Rev. Dr. Mitri रहेब Shaping Communities in times of क्रिसेस Narratives of Land, peoples & इदेन्तितिएस् बी सम क/ओ

Shaping Communities in times of Crises

Narratives of Land, peoples & Identities

Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb



Why this topic? And why now?
The answer is very simple: Because we are in a crisis, in a mess.

I. The National Crisis

The seeds for this crisis were seeded over hundred fifty years ago in England. These seeds would not have had fruits if they would have not fallen in that specific place (Great Britain) at that specific time (mid of 19th century). Great Britain was the place because fifty years later it was the super power to get the mandate over Palestine. And mid 19th century was the time because this was the time of a flourishing European Nationalism stating that each nation should own a land and exercise there identity in their own state. It was in this context that Lord Earl Shaftesbury wrote in his diaries in 1854 the following remark:

“The Turkish Empire is in rapid decay; every nation is restless; all hearts expect some great things…No one can say that we are anticipating prophecy; the requirements of it (prophecy) seem nearly fulfilled; Syria ‘is wasted without an inhabitant’; these vast and fertile regions will soon be without a ruler, without a known and acknowledged power to claim domination. The territory must be assigned to some one or other; can it be given to any European potentate? To any American colony? To any Asiatic sovereign or tribe? Are these aspirants from Africa to fasten a demand on the soil from Hamath to the river of Egypt? No, no, no! There is a country without a nation; a nation without a country. His own once loved, nay, still loved people, the sons of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.”

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire this seemingly wild idea of an English Lord was made official British policy by another Lord. On November 2nd 1917 Lord Arthur James Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild:

“Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour “
Palestine was thus a done deal, a deal between the Lords. According to this deal the Jews are a people who deserve a national homeland. Over 90% of the inhabitants of Palestine are not mentioned in name. There identity was not even described but negatively as “non-Jewish communities”, who’s civil & religious are not to be jeopardized. But they were not seen as a people and therefore do not deserve national rights. 150 years later, its still almost the same story: Israel right to exist as a Jewish state, while negotiating some civil and religious gestures of good will to ease the situation of the Palestinians.

The timing of the English Cabinet decision was not by chance. The British army, stationed in Egypt, was ready to storm southern Palestine. On November 22nd 1917 Bethlehem was occupied by the Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, Sir Edmund Allenby, to be followed by Jerusalem just two weeks later. A four century long Ottoman occupation of Palestine came to an end. Palestine was not any more parts and parcel of just another, this time English, empire but a political entity by itself although under British Mandate. Yet the unity of the country proved to be anything else but a permanent solution. Two conflicting national movements were trying to get in control of this country: An Arab and a Zionist movement. An Arab national identity was developing against Turkish rule and a Jewish national identity was emerging within the context of European nationalism. The two movements, the Arab and the Zionist, were nevertheless not equal: The Zionist movement was not only a national movement but also a colonial one, another feature of 19th century Europe. As many other nationalistic ideologies, the two movements were exclusive in nature and were not able to reconcile. The idea of one land for the two peoples in a bi-national state, although propagated by some Jews and Arabs, had no chance whatsoever. The only solution sought by the UN was to divide Palestine in two states, an Arab and a Jewish one. In 1948 the land was divided by force. The Palestinians lost the better portion of the Land. 900,000 Palestinians became Refugees. The Israeli were able to establish a Jewish State on 77% of the historic Palestine. Each people started to develop their own identity separately from and against each other.

In 1967 a major shift took place in the history of Palestine. The State of Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan heights and decided to continue occupying it. The land was unified geographically but one nation was controlling the other and suppressing their identity. This war meant serious crises for Arab nationalism and a rise of religious Jewish national ideologies. The Palestinians decided to take their future in their own hand and fight for their own state, thus developing a distinct Palestinian national identity. The Jewish religious national groups started settling in the West Bank claiming the whole of historic Palestine for themselves, for one people leaving no room for the other one.
Looking back at over hundred years of history one has to admit that both national movements have failed: The project “Israel” has failed. This occupying state based on military force, still without borders or constitution was not the dream of the first Jewish immigrants. The project called “Palestine” is falling apart as well. The performance of the Palestinian Authority and the projected Palestinian mini state can’t be the realization of the dream of the Palestinian people. The same is true for the whole region as well. The promised new Middle East is anything but in sight: Chaos in Iraq, tensions in Lebanon & Syria, Civil Crises in Egypt and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict are symptoms of a serious crisis in the identity of a region that is still searching for ways to reconcile its diverse peoples with their multiple identities.

