Category: Human Rights

Global Vaccination Equity

The COVID-19 pandemic is not over. While high- and some middle-income states have secured more than enough doses to vaccinate their populations, the world’s poorest countries, constrained by funding and supply, have barely begun vaccinating theirs. As of April, 2021, the world’s high-income countries, which represent 16% of the global population, hold 4.6 billion doses while low-income countries hold 770 million. At current rates, the Duke Health Innovation Center estimates that low-income countries “may not reach 60% coverage until 2023 or later.” This inequity in vaccine distribution, though not inherently unfair, is both a moral matter and a global health risk. As COVID variants emerge and continue to circulate, whatever gains are being enjoyed in health and economic recovery in richer states will be at risk unless the virus is contained in poorer ones. In addition to waiving intellectual property constraints, researchers recommend significant investment and assistance in supply chain and logistics, training and availability of health workers, ethics-guided vaccine distribution, and better international cooperation in ensuring global access to high quality vaccines. 

Israel-Palestine

In April, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a 224-page report concluding that after a legal analysis of relevant articles of the International Criminal Court’s statute (2002) and Apartheid Convention (1976) they believed Israel’s practices concerning the Palestinians had crossed a threshold and could be legally described as crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid. The organization was not the first to draw this conclusion. B’Tselem and Yesh Din, two Israel-based human rights organizations had done the same legal analyses earlier and reached similar conclusions. The publication of HRW’s report elicited the expected polarized reactions, but one thing is clear: there is no such thing as a “status quo” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The realities on the ground are evolving, and not for the better. The question before the world—Israelis, Palestinians, UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court, the United States, civil society, and so on—is whether those findings matter. Would a human rights-based approach work apart from independent Palestinian statehood? Some contrasting views can be found here, here and here. (The Knesset is hosting an event with human rights groups on the matter today.)

Hunger

Famine continues to threaten the lives of millions around the world. The World Food Program, winner of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, reports that approximately 41 million people in 20 countries are on the brink of famine. It notes that contrary to common belief, much of the hunger is man-made, driven by problems like conflict, loss of jobs and land, inequality, the mishandling of COVID-19, and so on. With attacking water resources being a common war tactic, the lack of clean water is worsening matters as diseases like cholera spread and threaten whole communities. Food aid alone is insufficient. Effective solutions will require comprehensive efforts from all stakeholders to address conflict, “the single biggest driver of hunger today,” the WFP maintains.

Religious Liberty at the U.S. Supreme Court

On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Fulton v. Philadelphia that “the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS [Catholic Social Services] for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.” The case is one of many in the US, Europe, and other parts of the world in which the tensions between the practice of religion and non-discrimination provisions are at issue. In his 77-page concurrence in Fulton, Justice Alito noted that “the decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops” because it hardly addresses the core issues and many more cases like it will inevitably find their way back to the Court.

American Christianity and Politics

As the American church continues to wrestle with the politicization of Christianity, Elite Source Pro has created the “God Bless the USA Bible” scheduled for distribution this September. Being marketed as “the Ultimate American Bible,” the King James Version contains texts of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance, and a handwritten chorus of Lee Greenwold’s “God bless the USA.” Critics are seeing in the venture an expression of White Christian nationalism and are concerned that linking American founding texts with what they believe is inspired Scripture will inevitably cause confusion. One writer observed that not only does the mingling suggest God’s endorsement of America to the exclusion of others, but it is also unclear which texts would be authoritative in cases of conflict. Despite the political context within which this Bible is being released, Elite Source Pro’s president reportedly denied that the Bible has anything to do with current politics.

Modern-day Jonah

On a lighter (or darker) note, earlier this month, at 45 feet deep, Massachusetts diver Michael Packard suddenly found himself in the mouth of a humpback whale. Terrified and in death’s jaw, he awaited the inevitable. But about thirty seconds later, the whale surfaced and spit him out. The fascinating story reminded many of the biblical story of Jonah who, unlike Packard, was swallowed by a fish and spent three days in its belly before it expelled him along with other stomach contents. Packard had only a few bruises to show for his adventure and a heart full of gratitude for having lived to tell the tale! Hear the story first-hand here.

