RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

New Rules for Middle East Engagement

by Eboo Patel 01-06-2009

I spent much of the weekend communicating with Muslim and Jewish leaders on the recent crisis in Gaza.  Here was my basic question: “Have you reached out to leaders in the other community to find a solution to the conflict?”

Here was the most common answer: “I’d love to talk to people in the other community.  Can you give me the phone numbers of folks who agree with our position?  If they’ll appear with us at a media event, or put their name on our press release, that’s even better.”

That’s a perfectly understandable instinct, but it doesn’t lead to a solution.  It’s just a continuation of the logic that has led us … here.

As I stated in my previous post, the rules of rhetorical engagement for Muslim and Jewish organizations regarding the Middle East were set long ago.  I’m starting to think of these as the Status Quo Rules for Middle East Engagement.  If you like the status quo, these rules are for you.

Rule Number One: Use the current crisis to advance your narrative. If you’re Jewish, that story involves words like “security,” “terrorism,” and “right to exist.”  If you’re Muslim, it includes terms like “humanitarian crisis,” “occupation,” and “disproportionate violence.”

Rule Number Two: Talk about how bad it is where your people live. If you’re Jewish, that means highlighting the number of Hamas rockets fired into Israel and the number of lives lost and disrupted in cities like Sderot.  If you’re Muslim, it involves talking about the prison that is Gaza and the disaster that is the West Bank.

Rule Number Three: Blame it on the other side. If you’re Jewish, that means pointing at the violent and belligerent defiance of Hamas.  If you’re Muslim, it means talking about the suffocation of the blockade in Gaza and the occupation in the West Bank.

Following these rules makes perfect sense for the parties involved because just about every one of their talking points is true.  Hamas is violent and belligerent.  The blockade and occupation is suffocating.  Life in Sderot is rife with fear.  Life in Gaza does feel like a prison.

Here’s the only problem: the Status Quo Rules have not, and never will, lead anywhere but the status quo.

If we are going to move from Status Quo to Solution, we’re going to need a whole lot of courage and a different set of rules.  People are going to have to come up with the courage on their own, but let me offer a set of “Solution Rules” for Muslim and Jewish organizations regarding the Middle East.

Rule Number One: Make your first phone calls to the people who disagree with you on the current situation, but who agree with you on the basic outlines of a long-term solution – two states, with security and dignity for all. That’s a Coalition for a Solution, creative and courageous enough to get people’s attention.  This means, difficult as it might be, resist the instinct to use the current crisis to find more people who will wave signs for your side, show up at your rallies, or sign on to your petitions.  That logic serves mostly to further prolong the conflict.  Instead, use the spotlight on the Middle East to reach out to those on the other side who have the courage to play for a long-term solution and say, “Look, the status quo is untenable for everybody.  It’s time for a different set of rules.”

Rule Number Two: Acknowledge the real issues on the other side. Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress, models this in his recent press release when he says that he has been in Sderot and has “seen firsthand both the physical and emotional destruction caused by the rocket attacks.”  That acknowledgment doesn’t take away from something else that Ellison says –- which is that conditions in Gaza are “unliveable.”  It merely means that Ellison has the eyes and the heart to imagine life on both sides of the fence.

In Status Quo Rules, recognizing the challenge on the other side makes you a traitor.  In the Solution Rulebook, it makes you a true patriot, because it’s the fastest way to build trust with the people you have to build peace with.

Rule Number Three: Recognize that certain players who claim to be on “your side” are part of the problem.  The truth is, you don’t want them on your side anyway.  They are dangerous and destabilizing to your community.  When peace is finally made with the other side, your first battle is going to be against them.  Hamas is a destructive force to Israelis, and a destructive force to Palestinians.  Muslims should feel no obligation to defend them.  The militant settlers are murder to Palestinians, and also murder to Israel.  No Jews should feel like they have to defend them either.

Rule Number Four: The politics of the Middle East is about where your family is.  If your family is in Sderot, it is unbearable.  If your family is in Gaza, it is also unbearable.  Talking about whether scattered Hamas rockets are the equivalent of precision Israeli air raids, or whether Islamist rhetoric is as bad as Israeli occupation is logical but irrelevant.  Logical because you can write press releases for your side using such talking points, irrelevant because it doesn’t build a bridge to the other side, which is the only way to a solution.

The sad truth of the Middle East conflict is that many Muslims and Jews agree that the Solution Rulebook makes sense to them, but when the crisis escalates and hits the front page (like now), the old logic takes over and Muslim and Jewish organizations revert to the Status Quo Rules.

But here’s the really sad truth.  Every day is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and a humiliating subjugation in the West Bank.  And every day is a security crisis in Sderot and tightening fear in Israel.

And all the well-meaning organizations following the Status Quo Rules, thinking they are serving their side, are really only prolonging the crisis.

Eboo Patel is founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based international nonprofit that promotes interfaith cooperation. His blog, The Faith Divide, explores what drives faiths apart and what brings them together. He is also author of Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation (Beacon Press, 2007).

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • neuro_nurse
    If we’re relying on anecdotal reports, then I was raised Catholic too and don’t recall hearing anything of the sort. So, with a sample size of 2, there is no statistical significance to either side of the argument.
  • djd1258
    Having been a catholic most of my life I can only state what I was taught while spending my years in catholic school. and I was taught that when I was catholic, (was is the keyword)
  • neuro_nurse
    We can disagree, as long as you withdraw your claim that replacement theology is a "Catholic doctrine."

