01-2003

The Church and Israel

The dead-end street of the peace process to date

by Paul Löffler

How can solidarity with both Israelis and Palestinians be preserved these days, when there seems no way out of the confrontations and escalation of violence? Paul Löffler, a founding member of the German-Palestinian Society and long-time moderator of the Evangelical Commission on the Middle East, is committed to making the situation of the Palestinians and the churches in Palestine better known in Germany. He also seeks more communication among German groups which are working on behalf of Israel on one hand and Palestinians on the other, to develop cooperation between them. In this interview he was speaking with Frank Kürschner-Pelkmann.

I have the impression that the peace process in the Near East has completely fallen apart. Is this correct?

It’s absolutely necessary that we begin by realising this. Those who know the situation have been saying for a long time that the current peace process was leading to a dead end. Now it has finally and completely broken down. This failure was set up, at the latest, in the so-called Oslo II Agreement in the autumn of 1995, when Palestine was ”bantustanised” into A, B and C zones each under different control, and at the same time the settlement policy became established. With this approach, no peace was possible.

Not only did settlement building continue, they were also being connected by a network of roads. Two structures were being superimposed - an Israeli one, covering the entire region, and Palestinian-controlled zones which were not viable. Especially younger Palestinians have since become convinced that this is not the way towards an independent state.

What role was played in the escalation of violence by the break-off of the negotiations at Camp David in summer 2000?

The former Israeli ambassador to Germany, Avi Primor, said again in a recent interview that the peace process could have been saved at that point if Arafat had accepted Barak’s extensive new proposals. This opinion is often expressed by Israelis. But from the Palestinian viewpoint the proposals were not only inadequate, but unacceptable. In the new proposal to give back about 90 percent of the Occupied Territories, large areas of Israeli settlements were not included, especially the settlements around Jerusalem. Another thing was that all the Christian churches were against leaving the Christian Armenian quarter of the Old City under Israeli control. And the right of return for refugees had not been seriously addressed in the proposals.

What prospects are there, in the present situation, for the peace movements among Israelis and among Palestinians? Are there any prospects for a common effort towards peace?

To me it is amazing that so many peace initiatives are continuing, and lately have even been regaining strength. Remember, there has just been a major peace demonstration in Tel Aviv, and there are many small actions going on, for example taking food from Israel to the devastated Jenin refugee camp; there is the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Coalition of the politicians Beilin and Rabbo; there are the voices of Christian church leaders, calling for reconciliation, which have not been silenced; there is the joint peace message issued in Alexandria by important Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders.

What effect do the conflicts in Israel and Palestine have on the Arab world?

It was hardly noticed, in my view, that at the Arab League assembly in Beirut last March the Saudi Arabian proposal for full recognition of the state of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all the Occupied Territories was unanimously adopted. This is really sensational and should by no means be dismissed as just rhetoric. It is a fact that the Arab governments have been astonishingly restrained up to now. None of them, other than Saddam Hussein in Iraq, has seriously considered withholding oil. Israeli ambassadors have not been expelled, though in some cases diplomatic relations with Israel have been suspended.

What effect is the current escalation of the political conflict having on relations among Christians, Jews and Muslims?

On the Palestinian side, the name Al Aqsa Intifada indicates a religious significance given to the conflict. But we have the same thing on the Israeli side, with the increasing influence of religious extremists. This is not only manifested in the extreme right wing of the present government coalition, but also reaches far into the political centre. The Palestinian view is that Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000, accompanied by masses of security forces, was intended as a religious provocation, that it was a deep offence to the religious feelings of Muslims and the Al Aqsa Intifada began only as a response to this provocation.

On the Israeli side, more than 70 percent have supported Sharon precisely for doing this, including much of the bourgeois camp. The landslide election and continuing support for him are a shock which moderate Palestinians cannot get over, and I must admit this is true for me too! On the other hand, the civil society approach of the PLO is going more and more on the defensive as the Islamist camp becomes increasingly radicalised. This will remain so as long as a large part of Palestinian youth can expect more from the resistance actions of Hamas than from the policies of the Autonomous Authority, which has been weakened from both inside and outside.

What does this mean for the Christian minority?

There is no doubt that Islamic influence has increased within Palestinian society. Only about 1.7 percent of the Palestinian population still belongs to the Christian churches. A few years ago it was still two percent. Christians carry less weight in the society, so, for example, the Christian mayor of Bethlehem has been replaced by a Muslim. It is also becoming harder for Christians to maintain their educational and social institutions, which used to be very influential. Some of these have been ruthlessly destroyed by military incursions in recent weeks, and one gets the impression that this was done on purpose.

What can the worldwide ecumenical movement do to promote the peace process?

I am sceptical about high-profile tourism as an expression of solidarity. However, where there is local agreement, a longer-lasting visible presence can be a clear sign of encouragement. The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel is an important initiative of this kind. It is important for such signals to come from the ecumenical community, because a deep resignation, born of despair, is spreading at least among Palestinians. The Alexandria Declaration,*) signed by leading Muslims, Jews and Christians, is one of the few signs of hope at the moment. But unfortunately it has received far too little attention from us here.

What can Christians in Germany do to help in the present situation?

If there is anything we can contribute, it can only be on the basis of solidarity with both Israelis and Palestinians. For the sake of the future of both sides, we must not become divided from one another here in Germany. As the conflict heats up, however, this is getting harder and harder, and at this point is emotionally almost impossible to maintain. But it is precisely here that we can make a small contribution, by insisting on receiving information from, and maintaining contacts with, both sides. In the end, a solution to the conflict can only be worked out between Israelis and Palestinians. In breaking the cycle of violence, a common European contribution can make a difference where a particularly German one alone cannot. Even more effective would be the joint actions of the Quartet - the UN, USA, Russia and the EU - of which there are now some signs.

Is there hope for peace?

Frankly, I must say that at the moment the question seems presumptuous to me. We are in a long tunnel and cannot yet see any light at the end of it. All too often in recent months, I’ve answered this question by saying, well, it can’t get any worse. But then it did get worse. The only ray of hope that comes to mind is in the closing words of Rabbi Bolag at the last Kirchentag: ”We are condemned to live together,” and as a rabbi he then added, ”before God”. In this, even I see a lot of hope. But at present there seems to be no way to bring it about.

*) Full text via:   www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2002-078.html
This interview, here greatly abridged, appeared in Junge Kirche, Zeitschrift europäischer Christinnen und Christen (Young Church, a journal for European Christians) No. 03/02, in June 2002.