These crises show the importance of this conference here and now. It’s healthy to know that we are in a crisis. It’s healthy to admit that our national projects of pride have failed.
Did we come then here to say that religion is the answer? Religion as the solution has a lot a followers these days not only in Palestine and Israel but also in the USA. But we did not come here to suggest that. Religious Fundamentalism has been from the beginning of this crisis rather part of the problem than that of the solution.

II. The religious crisis

Already in the words of Lord Earl Shaftesbury from 1954 we were able to see that his national agenda was very well woven with a religious one:
“The Turkish Empire is in rapid decay; every nation is restless; all hearts expect some great things…No one can say that we are anticipating prophecy; the requirements of it (prophecy) seem nearly fulfilled; …There is a country without a nation; a nation without a country. His own once loved, nay, still loved people, the sons of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.”
What is obvious here in this theology is the easiness with which Lord Earl was moving between the biblical prophecies and British national politics. England was here basically the instrument in fulfilling the Devine’s’ plan. What is typical for this kind of reading Holy Scriptures is that it equals between God’s beloved people of the bible and a modern political entity, in this case the ‘Jewish nation of the 19th century”, as if there were no 30 centuries of history in between. While the Land (Palestine) is the same then & now, the people of the Land (Jews) are seen being the same in the bible as today, there is no mention to the whole notion of identity. This missing thinking about the “notion of identity” and about the context of the text as well as the context of its interpretation is what makes this reading a fundamentalistic reading and is the symptom of the religious crises I’m talking about. When the question about the Identity is overseen, then the biblical story (His-Story) is confused with history; a confusion that is dangerous & deadly.
This confusion between His-Story which is connected to identity with History was found not only among fundamentalistic Christian Theologians, but also among many liberal western theologians. By emphasizing the continuity from the Old Testament Israel to today’s state of Israel, they tried very hard to work out and give reasons for the validity of the promise of land to the modern state of Israel. The aim of these efforts was, above all, to counteract the thesis that Judaism is merely a religion, to understand that Jews are a people, and to learn that a land of their own is of great importance to their existence- a reason that became important after 1945! The cynical aspect of the liberal theology is, however, that precisely those theologians who tried to counteract the spiritualization of Judaism (into a religion) and of the promise of land (into eternal life), either knowingly or unknowingly fell into the trap of spiritualizing the land in another way. They referred to the land- one must describe it more specifically as “the land of Palestine” as if it were an unpopulated space, that had remained a fallow land, and as if there were no people with a two-thousand – year history that continued to live on this land. In the same moment when these theologians were countering a kind of a “replacement theology”, a theology that understands the Christian Church to have replaced Israel, they fall in another trap of “replacement theology”, a theology that replaces the Palestinians by the Jewish people and looks at the land being connected only to one people, that is the Jews, and not to those who remained there for centuries and might have more Jewish roots than most of those Jews “imported” merely for demographic reasons from Russia, Ethiopia or India. This “replacement theology” provided a theological cover for an ongoing racial replacement policy of the State of Israel.
This confusion of Israel-Story with History was evident after the 6 days war in 1967. Israel victory over the whole Arab World was seen as a glorious act of salvation, as a fulfillment of prophecies, and as the “little David” defeating the “mighty Goliath”. Watching Moshe Dayyan entering the old City of Jerusalem was like witnessing a Devine drama unfolding. Christian Theologian in many European & American countries but also in the continents of Africa and Asia were filled with the new wine of this victory that they started producing theologiae Gloriae.
The first real wake up call for the world came with the first Intifada. Here it became obvious who is David and who is Goliath. The Picture of the Palestinian boy throwing stones at an Israel military tank was broadcasted on so many screens. On September 13th 1993, when Rabin and Arafat shook hand at the lane of the White House it was but a first important step for two so far exclusive national movements (Zionist & the Palestinian) to become more inclusive, to accept the other and to reconcile. What this shake hands said to the outside world is that in Historic Palestine are two peoples, Israeli & Palestinian, who have no other option but to exist side by side and to work towards developing inclusive & dynamic identities. The dilemma was that the two people do not exist on the land with equal footing, rights and powers. The assassination of Yizhaq Rabin by Jewish religious killer, the rise of the islamists movements in the West Bank and Gaza, the collapse of the Oslo agreement, the failure to achieve a comprehensive treaty at Camp David in September 2000 led finally to the second Intifada which showed in turn that in Historic Palestine there is an Israeli State which wants to remain Jewish, without allowing a viable Palestinian State to develop. On the other hand there is a Palestinian people who pretend to have an Authority, but are in fact occupied people lacking a leadership that is capable of ending the occupation or building a modern state for the 21st century. A one state solution was rejected, a two states solution, thought praised today by the international community, is made impossible by a matrix of Israeli control made by continuing settlement activities, construction of walls and segregation policies. Palestine looks today more like a piece of a Swiss cheese, where Israel gets the Cheese, that is the land, and the Palestinians are pushed in the holes. This is the mess we find ourselves in right now.

