Asymmetry in Framing War and Peace

Last weekend my wife and I watched the 2007 documentary To Die in Jerusalem, which tells the remarkable story of two teenage girls and two broken mothers. On March 29, 2002 17-year old Ayat Al-Akhras blew herself up in front of an Israeli grocery store. Among her victims was an almost identical 17 year-old Israeli girl named Rachel Levy. The film follows Rachel's mother on a several-year endeavor to meet the mother of her daughter's killer. It culminates in a tense video teleconference, where the two worlds of Israel and Palestine collide. For a few minutes these two mothers embody all the animosity, misunderstanding, and bitterness of that terrible conflict. I walked away from the film a bit dazed, overwhelmed by the gulf between these two women and the seeming impossibility of ever finding common ground. But it is a good film, capturing the essence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through human eyes.

One thing struck me in particular. During the final meeting between the two mothers, Rachel's mom practically begs the other to renounce violence. What an example we would be, she says, if the two of us could promise to disavow violence and promise to work towards peace. Ayat's mother refuses; she keeps returning to the horrors of occupation and insisting that Palestinians will always resist. Talking about nonviolence and peace is absurd because talk won't change the occupation. Rachel's mom is exasperated that Ayat's mom wants only to talk about politics. Can't she just leave politics alone and talk about peace and reconciliation? We often discuss the asymmetry of tactics and even strategy in many modern conflicts, but these two women illustrated something more subtle and more distressing: a fundamental asymmetry in how they even frame the conflict.

The scene echoed a key point from the book Unity in Diversity: Interfaith Dialog in the Middle East, which profiles interfaith dialog efforts in several countries. The chapter on Israeli-Palestian dialog reflected what I saw in To Die in Jerusalem. Israeli participants in interfaith dialog want to set politics aside; instead of dwelling on political differences they want to build relationships, discuss their faiths, and work on peacebuilding and reconciliation. Palestinian participants, on the other hand, cannot stop talking about politics; it is seemingly all they want to talk about. This exasperates the Israelis. Many dialogs shipwreck on these shoals. There is a fundamental asymmetry here. According to the Palestinian narrative, they live under daily political and social injustice; for them, it is impossible to talk about reconciliation without addressing their grievances.

Understanding this dynamic has unlocked so many messy social problems for me. Take race relations in the US. In my mostly white private high school I learned that fighting racism meant being "color blind"--I should view people of every race and color the same way. It was unsettling to me (and still is for many white people) when I met minorities who could not stop talking about race. Can't they just get over it? Do we need to have classes on what it means to be a black man in America, or have heritage months for every minority on campus? My perspective changed when my wife worked for three years at an inner-city high school. We spent those three years in close contact with racial minorities in disadvantaged situations. I realized that for many minorities, race is so important because they believe it is directly tied to economic and social injustice. Color-blindness isn't a valid model, they say, because it does not address injustice or structural racism; a better approach is to acknowledge and try to remedy race-based injustice in a society. Indeed, multicultural studies have moved away from color-blindness as a model and towards this latter approach. Of course many white people don't buy this, because they don't believe they are responsible for the injustices.

I'll cite one final example, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict again. I just finished reading Sandy Tolan's excellent book The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew & the Heart of the Middle East. It tells the story of a Jewish family who fled Bulgaria to the new Jewish homeland during the Holocaust and moved into a vacant house there; it also tells the story of an Arab family driven from the same house during the violence accompanying Israel's creation. Years later, members of these two families meet and develop a tense friendship. Two families. One house. One piece of land. The entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is embodied in these two families. Dalia, the Jewish homeowner, pleas with Bashir--her Palestinian counterpart--to work with her for peace. Bashir essentially refuses. Talking about peace is meaningless without remedying injustice, he says.

In these situations the two sides are at an impasse. The asymmetry in how they frame the conflict makes it impossible to even have a conversation. The two sides have wildly different views of what peace even means. How do we move forward? I'm not sure. Understanding and acknowledging the divergence of viewpoints is a start. This is an area I hope to study more while living in Jordan.

The Epicenter Conference: A Review

Two days ago I wrote about the Epicenter conference and explained why I believe the Christian Zionist movement is actually at odds with the heart of Christianity. Still, not being the kind of guy who writes a book review without actually reading the book, I tuned in yesterday via the web and watched all 6 hours of the conference. Today I want to summarize some of my observations. If you haven't already read my post on The Christian Faith vs. Christian Zionism, I suggest beginning there.

