The silent retreat I went on over Triduum & Easter Sunday reinvigorated my appreciation for imaginative prayer in the Ignatian style. There were a number of times over the three days where individually or in community with the other retreatants I prayed this way; one of the most fun was where we signed up to offer a monologue of different personalities from the Gospels, imagining what they would be thinking and feeling the day after their friend Jesus was put to death.
Given that I'd spent some time reflecting on how busy this past semester has been - how it has felt dehumanizing, and led me into the temptation of valuing productivity over people, I chose to imagine myself as Martha. Here is what I offered as an imaginative "memory of Jesus" to the other retreatants on Saturday morning:
I've been up all night hosting those who are grieving. But between making cups of coffee, I've been doing some remembering.
My life changed, radically, when Jesus came to stay with us for the first time. I adore my sister, Mary, but I always know that when there's a lot of work to be done, I should be prepared to take the lead if I want to see it done well.
Of course I wanted everything to be just perfect when Jesus came to stay. I wanted him to feel really comfortable and welcome here.
I must admit, I was a bit put off when Jesus called me out, saying I was anxious and worried about many things. I was trying to do the right thing!
But Jesus was calling Mary and I both to something greater - to be his disciples, his friends, to be present to him and receive his wisdom and love.
I've never looked at my work or my sister the same way since.
So when Lazarus got sick a couple months ago and was on the brink of death, I knew we had to call Jesus back to our home. If anyone could save Laz, it would be him. Being with Jesus was indescribable. It was like the world stopped when you sat at his feet.
I believed he was the Son of God, and I knew it with all my heart when he did the impossible and brought my brother back from the dead, and after four days, at that!
It was like a dream - I couldn't believe it. Jesus made true his words that even those who died could live, incredible!
Jesus took a huge risk by coming back to Bethany and to our house. Mary's friends that were here when Jesus raised Laz got pretty perturbed when they saw what Jesus was capable of doing in God's name. They went straight to the Sanhedrin and said that Jesus presented a threat to our stability as a nation.
I can't help but think that raising Laz from the dead might've been what started all of this that brought Jesus to death. What if Jesus hadn't raised my brother, or if he'd done so privately, when no one was looking? Would Jesus still be around today, spending another night eating supper in our home?
In some ways, I feel responsible. After all, I was the one who went into town and brought Jesus here to see if he could help Laz. The dream of my brother's new life has become a nightmare.
I proclaimed so confidently, once, that he was the Messiah, that God would do whatever he asked. Now I'm not so sure. Jesus could bring people from the dead through the power of God, but what now?
Those who were threatened by him killed him. They took my friend and my hero, Jesus. Their fear, their hatred, it was too much.
He said he was the Resurrection, that those who believed in him would live, even if they died. But what good is that now? What does it mean, if they killed the one I professed as Messiah?
If only God could do for him what he did for Laz... oh, I can't bring myself to speak it. It's too much to even consider...
Friday, April 29, 2011
Turn the Other Cheek & Love your Enemies: Unpacking Mt 5:38-48
The final paper I wrote for my "Critical Study of the New Testament Class," an exegesis of Mt 5:38-48. (Headings and format follow assignment).
Introduction
“Love your enemies,” and “turn the other cheek” may be considered two of the most radical verses of the New Testament. Subject to a variety of popular interpretations and applications, the text of Matthew 5:38-48 (and its parallel text in Luke 6:27-36) have provided part of the scriptural basis for Christian nonviolent resistance. I too, have used these texts in studying the practice of Christian nonviolence and motivating my work with other Christians accompanying people living in conflict areas.
This paper will attempt to unpack the significance of these teachings around retaliation to better understand the correct way they should be interpreted and applied in modern Christian discipleship. In order to do so, the historical-critical method will be used with special attention to text criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, and social criticism. These methods take us back to the text and serve as a hermeneutic as we apply the text to the modern day. I will use biblical commentaries and bible footnotes along with commentary by an additional scholar to unpack the text.