It was obvious that at the very time when the two national movements started leaning up towards a more inclusive understanding of themselves in relation to the other people, a counter reaction was launched very intentionally and vigorously to keep the old exclusive understanding of the conflict. Religion was utilized to perpetuate a static understanding of land, people & identity: The whole land was declared Holy, religious trust which needs to be under religious (Jewish or Muslim) law with a place there only for one people. The existence of the other people is not directly denied but is seen as something temporary that will not last and this by Devine plan. Within these counter movements one can’t find much new, but it’s the old exclusive nationalistic “ideology” with a religious packaging. This national agenda with a religious packaging promoted by Lord Earl Shaftesbury in the mid of the 19th century during a time of religious revival was now part and parcel of Jewish & Islamic national thought. While a similar theology continues today within the Christian right & Christian Zionist movements, we see that the local mainline Christian Churches worldwide became more and more very critical of such a theology. The major shift in these mainline churches happened after the first Intifada after which the local Church became more vocal and involved in communicating the untold story of the Palestinian people in the Land of Palestine. This was seen as an important role for a community of faith in this conflict.
A good example of this shift can be seen in the writings of the well known American theologian Walter Brueggemann. In 1979 he published his book called “The Land”, which was a typical book of biblical theology. In this book one couldn’t find any mention to the peoples of the land, not to their identities. He and others mainline theologians didn’t share any of Lord Earl Shaftesbury theology, but nevertheless they wrote about the Land as if it were a land without a people for a people without a land. However in the preface of second edition of his book “The Land” Brueggemann writes of five major developments in Old Testament studies that need now (2002) to be taken into account that were not on his horizon at the time of the initial writing in 1979. One of them “is the recognition that the claim of ‘promised land’ in the Old Testament is not an innocent theological claim, but is a vigorous ideological assertion on an important political scale. This insight is a subset of ideology critique in the field that has emerged as a major enterprise only in the last decades. Perhaps the most important articulation in this matter is the recognition of Jon Levenson that Israel’s tradition demonizes and dismisses the Canaanites as a parallel to the anti-Semitism that is intrinsic to the New Testament. That is, Israel’s text proceeds on the basis of the primal promises of Genesis 12-36 to assume entitlement to the land without regard to any other inhabitants including those who may have been there prior to Israel’s emergence…The shortcoming in my book reflects my inadequate understanding at that time, but also reflects the status of most Old Testament studies at that time that were still innocently credulous about the theological importance of the land tradition in the Old Testament...Most recently scholarly attention has been given to the ongoing ideological force (and cost) of the claim of ‘promised land’. On the one hand, this ideology of land entitlement …has served the ongoing territorial ambitions of the state of Israel, ambitions that, as I write (April 2002), are enacted in unrestrained violence against the Palestinian population.” What Brueggemann did here is to unveil the national Israeli agenda behind the religious packaging. Here we see that the original peoples of the land, the Canaanites & the Palestinians, are mentioned in name and the suffering done to them under religious pretext is recognized. The myth of the land without a people is uncovered. Brueggemann is not alone in realizing this, but is surrounded by many other important theological writers.
These latest theological writings give our conference a special importance. Our intention is to build on them, help develop them further and make sure that they become part and parcel of any theological writings in the future. This is the Kairos for such an endeavor.