The conference opened with a video that proved my point about conflating the Christian gospel with a political agenda. Words from a Bible verse faded onto the screen: "Jesus said: There would be wars, and rumors of wars." The words cut to images of recent Israeli-Palestinian violence, including a picture of white phosphorous raining down on an urban area during operation Cast Lead (something that is provoking war crimes investigations... see picture below). More words appeared: "Don't let your heart be troubled. Peace I leave with you." The words cut to a fluttering American flag, which then faded into an Israeli flag. Finally the verse concluded: "And look, I come quickly." The video was extremely subtle, but it sent a message that framed the remainder of the conference: Israel and the United States are locked in an existential good-vs-evil struggle with their enemies during the final chapter of human history. This battle is not merely mortal, it is eternal; God is quite literally on Israel's side and anyone who opposes Israel is standing against God.


After the video, Joel Rosenberg, the author who hosted the conference, discussed how people should respond to the grim times we are in. This was actually one of the better sessions of the conference, emphasizing that Christians should respond with trust in God's love and providence, and should live in obedience. This is a coherent, consistent Christian message and it lacked the political trappings that undermined the later sessions. After that, however, the conference turned towards the political agenda that concerns me so much. I'll hit three criticisms.

First, my most striking insight from the conference was the dichotomy in how Christians are to treat Israelis and Arabs. The oft-repeated theme all day was that God wants us to "bless Israel and her neighbors." The very way this is framed suggests a place of primacy for Israelis, which I think Rosenberg would agree is true. The "neighbors" felt tacked on as an afterthought. Sometimes speakers forgot to add it, just saying "Bless Israel", and sometimes they phrased it as, "bless Israel, her neighbors, and her enemies." Christians apparently have different agendas with Israelis and these neighbors. In the case of Israel, we must offer her "unconditional love and unwavering support"--another mantra of the day--particularly in the realm of political and military support. We are not to proselytize, however; Rosenberg stated at one point that the Israelis emphatically do not want us to send missionaries. When it comes to Palestinians and Arabs, however, this equation is reversed: God wants us to witness to them and lead them to Christ, but we are not to support any of their political objectives. During his talk, Lt. Gen. William Boykin (ret), a former Delta Force commander and Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, said, "We must support the Palestinian people. They like the Jews are God's people, and we must support them with humanitarian and economic assistance to ensure that they have a better quality of life and some hope for the future. I did not say we need to trade land for peace." This statement is fundamentally at odds with any peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians in the future. A 2007 poll indicated that 70% of Israeli Jews support a two-state solution. So why should Christian theology lead believers to support the 30% who don't, and deny the legitimacy of all Palestinian interests?

Even the movement's humanitarian aid is heavily titled towards Israel. Rosenberg began the Joshua Fund to "bless Israel and her neighbors", but from what I can see, almost all this aid goes to Israel, with some going to Iraq. The fund also directly contributes to Israel's logistical preparedness for future wars. The fund's website says, "We work closely with allies in Israel to prepare for possible future disasters. We are helping our allies stockpile supplies for the next war as well as 'expand the pipeline'--that is, enhance our allies' ability to receive, store, and distribute humanitarian relief supplies to love their neighbors in a cost effective manner." The verbiage sounds like the aid is neutral, but to the best of my knowledge, during Cast Lead the Joshua Fund operated exclusively in Southern Israel. If Rosenberg's organization wants to choose sides with Israel, that is certainly its prerogative. But it needs to call it what it is; the movement is not "blessing Israel and its neighbors." It is offering Arabs a spiritual concept of Jesus, while offering the state of Israel political, military, economic, and humanitarian assistance. Neither of these represents the full Christian gospel.

