www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Response to Palestinian Suffering

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Since the thread Ich Bin Judeten has diverged from course I will start this one since this is were things have seemed to converged.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

there is Palestinian suffering and the suffering of those families in Israel who have been murdered by the bombs of terrorists.

Let us pray for both!!!!!!!!!!!

Converged?

I would be interested in your answer to your own question. I think that you have argued forcefully that establishment of the state of Israel was a great injustice on the people of Palestine. The still unaswered question is: now what?

"now what" could either mean what is likely to occur next, or what would one want to occur. As to what is likely to occur, I am not an optimist so I'll leave that there. As to what I would want to occur: a normal secular state, occupying all the territory of Palestine, with the right of return of all the Palestinian refugees and no discrimination against anyone on religious grounds apart from the protection of existing shrines sacred to the three major religions which relate to the place. Incognitus

Shlomo DJS,
I agree with what the Church has to say on this subject. Here is what is published on the EQUESTRIAN ORDER OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE OF JERUSALEM Lieutenancy of Australia - New South Wales

Vatican�s Position Vis-`a-vis the Holy Land

26-Apr-02
Zenit -The World Seen from Rome

Interview with Archbishop Tauran, Secretary for Relations with States

Q: A very critical point is the Holy Land. What is the Vatican's position?

Archbishop Tauran: I repeat: There are two peoples with equal rights. The Israelis with the right to security; the Palestinians, a land and state. No right should prevail over another.

It is absolutely necessary that the force of law prevail over the law of force. I repeat this with great conviction in these days, in which yet again contempt for life and armed violence are taking an entire region, perhaps beyond its borders, to the abyss.

Q: What steps should be taken to unite peace and justice again in the Holy Land?

Archbishop Tauran: Withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, respect for U.N. resolutions, the involvement of the international community, and the recognition of an international juridical statute for the holy places .

Q: The latter, a topic that is again of very great importance, following the invasion of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem by 200 Palestinians.

Archbishop Tauran: The entry of those armed men is a violation of a holy place. However, the problem will not be resolved by force.

The Vatican has proposed the establishment of an Israeli-Palestinian bilateral commission to address the question. More generally, we can see, as history teaches, that guarantees diminish when the protection of holy places is entrusted to only one national authority.

This is why we again ask that the international community be the guarantor of places loved by Jews, Muslims and Christians -- loved by faithful of the whole planet.

I will posts what the Order has published in separate sections so that it can be digested better.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
One of the biggest myths that have been bantered around is the generous proposal that Israel made to the Palestinians at Camp David. Here is what the Order outline as to why it was rejected.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Camp David Peace Proposal Of July, 2000, Frequently Asked Questions
26-Apr-02

1. Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

2. Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?

No. Israel sought to annex almost 9% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1% of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease". However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95% of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities - but the remaining 5% is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population.

3. Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?

The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise.

4. How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state?

Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.

5. How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?

The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.

6. Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?

The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David - especially at the Taba talks - the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated. Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians: it wants to annex Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem; obtain rights to Palestinian water resources in the West Bank; maintain military locations on Palestinian soil; and deny the Palestinian refugees' their right of return. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign State on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them.

7. Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?

Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration - i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives.

However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his "offer" would be Israel's best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

8. Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?

Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory - not including East Jerusalem - increased by 52% since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace - not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.

9. Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?

The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of historic Palestine (23% more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22%. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state.

10. Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?

The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the PA or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution however is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and by-pass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement - already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens.

11. Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees?

The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel's demographic concerns.

The Context of the Conflict
26/4/02

By Raja S. Tanas

Turn on the evening news just about any night lately, and you�ll be treated to images of carnage and words of desperation, beamed at you from the Middle East. Such mayhem without context can cause some to harden their allegiance to one side or another; others may react by simply turning off their TV. But there are historical forces at work in the region - forces2,000 years in the making - that aren't included in most broadcasts. To make sense of what appears to be nothing more than senseless violence, a brief look at the region's history is necessary.

The history of the modern Middle East region began with the rise of Islam in 622 when a powerful Arab-Muslim empire emerged, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea. A non-Arab-Muslim empire known as the Ottoman Empire gradually replaced the Arab-Muslim empire beginning in 1301,eventually meeting its own demise during the Great War (World War I). Palestine was a province of these two empires between 638-1918, except for one century under the rule of the Crusaders (1099-1187).

During this period, anti-Semitism in Europe was the norm. More than 18 centuries after the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem in A.D.70, European anti-Semitism reached a high point by the mid-1880s as epitomized in the Dreyfus affair. Alfred Dreyfus, then a military officer in the French army, was falsely accused of selling military secrets in Germany. The cry of "Death to the Jews" resounded throughout Europe. That was the world into which Adolf Hitler was born.

In 1897, an Austrian Jew by the name of Theodore Herzl envisioned the establishment of a separate safe haven for European Jews in Palestine, then a province of the Ottoman Empire. In Herzl, the Zionist movement was born. Its goal was to create a European Jewish homeland in Palestine.

At its inception, Zionism faced horrendous difficulties. The Ottoman Sultan refused to allow European Jews to leave for Palestine. However, the golden opportunity for the success of Zionism materialized when the Great War commenced in 1914.