The crisis we and the whole region are living in is to know that the national discourses have failed and that the religious discourses are put a repackaging of the same old exclusive national ideologies. The national discourse proved to be racial and discriminatory in nature, and the religious divisive and not inclusive. We are witnessing the emerging of a subculture mentality that is fragmenting the society more and more: This is the case from Iraq, to Lebanon, to Jordan, Egypt, Palestine and Israel. A third inclusive ideology is not in sight. This is our crisis today.
It’s important to understand how communities are shaped at times of crises. Crisis is not only a challenge but also an opportunity. It is important to know what doesn’t work. It’s important to know that we have the possibility and responsibility to search for a new identity in relation to land, peoples & identities.

III. Ways out of the crises



A new reading: The Scripture as a set of narratives on Land, peoples & identities:
There is much research done in the course of the centuries on biblical hermeneutics, or how to read and interpret the bible. But never was the attempt done to understand the entire bible being a collection of diverse & contextual “Narratives on land, peoples & identities”. But this is exactly my thesis. The whole bible from Genesis 4 all the way to Revelation 21 is but a collection of different narratives of land, peoples and identities:
The story of Kain and Abel is but the story of two prototypes representing the Kenites in the Hebron Area with the Jerusalem monarchy. The following story of the flood ends with the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham & Yapheth representing 3 groups of peoples with distinct identities. Babel is the attempt to reverse this diversity and to perverse these orders into a uniformity of one people with one culture, a project which ended with confusion. In the stories of the Patriarchs one can see a continuing process of election & rejection projecting different concepts of relations between the peoples in the land. In this context 3 different traditions from 3 regions (Abraham in the Negev, Isaac in Beer Sheva, and Jacob in Bethel & Samaria) are unified in one single story of 3 generations while a process of selection is undertaken distinguishing Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from Esau, and Josef from his brothers, each representing a distinct group. The Exodus story is about a people liberated and led to enter the Promised Land and the Torah is all about the how to live in the land. Joshua & Judges deal with the relations of this one people to the other peoples of the land. Ruth is about the relation of the one people to their neighbors in Jordan, the Moabites. The books of Samuel deal with the desire to have a State like all other neighbors, telling a success story of David unifying the whole land with its diverse people, Salomon expanding these boundaries to include more peoples, a unification that did not last more than 40 years so that the land was divided between the south and the north similar to the situation before Salomon. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther tell the story of returning to the land after the exile and the new relationship to those who stayed in the land. The prophets speak words of truth to the kings so that they will not loose the land, and words of comfort to those who were brought away from the land into exile promising them a new relationship to the land.
Skepticism toward the way monarchs were ruling the people in the land along with the exile occurring later resulted finally in eschatological & messianic expectations. This is when the idea emerges of a coming ruler who will rule justly and wisely and in whose time there will be “peace without end” (Isa 9.5f.; 11:1-10; Micah 5:1-5; Jer 23: 5f.; Zech 9: 9f.) The idea of the “Messiah” expands the narrow nationalnarratives. Peace is increasingly interpreted to mean Israel’s peace with its neighboring peoples and is even expanded to encompass the whole world. It is no longer viewed as peace for Israel at the expense of others.
At this point the New Testament links up with the Old Testament. Scripture links neither the Messiah nor God’s kingdom to any existing or future earthly kingdom or state. In my opinion, this was not just determined by history; it was theologically necessary, for this was how skepticism toward every institution of a worldly state was maintained, an end was put to any exclusive nationalistic narrative with or without its religious packaging, the land (Eretz) understood to encompass the earth, and justice and freedom achieved universal significance.
It might be easy to read the Old Testament as a collection of narratives on land, peoples and identity, but what about the New Testament. All theological attempts to trace concepts of the Promised Land in the New Testament proved to be vague, not convincing and ideologically manipulated. But is it possible to read the New Testament being also a collection of narratives on land, peoples & identities? This is a real challenge. There isn’t yet much research done on this subject. But its important to put on new and unusual lenses. I would argue that the whole New Testament is but a collection of narratives that challenge the then existing exclusive national & religious narratives. The New Testament introduces a new lens in that instead of identifying with one people over against the others, which is the traditional way of forming one’s identity, it calls to reflect on the whole process of identification being misleading. It’s not by chance that in the first chapter of the New Testament, 3 non Israelites are included in Jesus’ genealogy. It’s not by chance that the narratives of the Samaritans are so widely included, although their narrow national discourse is questioned. It is not by chance that the marginalized sinners and tax collectors are included creating an inclusive community based on social Justice. Jesus was concerned about reconciling the different groups in the land, knowing that this is a prerequisite to peace when he said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.” How true these words are even today. It’s not by chance that the 3 synopitical gospels end with a call to cross boundaries and reach out into the world, a program which is shown in the Acts of the Apostles, starting with Jerusalem, mentioning both Judea and Samaria as regions to receive the gospel until the end of the earth.
In the Pauline letter the main issue is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its implication for the relationship of the Jewish people and the gentiles, as a result of an identity crisis of a Jew from the Diaspora, who came to be grounded in Christo as his home, who divided the wall of hostility creating as a new inclusive community, where “there is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female.” The New Testament ends then with the vision of a new heaven and new earth with a new people made out of all nations and tribes. It’s high time to read the gospel with these new lenses.

