letters

Christian Century, June 20, 2001

Toward Middle East peace

THERE ARE two worldviews to the Israeli/Palestinian crisis and they inform the actions of everyone involved in the conflict. That's why Trudy Bush's suggestion to increase nonviolent action is so attractive ("Nonviolence in Palestine," April 11). If Palestinian teens threw flowers instead of fist-sized stones at Israeli soldiers, the existential fear felt by the 18- and 19-year-old boys in uniform might disappear, or at least diminish, and they might put away their guns. If Palestinian leaders marginalized suicide bombers rather than martyring them, Israelis might be able to endorse greater autonomy and self-determination for Palestinians. If Muslim clerics ceased denigrating Judaism and acknowledged the Jewish attachment to the land, Israelis might be more willing to equitably share space.

James Wall is aware of the internal debate in Israel over the settlements, yet he seems to suffer from the same problem that prevents many American papers from reporting more accurately the Palestinian side--unfamiliarity with Arabic ("Media bias," April 11). If Wall and readers of the CHRISTIAN CENTURY want to know what Arab leaders are saying to their people, they can go to the Web site of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which provides translations, or to the English-language sites of the Palestinian Authority, or the Islamic Association for Palestine.

Wall can continue to dismiss the anti-Semitic lies, hatred and vitriol regularly spewed by these sites as stemming from their frustration over the occupation, but Israelis have little else to judge by in determining how they should respond to these rather clearly stated Palestinian aspirations.

A majority of Israelis are (or were) ready for historic concessions for the sake of peace with Palestinians. But the violence of the past seven months is now seen as an indication of the Palestinians' inability to accept the Jewish state whatever the borders. Worldview does have consequences, as Wall says, but the Palestinian worldview--as articulated by their own leaders in their own language and in their own media--calls for the destruction of Israel. Surely no one expects the Israelis to accept that.

Laurence Edwards American Jewish Committee, New York, N. Y.

I do not equate all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but racism against Jews is still a predominant worldview for many Christians and Muslims. I would be happy to discuss injustices against Palestinians, if we also put on the table for discussion the sheer volume and intensity of hatred that many Muslims, including Palestinians, have for Jews. Many are raised in this anti-Semitic atmosphere. It has nothing to do with injustices committed by Israel. Israelis just want to live and would give up a lot if they could be assured that Palestinians would work to end the ugly hatred. Too many Arabs seem reluctant to grant this basic necessity. Hatred for Jews and Jewish life is not up for discussion in James Wall's worldview.

It is odd that Wall would characterize as racist the term "terrorism" when used to describe aggressive acts against Israel. I think it is a highly appropriate and accurate portrayal of acts of violence by Arabs against Israeli civilians. We are critical of nations that kill civilians during wartime, yet somehow violence against civilian Israelis in relative peacetime is not legitimately called terrorism. When Palestinians confine themselves to attacking the Israeli army, I will call them freedom fighters, but not until then.

Leon Zitner New York, N. Y.

I appreciated Trudy Bush's editorial on Palestine. I was in Jerusalem in February at Sabeel's "Speaking Truth, Seeking Justice" peace conference. I saw what the Israeli occupation in Ramallah, Biet Jala and Beit Sahour has done and is doing to the Palestinian people. I don't know why the Palestinian people haven't given up. They still have hope, so I must keep hope too.

Martin Shoffner Burlington, N. C.

As a Jewish subscriber to the CENTURY, I always knew that James Wall was no pro-Zionist. Although I saw him in disagreement with mainstream Jewish thinking, I also considered him to be fair. Wall breached that confidence by abandoning any pretense of neutrality or fairness in saying, "No newspaper in America, except for some very small ones, now dares to put the Palestinian side of the case. They are all in thrall to Israel, and the chief reason why they are in such an ignominious position is that the Israeli lobby has succeeded in equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism."

Does Wall really believe that Time, Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, U.S. News & World Report and USA Today are in thrall to a Jewish cabal resembling Henry Ford's favorite, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? If so, he must have long ago canceled his subscriptions. An editorial in the New York Times, in effect, "put a pox" on both Ariel Sharon and Yasir Arafat.

Are daily mortar fire, snipers (who sight ten-month-old babies) and suicide bombers merely existential? The best answer to Wall is simple. If the Arabs stopped the violence, there would be no shooting on either side. If the Israelis stopped, the violence would continue because of what Wall and the Arabs call "systemic violence," which really means violence against the existence of the state of Israel.