Second, I was struck by the absolute and uncritical support Christians are to offer the state of Israel. Speakers frequently invoked the words, "unconditional love and unwavering support" for Israel. This raises two questions for me. First, why are the words "unconditional love" only used in reference to Israel? Is our love for Arabs conditional, or just not worth mentioning? Second, what does this unconditional "support" for Israel entail? If we're talking about Israel's right to exist and defend herself, by all means, let's support her; but Rosenberg has a much broader definition. At one point he mentions that Spain is discussing war crimes trials for Israeli commanders in operation Cast Lead. Rosenberg then asks his audience, "What about you? Will you stand with the Jewish people? Will you stand with the nation of Israel? Will you stand with her and love her and bless her?" He trails off in the face of thunderous applause. Now, let me be absolutely clear, I'm no fan of Spain's self-righteous and one-sided campaign to try Israelis. But when you have Israeli soldiers publicly confessing to possible war crimes, is that the time for American Christians want to stand up to offer them unwavering support? God, no. Christians should be the first to stand up and condemn war crimes on any side of any war. In the United States we hold our soldiers to an extremely high standard for just conduct in war; we investigate possible abuses and punish the perpetrators. Israel itself is conducting investigations and debating the merits of war crimes accusations. Why, then, should American Christians pledge to support these Israelis before the investigations are complete and regardless of the outcome? Should we continue offering unwavering support to Lyndie England because we want to stand by America? Quite the opposite.

Third, the conference presented an extremely biased, one-sided narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The lesson on Israeli history presented by pastor Chuck Smith was atrocious. In his telling, Jewish settlers bought up an unpopulated, swampy wasteland on which to build their new homeland. The Arabs selling them this worthless land "laughed all the way to the bank", saying "'Those stupid Jews, they don't know this is worthless land.'" There was zero mention of any existing population, and thus zero rationale for any legitimate Palestinian grievance today. Israelis and Palestinians will debate competing accounts of Israel's creation until the end of history, but no one can deny that this was a tumultuous era when two cultures collided. Many of Israel's own historians would disagree with Smith's candy-coated tale. There is plenty of room to disagree about all the facts, but we at least need to acknowledge there is real controversy here. Turning a blind eye to the most basic historical realities does nobody any favors.

Later, Rosenberg showed a video shot in the Southern Israeli town of Sderot during Operation Cast Lead. It depicted the horrors of life under the Qassam rocket threat from Gaza. Following the video, Rosenberg introduced a woman who worked at a hospital in the town. She discussed the terror of the rockets, the thousands of people in her town afflicted with PTSD, and "a whole generation who will struggle to live a normal life and grow up to have a promising future." The presentation was good in its own right; I'm sympathetic to the distress of these Israelis who live under daily bombardment, and benefited from hearing this woman speak about her firsthand experience. But this is only one side of a tragic, bloody, and complex history. What about the generation of children of Gaza who will struggle to live a normal life or have a promising future? If we want to understand the conflict, we must listen to and understand their perspective as well. If we are going to hear from an Israeli working in an Israeli hospital, maybe we should also hear from someone like Gazan doctor Izeldeen Abuelaish--who speaks fluent Hebrew and is beloved by many Israelis. Dr. Abuelaish could discuss the trauma of rushing into his daughters' bedroom after an errant shell struck, and finding their dismembered bodies among the wreckage. These stories are not particularly useful for understanding the dynamics of a conflict or proscribing policy, but they are extremely important for understanding the human face of war. Unfortunately, the Epicenter conference was not interested in educating the audience about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; its goal was championing a right-wing "greater Israel" agenda that is controversial even within Israel, sketched in absolute good-and-evil language.

In my opinion, the highlight of the conference was the talk by the father of Ami Ortiz. One year ago the 15 year-old Ami, a Messianic Jew, opened a package that showed up on his doorstep in Israel. It exploded. Ami suffered grave injuries that should have killed him. His father, who radiated humility and graciousness, talked about the prayerful road to Ami's recovery and the outpouring of love their family received from the community--local and global, Christian and non-Christian. Ami's father talked about the process of forgiveness and grace. In my view, this was the most genuine display of the Christian gospel all day, but there was a fascinating twist. The bombing is still under investigation, but the perpetrators may be radical Jews, and the family believes some high-profile Israeli leaders and Rabbis are covering up the truth. The family has actually taken the government to court, brought in outside lawyers and organizations, and created a documentary and website to publicize the case. The family's website suggests discrimination against Israeli Christians may be on the rise. None of this was mentioned during the conference. I learned it all on the family's website afterward. After a full-day conference about the existential threats to Israel from its enemies, it's intriguing that this family has a story about domestic terrorism within Israel and possibly violence between Christians and Jews. It's even more intriguing that those dynamics were not discussed. If nothing else, this example should suggest that the absolute good vs. evil narrative of a monolithic Israel against the world is insufficient.