A New Understanding: The land as the fifth Gospel:
The land of Palestine was described by one of the church fathers to be something like a fifth Gospel. One can’t understand the bible without knowing the land. The land is thus one of the hermeneutical keys to understanding the message of the bible. It’s important therefore to have a brief look at the land.
Historic Palestine, the land between the Jordan River to the east, the Mediterranean to the west, the Negev Desert to the south, and the Hermon to the north has a unique & interesting position in the region. This land is isolated by these 4 natural barriers of water, deserts and mountains. And yet this land is located on the crossroads of 3 continents forming a bridge and thus is every thing else but isolated. This meant that the peoples living here had a distinct identity from the neighboring peoples, but that they have had always an ongoing exchange, through trade, inter-marriage, migration, exile and displacement with many of the other regional peoples.
Palestine has a unique positioning: the land has the image of being the heart of the region, the “nable of the earth”, and the center of the universe, while in fact it’s nothing but a land on the periphery, the south west periphery of the Fertile Crescent, and a peripheral borderline for diverse empires. The land has the tragedy to have a grand ideological reputation that doesn’t correspond to its actual size, geographic location and geo-political role. Due to this positioning Palestine has been mainly an occupied land, occupied by Egyptians, Assyrian & Babylonians, the Persians, the Greek and Romans, the Arabs, the Crusaders, and the Ottomans. While almost all of these superpowers had a longstanding, accumulative and strong identity, the peoples of Palestine had to keep adjusting theor identity according to the changing context.
A look into the historic maps of Palestine reveals that the land was unified as one entity only when it was occupied, with the exception of the Davidic State at the turn of the first millennium B.C. Because of its location on the periphery the land came often under more than one imperial influence at the same time which resulted in fostering diverse identities according to regions and peoples. Yet, whenever there was a political vacuum in the region, and whenever the peoples of the land were left to themselves they had always difficulty in ruling themselves, in sharing the land and in keeping its unity. The land was thus divided between the different peoples according to different regions. There was almost never ever a strong and developed identity that is inclusive enough and strong enough to unite the different peoples enabling them to form a united and independent political entity in this small and narrow land. Because the peoples of the land were mostly occupied, they didn’t develop a well established notion of self rule. The desire to resist the occupying forces creating something like an inbuilt ongoing instability.
Besides, the land is surrounded by semi deserts from two sides. It was also here in the deserts that most of the Zealots and fighters would retrieve to escape the persecution of the occupier. Yet at the same time, these same Bedouin tribes would terrorize the populated city centers of Palestine preventing any accumulation of power, culture or civilization to succeed. It is in this context that Jesus was critical of the Zealots We have to understand the geography & geopolitics of Palestine if we want really to understand its history and the identity of its people.



A New listening: The peoples of the Land as the sixth Gospel:
If the land was considered the fifth gospel, I would like to suggest that the peoples of the land constitute something like a sixth gospel. So far in doing theology “Israel” whatever that meant was considered the continuum from the time of Abraham until Christ. This is without doubt a very naïve, a-historical and fundamentalistic approach to the scripture, even if its done by very sophisticated or even liberal theologian. This is a confusion of His-Story with History and adopting a mono-cultural perspective. The sixth gospel I’m suggesting are the peoples of the land. The Palestinian people are an important continuum from the biblical times until today is the peoples of the land and their distinct cultures. There understanding of the context is important to understand the text of the bible. They constitute another important hermeneutical key to the bible. It’s important to listen to their experience, that might prove to be more relevant to our exegesis than that of the Israeli people.
September 2000: Isaiah 40, 1-6.
The peoples of the land lived often as aliens in their own homeland, because the land was controlled by others. (Slaves in our land) On the other hand the neighbor was seen as a stranger and sometimes as an enemy. A subculture mentality was often developed with exclusive identity. The land was good enough but the others living on it were seen as bad people. It is in this context that Jesus was challenging the Jews to see in the Samaritans potential neighbors, and even models to be followed.
Dependence, independence, inter dependence…