For the success of the allies against the Ottoman Empire, the British promised Sharif Hussain, then the leader of the Arabs, the entire Eastern Arab homeland (the Arabian Peninsula) for an independent Arab state if his militia forces were to join the allies against the Ottomans. It was a sealed deal for Sharif Hussain. Two years later, on November 2, 1917, the British made another deal with European Zionist leaders, promising them Palestine as a homeland, if they were to support the war effort with finances and fighters. This was another sealed deal made by the British, known as the Balfour Declaration.

When the Great War was over, the victorious allies split up the Ottoman Empire into independent nation states. In the San Remo Agreement of1920, Palestine, Lebanon, Tran Jordan, Syria and Iraq were created. Between1920-73, other states were created as the British gradually left the Arabian Peninsula, resulting in the gestation of 13 states that had once made up the Arabian Peninsula.

In 1920, the League of Nations assigned Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq to a British mandate, while France received Syria and Lebanon. (A mandate was intended to administer a newly created country until it was strong enough to establish its own government.) All of the new Arab states received their independence as promised from the British and the French between 1920 and 1973 -- except for Palestine. Under the British mandate (1920-1948), the newly created Arab state of Palestine was transformed demographically and politically into a European Jewish state. How did this come about?

The British mandate over Palestine officially began on July 1,1920. Immediately, the British implemented a policy allowing European Jews to immigrate into Palestine according to the terms of the Balfour Declaration. Over a period of 28 years (1920-1948), the Palestinian Jewish population increased from 3 percent to 31 percent, while Jewish landownership increased from less than 2 percent to 6.5 percent. During the same period, the Palestinian population became aware of the goals of Zionism and the plans of the British Mandate. Fierce fighting commenced as early as 1922 and lasted through 1948 between European Jewish immigrants and native Palestinians.

Just a few months before the termination of the British mandate in Palestine, the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Palestinian and the other Jewish. The Palestinians refused to share their homeland. Subsequently, a civil war began around November 1947 and lasted until February 1949. The result was the birth of yet another state, taking up 78 percent of historic Palestine. This state was called Israel.

It was U.S. President Harry Truman who was instrumental in creating the State of Israel on May 15, 1948; the same day a Jew from Poland by the name of Ben Gurion unilaterally announced the birth of Israel. The new creation was immediately recognized as a sovereign nation by the United States. Franklin Roosevelt had promised Arab leaders that they would be consulted after World War II as to the fate of Palestine, but his promise died with him in the waning days of the war.

Throughout the world after 1945, there was a great deal of deserved pity and shared guilt over the Holocaust, which gave the Zionist push for a homeland great momentum. At one time European leaders even discussed forcing Germany to carve out a new Jewish state as a penance. But with Jewish settlement in Palestine already underway for two decades, and with religious beliefs tied to that place, Zionists preferred to stay the course.

President Truman made the recognition of Israel without consulting with the Congress or the American people. When asked why he did this, he replied, "I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to account to hundreds of thousands of people who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." America's involvement in the Middle East dates to that moment. In its new role as a superpower, the U.S. also inherited the messy situation that the British and the French had created in the region dating back to 1918.

On June 5, 1967, Israel waged a war against its Arab neighbors. The result was the occupation of the remaining 22 percent of Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza), the Syrian Golan Heights and Sinai. Israel returned Sinai to Egypt in 1979 as a result of the Camp David Accords, while it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981.

After the 1967 war, Israel did not spare a moment in building settlements for Jewish newcomers from all over the world on land confiscated from the native Christian and Muslim Palestinians. Often, this required bulldozing Palestinian homes or building bypass roads that cut across their neighborhoods. As would be expected, animosity between the native Palestinians and the Israelis was there to be nourished.

Seeing no hope from Arab regimes to help them liberate their homeland, the Palestinians launched the first Intifada in December 1987; it lasted until September 13, 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed at the White House. Despite the ongoing peace process, Israel continued its policy of land confiscation, building settlements and demolishing of Palestinian homes. Meanwhile, Israel continued to offer immediate citizenship to any Jews who wanted to move in. And their calls have been answered; for example, since 1990, 1 million Russian Jews have settled in Israel.

In July 2000, the peace process culminated in Camp David II under the auspices of the Clinton administration. During the summit, the Palestinians came under tremendous pressure from the U.S. to accommodate Israeli demands to renegotiate U.N. Resolution 242, which required Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, and U.N. Resolution 194, which required Israel to allow for the return of the Palestinian refugees. No agreement was reached. Camp David II was a total failure.

Two months later, the Israeli leader (now prime minister) Ariel Sharon provoked the Palestinians by visiting Haram Al-Sharif, the third holiest place in Islam, along with more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers. That incident triggered the current Intifada that has resulted, so far, in nearly 500 Israeli and more than 2,000 Palestinian deaths.

In the aftermath of September 11, a variety of voices, inside and outside the United States, argued that the healing of the Israel-Palestine dispute was central to winning the war on terror led by President George W. Bush. Yet in the weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration maintained its stance of diplomatic disengagement from the dispute.

On March 28, 2002, the 22 member states of the Arab League offered Israel a comprehensive peace plan that would lead to full diplomatic relations between each of them and Israel if the latter were to end its occupation of Palestinian territories, the Golan Heights and Shaba Farms in southern Lebanon. A day later, Israel invaded the Palestinian towns and villages in pursuit of Palestinian militants. The world has yet to see the consequences of this military operation. The Palestinians demand peace with justice. For them, peace and justice can take place only within the parameters of international law and implementation of U.N. resolutions. The Palestinians contend that Israel defies international law and ignores U.N. resolutions because of the strong support it receives from the U.S. to do so. For example, they highlight the more than 70 U.N. Security Council Resolutions issued against Israel since 1948, none of which has been implemented to date.