Literary Contextualization and Genre Classification
Mt 5:38-48 is part of the Sermon of the Mount found in Mt 5-7. The Gospel of Matthew was written in approximately 80-90 AD by a church leader familiar with Judaism. The audience to which the author was writing was Jewish-Christian and open to receiving Gentile converts. Matthew is considered a “handbook” to church leaders for teaching, preaching, and mission “inserted into the story of a living person, Jesus Christ.”[1]
Matthew’s Gospel focuses heavily on Jesus’ teachings and the Sermon on the Mount constitutes the first of seven “Great Discourses” in Matthew. This Sermon is the “formal proclamation of the charter of the kingdom to the disciples and the public.”[2] Through this discourse, the author portrays Jesus demonstrating to his disciples that the Kingdom of God is the fulfillment of Jewish laws and prophesies.
This first section of the Sermon on the Mount is concerned with how the members of the Kingdom should live. Just before the passage being treated here, Jesus offers several other fulfillment passages, and begins the segment saying, “I have come not to abolish [the law or the prophets] but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17 NAB). Jesus offers a series of teachings that begin “you have heard it said… but I say to you” which build upon Jewish law, taking it to a deeper level. These laws include prohibitions of inappropriate anger, lust, divorce, and swearing, along with applications of those teachings. Following Mt 5:38-48 in Mt 6, Jesus offers further teaching on the proper way to pray, including giving the disciples what is known as the Lord’s Prayer.
Historical Contextualization
The fulfillment of the law and covenant is the central theme of Matthew’s Gospel. This fulfillment means that the hopes of God’s people are both realized and perfected.[3] Matthew’s audience is suspected to have been a community displaced by the rabbis at Jamnia, and so were separate from Judaism but still familiar with the scriptures, the law, and the prophets.[4] They would have been concerned with how following Jesus’ teachings fit into their Jewish heritage and practice. The fulfillment texts of Mt 5 offer a continuation of the law but a progression in how it was to be lived out.[5]
Indeed, a progression can be traced in the development of the law of retaliation throughout history and the scriptures. In Gn 4:15 Yahweh is portrayed commanding unlimited revenge if Cain were to be killed. Later, the development of the talion, legislating equal revenge (eye for eye), is given in texts like Ex 21:24, Lv 24:20, and Dt 19:21, as well as extrabiblical sources like the Code of Hammurabi and Roman law code. The etymology of talion is the Latin talis, which means “the same.”
Tb 4:15 offers what has been called the “Silver Rule:” “Do to no one what you yourself dislike” (NAB). Later the positive form of this law is stated through the “Golden Rule,” found in Mt 7:12. However, in Mt 5:38, Jesus offers an even higher way to practice this idea in commanding his disciples to love their enemies.[6] During Jesus’ lifetime, rabbis felt that the talion was often too harsh and had begun reducing the penalty to a fine rather than equal retaliation; however, analogous restitution was still the prevailing legal practice.[7]
Having explored the historical context for the law of retaliation, let us examine the context for another pivotal theme of this passage, hating your enemy. Lev 19:17,18 demonstrates that the command to “love your neighbor” legislated how to treat one’s own kin. While there is no similar command in scripture to “hate your enemy,” there are a number of Old Testament passages that state that God hates evildoers and that God’s people should do the same (cf. Dt 23:3-7). However, these statements decreed religious rejection of those who do not follow God’s law, rather than individual hostility.[8] In Mt 5:43, Jesus attacks this false interpretation of the Old Testament command, and then, offers a fulfillment of the law through a deeper practice of it.
The situation of Jesus’ followers living under Roman occupation also provides important context for these verses. In 5:41, Jesus offers the proper response when being pressed into service. The word translated compel, in Greek angareuein refers to a rule which allowed Roman soldiers to press anyone they passed into service and carry their equipment, which increased hatred toward the occupying forces.[9] Tax collectors, while Jewish countrymen, were employed by the occupying forces and known for taking large portions for themselves. They had a reputation for low morals and collaboration with the occupation. Highlighting these popularly hated figures provides context for the groundbreaking (or better said, kingdom inbreaking) action Jesus asks of his followers.