In conclusion I was not impressed by the conference. It had its moments, but I stand by my assertion that the Christian Zionist movement is opposed to the heart of the Christian faith at key points. By elevating God's love for Israel above God's love for humanity in general, by fully embracing a controversial far-right political agenda that is antithetical to any possible peace, and by utterly ignoring the many other people groups in the region, the Christian Zionists undermine the testimony of the Church. I also believe they undermine both the United States' and Israel's interests in the region. True friends of both the US and Israel should urge Christians to adopt a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to the region.

What saddens me most is the opportunity cost. Instead of proclaiming hypothetical End Times scenarios and political and military support for the latest war, what if the Church dedicated itself to promoting a message of grace and reconciliation in the region? What if it listened to and retold the human stories coming out of the Middle East, and collectively developed genuine compassion for the victims of war on all sides? Instead of lobbying for controversial political agendas in Congress, what if the Church invested itself itself in grassroots intercultural and interfaith dialog? Instead of hopping off the tour bus to visit one tourist site after another in Israel, what if Christians visited and spoke with communities in Jewish synagogues, Arab Israeli Christian churches, and Palestinian mosques? How much more educated would they be, and how much more good could they do? The Church will never solve this enduring conflict, but it can be salt and light in a region that desperately needs both.

Technical Update

A reader informed me via comment that this blog has formatting problems on some computers. My wife actually informed me of the same problem a few weeks ago. I apologize if these problems affect you. I manually tweaked my blog template quite a bit when I created it, and apparently broke it. I am planning to redo the entire template in the near future.

The Christian Faith vs. Christian Zionism

Reader, beware: against my better judgment, I intend to write today on both religion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fortunately nobody ever writes in my comments section, but I'm putting on my helmet just in case.

Tomorrow an estimated 10,000 people will file into Cox Arena in San Diego to attend Epicenter '09, a conference led by evangelical novelist and non-fiction author Joel Rosenberg to "help you understand today’s global crises in the light of Bible prophecy." Thousands more will tune in live via the Internet. Rosenberg's book Epicenter, which sketches out an elaborate End Times scenario based on Ezekiel 38-39, spent months on the New York Times bestseller list. As of today his new book Inside the Revolution stands at #7 on the NYT bestseller list (for the COINdistas, that's 3 places above The Unforgiving Minute and 24 places above The Gamble). Rosenberg is one of the most important figures in a movement that outside observers call Christian Zionism. He is ideologically and personally connected to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, the authors of the popular Left Behind series. Despite Rosenberg's influence, I have found few scholars bothering to engage with his ideas. Authors like Douglas Johnston and Madeline Albright have noted that the role of religion is frequently overlooked in statecraft. We ignore religion at our peril. Both the religious and nonreligious should be looking at figures like Rosenberg, because ideas have consequences--especially when this many people believe them.

Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I take my faith extremely seriously; my commitment to devote my life to the service of a better world springs directly from my theological beliefs. But in an age when bestselling books have titles like God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, I am extremely sensitive to the damage Christians can do when their theology leads them down roads that diverge from goodness, morality, and justice. When history passes its judgments on the great moral issues of our age, I want to be sure that I stood on the right side.

Historically Christians have been at their best when they obey the words that Jesus himself cited as representing the sum of all the Law and the Prophets: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" This is the soul of the Christian gospel. The finest Christians I know strive to express their eternal gratitude to a God who has acted redemptively in history; they seek to extend this love and redemption to others through their own lives. They create where there is chaos, build where there is ruin, love where there is hate. They move into inner city neighborhoods, start nonprofits to fight sex trafficking, educate the poor, care for the sick and dying. This is the silent, humble work of the Church throughout history that authors like Hitchens fail to see. Occasionally the call of the gospel leads to extraordinary acts of moral courage, such as Desmond Tutu standing against racial injustice and leading post-Apartheid reconciliation efforts, or Dietrich Bonhoffer leading German churches against Hitler. Christianity--and religion in general, I should add--can be a powerful force for good.

But history has proven that Christianity becomes dangerous when an outside agenda is allowed to supersede the heart of the gospel. Most often this comes in the form of politics. In Jesus' own day he had to contend with religious zealots seeking violent overthrow of Roman occupation. During the Crusades many "Christians" engaged in the worst forms of cruelty and barbarism for the prize of Jerusalem. Many churches throughout history have wedded themselves to corrupt political regimes and ideologies, such as Nazism, Apartheid, and American slavery. More recently, America is reeling from the disastrous alliance between evangelicals and the political right. Many Americans increasingly view evangelicals not merely as an intellectual curiosity but as a malevolent force undermining American society. These evangelicals lost their way when "restoring America as a Christian nation" superseded the mission of faithfully living out the gospel in a world where Jesus promised his disciples would always live as strangers.