    The webpages that you cited do not support that claim.
  • djd1258
    I can agree with most of what you say here. the only thing I would challenge is the "new Israel" of which you speak
  • neuro_nurse
    "The two extremes of replacement theology and dispensationalism within Protestantism (and there are middle, moderate positions) sometimes cause problems for Catholics. Dispensationalists often regard everybody but themselves as advocates of replacement theology and, consequently, as "spiritualizers" of God’s promises to the Jews who do not take these promises—or God’s word in general—seriously. Since Catholics are not dispensationalists, they frequently assume that we hold the views of replacement theologians.

    "That is not the case. The Church regards both Jews and Christians as complimentary and overlapping peoples of God. We are both elect. Those Jewish individuals who are also Christians might be regarded as doubly elect, or elect on two grounds. While the Church is the New Israel, this does not obliterate the identity of the Old Israel, nor deprive it from playing any role in God’s plan of the ages. In particular, it does not remove the prophesied conversion of the Jewish people in the last days."

    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303bt.asp
  • djd1258
    IN responce to replacement theology in the catholic church. I was brought up catholic anbut i do have some links for you to explore. this was widely taught in catholocism and mainstream liberal protistantism until just a few years ago

    http://www.cephas-library.com/replacement_theol...

    http://www.axt.org.uk/essays/Kessler.htm


    http://www.americanvision.org/article/replacing...

    http://moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/disce...

    http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/chur...
  • neuro_nurse
    Copy & paste
  • neuro_nurse
    Let’s see, “replacement theology”… Nope, I don’t find that in the Catechism, but under “Israel” I find headings such as “call of Israel irrevocable,” “chosen by God,” “God’s love for Israel,” “The covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” Hmm… Perhaps you could clarify your statement about this Catholic doctrine I’ve never heard of and that isn’t in the Catechism. When I looked it up on Wikipedia, it looked to me as if there was nothing particularly “Catholic” about replacement theology.
  • Answer the question.
  • djd1258
    i didnt make it an issue, you did.but i
  • You are still dodging the issue. Where in the NT does God promise the land back to the Jews?
  • PASTOR JEFF
    I wasn't quoting from a source.
  • djd1258
    the catholic doctrine of replacement theology will again cause us to problems
  • djd1258
    God himself has blinded the jews as a nation, this is 101. but has preserved them. like i have said, if there is no scripture in the new to change the old, the old still stands. like i said the parable of the fig tree speaks of the jewish nation coming back. there is nothing in the NT to add or take away from ezekiel daniel or the others so thier still valid. if we want to base our faith only on the NT we'llmiss the mark completely
  • djd1258
    the keyword is "appears" there is but one truth. like all historians and like I have read in my short research its simply not credible. funny how you make a point of my not citing references however i didnt see you cite any
  • djd1258
    Jesus words "judge not" actually mean "condemn not" having discernment and condeming are 2 different things. I like how the liberal compromisers ( and i wasnt the first to use that separation you were by calling me a conservative). all I was saying is you failed to show any "fruit of the spirit in any of your replies, which for a pastor should be evedent, but this is the same stuff i have come to expect. I have no problem with ending social problems. I have a problem with the politicol part of it and the means by which we go about ending social problems. I see the left as most of the cause of our moral decline. I am not left or right, I stand in the middle, so I am not in need of an elevator sole on my left foot. I realize I am on your turf so to speak. I can feel the love too
  • You're dodging the question. Where is the evidence in the New Testament that God intended to bring the Jewish people back to the original land? That's important, because it doesn't make sense that God would sanction a state to practice a religious system He rendered obsolete with Jesus Christ.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    "there are many places where it appears that he has left for us a solid record of people and events—especially as regards the broad movements in history at this time. These might include facts about the Herodian dynasty, the nature of the Jewish religious sects, Roman rule over Palestine and the fall of Jerusalem."-

    Thank you for supporting my point. It would be nice if you cited references when quoting.

    Now, back to your Bible Scholars....
  • PASTOR JEFF
    As a pastor do you recognize the spiritual authority to correct you in your judgementalism regarding "those people who just follow religion and dont really know Christ" based upon Jesus' words to "Judge not" or are we "pastors just supposed to sit idly by while the sheep are led to slaughter by pop-media heresies? Maybe that's the stereotypical Pollyanna preachers propagated by those who would keep us in our places along with the God whom we serve and that may be why we have such outcry over pastors like Wallis, Wright and others. You conservatives must have a playbook when dealing with us that call into question our "tone" or calling.
  • djd1258
    The Historical Reliability of Josephus
    The question of the historical reliability of Josephus can only be answered by attempting to correlate what he asserts in his writings with other sources (some of which he used), whether literature, archaeology, etc. And, when no such external knowledge exists to confirm or deny his report, we must consider internal evidence, his habits, what kind of man he says he was, etc. to see whether certain of his claims are credible.16 At this point we are closer to guessing than in the first situation.

    Given the above canons, it is no mystery that many scholars hold that Josephus is woefully inaccurate at times. And, it would appear from the work of Schurer, Broshi, Mason, Mosley and Yamauchi that such a conclusion is fairly warranted.17 Yet this skepticism does not need to be thorough-going, for there are many places where it appears that he has left for us a solid record of people and events—especially as regards the broad movements in history at this time. These might include facts about the Herodian dynasty, the nature of the Jewish religious sects, Roman rule over Palestine and the fall of Jerusalem. Boshi agrees that in many places Josephus errs, regarding numbers and names, but this is no grounds for dismissing all that he said as without foundation. Once again, the historical trustworthiness of Josephus, is perhaps not a flat declaration, “he is” or “he is not” but rather it proceeds on a case by case basis.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008