Exegesis of the Passage
The text of Mt 5:38-48 is proclaimed on the Seventh Sunday of Ordinary Time during Cycle A. The version of the text found in the lectionary varies from the NJB, with a couple significant differences that will be addressed. The lectionary, proclaiming a small piece of a larger work, offers context by beginning, “Jesus said to his disciples.” Throughout the text there are a number of other small grammatical differences, particularly around the use of articles and prepositions that do not significantly change the text’s meaning.
The NJB translates “one who is evil” as “the wicked” and offers the transition “on the contrary” where the lectionary does not in verse 39. It translates “strike” as “hit” and “turn the other [cheek]” as “offer him the other.” NJB commands, “let him have,” instead of “hand over” your cloak. It translates the angareia as “requires you to go” as opposed to “presses you into service” for one mile. NJB commands not to turn “away” from the needy rather than turning “your back.” In verse 45, the Father “causes” the sun to rise as opposed to “makes,” and then “sends down” rain instead of “causes.” The same weather is experienced by “the upright and the wicked” in the NJB and “the bad and the good” in the lectionary. In the NJB, a “reward” not “recompense” is sought. Listeners are admonished not to “save your greetings” as opposed to “greet your brothers only,” and their actions are questioned, “Are you doing anything exceptional?” versus “What is unusual about that?” The NJB translates those that offer this bare-minimum love as “Gentiles” and the lectionary calls them “pagans.” It is worth noting that the lectionary and the NJB serve different purposes (liturgical proclamation versus study accompanied by notes) and it is fitting that words are chosen in translation that best serve the purposes for which the text will be used. In any case, these variances do not considerably change the text’s meaning.
The last verse of this passage has often troubled readers, translated in the lectionary as a command to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Divine perfection seems impossible to obtain, but the NJB offers a translation closer to the original meaning of the text, “set no bounds to your love just as your heavenly Father sets no bounds to his.” The Greek word translated here is teleios, which calls for purity of heart, not absolute moral perfection based on the Greek ideal that might be read back into the text today. The corresponding word often used in the LXX is tamim, used in Dt 18:13 and translated as blameless and in Lv 19:2 translated as holy.[10] The word means complete, loyal, with integrity.[11] We aren’t to be morally perfect as an inanimate statue but rather living in a world of complexities, and seeking like Godlikeness through offering inclusiveness, forgiveness, and understanding. The realm for such practice is that of our enemies–believing they are God’s beloved and treating them as such.
What does Jesus actually demand of his disciples when confronted with evil? To offer indifference or nonresistance? While rejecting absolutely participation in physical violence, in Mt 5:38-48 Jesus presents a “third way” between fight and flight during confrontation.[12] When Jesus commands, “offer no resistance” the word used is antistenai. This word was often used as a military term to connote counteractive aggression, a response to hostilities initiated by someone else. Eph 6:13 uses the same word when talking about the “armor of God,” and in the LXX antistenai is used for armed resistance 44 of 71 times. [13] What Jesus forbids in this passage is violent resistance.
Alternatively, Jesus offers possibilities of psychological and moral resistance, which have their roots in earlier scriptures. Prv 25:21-22 offers, “If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat…for live coals you will heap on his head,” of which Paul reminds believers in Rom 12:17-21 and instructs them to “conquer evil with good” (NAB). 1 Thes 5:15 and 1 Pt 3:9 offer similar instructions to the early church.[14] Still, several commentaries caution against interpreting Mt 5:38-48 as merely a nonviolent strategy for winning against an enemy. There is something more at work here.
