It's four in the morning, the thirteenth of December. Gjermund and I are walking through the Gilo checkpoint, on our way back to Beit Sahour after a week in Norway. There this morning is a special one, it is the time for celebrating St. Lucia. Although Norway has been a Protestant country for almost 500 years, at this day children dress in white and walk in candle processions while they sing about St. Lucia. Afterwards people eat yellow buns.
At the Gilo checkpoint this morning is nothing special. Like every morning, at four o'clock people are already waiting in hundreds to get through the checkpoint, so that they can reach work in time. There is no waiting room, just narrow lanes separated by iron rods. It looks more like a cage than anything else. It's outside. It's cold, the wind is blowing. Some people are lighting cardboard to get some warmth from the fire. By the entrance to the lane the desperation not to be the last person to get in is clear to see.
Just two days before this there was a candle procession in Bethlehem, not for a saint, but for a document. It's called the Kairos document, or "a cry of hope in the absence of all hope". It is a theological document, written by Christian Palestinians, as an encouragement to other Palestinians, and as an appeal to the rest of the world.
The authors describe a harsh reality. The tragedy has reached a dead end, they say. Still they do not give up their faith in a good and just God. To the contrary, they claim to be "inspired by the mystery of God's love for all". Because of this God and this love, Christians cannot give up their faith in humanity either. So the Kairos authors declare that all people are created in God's image and therefore carry a dignity that is from him. The occupation distorts this image in the people who are occupied, but also in those who are occupying. Therefore the occupation is a sin. And therefore an end to the occupation would mean liberation for both.
The love Jesus talks about is a love for enemies also, because they too are loved by God. But it is also a love that resists evil and injustice. If the church takes side, it is with the oppressed, the Kairos document reminds us. Church members are asked to read the document and to come and see the realities for themselves. The international society are asked to insist on international law. If it is not respected, it will be replaced by the law of the jungle.
I recognize the interpretation made in the Kairos document. The checkpoint lane is a cage. But so is the booth where the soldier is sitting. It is the image of God that is held captive.
From the wall.
.
Hi Marie!
ReplyDeleteI read your excellent chronicle about the Kairos document, in the Norwegian newspaper DagenMagazinet. 21. of des. 09 (I will write in English, since your blog is in English)
Everything in your chronicle was so beautifully written, but is it the real situation in the Middle East you are describing there.
You are ending the chronicle by writing the following:
I encourage churches and Christian individuals in Norway to read the Kairos document, discuss it, and, if you agree, act in accordance to it.
I must admit that I strongly disagree with the Kairos document, as it describes a very distorted reality.
Israel needs a peace agreement with the Palestinians to end the occupation.
These Palestinian Christians constitute a small minority of the Palestinian population.
This document does not speak on behalf of Hamas and the PLO, which is the authority that Israel must deal with.
Israel negotiated with Arafat in 2000 at Camp David, and with Abbas in 2008, to bring an end to the occupation, but both times it crashed on the Palestinian demand, The “right of return” of 4-6 million descendants of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 into Israel´s pre-1967 armistice lines.
The Kairos document has also this statement about the Palestinian refugees.
”1.1.6 Refugees are also part of our reality. Most of them are still living in camps under difficult circumstances. They have been waiting for their right of return, generation after generation. What will be their fate?”
After world war II, there was millions of refugees in Europe and Asia who never had the right to return to their homes.
In the Arab countries, there lived in 1948 about 1 million Jews. There are now only about 10,000 Jews left in the Arab countries. Most of these Jewish refugees live today in Israel.
Should these Jews be sent back to the Arab countries where they were treated as dhimmis and 2 class citizens?
The Palestinian refugee problem should be solved just like the many other refugee problems created in the 20th century. The refugees need the possibility to establish a normal life in the place where they live. Their children should get citizenship in the countries where they are born, and the refugees should be integrated in their new homeland, as is the normal situation for all other refugees. This is how Israel has received hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, in fact just as many as the Palestinian refugees.
The Arab and Palestinian leaders have kept the Palestinians in refugee camps for more than 60 years, using them as a political tool against Israel.
Accepting their demand to return within Israel’s borders, will turn it into yet another Arab state and destroy the only Jewish majority state in the world. This would be a fulfillment of an anti-Semitic dream, and the destruction of the more than 2.000 year old religious and political aspirations of the Jewish people.
In the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it seems as if the refugee problem is the main obstacle to an agreement. It can only be resolved as described above, if the Jews are going to keep the Jewish state, they have been granted by the world community
I believe that peace will come closer if the Israelis are confident that the Palestinian leaders are seeking a state on their own, next to Israel, and not a solution where Jews will end up being a minority in their own state.
Jan Sandvik
Hi Jan!
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for taking the time to read my article and also to write such a long and interesting comment on my blog! I am sorry it has taken me such a long time to answer. I will concentrate here on the refugee issue, as it seems to me to be the main point in your comment.
The right to return as it is expressed in UN resolution 194 is not only about return. For Palestinian refugees it is about Israel acknowledging that they have the RIGHT to return. This is not a right which is made up by the Palestinians, but which is clearly stated in international law. It says that those who live in a territory which undergoes a change in sovereignty, are obliged to grant national status to everyone who lives there, even if they are refugees and not present. Some people say that most Palestinian refugees would actually be content with such a moral compensation. The point is that they should have the choice, just as Jews who have fled from Arab countries should be able to return if they want, and to live as equal citizens in the Arab countries. Some of them actually wish to do so.
As you write refugee problems have been solved in different ways in the past. But as Hume said, we should not mix up "is" and "should". According to the Office for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees return is the preferred durable solution to the plight of refugees in the world. Besides, to demand that the Palestinian refugees be permanently settled "in the place where they live" is to put a heavy burden on Arab countries with an already strained economy. It is of course possible that a majority of the refugees will choose to return. This is not impossible on a practical level, as I write on my blog "A visit to the absentees", since most Israelis have settled in urban areas, and not where the refugees used to live. As you correctly point out, the problem is an ideological one.
I understand that an Israel without a Jewish majority would be considered a loss by some. But is it anyone's right to be a majority in the country they live in? Israel does not only belong to Israeli Jews, but also to the people who lived there before 1948. Those who are still left are now a minority in their own country. Is this a fate worse for Jews than for other people? What seems to be the assumption behind the concept of a Jewish state is that different people cannot live together. Therefore it is impossible for Jews to live in other countries than Israel, or have to share this country with others. Rather I would say that we can and should live together, and that to say "Israel for Jews" is nothing different from saying "Norway for Norwegians". And I cannot understand it otherwise than that a demand for no return for Palestinian refugees presupposes that some people are more important than others: Jews are more important than Palestinians, Israel is more important than Arab countries. Why else would anyone demand that one group sacrifices their right for the other group's aspiration?
I am glad you raised the issue, as I believe you are right that it is a crucial one for finding a good solution for Israelis and Palestinians. I would also like to point out that there are also Israeli Jews who support the return of the refugees and are open to a one-state solution (espacially since the settlements are making a two state solution less and less probable). Please don't hesitate to write another comment.
Best wishes
Marie