In order to allow the children of Palestine and Israel to live in peace, it is our responsibility as Americans not to support one party against the other. Rather than becoming pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, we should become pro-justice and call for the application of international law, the four Geneva Conventions and the implementation of U.N. resolutions that pertain to the conflict.

Raja S. Tanas is a professor of sociology at Whitworth College, where he has carried out extensive research in the area of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies. Tanas was born and raised a Christian.

Letter from the Heads of the Christian Churches to the Mr. Colin Powell







April 13, 2002



Dear Friends, brothers & Sisters,

Today the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem met Mr. Colin Powell at 11.00 a.m at the American Consulate. They have discussed with him all the issues concerning the current situation in the Holy Land and especially the subject of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem. It seems that the meeting was very positive since he heard a new different voice. We hope that this effort will give immediate fruits on the ground. You find hereby the letter and the memorandum they discussed with him during this meeting.

Fr. Raed Abusahlia


Letter to Mr. Colin Powell
From the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem
Jerusalem, April 13, 2002


Mr. Colin Powell
The Secretary of State of the United States of America

�Justice and peace must kiss each other.� (Psalm 85:10)

We, the Patriarchs and Heads of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem, representing the four families of churches:

- Greek Orthodox.

- Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Syrians, Ethiopians)

- Catholics (Roman Catholic, Custody of the Holy Land, Greek Catholic, Maronites, Syrians, Armenians)

- Evangelicals (Anglicans, Lutherans) �

are very concerned about the present situation in Palestine and Israel, and about this very difficult time in our history. We write you this letter expressing our appreciation for the American administration and for its role in trying to solve the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict along with the European Union, Norway and Russia.

At the same time we plead with you as Christian leaders, who are concerned about both Palestinians and Israelis and with the future of their children, to help both sides equally implement peace and justice.

As we meet you in Jerusalem, we would like to share with you our vision in which we want both nations to live in their own state, equally, equitably, justly and peacefully, so that both nations will be a blessing for the Middle East and for the world. The peace of the world is dependent upon the peace of Jerusalem.

1. The Conflict between Israel and Palestine
We want to express the symbiotic relationship between the Israelis and Palestinians in this land. We want security for the Israelis and justice and freedom for the Palestinians. We see that security of Israel is dependent upon justice for the Palestinians.

A. The Arab population in the region and elsewhere are now-a-days hostile to Israel because of the Palestinian cause. Since the Palestinian cause is the core problem of the Middle East conflict, the Arab world will become friendly with Israel once it is solved in a just way, accepting Israel�s existence in the Middle East. But in order to get to that point, justice must be implemented according to international legitimacy as represented by UN resolutions 242, 338, and 1397 which call for a political solution. This means that the principle of land for peace ought to be implemented. The Israeli occupation in all its forms must end and Arab land must be returned so the State of Palestine can exist within the 1967 borders. The Israeli settlements must be dismantled, the Palestinian right of return must be fairly addressed and there must be a shared Jerusalem for the two peoples. All forms of violence and counter-violence will end when a political solution is implemented and guaranteed by the United States and the European countries.

B. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not a mere question of violence. Violence is only a symptom of the root cause of the Middle East conflict, namely, the Israeli occupation of 1967 territories. The Palestinians today are satisfied to have their own state within the 1967 borders, which amounts to 5000 square kilometers of the historic Palestine. Continuing to address only the question of violence will keep us all, Palestinians and Israelis, in an indefinite circle of violence. Enough blood has been shed from both sides. It is time now to start a new era of just peace and mutual recognition of each other�s human, civil, religious and political rights.

C. The Interfaith Dialogue among Jews, Christians and Muslims will continue to be a tool for peace education and a catalyst for reconciliation. This process has started in the Alexandria Declaration in January 2002, and was supported by the local, regional and international religious and political leadership.

2. The Present Situation of Conflict, Suffering and Death

We believe that all kinds of military attacks and operations and spiral violence ought to be stopped immediately. The Israeli military forces have not spared churches and mosques. A total ceasefire must be immediately declared on both sides to understand what Prophet Zechariah said: �Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of Hosts.�

This means there must be a total withdrawal of the Israeli army without any delay from the re-occupied Palestinian territories, as President Bush said, easing the life of Palestinians in their daily lives and work, and at the Israeli checkpoints. At the same time a parallel political negotiation must take place immediately.
We still see that Mr. Arafat is the elected president and the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and he is the only one who can deliver the peace agreement in this period of history.

At this time we strongly believe that international protection must be imposed in order to secure the lives of the people.

3. The Issue of the Basilica of the Nativity
We believe this situation must be handled in two ways:

A. Humanitarian aid, which includes water, food and electricity, must be given to the 250 people who have taken refuge in the church. As we know, not all of them are fighters, but there are many civilians in the church, including women and children. Also, the body of the man who was shot and killed on April 8 must be allowed to be removed and buried according to his own tradition.

B. A possible solution for the Palestinians inside is to have a three-day truce declared in which the Israeli army will withdraw from Bethlehem, including the area of the basilica. Then the Palestinian Authority will be asked to collect the weapons and allow the people to go outside the basilica and go safely home.

