Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Palestinian Christians, Israeli Allies, and Nonviolent Resistance

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 02-23-2010 | 7:00pm
Print
12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

100216_090527-1503-palestine National Catholic Reporter has an important article about the Kairos Palestine Document endorsed last month by the leaders of 13 Christian communities in the Palestinian territories. The article raises several key realities that subvert common misconceptions about the Middle East conflict:

1) Palestinian Christians exist, and have much to teach the global church -- especially the U.S. church.

2) There is an active movement within Palestinian society that advocates nonviolence.

3) These movements have support from Israeli and American Jewish activists who also oppose policies of the Israeli government which they see as counterproductive to the cause of lasting peace and security for Israel.

The Kairos Document declares that:

[T]he Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God. It distorts the image of God in the Israeli who has become an occupier just as it distorts this image in the Palestinian living under occupation. We declare that any theology, seemingly based on the Bible or on faith or on history, that legitimizes the occupation, is far from Christian teachings, because it calls for violence and holy war in the name of God Almighty, subordinating God to temporary human interests, and distorting the divine image in the human beings living under both political and theological injustice.

It is important to listen to such voices, even if we do not agree with every nuance of the 16-page document, such as the assertion that "Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity."

Injustice does indeed fuel violence. But even without the occupation, I have little doubt that extremists from both sides would likely continue to commit sporadic acts of violence against the other, however diminished in frequency or popular support -- just as splinter groups have struck as recently as last year in spite of the overall peace in Northern Ireland, followed by massive protests by both sides against the violence.

While I had hoped for a more direct and prophetic denouncement of terrorist violence, the document does so indirectly by strongly and repeatedly advocating the opposite:

[W]e bear the strength of love rather than that of revenge, a culture of life rather than a culture of death.

12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: CityOf

02-26-2010 @ 8:34pm

Ryan, thanks for covering this.

I do take issue with one thing you say, though: "Perhaps most controversial is the document's endorsement of boycotts and divestment campaigns "of everything produced by the occupation."

My question is this:

If we are affirming of nonviolent movements, how can we say that boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending our complicity in violence are somehow more controversial than nonviolence itself?

Let me explain myself. Boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending complicity have always been core elements of any movement utilizing nonviolence. Nonviolence (contrary to the name and what many think of it) is not simply a renunciation of violence. Nonviolence requires action, and often that action takes the form of economic pressure.

Think of the Montgomery buy boycotts. Gandhi's boycotts of British salt and cotton. The Nestle boycott. Boycotts and divestment aimed at oil companies committing human rights abuses in the Niger Delta. Student farmworkers. Socially responsible investment portfolios. The struggle against South African apartheid.

Many of the companies targeted by the BDS movement are companies that manufacture weapons and military equipment for the Israeli army. Others are heavily involved in building settlements and the Wall--exactly the infrastructure that the protests in Bil'in are about (worth noting that Bil'in has also used legal and economic measures to try to get its land back, not just protests).

If we reduce "nonviolence" to renouncing violence and having an occasional march, we may have sanitized the word, but we have moved far away from the sort of action taken by the many oppressed people who have taken up active nonviolence as a tool to ending their oppression.

We--through our tax dollars, our investments, and our purchases--are deeply involved in fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to have a "balanced" perspective, ending that complicity has to be part of the deal.

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 4:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 2:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: ckgmail

02-17-2010 @ 11:46pm

Thanks for publishing this perspective, one seldom seen/heard by evangelical American Christians.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-24-2010 @ 1:20am

I appreciate your exceptional efforts to listen/speak and seek peace.

by: liberalinlove

02-24-2010 @ 5:22pm

I pray more Evangelical Christians, realize spoon fed theology is no longer digestible and seek truth on every level. Even as we love God's chosen people, we can still ask for all of God's word to be revealed. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. Mathew 5:9 If at all possible live peaceably with all men. Rom12:18

by: CityOf

02-26-2010 @ 8:34pm

Ryan, thanks for covering this.

I do take issue with one thing you say, though: "Perhaps most controversial is the document's endorsement of boycotts and divestment campaigns "of everything produced by the occupation."

My question is this:

If we are affirming of nonviolent movements, how can we say that boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending our complicity in violence are somehow more controversial than nonviolence itself?

Let me explain myself. Boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending complicity have always been core elements of any movement utilizing nonviolence. Nonviolence (contrary to the name and what many think of it) is not simply a renunciation of violence. Nonviolence requires action, and often that action takes the form of economic pressure.

Think of the Montgomery buy boycotts. Gandhi's boycotts of British salt and cotton. The Nestle boycott. Boycotts and divestment aimed at oil companies committing human rights abuses in the Niger Delta. Student farmworkers. Socially responsible investment portfolios. The struggle against South African apartheid.

Many of the companies targeted by the BDS movement are companies that manufacture weapons and military equipment for the Israeli army. Others are heavily involved in building settlements and the Wall--exactly the infrastructure that the protests in Bil'in are about (worth noting that Bil'in has also used legal and economic measures to try to get its land back, not just protests).

If we reduce "nonviolence" to renouncing violence and having an occasional march, we may have sanitized the word, but we have moved far away from the sort of action taken by the many oppressed people who have taken up active nonviolence as a tool to ending their oppression.

We--through our tax dollars, our investments, and our purchases--are deeply involved in fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to have a "balanced" perspective, ending that complicity has to be part of the deal.