“We think and let think.” –John Wesley

We all come from somewhere. And our experience and perception of the world will necessarily be determined by a complex and unique combination of biological, personal, familial, social, economic, religious (or nonreligious) and national influences. This inescapable fact of human diversity led the drafters of the core international human rights instruments to recognize freedom of thought, conscience and religion as nonderogable, and the closely-linked freedom of opinion as without exceptions or restrictions. Because of their intimate link to human personhood, these rights are considered fundamental and their violation an affront to human dignity. When they are undermined not only by the state, but through everyday practices of intolerance, deep nation-threatening divisions remain.

Unsurprisingly, responsible states have sought to protect these rights by promoting the virtues of inclusive societies that are tolerant and diverse. But, with “tolerance” meaning different things to different people, it, along with “diversity,” has been elastic enough to be both practiced superficially and weaponized. In the contentious public square, tolerance has too often become an ideology that threatens the very freedoms it is designed to protect.

I. (In)Tolerance and the trouble it breeds

Defined as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own,” tolerance is at its heart about acknowledging and accepting that people are different. Disagreeing with or criticizing another’s views or practices is not intolerant, but refusing to acknowledge them is. To acknowledge those views and practices is to neither endorse nor support them but rather to accept them for what they are—the views and practices of others. No more, no less.

The definitional distinctions may be clear enough but the practice of tolerance is inherently delicate and uncomfortable. It not only requires that we put up with something we would rather not but that we also exercise some humility, the kind that makes us entertain the slightest possibility that not only might there be different and perhaps equally valid ways to view things but we could be wrong. Practicing tolerance is especially challenging when the views we must tolerate threaten our interests. In those cases, tolerance requires not just forbearance but courage. As Clement Rogers observed, “it is easy to be tolerant when you do not care.”

These difficulties explain why some of the most vocal proponents of tolerance are also often its most egregious abusers. Why else would the most influential cultural and educational centers increasingly accept a narrow band of ideas, prevent the exploration of reasonable contrary views, and exclude those who challenge prevailing orthodoxies from important nation-shaping conversations? Such practices not only chill and suppress freedom of opinion, they are also a coercive form of persuasion that makes these institutions what one writer called “enforcers of uniformity” rather than advocates of diversity.

Intolerance has far-reaching effects. By delegitimating the thoughts and experiences of others, it fosters feelings of rejection that lead to division. After all, if you don’t care what I think, how could you care about me? And because humans, by nature, seek belonging, the excluded will seek spaces of acceptance where they can express themselves. These spaces become their own ecosystem, developing quite apart from “the mainstream.” The longer they remain separate, the more they become to that mainstream more than just incubators of competing ideas. They become wholly other, and their contributors become “those people”—objects of contempt and derision.

This contempt, which runs both ways, is most evident in the coarsening of the national discourse as people no longer exercise restraint in communicating differences, and expressions of disagreement are personalized. Terms like “anti-intellectual” or “closed-minded” are interpreted by those to whom they are directed as euphemisms for “stupid.” The stupid, in turn, brand the intellectually “sophisticated” as “fools” who confuse sophistication with wisdom. The uncontroversial becomes controversial as disagreements cease to be about issues and ideas but about sticking it to the other side and injuring those we believe reject and despise us. In the process, “those people” may indeed become radicalized.

In this volatile climate, it may not be long before one side views the other as sub-human and possibly worthy of elimination. Without effective interventions, it may be only a matter of time before the right circumstances call for it.

II. Masterclass in tolerance: Jesus and the Samaritans

The story of the enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans began around 721 BC when ancient Israel’s northern kingdom was captured by the Assyrians. The resulting intermarriages between the Jews and the Assyrian Gentiles produced ethnically-mixed descendants who were thoroughly despised by the Jews of the southern kingdom.

By the time Jesus came onto the scene many centuries later, the Samaritan community had evolved. It had developed its own distinct ethno-religious identity and practices of worship, many of which were shaped by and in response to their rejection by the Jews. The hostility between the two communities had calcified, with prejudices running deep on both sides, but geographical realities made it impossible for them to completely avoid each other. The New Testament records three stories in which Jesus, who was Jewish, both defined and modeled tolerance in his interactions with the Samaritans. Divided societies may find it worthy of emulation.