Mr. Secretary, we have represented Christianity in this part of the world for the last two thousand years. We believe that the future of Palestinian Christianity is also in peace and not in war. We believe that the Christian Church can be an instrument of peace, justice and reconciliation. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, �I have a dream.� Our dream is that these two peoples who represent the three monotheistic religions may live in just peace and freedom, in security and reconciliation.
May God bless you


Sincerely,

OPEN LETTER TO US SECRETARY OF STATE, GENERAL COLIN POWELL

from Members of English-Speaking Christian Communities in the Holy Land

April 7, 2002

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
U.S. State Department
2202 C Street NW
Washington DC 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary,

"... No one can remain indifferent to the injustice of which the Palestinian people have been victims for more than fifty years. No one can contest the right of the Israeli people to live in security. But neither can anyone forget the innocent victims who on both sides fall day after day under the blows of violence. Weapons and bloody attacks will never be the right means for making a political statement to the other side. Nor is the logic of the law of retaliation capable any longer of leading to paths of peace." John Paul II (January 10, 2002)

We, the undersigned, have experienced and can attest to the truth of these words of Pope John Paul II. We are members of several English-speaking Christian communities in the Holy Land who have been living in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. Our length of residence ranges from six months to twenty years. We represent a number of English-speaking nationalities, predominantly American but also many others, and a wide variety of backgrounds and professions. We include students and professors, parents and clergy, US government/ USAID personnel, heads/personnel of American and other non-governmental aid agencies, international diplomats, officials working for UN agencies and health and education professionals.

We are writing to you out of a deep concern and urgency. The violent and horrible events in this land have escalated in recent weeks. America is deeply involved in this conflict both as a broker of the peace process and as a supplier of weapons. The increased violence has underscored the failure of successive American administrations to implement defined policies for the resolution of this conflict.

Twenty-five years have passed since President Sadat visited Jerusalem and opened the way to the Camp David peace process. Camp David was eventually succeeded by the Oslo Accords, then the Wye River Agreement, and more recently by the Mitchell and Tenet reports. None of these agreements have been implemented. A generation of Israeli and Palestinian youth has grown up observing the lack of political will of the United States government to implement our defined policies for the Middle East. Moderates on both sides of this conflict have been marginalized and discredited by the failure to bring about a just and lasting peace. Both the Israeli creation of "facts on the ground", and the terror attacks against innocent civilians, have succeeded in delaying the timeframe and in presenting further obstacles to the search for a just and lasting peace.

The US government has accepted such negative developments with apparent equanimity. It has capitulated to the demands and excesses of the extremists and radicals on both sides who have no interest in peace and reconciliation. To date, it has failed to address the major cause of the problem - the oppressive and illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza The legitimate human and civil rights of the Palestinian people and their right to their own national homeland have been denied - rights that most peoples of the earth enjoy and take for granted. Palestinians daily face the expropriation of their land and the unrelenting construction on this land of Israeli settlements and settlement roads. Over the last 18 months ordinary Palestinians have also suffered under the Israeli 'closures' and military siege, which have cut them off from their places of employment, study, basic health-care and families.

During this period, our Christian communities have seen the horrific effects of the work of suicide-bombers and other militants on the people and cities of Israel, and some have narrowly escaped injury in such incidents. Some among us, however, can also testify to having personally eye-witnessed a wide range of violations of Palestinian basic human rights and personal freedoms by the Israeli authorities, including:

� house demolitions with families made homeless;

� uprooting of ancient olive and citrus groves on which multiple families are dependent for their livelihoods;

� families cowering in terror as US-manufactured missiles shower down indiscriminately on civilian areas from US-manufactured Apache helicopters and F-16 bombers, or from Israeli tanks;

� shelling of buildings right beside foreign diplomatic and UN offices in Ramallah and Gaza, recklessly endangering their international and other staff;

� indiscriminate shootings by IDF soldiers at checkpoints of civilians, including children, women, the elderly and the disabled; as well as firing of tear gas at such people crossing the checkpoints on foot by young, seemingly bored or frightened IDF recruits;

. severe harassment and physical abuse of Palestinians of all ages at such checkpoints;

� inappropriate handling of young Arab women at these locations;

. regular obstruction of teachers and students trying to reach schools and universities;

. harassment and obstruction of ambulances trying to carry emergency cases to hospital and blocking of UNRWA and other humanitarian relief operations.

Similar incidents of this kind have been widely reported on by almost all the main Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights and humanitarian organizations.

All the members of our Christian communities unequivocally condemn and reject terrorism and violence as a means of advancing the political cause of the Palestinians, and fully recognize the right of the Israeli people to live in peace and security in their own state. Our experience here also helps us understand why, in their desperation, some young Palestinians see no other options available to them and nothing for them to live for. The US Administration has focused predominantly on the admittedly horrific and unacceptable violence of the Palestinian militants against Israelis but it has given insufficient attention both to the causes of Palestinian militancy and terror, and the daily terror and war that Israel is inflicting with impunity on the largely civilian Palestinian population. This has, not surprisingly, led to the emergence of a strong sense of moral outrage on the part of the majority of Arabs and Muslims worldwide. It has also generated a major questioning among millions of people of conscience internationally of the credibility, impartiality and moral authority of the US government and its policies. This in turn has contributed significantly to the hostility felt by many people internationally towards the US, its government and its citizens.

There is an urgent need for the resolution of this conflict. There is a solution possible, but it is neither a military one, nor a terrorist one. The parameters of the solution have been clearly delineated and the vision spelled out by you yourself, Mr. Secretary, in Louisville, and by President Bush at the UN. They are expressed in US-sponsored Security Council Resolution 1397, a very welcome initiative indeed; and also in the proposals recently set forth by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and, most tantalizingly of all, in the Taba talks that ended in January last year, which brought the two sides to the brink of an historic breakthrough on most of the highly complex and deeply entrenched issues dividing the two sides.