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 2:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: ckgmail

02-17-2010 @ 11:46pm

Thanks for publishing this perspective, one seldom seen/heard by evangelical American Christians.

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 4:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: letjusticerolldown

02-24-2010 @ 1:20am

I appreciate your exceptional efforts to listen/speak and seek peace.

by: liberalinlove

02-24-2010 @ 5:22pm

I pray more Evangelical Christians, realize spoon fed theology is no longer digestible and seek truth on every level. Even as we love God's chosen people, we can still ask for all of God's word to be revealed. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. Mathew 5:9 If at all possible live peaceably with all men. Rom12:18

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: ckgmail

02-17-2010 @ 11:46pm

Thanks for publishing this perspective, one seldom seen/heard by evangelical American Christians.

by: ckgmail

02-17-2010 @ 11:46pm

Thanks for publishing this perspective, one seldom seen/heard by evangelical American Christians.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-24-2010 @ 1:20am

I appreciate your exceptional efforts to listen/speak and seek peace.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-24-2010 @ 1:20am

I appreciate your exceptional efforts to listen/speak and seek peace.

by: liberalinlove

02-24-2010 @ 5:22pm

I pray more Evangelical Christians, realize spoon fed theology is no longer digestible and seek truth on every level. Even as we love God's chosen people, we can still ask for all of God's word to be revealed. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. Mathew 5:9 If at all possible live peaceably with all men. Rom12:18

by: liberalinlove

02-24-2010 @ 5:22pm

I pray more Evangelical Christians, realize spoon fed theology is no longer digestible and seek truth on every level. Even as we love God's chosen people, we can still ask for all of God's word to be revealed. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. Mathew 5:9 If at all possible live peaceably with all men. Rom12:18

by: CityOf

02-26-2010 @ 8:34pm

Ryan, thanks for covering this.

I do take issue with one thing you say, though: "Perhaps most controversial is the document's endorsement of boycotts and divestment campaigns "of everything produced by the occupation."

My question is this:

If we are affirming of nonviolent movements, how can we say that boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending our complicity in violence are somehow more controversial than nonviolence itself?

Let me explain myself. Boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending complicity have always been core elements of any movement utilizing nonviolence. Nonviolence (contrary to the name and what many think of it) is not simply a renunciation of violence. Nonviolence requires action, and often that action takes the form of economic pressure.

Think of the Montgomery buy boycotts. Gandhi's boycotts of British salt and cotton. The Nestle boycott. Boycotts and divestment aimed at oil companies committing human rights abuses in the Niger Delta. Student farmworkers. Socially responsible investment portfolios. The struggle against South African apartheid.

Many of the companies targeted by the BDS movement are companies that manufacture weapons and military equipment for the Israeli army. Others are heavily involved in building settlements and the Wall--exactly the infrastructure that the protests in Bil'in are about (worth noting that Bil'in has also used legal and economic measures to try to get its land back, not just protests).

If we reduce "nonviolence" to renouncing violence and having an occasional march, we may have sanitized the word, but we have moved far away from the sort of action taken by the many oppressed people who have taken up active nonviolence as a tool to ending their oppression.

We--through our tax dollars, our investments, and our purchases--are deeply involved in fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to have a "balanced" perspective, ending that complicity has to be part of the deal.

by: CityOf

02-26-2010 @ 8:34pm

Ryan, thanks for covering this.

I do take issue with one thing you say, though: "Perhaps most controversial is the document's endorsement of boycotts and divestment campaigns "of everything produced by the occupation."

My question is this:

If we are affirming of nonviolent movements, how can we say that boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending our complicity in violence are somehow more controversial than nonviolence itself?

Let me explain myself. Boycotts, divestment, and other economic means of ending complicity have always been core elements of any movement utilizing nonviolence. Nonviolence (contrary to the name and what many think of it) is not simply a renunciation of violence. Nonviolence requires action, and often that action takes the form of economic pressure.

Think of the Montgomery buy boycotts. Gandhi's boycotts of British salt and cotton. The Nestle boycott. Boycotts and divestment aimed at oil companies committing human rights abuses in the Niger Delta. Student farmworkers. Socially responsible investment portfolios. The struggle against South African apartheid.

Many of the companies targeted by the BDS movement are companies that manufacture weapons and military equipment for the Israeli army. Others are heavily involved in building settlements and the Wall--exactly the infrastructure that the protests in Bil'in are about (worth noting that Bil'in has also used legal and economic measures to try to get its land back, not just protests).

If we reduce "nonviolence" to renouncing violence and having an occasional march, we may have sanitized the word, but we have moved far away from the sort of action taken by the many oppressed people who have taken up active nonviolence as a tool to ending their oppression.

We--through our tax dollars, our investments, and our purchases--are deeply involved in fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to have a "balanced" perspective, ending that complicity has to be part of the deal.

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 2:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 2:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 4:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"

by: CityOf

02-27-2010 @ 4:46pm

Sorry for the double comment, but here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about, in a different context (and therefore less "controversial"

Here's a wonderful article from Christian Peacemaker Teams on an Ash Wednesday service held in Colombian calling for repentance from a government body tasked with land titles:
"Ash Wednesday is a call to repentance. Through song, testimony, prayer, bible readings, and symbolism, the crowd of fifty called INCODER to repentance, a just resolution and demanded "Titulación YA para Las Pavas and Garzal"