At the outset, it bears noting what The Episcopal Church has said repeatedly over the course of multiple decades: a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved only by bilateral negotiations between the two parties themselves. This important principle was reaffirmed just last month by a joint communiqué of the Patriarchs and Heads of Local Churches in Jerusalem. The contours of what such negotiations must produce are as clear as ever: a two-state solution that provides for the security and universal recognition of Israel and the safety of all its people, the viability and territorial integrity of a state for the Palestinian people, and a sharing of the holy city of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, the gulf between this outcome and the political and moral will needed to achieve it has proven wide. Only a year ago, hope existed that negotiations would commence, and that ”“ particularly with the involvement of the President of the United States ”“ the moment for a peaceful solution might finally have arrived. Tragically, the events of the past year have driven the parties further apart rather than closer together, leading some to question whether international efforts to support the peace process have lost credibility, and whether there is any meaningful path toward negotiations.
The temptation to sarcasm is too great, so I will hope that in spite of pastoral letters from the “Presiding Bishop” of the Episcopal “Church” the ernest prayers of all those who pray for the peace of Jerusalem may be heard.
Might I humbly suggest that the PBess should complete her job of dismantling the Church in the United States before she sets out to dismantle Israel. Referring to the “occupation” by the Israeli’s is naive and prejudiced. The Hebrews have a mandate from a much higher power than the UN or the US to be there. Not even KJS can change that.
Michael+
Thus needs more precision. The number of indigenous Christians has declined precipitously in both Israel and Palestine. A comparable emigration has tragically also occurred from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. (One might also compare, the emigration – sometimes forced – of Jewish populations all across the Islamic world from Morocco to Iran. For example, there were 75,000 Jews living in Egypt in 1948. Today there are approximately 100).
Nevertheless, in fact, the total number of Christians in Israel has risen over the last 20 years due to the presence of tens of thousands of Catholic immigrant workers and Russian Orthodox.
I wonder if focusing so singly on one area (Israel and Palestine) will be able to do justice to demographic changes that are occurring across an entire region.
So I have two questions.
1. Why did she feel it necessary to write a pastoral letter about the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict?
2. Who does she think will read it much less care what it says?
I realize TEC wants to see itself as a national conscience on the political scene, but it doesn’t have either the gravity or the mass to fulfill that role. TEC is a Pound Puppy in a room full of Rotweillers. You would think reality would set in eventually.
carl
Maybe she could issue a pastoral letter on outsourcing union janitorial jobs. Maybe she could issue a pastoral letter on abortion. Maybe she could issue a pastoral letter on dealing generously with Episcopalians that cannot in good conscience accept same sex marriage as a sacrament or even Episcopalians that cannot in good conscience accept that she holds valid orders as a bishop or even as a priest.
Oh, that raised middle finger is a pastoral letter? In that case, never mind.
The usual reflexive animus toward anything done by the Episcopal Church or its Presiding Bishop aside, one does wonder why the leadership of this church feels impelled to put an oar in on so complex and intractable a subject. What possible good does it do? How can this or any other PB gain a grasp of the complexities of the situation on the ground there sufficient to add value to the current diplomatic situation? A focus on the conditions facing Palestinian Christians is certainly justifiable and it is impossible to address that particular issue without reference to the history, politics and diplomacy of the region. This statement goes well beyond that, however, and cannot possibly do much good in the region.