Wink interprets Jesus’ call to turn the other cheek, hand over one’s clothing, and carry the soldier’s pack an extra mile, as creative, powerful responses to injustice that expose an oppressor’s violence, create a moral dilemma for him or her, and compel the oppressor to see the humanity of those whom he or she is violating.[15] The oppressor is provided with an opportunity toward conversion, an opportunity to participate in God’s all-encompassing love.
To more deeply understand the command to turn one’s cheek, we must be aware that slapping someone on the right cheek was a way to insult him, and was the way a master would hit a slave. By turning the cheek, a victim would express that the first slap did not do the trick. The oppressor would not be able offer a backhanded slap again with the same hand. In order to hit him properly, he would have to punch him, the way equals would fight. In this scenario, the victim still possesses the power to shame, and through this creative form of resistance, he confronts the oppressor with his humanity.[16]
In order to comprehend the command to offer an outer garment, we look the legal tradition of Ex 22:26-27 which prohibits a creditor from taking an outer garment as pledge for more than a day in payment of debt. The way around the law was to demand the inner garment.[17] To give someone both garments in court would leave the victim naked! Nakedness was taboo in Judaism and shame fell more on the viewer or cause of the nakedness than on the naked person (cf. Gn 9:20-26).[18] By doing something so shocking, the victim could “unmask the creditor not as a legitimate moneylender but party to the reduction of an entire social class to…destitution.” The experience would offer the creditor a chance to see the oppression his practices cause and repent.
In carrying the pack a second mile, a victim takes back his power of choice under the oppressive law of angareia.[19] The soldier is caught off guard and deprived of the predictability of the victim’s response. He is forced into making a decision he has never had to make before. An expression of unexpected generosity confronts the solider and encourages him to follow a new path.
If these creative practices in the face of injustice are not just strategies to prevail morally over an enemy, why are Jesus’ disciples called to practice them? The final verses of the passage offer the answer. Members of the Kingdom of God cannot strive merely for normal standards of conduct; the word translated “unusual” in 47 is perisseuo, which is a cognate of the word translated “surpass” in Mt 5:20.[20] To enter the Kingdom, Jesus’ followers must surpass the typically expected behaviors of the time and offer nondiscriminating love. All people are recipients of God’s love, whether one classifies them as neighbor or enemy. The disciples are called to live in God’s likeness and image, reflecting this love.
Summary and Application
In Mt 5:38-48, Jesus instructs his disciples to respond creatively to confrontation with evil in a way that truly loves the evildoer. Jesus rejects physical violence and offers a nonviolent resistant response that is a fulfillment of the law and the covenant.
Love can be tough. While love can indeed make us vulnerable, offering ourselves and our lives to others, love can also mean holding oppressors accountable for their actions so they too have an opportunity to be liberated from their evil works. For example, trauma counselors offer that the best thing a battered wife can do is have her husband arrested, to expose him and free him from his battering.[21] Through offering a positive action that actually serves the oppressor’s ultimate interest in providing him or her the opportunity to examine his or her motivation and actions and respond in a new way, Jesus’ followers have a way to embrace their oppressors. Truly loving one’s enemies also means not giving up hope they one day will be converted to this process. These creative responses to enemies become part of the inbreaking of the reign of God, not something that comes from on high but from among people as God’s instruments, “as leaven slowly causing dough to rise.”[22]
Some commentaries caution that large-scale application of these teachings of Jesus would lead to anarchy and chaos. A quick glance at the headlines of the New York Times or a stroll through many Washington DC neighborhoods makes it painfully obvious that our world’s crises do not stem from taking these teachings too far or applying them too literally but that we have been afraid to put them into practice at all! Wink says, “These sayings are in fact so radical, unprecedented, and so threatening that it has taken all these centuries just to begin to grasp their implications.”[23] Turning the other cheek may have seemed radical in Jesus’ time, and it may appear no less radical today. This progression in human morality is slow to be put into practice.