It is no longer appropriate to discuss proposals about interim solutions or arrangements. These interim policies have been the framework under which Israel has extended and expanded its illegal presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The US government has been a proponent of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now is the time for the US government to operate within the rubric of the United Nations and to finalize a settlement to this conflict in accordance with Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. This is a period in history that requires clear policy definition, firm political will, and consistency in action by the US government. The US government needs to display a type of "tough love" that links funding assistance with policy decisions that express its concern for all the peoples of this land.

We welcome General Zinni to Jerusalem and recognize the very severe obstacles he faces. We express the fervent hope that he will continue to receive the firm political backing, and strong, balanced mandate he needs from the top levels of his Administration in order to broker a just and lasting peace. It is the consensus of the undersigned members of our Christian communities that the only way to achieve success will be a firm, even-handed approach exerting equal pressure on both parties to halt the violence and provocation. The presence of international observers is also crucial for achieving this halt to violence and facilitating the return to negotiations. Necessary also is a simultaneous move to develop the political dimension, through the implementation of the Mitchell Report and the resumption of final status negotiations. To demand that President Arafat deliver a unilateral cease-fire while the closures remain firmly in place and Israeli military offensives and provocation continue, cannot and will not succeed. In the interests of the Israeli people who are suffering so much from the conflict, the United States must also persuade the Israeli government to play its part, by implementing parallel measures to lift the military and economic siege and by progressing toward finalizing negotiations. Consistency of will to move beyond the rhetoric of US policy and to implement its stated goals will restore the credibility to the peace process and to the role the US government seeks to play as the honest broker of the peace process.

As people of faith, committed to the struggle for peace, justice and reconciliation, we are convinced that greed and arrogance, violence and death, will not have the final word, We have a deep love for this Land and for all of its people. Our experience here has taught us to make our own this simple insight from John Paul II: One against the other, neither Israelis nor Palestinians can win the war. But together they can win the peace. We hope and pray that all sides in this present conflict come to the same recognition Members of English-Speaking Christian Communities in the Holy Land.

Two Christian Families

I think all Christians should know. Please pass to our Christian Brethren. This is what has happened to two Christian families in Ramallah and Bethlehem.

- A Christian widow of 65 years old was pushed out of her house by the Jewish Israeli Soldiers while she was in her nightgown and forced to stay in the cold in her garden for ten hours. The Jewish Israeli Soldiers went into her room and stole her laptop, urinated on her carpet and rugs. Then they stole her Jewellery and they had warned her that they would shoot her and let her bleed to death. When she asked for mercy in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jewish Israeli Soldier spitted on her Cross. This woman had a brand new Audi, which the Jewish Israeli Soldiers have destroyed when it was pulled out of her garage and one of the tanks rolled over it

- Another Christian family in Bethlehem was forced to give their Jewellery to the Jewish Israeli Soldiers after the soldiers had tied up their children and warned to kill them if they did not give them the Jewellery. They also destroyed every thing in the house, everything.

Catholic Patriarch says Israeli occupation is prime mover of violence in Palestine

By Khalid Amayreh

Occupied Jerusalem: 3 April 2002 (IAP News)

The highest-ranking Roman Catholic official in the Middle East, Patriarch Michel Sabbah, has strongly criticized Israel for fomenting violence and hatred throughout the region by adopting a policy based on coercion and violence towards the Palestinians.

Speaking during an interview with the Arabic Service of the BBC Wednesday, Sabbah pointed out that the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was the prime mover of violence and terror in the region.

"This occupation is the real generator of violence and terror," said Sabbah.

A few hours earlier, the Israeli army barred Sabbah and over a hundred Christian interdenominational clergymen from entering Bethlehem, which the army declared "a closed military zone."

"We drove to Bethlehem but were told that we couldn't enter because the city is a closed a military zone."

Sabbah stressed that the problem surrounding the present violence in Palestine has to do with "distorting the reality."

"The image Israel is trying to portray about what is happening clouds the truth and distorts reality. The real problem here is not terror, it is an entire people being subjected to military occupation and repression."

He added that the Israeli government "doesn't want to listen to the message of peace," saying "the Israeli people and the Palestinian people were in an urgent need for peace."

Sabbah denounced Palestinian suicidal bombings against Israeli civilians, which the Israeli government said justified the current Israeli rampage in Palestinian population centres.

However, Sabbah reminded the Israelis that on the eve of Eidul Adha holiday four weeks ago, the Israeli army killed 41 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Sabbah warned the Israeli army against storming or attacking the Church of the Nativity, saying such a measure would be utterly irresponsible.

He strongly criticized the Israeli army for insisting on tormenting and humiliating the Palestinians by preventing medical rescuers from transferring the wounded to hospitals.

"There are the wounded who need to be hospitalized, there the dead who need to be buried, there the hungry who need food."

He called on the Israeli army to leave Bethlehem.

"There was a battle, and you did what wanted to do, now you can go back to your families, and let us try to heal the wounds."

April 3, 2002

Vatican Criticizes Israel for Imposing 'Unjust' Conditions

By ALAN RIDING New York Times

VATICAN CITY, April 3 � The Vatican today raised its profile on the escalating crisis in the Middle East by sharply criticizing Israel for imposing "unjust and humiliating conditions" on the Palestine people and by condemning all acts of terrorism. With Bethlehem under Israel military occupation, the Vatican also called on the two sides to respect holy places.