Christ’s model of tolerance

First, in the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman he encountered at a well (Jn. 4:4-42), Jesus showed how tolerance is not indifferent; it respects, listens to and hears the other. Clearly bothered by Jesus’s Jewishness and unable to see him apart from it, the woman began to relay the religious differences between their communities. He listened. Although he disagreed with her views and firmly presented his own, he was neither contemptuous nor dismissive towards hers. As they sparred over rightful places of worship, he never ceased to see and treat her first as a person. In fact, he cared enough to tell her difficult truths about her life. By the time the conversation was over, he had won her over not only through the substance of his words, but also through respect and gentle persuasion.

Second, in his story about the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-37), Jesus taught how tolerance, which never ceases to see the good in the other, is marked by love and kindness. His Jewish audience was surprised that he would commend a Samaritan above a priest and Levite for his good deeds, but such is the nature of intolerance: it stops us from seeing the good in those with whom we disagree and is content with a caricature that allows us to hold onto our prejudices. Those prejudices then prevent us from treating them with kindness. Jesus shattered the idea that kindness was to be shown only to those with whom we agree.

Third, when his request for hospitality was rejected by the Samaritans, Jesus showed how tolerance does not harm the opposition (Lk. 9:51-56). His angry disciples, however, wanted to destroy the offending village. Recognizing that their intense reaction was likely inspired by wounded pride and their own national prejudices, Jesus swiftly rebuked them before they headed off to another village. In that response, he taught that zeal for one’s beliefs or good causes never justifies the destruction of those who do not share it. If one’s offer of friendship is rejected, the proper response is to move on yet remain open to making or receiving another some other time.

In the preamble to the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance, the U.N. General Assembly wrote of how “[the] disregard and infringement of … the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or whatever belief, have brought, directly or indirectly, wars and great suffering to mankind.” The story of the Jews and the Samaritans is a warning to nations that the divisions intolerance births do not just disappear—they only grow and, under the right conditions, explode.

It’s been a month since the Trump administration released its Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People. The plan drew mixed reactions among Israelis and the Palestinians rejected it unequivocally. Knowing the plan would be controversial, the writers painstakingly explained that it was “realistic” and based on complex on-the-ground realities. They asked readers to be intellectually honest and open minded when considering their proposals. Having done that, here are four reasons why I believe Christians, especially, should not support it.

First, the plan is unfair and unjust both in process and substance. The Palestinians were not consulted in its creation, and their absence is apparent throughout the document. This is deeply problematic because, if implemented, the plan will have a profound impact on their future. Though described as an “opening offer” by administration officials, the plan dictates outcomes on the most contentious issues—Jerusalem, refugees, and borders—all in a manner most favorable to Israel and the administration asks that it be the new anchor in future negotiations. Further highlighting the asymmetries, the phrase “subject to Israeli” security requirements, consideration, civilian administration, or responsibility appears throughout the document as a limitation to a wide range of possible Palestinian actions.

Although the rhetoric of concern for the livelihoods and aspirations of the Palestinian people abounds throughout the Vision, ultimately its substance belies it. This is shown most starkly in the conditioning of the implementation of the economic component of the plan on Palestinian acceptance and full implementation of the (unfair) political terms. Given the dire economic condition of the Palestinian people, this requirement can only be interpreted as coercion.

The unfairness of the plan has been noted (and rejected) by the Arab League, Organization for Islamic Cooperation, some congressional Democrats, at least four democratic candidates for president, various members of the United Nations Security Council, members of the European Union and the African Union. The Pope has reportedly alluded to this problem as well.

Second, the plan, particularly as it pertains to Palestinian statehood, is disingenuous. Though employing the language of statehood, what the plan offers Palestinians is not a state in any meaningful sense. In fact, given the many preconditions, it is unclear if it can be considered an offer at all.

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories summarizes some of the problems as follows:

“The Palestinian statelet … would be scattered archipelagos of non-contiguous territory completely surrounded by Israel, with no external borders, no control over its airspace, no right to a military to defend its security, no geographic basis for a viable economy … and with no ability to complain to international judicial forums against Israel ….”