However, these strategies have been successfully applied on a large scale through the organized nonviolent resistance in which opportunities are developed for the oppressed to creatively resist oppression together using nontraditional forms of power. The tactics have been successfully employed by Mohandas Gandhi’s followers in India in overthrowing British colonialism, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s followers in bringing about Civil Rights for African-Americans in the U.S., along with lesser-known examples like the March 1 Movements in Korea and the People Power Revolution in the Philippines. In 2011 too already we have seen these values practiced in Tahrir Square, to rid Egyptians of an autocratic leader.
In a world filled with violence and hatred, we daily have opportunities as Jesus’ followers to practice the teachings of Mt 5:38-48, individually and organized collectively. When we choose love over hate, and creativity, vulnerability, and accountability over violence, we live out the fulfillment of God’s laws and thereby become instruments in the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God which Jesus preached and inaugurated.
Bibliography
Boring, M. Eugene. “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” In The New Interpreter's Bible, edited by Leander Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America: Second Typical Edition. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Leske, Adrian. “Matthew.” In The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, edited by W.R. Farmer et al. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.
The New American Bible. [NAB] The Catholic Study Bible. New York: Oxford University, 1990.
The New Jerusalem Bible. [NJB] Garden City: Doubleday, 1985.
Viviano, Benedict T., O.P. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
[1] The New Jerusalem Bible. [NJB] (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 1606.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Benedict T. Viviano, O.P., “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990), 630.
[5] NJB, 1606.
[6] Viviano, 643.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Eugene M. Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter's Bible, ed, Leander Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 195.
[9] Adrian Leske, “Matthew,” in The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, ed. W.R. Farmer et al. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 1276.
[10] Boring, 195.
[11] Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 267.
[12] Ibid., 175.
[13] Ibid., 185.
[14] Ibid., 186.
[15] Ibid., 127.
[16] Ibid., 176.
[17] Leske, 1275.
[18] Wink, 179.
[19] Ibid., 182.
[20] The New American Bible. [NAB] The Catholic Study Bible (New York: Oxford University, 1990), 15.
[21] Wink, 186.
[22] Wink, 182.
[23] Ibid., 184.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
An Orientation, through History & Geography
Nearly two months after I've returned from the delegation, I'm still processing what I learned in Palestine. I was immediately thrown back into "everyday life" upon return home, and although I've kept all victims of the occupation at the center of my thoughts & prayers over the past few months, free hours to go through my notes & reflect have been few and far between.
Here's an entry I've put together as I prepare for two upcoming presentations - The March 25 Lenten Soup Supper at St. Patrick Church in Rockville, MD (along with Fr. Jacek Orzechowski)and after mass on April 3 at Sacred Heart in Columbia Heights, DC:
The first hours of our first full day of our delegation were spent waiting. Breakfast had been promised at the hostel, but none had arrived. When it finally did, we learned that the hotel staff had been delayed at a checkpoint entering Jerusalem, because of an unexpected paperwork issue. This was the first taste in experiencing what living in an occupied territory is like.
We began our day on a tour with ICAHD –the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. Our guide was a young Israeli lawyer. In fact, many of our speakers and guides were people not much older than myself, very articulate and well-trained - the generation, I pray, that will work tirelessly for peace in the Holy Land.
She began to give us a brief history of the region, with a number of maps to illustrate the geopolitical changes throughout the years. You can view those same maps which help illustrate the following history she relayed to us:
Zionism, the idea that Jews should have a sovereign homeland, developed in Europe around the same time other nationalist movements were developing in the late 19th and early 20th century. The British Mandate for Palestine was established in 1920 in the region, and both Jews and Palestinians had nationalist aspirations, hoping to receive control of the area.
Because of violence, the British eventually pulled out and the UN was brought in. The partition plan was developed in 1947, which attempted to ethnically divide the land, but this proved difficult because the populations were intermixed. Jews comprised 32% of the population and owned 6% of the land but received 55% of the land in the plan. As a result, neither the Palestinians nor the surrounding Arab states accepted the plan.
In 1948, the event called the War of Independence for the Israelis, and the “Naqba” (disaster) for Palestinians allowed Israel to gain control of 78% of the land, including half the territory the UN had allocated to Palestinians.