A New spirit: The power of culture
In the quest for a new identity, what this land and its peoples need is a new spirituality. The land has been drowning by many nationalistic ideologies, quest for militarization, and by a culture of violence. The land is drowning by religious fundamentalism but is lacking spirituality. In this context there is a real need to rely on the power of culture. (This is the reason why we decided to invest so much in culture in this center, it’s not by chance). This new spirit is non-violent in nature out of the conviction that “the meek should inherit the land.” The new identity needed can’t be based “in a written code, but in the spirit; for the written code kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3,6). This new identity can’t be static in nature but dynamic, is not afraid of change but open to reach to new heights. The Ruah, pneuma, Ruuh is not something we can confine just for us Christians. It blows where it will (John 3,8). It’s a divine power and insight that we share with Jews and Muslims as well.

A new Vision: Not Babel but Jerusalem:
The Middle East has been throughout history one of the most diverse region in the world. In Acts 2 alone we hear about at least 15 different ethnic groups, each having their distinctive language, cultural practices and religious identities. This diversity was always a reason for tensions, wars and confusion. The question in the Middle East has been always what the overarching common identity of this region is. What holds this region together? There is no territorial continuity in this region: it is separated by deserts and seas. There is no religious uniformity. There is no one ethnicity. What holds the region together? Even the name for the region tells the problem of this region: Middle East: Middle of what? And East of where? This is not how the people of the Middle East view themselves, but how the Europeans viewed them. Unfortunately our region was united only when foreign occupying powers where ruling it. From Alexander the great, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Turks or the English, most of these occupiers tried to unite the region by imposing one language, or one culture or one religion. All of these superpowers were attempting to build their version of the tower to Babel. And like Babel they ended with confusion. All the attempts by the superpowers have failed. All these attempts were aiming at suppressing the local cultures and striving towards a cultural hegemony. The question has been therefore how one can achieve a unity in diversity. It is the spirit that helps us achieve this unity in diversity. It helps us to communicate. The challenge of a unifying region has not only to do with the diverse cultures and religions inhabiting it, but also with a geography divided by deserts that are difficult to bridge, by national boundaries that are artificial and do not make sense and by a missing infra structure for exchange of peoples and goods. Palestine and the whole region are still searching for a new vision that is capable of overcoming the tribal attitudes, thus reconciling the diverse peoples, and for a system of communication to bridge the vast deserts and high walls within it.

A new Solidarity: Cross-cultural connections
The crisis here is unique in human history. But there are so many similar crises and struggles we have to connect to. We are not alone in this struggle, but we have a cloud of witnesses also among us this day: Sisters and brothers from Americas Indian, from former Yugoslavia, from South Africa, from Israel and from so many other countries. We want to listen to their narratives and connect in solidarity with them.

A new strategy:
The real challenge is to put this theology, this spirituality and solidarity into such an action that we will make a difference. Our stories are important by themselves, but they are crying out to make history. They want to be incarnated in real life and real time. We don’t need new statements on this issue, but action. This action needs a strategy with concrete plans. We need to know where we want to be 20 years down the road, and make today the first small step in that direction. The goal should remain a comprehensive political solution on the basis of confederation connected to regional cooperation. Ending the Israeli occupation is just the first step towards that goal, that need to be followed by a series of concrete actions.


A new investment:
All of the above needs human and financial investments. Israel was not build by the ultra-orthodox Jews who were doing nothing but praying, but by over 200 Billion US$ in foreign aid just in the last 20 years. We are glad to see many mainline churches in the US calling for a process of select divestment (PCUSA & WCC), for using investment to leverage (UCC), and for investments in Palestine. We need to build Palestine from the starch, stone by stone and brick by brick. We want to invite all those educated Palestinians from the Diaspora to rebuild the ruins of Palestine like there forefathers Nehemiah and Ezra did 2500 years ago. In one word: It’s Pales-time: Time to invest in developing a new theology, in conducting research, in advocating Justice, in shaping new culture, in networking, in rebuilding and this not randomly but strategically. In times of crisis like this our biggest enemy is fear, hopelessness and helplessness. We are not called to be spectators, but actors in shaping a new identity that includes all peoples in this land and in God’s lands.