The proposed entity is so confounding that observers have struggled to find a term that adequately describes it. Some have called it a “state-minus,” “pseudo-state,” even a “21^st century Bantustan.” Mahmoud Abbas likened the settlement-scarred territory to “Swiss cheese.”  The Administration rather unconvincingly addresses the obvious geography problem by pointing to the “innovative” transportation system that will connect the enclaves, supposedly rendering their lack of contiguity irrelevant. As for the lack of meaningful markers of statehood (particularly true self-determination), it argues that we need to change our understanding of sovereignty. “Sovereignty is an amorphous concept” and in our interdependent world states can enter “agreements that set parameters essential to each state,” they write. Sure, but in this case the Palestinians are not voluntarily ceding the most essential attributes of statehood, those are being taken away from them at the onset.

Moreover, to even have the privilege of statehood, the writers impose preconditions such as the two quoted below:

The Palestinians shall have implemented a governing system with a constitution or another system for establishing the rule of law that provides for freedom of press, free and fair elections, respect for human rights for its citizens, protections for religious freedom and for religious minorities to observe their faith, uniform and fair enforcement of law and contractual rights, due process under law, and an independent judiciary with appropriate legal consequences and punishment established for violations of the law.

The Palestinians shall have established transparent, independent, and credit-worthy financial institutions capable of engaging in international market transactions in the same manner as financial institutions of western democracies with appropriate governance to prevent corruption and ensure the proper use of such funds, and a legal system to protect investments and to address market-based commercial expectations. The State of Palestine should meet the independent objective criteria to join the International Monetary Fund.

Whether the Palestinians have met the criteria “must be determined to have occurred by the State of Israel and the United States, jointly, acting in good faith …” the plan reads. Although the substance of the two criteria above is certainly desirable in a 21st century state, it is important to note that for many existing states around the world (that are not considered “failed states”) these remain aspirational. To consider their full realization necessary for the Palestinian state to exist at all is unfair and hypocritical. Moreover, requiring credible institutions before statehood is to put the cart before the horse. The lack of the latter will necessarily cripple the development of the former.

The preceding and the fact that Israel, just weeks after the announcement and without Palestinian input or assent, is already preparing to annex territory in the West Bank and has, along with the United States, already established a committee for the purpose brings into question the genuineness of the offer of Palestinian statehood.

Third, if the plan is implemented, it will undermine rather than enhance Israeli security by legalizing a volatile and unsustainable geographical and political arrangement that will only further dehumanize both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel will indeed become what many of its critics have long argued it already is—a bi-national “apartheid” state. Even former foreign ministers from across Europe have voiced concerns about the inevitability of this outcome. Instead of offering  Palestinians “a path to a dignified national life” as it claims, the plan would only guarantee their subjugation. It will entrench existing racial/ethnic prejudices and injustices (described in this podcast by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy at 11:50-13:00) and this will only further embitter the Palestinians and increase violence. In response, Israel will feel compelled to employ ever more brutal and repressive measures to enhance its security, making peace even more elusive.

Fourth, as written, the plan is disrespectful, condescending, and contemptuous toward the Palestinians both in its spirit and, in some cases, its language. Noting this problem, Daniel Levy described it as a “hate letter” to the Palestinians. With Israeli benignity and stability and Palestinian malignity and instability assumed throughout, it seems the writers lacked an understanding of the importance and delicateness of national pride, and how, when wounded, can harden even the most unreasonable positions.

The plan humiliates the Palestinians by essentially telling them, “We will give you a state that we think is suitable for you when you get yourselves together in manner that satisfies us.” Just in case readers are unsure of my reading of the tone of the document, the administration’s senior adviser on the plan, in his many post-release interviews, left no doubt.

Whatever the path is to Israeli-Palestinian peace, disrespect and contempt cannot be part of it.

If peace is still the goal, the honest (and indeed more effective) approach to this complex situation would have been for the administration to acknowledge that the current conditions are not conducive to the creation of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement that would allow for legitimate Palestinian statehood. Instead of pushing forward a deeply flawed and unrealistic plan, the administration could have focused on creating better conditions by building trust between the parties, working with the international community to address the security threats facing Israel, and fortifying existing domestic and international mechanisms to ensure that the current political and economic conditions do not deteriorate further. Pretending peace is possible at this time and using the peace process for political ends when lives are at stake is dangerous and unethical.

For these reasons, we should not support the Vision.

