Lambeth and Palestine

By the Rev. L. Humphrey Walz

The remarkable global significance of Lambeth Conferences derives only in part from the fact that every 10 years they bring all Anglican/Episcopal bishops to London from all over the world to deal jointly with crucial issues. Also to be credited is the diligent, widely-shared preparatory spadework, including advance airing and balancing of divergent views.

Just one case in point is the Anglican Peace and Justice Network's working paper on "Christians in Palestine." Prepared for preliminary consideration by participants in the 1988 Lambeth Conference, to be held from July 6 to August 7, the paper pleads for "supporting initiatives for the self-determination of the Palestinians...promoting peace and reconciliation by continuously challenging the credibility of war and violence" and, above all, "being informed of the facts and having the courage to speak the truth and expose the hypocrisy and self-deception of those who wield power and oppress."

The (US) Episcopal Presiding Bishop's Committee on Christian-Jewish Relations, while questioning the Peace and Justice Network's selection of relevant factors, is equally high-principled in stating that "in any assessment of the complicated issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Church is not well served in portraying just one side of the issue. A balanced view must be put forward which affirms the rights of all peoples of the region to justice and peace."

Although the spirit of the two papers is clearly kindred, their differences are such to confuse the uninformed reader—perhaps a prospective Lambeth participant—who studies their texts side-by-side. One must appreciate, therefore, the resolution of the US Episcopal Diocesan Ecumenical Office (EDEO) calling upon the Christian-Jewish Relations Committee to "explore avenues for promoting fair and balanced documents" in preparation for Lambeth. Pending that development, it may help to note where some of the differences lie.

Regarding events surrounding the violent birth of the state of Israel, the Peace and Justice Network paper states: "The consequence of the establishment of the state of Israel was the displacement of over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian. Some of these fled in fear of the hostilities. Others were driven out of their homes and towns by the Zionists." The Christian-Jewish Relations paper, on the other hand, does not recognize these displacements as having gotten significantly under way before Israel "was forced into combat by the invading armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon" on May 15, 1948.

This paper is apparently unaware of the persistent attacks, starting in late 1947, against the native Palestinian population by the Haganah (Israel's pre-state Zionist army) and Menachem Begin's terrorist Irgun and Yitzhak Shamir's Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang.

The contrasting treatments of the issues are significant. The Peace and Justice Network's paper cites a 1978 United Nations Special Committee report on the continuing Israeli "mass destruction of (Palestinian) homes, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, expropriation of properties, and imposition of economic and fiscal measures aimed at the dispossession and exploitation of the population of the occupied territories." The Christian-Jewish paper does not contradict this, but responds: "Israel is unfairly and inaccurately portrayed as the sole perpetrator of the condition of the Palestinian people, with no consideration of the part played by Arab nations in perpetrating the plight of the refugees."

The deeper, wider study implied by the EDEO request for further documentation is likely to reveal that not only the parties accused above but many others stand in need of remedial penitence. As the Quaker study of the larger picture concluded long ago, "There's plenty of blame to go around."

Documentation should also be supplemented by some agreement on how the term "Zionism" should be used. The Peace and Justice Network approaches the subject historically as "a form of Jewish nationalism," the implementation of whose goal—"to relieve the plight of Western Jews"—was inevitably influenced by the "spirit of colonialism" of its time, which had little regard for indigenous populations.

(Theodor Herzl, "the father of the state of Israel," called the First Zionist Congress in 1897 to launch his movement for a Jewish state in a Palestine which was then 92 percent Christian and Muslim.)

The Christian-Jewish Committee, on the other hand, without indicating what brand of "liberation" ideology or which Scriptural selections it has in mind, calls Zionism a "liberation movement" with "roots as far back as the Bible." Neither entity shows awareness of the great Martin Buber's application of the "Zionist" label to his dream of a community, morally and spiritually Jewish, in Palestine whose internal example and external influence would become "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 49:6). Through the 12th Zionist Congress (1931) scuttled Buber's proposals as "friendly to the Arabs,...(and) opposed to all European imperialist tendencies," it is his spirit that still comes to many minds when Zionism is mentioned.

For the full text of both papers and of the EDEO resolution, send $1 to the Ecumenical Bulletin (attention: Anna Quillen), Episcopal Ecumenical Office, 815 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Ask for bulletin #84. Also included therein are the Network's recommendations which (unlike its working paper) seem not to have drawn serious fire. Among other things, they affirm "the existence of the state of Israel and its right to recognized and secure borders." They reject "the interpretation of Holy Scriptures which affirms the special place of the present state of Israel in the light of Biblical prophecy." They affirm "the right of the Palestinians to (self-)determination, including the possibility of establishing their own state." They support "the convening of an international peace conference...under the UN...to which all parties...including the PLO" are to be invited. And they pledge "continued prayer for Israelis and Palestinians, for Muslim, Jew, and Christian, for the achievement of justice, peace, and reconciliation for all."

Questions are sometimes raised as to what difference a Lambeth decision can make in a situation like this. Can it influence the chance for Anglicans like Elias Khoury and Bir Zeit University President Hanna Nasir, both exiled by the Israeli military without charge or legal recourse, to return to their homes in Israeli-occupied territory? Will Nazareth's Anglican rector, the Rev. Riah Abu-Assal, be allowed to leave Israel for church meetings abroad and come back without obstacles?

Any answer must be tentative. Though Lambeth has no power of enforcement, its expressions of united Anglican opinion do carry weight. Furthermore, the candid, conciliatory atmosphere of Lambeth has often made it possible to foster equitable solutions to complex, emotion-laden, problems.

The Rev. L. Humphrey Walz, DD, a retired Associate Executive of the Presbyterian Synod of the Northeast, is active in Christian-Jewish and Christian-Muslim dialogues.