The Role of a Church

"To put it bluntly, the Church cannot maintain credibility in criticizing Israeli policies while relieving the Palestinian leadership of its own duty to advance peace.
"It's baffling that - aside from a passing request that all parties reject violence - the Church's [proposal] does not mention a single expectation of the Palestinians in its recommendations." 

For a rather interesting turn of events, here are nine high-profile Canadians, members of the United Church of Canada, forwarding a joint letter of protest to the Church moderator, Mardi Tindal, in protest of the vote that will come up at the next general council on a proposed boycott of goods produced in Israeli settlements.

Senators Dennis Patterson (C); Nancy Ruth (C); Bert Brown; (C); Yorah Martin (C); Carolyn Stewart Olsen (C); Jim Munson (L); George Baker (L); James Cowan (L); and Elizabeth Hubley (L), have written to express their protest at the prospective boycott.  The wording of which appears to imply that "Israel is guilty and the Palestinians the only injured party".

The nine Senators feel their denomination has squandered its credibility as a concerned and neutral third party in the Middle East conflict.  "There does need to be a reasonable line between the role of charities and the role of government.  Areas of trade and sanction should not be the role of a church", claimed Dennis Patterson, Conservative senator from Nunavut.

"This kind of activity doesn't meet my definition of Christian charity."

What this does demonstrate, however is that the Palestinians get a free pass.  There are few expectations that the Palestinians will rise to the occasion of behaving in a reasonable and just manner.  Yet this is precisely what is required by the international community of the State of Israel.  That it, and it alone, must make all the concessions demanded of it by the Palestinians.  And, by extension, those who support them.

The United Church of Canada speaks with a double-forked tongue when it states that their proposal that the right of return would have to be negotiated to deal with "demographic realities".  This, in fact, is just what a peace agreement would address, among other key issues.  The 'right of return' represents - and always has - a back-door mission to engulf the Jewish state with a majority non-Jewish presence, effectively sounding its death-knell.

There are many ways to win a war of profound disagreements and that kind of attrition, posing a threat to the very foundation of the State of Israel is just one other way in which the matter can be thought to lead to success.  And that pressure from a multitude of sources upon Israel will eventually succeed in forcing it to accept the unilateral ultimatums - since that is what they amount to, impersonating issues that cannot be amended - effectively committing state suicide.

Yet a member of the Church's Working Group on Israel Palestine Policy, claims the proposal is a moderate one because it acknowledges the plight of Jews and Palestinians in equal measure.  For doesn't the report insist on a cessation of violence from both sides?  Handily overlooking that the initiation of violence emanates from the Palestinians and the reaction from the Israeli side.

It would be possible for the United Church of Canada to a accomplish far more useful purpose if it were to use its auspices to encourage the Palestinian Authority to shelve its resistance to sitting down with Israeli negotiators to finally seek a solution to the intractable problem that has harried them both.  Nothing should be off the table.  And both should be prepared to make sacrifices.

But that won't happen.