My concern with Christian Zionism, and Joel Rosenberg in particular, is that an apocalyptic agenda becomes the interpretive framework for understanding the Christian faith--rather than the clear teachings of Jesus. This agenda includes principles that are antithetical to peacebuilding in the region. Instead of approaching global issues through the lens of core Christian tenets like the character of God, the imago dei and the intrinsic dignity and value of man, and God's efforts to redeem a broken world, Christian Zionists interpret the world primarily with obscure prophecies and dispensationalist theology; they construct apocalyptic End Times scenarios that history has repeatedly proven to be wrong. The core text of Epicenter is Ezekiel 38-39, which describes a forthcoming war that Christians at various times have identified with Celts, Goths, Khazars, Mongolians, European nations, and Russia. Christian Zionists also elevate support for the modern state of Israel far above other Christian concerns. The most troubling aspect of this support is its unconditional nature. The Bible is emphatic that governments are fallible; indeed, a significant amount of the prophetic literature chastises the Israelites for neglecting God and their fellow man and tolerating social injustice. The Prophets repeatedly call their people to a higher moral standard. It is curious, then, that Christian Zionists offer unconditional support to all the policies of the Israeli government without asking critical questions or measuring these policies against fundamental Christian and moral principles. Very different issues like safeguarding Israel's security interests and pursuing illegal settlement expansion are lumped together under the umbrella of "supporting Israel." Internal debate within Israel is far more critical. The myopic focus on Israel also means that Christian Zionism generally neglects the physical and spiritual well-being of many other people groups in the region.

Rosenberg claims to care about peace in the Middle East--he is leading a 300-person "Prayer and Vision" trip to Israel soon to pray for peace--but his stated positions undermine peacebuilding at almost every turn. On his blog he says, "Now more than ever, we need to stand with Israel, show all Israelis unconditional love, and pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the epicenter." This plea for peace and love is curiously one-sided. His February 9, 2009 blog post is titled, "REPORT FROM INDIA: Teaching Christians around the world about God’s love for Israel." Excuse me? Rosenberg's policy analysis is alarming for any informed person who cares about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When former Prime Minister Olmert said, "There will be no peace if a significant part of Jerusalem is not the capital of the Palestinian state", Rosenberg vehemently disagreed with him on his blog. He wrote, "It is not for any Prime Minister to give away that which is not his in the first place. The Bible says that Jerusalem belongs to the Lord. He has chosen it for Himself, and has not given permission for Israeli leaders to tear it asunder." I cannot begin to unpack the logical and theological fallacies in that statement.

Christian Zionism is by no means representative of all Christianity. In fact, other churches are outspoken about the movement's dangers--particularly churches in the Middle East. The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism states Christian Zionism is a "false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation." The movement is "detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today." The influential Israeli Palestinian Christian priest Elias Chacour has expressed harsh words for the unwanted intrusion of American evangelicals into regional politics. Some Christians have responded to Christian Zionism by creating their own organizations, such as the Evangelicals for Middle Eastern Understanding Coalition.

This is the situation as I see it: by elevating dispensationalist theology and apocalyptic End Times scenarios above the central tenets of the Christian faith, Christian Zionists risk being on the wrong side of vital moral and strategic issues. Instead of being ambassadors of peace, grace, and reconciliation in one of the world's most intractable conflicts, this movement weds itself to a specific right-wing political agenda that is controversial even within Israel. Ironically, some of the policies this movement endorses may actually hurt Israel's long-term security. These Christians are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem. They are obstacles to progress and to peace.

This does not mean Christians should not support Israel. By all means, they should. Israel is a friend with dire security concerns, and I am happy that Christians have transcended a toxic history of anti-Semitism to forge strong interfaith relationships with Israeli and Jewish people. But their support should not come at the expense of other people groups. It should not lead them to support injustice or endorse ill-conceived or immoral policies, on either side. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter one; both sides have legitimate grievances and both sides have suffered injustice and tragedy. If Christians simply throw in their lot with one side or the other, they are no longer helping. When history judges me, I hope it will never be said that I was pro-Arab or pro-Israeli; I hope history will say I was on the side of the peacemakers.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" - Matthew 5:9