On November 18, 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement indicating that after extensive legal review the current administration did not find Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank “per se inconsistent with international law.” As expected, the usual cacophony ensued. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded the decision saying it “rights a historical wrong;” Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat issued a statement calling it evidence of the administration’s “attempts to replace international law with the ‘law of the jungle’;” Martin Indyk, former U.S. envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, asked, “why slap the Palestinians in the face again?” The United Nations, United Kingdom and European Union issued their own statements reaffirming the illegality of the settlements under international law.

Although the Secretary’s statement was accessorized with legal nuance and qualification, it reflected a clear cold political choice: the United States was essentially giving Israel unfettered permission to build settlements in the West Bank, which, depending on how much more construction occurs, could result in de facto annexation. The equivocation seemed only to serve the purpose of giving the administration an “out” should the consequences not be pretty.

Particularly concerning was the secretary’s assertion that calling the settlements illegal had not advanced the cause of peace. His view rang hollow not only because it is unprovable, but also because it misunderstands the role of international law in the peace process. The relevant, though contested, law in this case being the binding Security Council resolutions that have declared the settlements as having no “legal validity” (SC Res. 446, 1979) and their building a “flagrant violation under international law” (SC Res. 2334, 2016) as well as Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) which prohibits the forcible transfer of protected persons from occupied territory. These and other legal principles noted in the International Court of Justice’s 2004 Advisory Opinion on the construction of the wall have provided a rules-based framework (born of many years of hard diplomacy) designed to make the desired political, negotiated solution possible. The law is thus a part of the political process, serving the important purpose of constraining dangerous instincts and providing some semblance of stability in a volatile and complex situation.

Now, by effectively removing what remained of the legal pillar of the peace process, the decision has (1) confirmed the death of the two-state solution, leaving a morally-troubling and politically-questionable alternative in its stead and (2) sanctioned and given renewed moral legitimacy to the idea of rule by the powerful in a world that has slowly and painstakingly been trying to move beyond it. The decision tells our post-World War II world, in the words of Michael Doran in his latest piece in Foreign Affairs, “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Had Secretary Pompeo added “get over it,” the message could not have been clearer.

Peacemaking is hard. It is harder in a complex conflict in which the parties more than occasionally engage in unhelpful behaviors, and hardest when influential peacemakers take a side. For over six decades, the three realities have made the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one of the world’s most intractable. As the world awaits the political component of the current U.S. administration’s peace plan, there are genuine questions about whether its approach—whatever it may be—will make any difference. With the legal, political and diplomatic frameworks for the peace process in disarray and a dysfunctional and fractured Palestinian leadership to boot, prospects for peace seem nonexistent. But if they dare, Christians may have the power to change that.

As I wrote in my post on the Golan heights (March 27), support for Israel among U.S. Christians runs deep. Indeed, some might even consider it not just politically risky but un-Christian to question it. Over the years, however, this often unquestioned commitment has blinded enough Christians to the ways in which they may not only be shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also arguably becoming an obstacle to the peace they seek. I’ll highlight just two blind spots here.

First, because many Christians tend to understand the conflict primarily in biblical-theological terms, they abstract its daily on-the-ground realities, and ordinary Palestinians are too often the casualties of this abstraction. Not only are the human rights issues they face daily largely unknown to U.S.-based Christians because of underreporting in the major media outlets, the significance of the few that do come to light is obscured by a theological conviction that is too often, unfortunately, tinged with an understated but powerful us-versus-them politico-cultural hue. The result has been an empathy gap that lessens the gravity of the human rights issues Palestinians face, effectively diminishing their humanity. This has, in turn, lessened the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies violations of fundamental human rights and delayed calls for resolution.

It’s time more Christians acknowledge and play an active role in addressing the human rights issues confronting stateless Palestinians.

In his 2019 report, the United Nations’ independent Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories presents an especially troubling portrait of Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Among many problems, he notes housing discrimination that makes it difficult for Palestinians to obtain permits to build homes, the detention of Palestinian children usually for offences such as stone throwing, administrative detentions wherein Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons for purported security reasons on secret evidence and without trial, the punitive demolitions of the homes of the families of suspected terrorists that result in displacement, the lack of accountability among Israel Defense Forces for the wrongful killings of Palestinians, and violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

The report also details the dire economic condition of Palestinians. Citing the International Labor Organization’s finding that the unemployment rate in the Occupied Territories is the highest in the world, the special rapporteur notes that partly because of Israel’s blockade on Gaza, which significantly restricts the ability of Gazans to exploit the full economic potential of their resources, two-thirds of Gaza’s estimated 1.8 million inhabitants live on less than $3.6 USD/day and 68% are food insecure. The latter is particularly concerning given that 35% of Gaza’s farmland is, according to report, within an area Israel has designated a “buffer zone.” B’Tselem, an Israel-based non-governmental organization, has also reported Israel’s use of Palestinian land to treat its industrial waste, an issue that is contributing to environmental degradation and posing a threat to people living in the vicinity of the waste treatment facilities.