During this conflict, 750,000 Palestinians were displaced and only 100,000 remained in their homes. These internally displaced people have grown to nearly 4 million people in present times. They were never allowed to return to their homes and never compensated for their property loss. Later, in the Six-Day War of 1967, the Israeli state took control of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan.
Attempts at peace negotiations had consistently failed but in the early 1990s, Israel agreed to meet with the Palestinian Liberation Organization face-to-face for the first time. In 1995, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into areas A, B, and C. Area A (area under full Palestinian control, 18% of the land) was supposed to increase over the next five years until it covered all of the West Bank except for the Israeli settlements. Area C (area under full Israeli control) comprised 60% of the land, including most Palestinian farmland.
The area has not been turned over to Palestinian control. In fact, since 1967 the Israel has transferred half a million people to the Occupied Territories, who live in settlements declared illegal under international law.
The major Israeli settlement blocks – Jordan Valley, Ma’ale Adumim, Gosher Sherim and Ariel, divide the West Bank into four separate cantons with no movement between them – no internal contiguity, no access to the capital, no control of border with Jordan, and very few water resources. The separation barrier helps to ensure the development of the distinct land regions as well.
Because of the near full creation of these separate cantons, many Palestinians now believe there is no way to truly have a two-state solution. In any case, in our ICHAD guide’s view, an offer of this land amounts to nothing more than apartheid. She believed that the Israeli state was creating a situation of apartheid on the ground through the separation barrier, control of roads and creating separate roads for Palestinians, and limiting the number of Palestinian building permits.
There are a quarter-million Israelis living in settlements in the Jerusalem area. Called the Holy Basin, it is an area of intensive settlements just south of the Old City strategically developed to eliminate Palestinian access to the West Bank. The separation wall also runs through this corridor.
We drove through the Nos Zion settlement in East
Jerusalem, which was very normal looking with apartments, playgrounds, nice landscaping.
Our guide explained that most settlers are economic settlers who settle because its cheaper to do so; there are a number of different ways the government subsidizes them. There is free security, free bus lines and stations, good schools, cheaper rent, and subsidized child care. (It is clear there is a high level of cooperation between the government and the settlements!)
The distinction between the settlement areas and the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem was marked – immediately as we descended the hill into the Palestinian neighborhood, there was no sidewalk, no trash collection, and a road pitted with potholes.
We were told that Jerusalemite Palestinians and Israelis pay the same taxes, but Palestinians pay disproportionately. Although about 35% of Jerusalem’s population is Palestinian, they pay about 40% of the taxes. They need to demonstrate they are paying their taxes faithfully so that they can keep their Jerusalem ID cards, therefore, they are very conscientious about it.
Despite this fact, Palestinian neighborhoods only receive about 8% of the municipal services spending in Jerusalem. - On a related note, we were told there was a 1000-classroom shortage at the start of this school year in East Jerusalem.
There are black H20 collection tanks on the tops of all of the Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem but almost none on the Israeli homes in the settlements we visited. Water shortages are common in Palestinian neighborhoods here, the Israeli-run water company shuts off the water in those neighborhoods before the Israeli ones.
Because Israel claims to be both a Jewish and democratic state, maintaining a particular (i.e. Jewish) demographic is crucial. Israel hasn’t made up its mind on how to handle this situation. It doesn’t naturalize the citizens of the West Bank but it also doesn’t declare sovereignty over the area. The above-mentioned building permits are another way that the government controls where Palestinians live.
After ’67, all green spaces and open lands (even if privately owned by Palestinians), was zoned by Israel, and new construction was not allowed there without a permit. Permits are notoriously hard to get. To build without a permit is to risk demolition.
There are 600,000 outstanding demolition orders and they cannot all be completed, so demos happen at random, which instills fear in all those who risk demolition. If you have a demo order on your house, you’re afraid to leave it because maybe they will come demo it while you’re gone. Fear is a powerful paralyzer.
