested in being added to the network to send their e-mail addresses to her at <cmepdc@aol.com>. Fifteen church bodies are represented by CMEP including: American Friends Service Committee; Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Church of the Brethren; Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Maryknoll Missioners (Justice and Peace Office); Mennonite Central Committee; National Council of Churches; Presbyterian Church (USA); Reformed Church in America; Roman Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men’s Institutes; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; and United Methodist Church. Whitlatch emphasizes that CMEP does not claim to speak for all its members. “Most of the Protestant denominations develop policy in voting assemblies and there are alternative views held by a minority,” she explains. However, CMEP is a “coalition voice of these denominations grounded in their policy statements” and thus represents the views of a significant portion of the American Christian community. Dr. Fred Strickert is professor of religion at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa. SIDEBAR 1
(Text of advertisement placed in various daily newspapers and signed by 600 individuals and organizations) Jerusalem is a sacred city to Jews, Christians and Muslims, the children of Abraham. All long for Jerusalem to be the City of Peace. For most of its history, the fate of Jerusalem was determined by war. Now the ancient hope for peace can become reality through negotiations. Israeli leaders hold that Jerusalem should be Israel’s capital under the sole sovereignty of the State of Israel. Palestinian leaders hold that traditionally Arab eastern Jerusalem should become the capital of a new State of Palestine. As Christians committed to working for peace, we support a negotiated solution for Jerusalem that respects the human and political rights of both Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the rights of the three religious communities. We urge Jews, Christians and Muslims to open dialog on these issues. Jerusalem at peace cannot belong exclusively to one people, one country or one religion. Jerusalem should be open to all, shared by all—two peoples and three religions. We urge the United States government to call upon negotiators to move beyond exclusivist claims and create a Jerusalem that is a sign of peace and a symbol of reconciliation for all humankind. SIDEBAR 2
Whereas it is vital to United States interests to have stability in the Middle East; Whereas the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East; Whereas United States-supported negotiations already have enhanced Middle East stability by providing peaceful borders among Egypt, Jordan, and Israel; Whereas comprehensive peace agreements between Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, as well as between the Palestinians and Israel, will contribute to even greater regional stability; Whereas United States-supported resolutions of the dispute among all the parties will enhance American prestige throughout the Middle East; Whereas the United States has already devoted considerable diplomatic, military, and economic resources to helping the parties reach a comprehensive peace; Now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that Congress
|
|
|