Water has become a potent symbol of the conflict. With Israel, since 1967, largely controlling the water resources in the Occupied Territories, the UN report notes significant problems in Palestinian access, usage and development of water resources. In the West Bank’s Area C, which makes up 60% of the territory, the Palestinian Authority reportedly does not have access to the agricultural lands and underground reservoirs. And while Israelis in both Israel and the Occupied Territories enjoy access to enough water for personal and commercial use, Palestinians experience frequent shortages because of both technical failures and Israel-imposed obstacles that restrict their ability to replace old pipelines and drill wells. In a 2016 report, the European Parliament Research Service found that residents of Israel and Israelis in Palestinian territories enjoyed three times as much water per person per day as Palestinians in the West Bank.

Gaza’s water problems are much worse. The special rapporteur describes them as “a crisis verging on humanitarian catastrophe.” An estimated 96% of the Coastal Aquifer, Gaza’s primary source of water, has been found “unfit for human consumption” because of over-pumping and the seepage of sewage. And, an estimated third of the monthly wages of the already underemployed and impoverished population is reportedly spent on water purchases, with many simply using the tainted water from the barely operational public taps. The latter occurs at a time when access to healthcare and essential medicines is already a challenge in Gaza due to war-related damage to infrastructure as well as severe Israel-imposed travel restrictions.

The well-documented violence in the territories persists, and instances of violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank are reportedly increasing (and unlikely to stop as Israeli settlement building continues). In this climate of stress, fear and insecurity, the Humanitarian Country Team found that at least 260,000 Palestinians need mental health and psychosocial support.

Whatever differences may exist among Christians about Israel’s domestic politics or the best ways to address the state’s real and significant security challenges, all must at least agree that Palestinians, like all humans, should be afforded the opportunity to live in dignity. Christians ought to be especially aware of and sensitive to the impacts of the kinds of injustices described in the special rapporteur’s report. Christian reticence (and in many cases, silence) in addressing these human rights issues is too often interpreted as acquiescence in the perpetuation of human suffering.

Second, for far too long and consistent with the first problem, many Christians have largely supported one-sided approaches to the conflict—mostly carrots for the Israelis and sticks for the Palestinians—and failed to consistently demand from both parties the hard concessions required to make peace even remotely possible.

It’s time more Christians oppose one-sided approaches to the conflict.

In the last two years, the United States has closed the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) offices in Washington and cut off much needed aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). In the same period, despite the troubling implications and international outcry, it has moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, proclaimed the Golan Heights Israeli territory, ceased to refer to the Palestinian territories as “occupied,” and threatened the International Criminal Court if it ever investigated any matter pertaining to Israel. Nothing appears to have been asked of Israel in return. In the face of such partiality, little wonder Palestinians have come to believe there is much more to lose from engaging in an American-led peace process than from abstaining altogether.

As a group with a peace-making mandate, Christians ought to be aware that successful peacemaking requires that both parties’ concerns are heard and legitimate grievances taken seriously. It also involves disrupting unhelpful entrenched dynamics and making hard and sometimes politically risky choices. It bears repeating that Palestinians are most concerned about their right to self-determination, a right enshrined in the first articles of the U.N. Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Israelis are most concerned about security, also a fundamental matter essential for every state.

To become better peacemakers in this complex and volatile situation, more Christians should (a) begin to see Palestinians first as people rather than as a problem to be overcome, (b) acknowledge the legitimacy of their human rights concerns, and (c) require that Israel, the more powerful party in that conflict, recognize the same. If Christians are unwilling to do this, they might as well simply ignore the oft-quoted biblical admonition to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Ps. 122:6) because through their silences and inaction, especially on the human rights issues, they are effectively working against it.