There are actually around 100 actual demos a year in Jerusalem area. When a home is to be demolished, the owners are told that they can either demolish their own home, or pay for the demo and cleanup!
Since 1967, 12,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished by the Israeli government. A Palestinian that illegally built was sentenced to prison for defaulting on the fine he was given. He went to court, got the fine. When he had served his one year prison term, he went back home and his house was demolished a second time within 3 weeks!
Needless to say, in our first ours of the delegation, we took in a lot of information and saw a lot of blatant injustice before our eyes. I knew at that point that the trip would be life-changing and at points overwhelming. At times, things seemed dismal. But the work towards a sustainable peace continues, despite the odds.
To close, I'd like to share an interesting article by ICAHD’s founder and director, articulating how we can arrive at a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, viewing 2011 as a “breaking point.” He says, “Life in the Occupied Territories is about to get even more difficult, I believe, but perhaps we are finally approaching the breaking point. If that is the case, we must be there for the Palestinians on all the fronts: to protect them, to play our role in pushing the Occupation into unsustainability, to resist re-occupation, to act as watchdogs over political “processes” that threaten to impose apartheid in the guise of a two-state solution and, ultimately, to ensure that a just and lasting peace emerges. As weak and failed attempts by governments head for collapse, we must pick up the slack.”
Here's an entry I've put together as I prepare for two upcoming presentations - The March 25 Lenten Soup Supper at St. Patrick Church in Rockville, MD (along with Fr. Jacek Orzechowski)and after mass on April 3 at Sacred Heart in Columbia Heights, DC:
The first hours of our first full day of our delegation were spent waiting. Breakfast had been promised at the hostel, but none had arrived. When it finally did, we learned that the hotel staff had been delayed at a checkpoint entering Jerusalem, because of an unexpected paperwork issue. This was the first taste in experiencing what living in an occupied territory is like.
We began our day on a tour with ICAHD –the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. Our guide was a young Israeli lawyer. In fact, many of our speakers and guides were people not much older than myself, very articulate and well-trained - the generation, I pray, that will work tirelessly for peace in the Holy Land.
She began to give us a brief history of the region, with a number of maps to illustrate the geopolitical changes throughout the years. You can view those same maps which help illustrate the following history she relayed to us:
Zionism, the idea that Jews should have a sovereign homeland, developed in Europe around the same time other nationalist movements were developing in the late 19th and early 20th century. The British Mandate for Palestine was established in 1920 in the region, and both Jews and Palestinians had nationalist aspirations, hoping to receive control of the area.
Because of violence, the British eventually pulled out and the UN was brought in. The partition plan was developed in 1947, which attempted to ethnically divide the land, but this proved difficult because the populations were intermixed. Jews comprised 32% of the population and owned 6% of the land but received 55% of the land in the plan. As a result, neither the Palestinians nor the surrounding Arab states accepted the plan.
In 1948, the event called the War of Independence for the Israelis, and the “Naqba” (disaster) for Palestinians allowed Israel to gain control of 78% of the land, including half the territory the UN had allocated to Palestinians.
During this conflict, 750,000 Palestinians were displaced and only 100,000 remained in their homes. These internally displaced people have grown to nearly 4 million people in present times. They were never allowed to return to their homes and never compensated for their property loss. Later, in the Six-Day War of 1967, the Israeli state took control of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan.
Attempts at peace negotiations had consistently failed but in the early 1990s, Israel agreed to meet with the Palestinian Liberation Organization face-to-face for the first time. In 1995, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into areas A, B, and C. Area A (area under full Palestinian control, 18% of the land) was supposed to increase over the next five years until it covered all of the West Bank except for the Israeli settlements. Area C (area under full Israeli control) comprised 60% of the land, including most Palestinian farmland.
The area has not been turned over to Palestinian control. In fact, since 1967 the Israel has transferred half a million people to the Occupied Territories, who live in settlements declared illegal under international law.