The Vatican's statement followed a flurry of diplomatic activity that included separate meetings Tuesday between a senior Vatican official and the Israeli and United States ambassadors to the Holy See. The Arab League's representative to the Holy See was summoned for a meeting here this morning. The Vatican said it was also in contact with Christian religious groups in Jerusalem.

In an Easter message on Sunday, Pope John Paul II called for talks to end the new wave of violence and warned that "nothing is resolved through reprisal and retaliation."

Today's statement, which was issued by the Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, condemned terrorism "wherever it comes from," but it seemingly pointed its finger at Israel when it noted that the pope "rejects the unjust and humiliating conditions imposed on the Palestine people as well as reprisals and revenge attacks which do nothing but feed the sense of frustration and hatred."

The statement also called for the full implementation of United Nations resolutions as well as the "proportionate use of legitimate means of defense," a phrase that many observers here read to suggest Vatican disapproval of Israel's latest massive response to the continuing wave of suicide bombings.

However, the statement noted that, in today's meeting between Monsignor Celestino Migliore, Under-Secretary of Foreign Relations, and the Arab League's representative, Mohamed Ali Mohamad. the Vatican had also pointedly stressed the "need to put an end to all indiscriminate acts of terrorism."

Although the pope has frequently supported peace talks to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, observers said the Vatican was thrust into a particularly difficult position by the expansion of street fighting into Bethlehem where both Palestinian gunmen and Christian monks and nuns have reportedly been trapped inside the Church of the Nativity.

Today's statement said that it was in response to the deteriorating situation on the ground that Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's Secretary of Foreign Relations, called in the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, Yosef Neville Lamdan, and the United States ambassador, R. James Nicholson. Vatican envoys in the Middle East, Washington and Brussels have also been instructed to support diplomatic moves to end the fighting.

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
It is getting late, so this will be the last post. The diocesan Theological Commission of the Church of Jerusalem issued this statement. His Beatitude Michel Sabbah the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and the member of the commission sign it.

Reflections on the Presence of the Church in the Holy Land

�Watchman, what time of night?� (Isaiah 21,11)

Preamble

1. Christians in the Holy Land, in Israel, Palestine and Jordan, we share the hopes and aspirations of our peoples amidst violence and despair. Here, we are called in various ways to reflect in faith on the concrete issues which we face. Together, we have the responsibility to witness, by word and deed, to the Good News, and to help one another navigate our daily way as disciples of Christ. Thus, we might become a more visible sign of unity, hope, peace and charity in this Land, torn by war and hatred.

2. I present to you today, brothers and sisters, this document, fruit of a common reflection, written together with members of our diocesan Theological Commission, diocesan priests and religious. The document deals with issues that concern our Local Church as well as the Universal Church, in the light of the importance of the Church of Jerusalem and the events that are taking place in these times. Naturally, our reflection derives from the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the issues that we live out in our daily lives. It is in the light of this teaching and of our specific context in the Holy Land that we address this document to you in order to help you to see more clearly in the midst of the difficulties of daily life. Among the multiple aspects of our lives, we concentrate here on three major points: violence and terrorism, our relations with the Jewish people in the Holy Land and our relations with the Muslims in the Holy Land.

3. These questions might also be of interest to our brothers and sisters in the different Churches around the world. We want to reflect together with you all, and pray together as we live these difficult and complex situations each day. We seek to find in this reflection and communion of prayer the courage to remain faithful to our vocation in this Land that is the Lord�s. In our life as members of our different societies and within our Churches, there exists the constant danger of oversimplifying and generalizing. Sincere prayer and our presence together before God will help us to become more conscious of differing perspectives as well as of the truth that must be discovered afresh day to day in the complexity of our circumstances.

Violence and terrorism

A condemnation of terrorism

4. We have always condemned and we continue to condemn all acts of violence against individuals and society[1]. We have condemned and we continue to condemn especially terrorism, acts of extreme violence, often organized, which are intended to injure and kill the innocent in order that such terrorism yield reluctant support for one�s cause. In a previous document we clearly stated: �Terrorism is illogical, irrational and unacceptable as a means of resolving conflict�[2]. Indeed, terrorism is both immoral and a sin.

A context of despair

5. We are painfully conscious, though, of the injustices, their inhuman hurts and the climate, which condition these acts of violence, most notably the occupation. We have stated: �In the case of terrorism there are two guilty parties: first, those who carry out such action, those who plan and support them, and secondly, those who create situations of injustice which provoke terrorism�[3]. This climate of violence knows no borders; it does not distinguish between Israeli and Palestinian. Between both peoples, helplessness, frustration and despair unleash emotions of anger and revenge in a never-ending cycle of violence. Legitimate self-defense is corroded by disproportionate and evil means, especially collective punishment or the support of the occupation, under the guise of trying to insure security or freedom. Realistic hopes for true peace through justice, pardon and love are labeled illusions of facile optimism. They are replaced by the paralysis of cynical fatalism. Walls are then erected both in the country and in the hearts of its inhabitants. Hope is reduced to mere daily survival. The Holy Land, some claim, has become unholy.

Our reason for hope

6. In this very Land God has gifted humanity with the Son of God, the Christ. His shedding of his own blood by the violent act of crucifixion has reconciled us to God and has broken down the walls of hostility between us. His resurrection has defeated hatred, violence and death. �He is the peace between us and has made the two peoples into one� (cf. Eph 2:13-16, Rom 5:10-11).

