Related articles and links |  1 of 4

The Holy Land is precious to North American Christians, but it is also highly confusing. Unlike believers who live in the region, we find it difficult to comprehend the wedge of resentment between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Peace accords seem to last only through the ceremonies at which they are announced, and televised images of bloodshed terrify us. Retaliation after retaliation, we wonder if it will take the Second Coming to end the violence in the Holy Land. It may be impossible to evaluate the situation in a purely objective manner. But those immersed in the conflict can give us insight into the issues that plague the land that holds so much sacred history.

The following account comes from Palestinian Christian and human-rights lawyer Jonathan Kuttab, who moved his law practice from Wall Street to Jerusalem 20 years ago.

Many Christians and others concerned about peace in the Middle East lament the breakdown of the peace process and the recent outbursts of violence. We correctly fear that widening hostility, with overtones of religious warfare and animosity on a worldwide scale, will take over the entire region.

Yet in mourning the collapse of the peace process, we need to understand the situation preceding Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount on September 28. It is simply too easy to blame Sharon for igniting the powder keg, or to blame Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for not doing enough to contain the protests. Instead, we need to ask, What was going on that ignited so much anger and frustration?

Stalled process
During recent years, the sequence that began with such high hopes for an end to occupation and a historical reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians had quietly degenerated into a "process." Since its beginning in the Oslo I Agreement in 1993, the peace process had developed a life of its own; focusing on the process allowed, and even legitimized, Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The process became the defining feature of Middle East politics and "the only game in town."

Activists and church groups reduced their involvement and left matters to the politicians. They declined to boycott settlement products and activities for fear that their protest might upset the peace process. The process determined the way people judged movements, individuals, and events. Authorities dismissed perfectly good ideas and valid actions as "not helpful to the peace process," while excusing truly objectionable behavior in the interest of maintaining the process.

The High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention balked at an attempt to convene an international conference to deal specifically with their responsibility toward Israel's continuing violation of the Geneva Convention. U.N. security forces also refused intervention when Israel clearly violated international laws. It seemed as if international laws, morality, and U.N. resolutions ceased to be reference points, giving way to the Oslo Accords. The realpolitik of the peace process drowned voices calling for justice and genuine reconciliation.

The Oslo Agreements were a great first step, but their vagueness tripped up the negotiations that followed. The process mandated a five-year interim during which negotiations for permanent status would be carried out. Whether it was deliberate from the beginning (as detractors alleged) or whether it was a subsequent development, there is no question that the process did nothing to end the Israeli occupation, dismantle Israeli settlements, or address the needs of the Palestinian people such as statehood and return of the refugees.

next page... |  1 of 4

January 8 2001, Vol. 45, No. 1