A pedagogy of non-violence

7. God is always calling the disciples of Jesus Christ to be a community of reconciliation[4]. In the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, we are called to be the prophetic bearers of the good news of peace to those far away and those close at hand (cf. 2Cor 13:13, Eph 2:17, Is 57:19). We accomplish this not through acts of violence but through concrete gestures of peacemaking, which oppose a culture of death and contribute to a culture of life. This God-given and difficult vocation of the Church and of her members requires a specific pedagogy or learning process of an active, creative Gospel of non-violence in our attitudes, in our words and in our actions. Peace making is not a tactic but a way of life.

Jews, Judaism and State of Israel

Church teaching

8. In communion with the entire Church, the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Jews and Judaism is also our teaching. With the entire Church, we meditate on the roots of our faith in the Old Testament, which we share with the Jewish people, and in the New Testament that is written largely by Jews about Jesus of Nazareth[5]. With the entire Church, we regret the attitudes of contempt, the conflicts and the hostility that have marked the history of Jewish-Christian relations.

Our context

9. We seek to apply and live the teaching of the worldwide Catholic Church within our own particular context[6]. Unlike our Christian brothers and sisters in Europe, in the Holy Land, our history as Christians has been the history of a minority community (a status that we shared with the Jews in the Middle East) in the midst of a civilization that is predominantly Muslim. For many centuries, we have not been a dominant majority in relation to the Jewish people as was the case in the West.

10. Our contemporary context is unique: we are the only Local Church that encounters the Jewish people in a State that is defined as Jewish and where the Jews are the dominant and empowered majority, a reality that dates from 1948. Furthermore, the ongoing conflict between the State of Israel and the Arab world, and in particular between Israelis and Palestinians, means that the national identity of the majority of our faithful is locked in conflict with the national identity of the majority of the Jews.

11. We are called to unity, reconciliation and love from within our local Church. In our very midst and as full members of our Church there are Hebrew speaking Catholics who are Jewish or who have chosen to live in the midst of the Jewish people[7]. The Holy Father has just named an auxiliary bishop for this community. Adding to the richness of the Church in Jerusalem are also many Catholics from other lands, who have made their home in Jerusalem. Seeking to be in communion together, Arabs, Jews and those from other nations, the Church of Jerusalem learns to be a visible sign of the oneness of all humanity. In our constant search for dialogue with our Jewish brothers and sisters, we cannot make abstraction of this context.

The reality

12. As Church, we witness the continued Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands and the bloody violence between the two peoples. Together with all men and women of peace and goodwill, including many Israeli and Palestinian Muslims, Christians and Jews, we are called to be both a voice of truth and a healing presence. The worldwide Catholic Church teaches that dialogue with the Jewish people is distinct from the political options adopted by the State of Israel. Furthermore, �the existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be envisaged not in a perspective which is itself religious but in their reference to the common principles of international law�[ 8]. The Church is called to be a prophetic witness in our particular context, a witness that dares imagine a different future: freedom, justice, security, peace and prosperity for all inhabitants of the Holy Land that is first and foremost the Lord�s[9].

Perspectives

13. Facing this heavy responsibility and difficult task the Church of Jerusalem is struggling, learning, striving and she counts on all her faithful, Arabs, Jews and those from other nations, to help her discern the will of God and the faithful discipleship of Christ. We are already engaged in searching out our Jewish brothers and sisters in an exciting dialogue from our proper common context � that of a Land sadly torn by war and violence. Our faithful in Israel live in permanent, ongoing dialogue with their Jewish neighbors, a dialogue of life and friendship. In the Palestinian territories, our Catholic institutions (the diocesan seminary, the Catholic University of Bethlehem, etc.) teach our faithful about the Jews and their heritage. Our diocesan commission for relations with the Jewish people is an active organ within the life of our Church, helping us learn more about Jews and Judaism. As Church, we dare to hope that our prayer and witness further justice, forgiveness, reconciliation and peace and, in furthering these, contribute also to the fraternal dialogue that can and must develop between Jews and Christians in the Holy Land within the specific context we share.

Muslims, Islam and Arab society

Our context

14. We are realistic in the face of the possibilities for dialogue and collaboration with our Muslim brothers and sisters and the difficulties that confront such a project. The concrete reality of Arab society is different from country to country: here we speak from our experience of this reality in the Holy Land, where Christians and Muslims have lived together for almost 1400 years. This society has known many good days and bad ones and is still faced today with important challenges in its search for equilibrium, face to face with modernity, pluralism, democracy and the quest for peace and justice. Our attitude, however, is rooted in the positive teaching of the Church regarding Muslims since the Second Vatican Council[10].

Two principles

15. Two principles animate relations between Muslim and Christian Arabs in the Holy Land[11]. Firstly, all of us who are Arabs, whether Christian or Muslim, belong to one people, sharing a long history, a language, a culture and a society. Secondly, as Christian Arabs, we are called to be witnesses to Jesus Christ in Arab and Muslim society. We are called likewise, to be witnesses in Jewish Israeli society too.

The reality

16. In daily life, even though relations between Christians and Muslims are generally good, we are fully aware that there are certain difficulties and challenges that must be confronted. These include mutual ignorance, an authority vacuum that produces insecurity, discrimination and that trend towards Islamization among certain political movements, which endangers not only Christians but also many Muslims who desire an open society[12]. When Islamization constitutes an infringement on the liberty of the Christian, we must insist that our identity and our religious liberty be respected. This complexity is sometimes exploited for the political end of dividing the society. However, through dialogue and other diverse initiatives, Christians and Muslims are called to collaborate with one another in the construction of a common society, founded on principles of mutual respect and responsibilities.

A pedagogy

17. In this situation, we seek to help our Arab faithful, who are the majority of our flock, in integrating and living the complexity of their identity as Christians, as Arabs and as citizens, in Jordan, Palestine and Israel. The fact that Christians are statistically a small community does not, in any way, condemn them to irrelevance or to despair. We encourage all our faithful to take their rightful place in public life and to help build up society in all its domains[13].

Conclusion: With Muslims and Jews - A vocation

18. We are deeply conscious of the vocation of the Church of Jerusalem to be a Christian presence in the midst of society, be it Muslim Arab or Jewish Israeli. We believe that we are called to be leaven, contributing to the positive resolution of the crises that we are passing through. We are a voice from within our societies whose history, language and culture we share. We seek to be a presence that promotes reconciliation, helping all peoples towards a dialogue that promotes understanding and that will ultimately lead to peace in this Land. �If there is no hope for the poor there will be no hope for anyone, not even the so-called rich.�[14]

19. As we approach Christmas, brothers and sisters, we address to you our festive greetings. Might this feast be a source of peace in your hearts and in your souls. Merry Christmas! During this holiday season, let us pray to the Christ Messiah, Prince of peace, that he might make of each one of us an artisan of peace, who lives and communicates the peace that is sung by the angels in the skies of our Land. God is the Creator and Redeemer of us all, and in the mystery of this divine sonship brought to realization in us, we are all brothers and sisters, called to practice justice and live in the true peace that God bestows on those who search for it.

December 3, 2003

Signed by the H.B. Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem
+ Michel Sabbah

and members of the diocesan Theological Commission

+ G. Boulos Marcuzzo, Auxiliary Bishop

Frans Bouwen pb

Gianni Caputa sdb

Peter Du Brul sj

D. Jamal Khader

D. Maroun Lahham

Fr�d�ric Manns ofm

David Neuhaus sj

Jean-Michel Poffet op

Thomas Stransky csp
--------------------------------------------------

[1] See Sabbah, Michel (Latin patriarch of jerusalem), Seek Peace and Pursue It: Questions and Answers on Justice and Peace in the Holy Land (September 1998) nn. 14-19. See also the speech delivered by the Patriarch on September 11, 2002 at Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem on the anniversary of the attacks in the United States, Jerusalem, 4-5/8 (2002), 151-152.

[2] Sabbah, Michel (Latin patriarch of jerusalem), Seek Peace and Pursue It: Questions and Answers on Justice and Peace in the Holy Land (September 1998), n. 15.

[3] Op. cit. n. 15.

[4] See op. cit. Section 6 �Reconciliation, forgiveness and loving your enemy,� nn. 28-37.

[5] See Sabbah, Michel (Latin patriarch of jerusalem), Reading the Bible Today in the Land of the Bible (November 1993).

[6] See Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in the Holy Land, �Our Relation with the Jews� in �Relations with Believers of Other Religions�, Diocesan Synod of the Catholic Churches: The General Pastoral Plan (February 2000), 153-157.

[7] �Our Relation with the Jews,� 156.

[8] Vatican Commission for Religious relations with the Jews, Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church (June 24, 1985), n. 25.

[9] See Sabbah, Michel (Latin patriarch of jerusalem), Seek Peace and Pursue It: Questions and Answers on Justice and Peace in the Holy Land (September 1998).

[10] See Ecumenical Council Vatican II, �Nostra aetate � Declaration on the relationship of the Church to Non-Christian religions,� n. 3.

[11] See Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in the Holy Land, �Our relationship with Muslims� in �Relations with Believers of Other Religions�, Diocesan Synod of the Catholic Churches: The General Pastoral Plan (February 2000), 148-152.

[12] See Sabbah, Michel (Latin patriarch of jerusalem), Pray for Peace in Jerusalem (Pentecost 1990), n. 58.

[13] See Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in the Holy Land, �The Christian in Public Life�, Diocesan Synod of the Catholic Churches: The General Pastoral Plan (February 2000), 159-169.

[14] Pope John Paul II, Pastores Gregis: Apostolic Exhortation (16.10.2003), n. 67.

This was posted on another Eastern Christian forum that I belong to, I thought it to be very interesting....

Subject: Allah or Jesus?

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.

The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:
"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world.

And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he
replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope
John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat Robertson or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

Chuck Colson once told me something that has sustained me these 20 years of prison ministry. He said to me, "Rick, remember that the truth will prevail."

And it will!
The author, Rick Mathes, is a well known prison ministry leader.

mark

We are all one, and must love one another as ourselves. The selfish grudging of anything to another, and the vexation at giving, the impulse to
grudge, proceed from the Devil.

St. John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ: Part 1, Holy Trinity Monastery pg. 238

I truly love the Palastenian people, I am in a delightful Melkite Church. And especially the elderly women have taught me much about my faith. But my question is where have all of the other Middle Eastern countries been? They have done absolutely nothing to help these people in all of this time. They have used them as ploys, to suit their needs. They have had a terroist for a leader, who has used them to his own advantage, and generations who only know hatred. The Palastenians truly need their own home land with no doubt, what has happened is not fair by any means, but it is not all of Israels fault.