The major Israeli settlement blocks – Jordan Valley, Ma’ale Adumim, Gosher Sherim and Ariel, divide the West Bank into four separate cantons with no movement between them – no internal contiguity, no access to the capital, no control of border with Jordan, and very few water resources. The separation barrier helps to ensure the development of the distinct land regions as well.
Because of the near full creation of these separate cantons, many Palestinians now believe there is no way to truly have a two-state solution. In any case, in our ICHAD guide’s view, an offer of this land amounts to nothing more than apartheid. She believed that the Israeli state was creating a situation of apartheid on the ground through the separation barrier, control of roads and creating separate roads for Palestinians, and limiting the number of Palestinian building permits.
There are a quarter-million Israelis living in settlements in the Jerusalem area. Called the Holy Basin, it is an area of intensive settlements just south of the Old City strategically developed to eliminate Palestinian access to the West Bank. The separation wall also runs through this corridor.
We drove through the Nos Zion settlement in East
Jerusalem, which was very normal looking with apartments, playgrounds, nice landscaping.Our guide explained that most settlers are economic settlers who settle because its cheaper to do so; there are a number of different ways the government subsidizes them. There is free security, free bus lines and stations, good schools, cheaper rent, and subsidized child care. (It is clear there is a high level of cooperation between the government and the settlements!)
The distinction between the settlement areas and the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem was marked – immediately as we descended the hill into the Palestinian neighborhood, there was no sidewalk, no trash collection, and a road pitted with potholes.
We were told that Jerusalemite Palestinians and Israelis pay the same taxes, but Palestinians pay disproportionately. Although about 35% of Jerusalem’s population is Palestinian, they pay about 40% of the taxes. They need to demonstrate they are paying their taxes faithfully so that they can keep their Jerusalem ID cards, therefore, they are very conscientious about it.
Despite this fact, Palestinian neighborhoods only receive about 8% of the municipal services spending in Jerusalem. - On a related note, we were told there was a 1000-classroom shortage at the start of this school year in East Jerusalem.
There are black H20 collection tanks on the tops of all of the Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem but almost none on the Israeli homes in the settlements we visited. Water shortages are common in Palestinian neighborhoods here, the Israeli-run water company shuts off the water in those neighborhoods before the Israeli ones.
Because Israel claims to be both a Jewish and democratic state, maintaining a particular (i.e. Jewish) demographic is crucial. Israel hasn’t made up its mind on how to handle this situation. It doesn’t naturalize the citizens of the West Bank but it also doesn’t declare sovereignty over the area. The above-mentioned building permits are another way that the government controls where Palestinians live.
After ’67, all green spaces and open lands (even if privately owned by Palestinians), was zoned by Israel, and new construction was not allowed there without a permit. Permits are notoriously hard to get. To build without a permit is to risk demolition.
There are 600,000 outstanding demolition orders and they cannot all be completed, so demos happen at random, which instills fear in all those who risk demolition. If you have a demo order on your house, you’re afraid to leave it because maybe they will come demo it while you’re gone. Fear is a powerful paralyzer.There are actually around 100 actual demos a year in Jerusalem area. When a home is to be demolished, the owners are told that they can either demolish their own home, or pay for the demo and cleanup!
Since 1967, 12,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished by the Israeli government. A Palestinian that illegally built was sentenced to prison for defaulting on the fine he was given. He went to court, got the fine. When he had served his one year prison term, he went back home and his house was demolished a second time within 3 weeks!
Needless to say, in our first ours of the delegation, we took in a lot of information and saw a lot of blatant injustice before our eyes. I knew at that point that the trip would be life-changing and at points overwhelming. At times, things seemed dismal. But the work towards a sustainable peace continues, despite the odds.
To close, I'd like to share an interesting article by ICAHD’s founder and director, articulating how we can arrive at a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, viewing 2011 as a “breaking point.” He says, “Life in the Occupied Territories is about to get even more difficult, I believe, but perhaps we are finally approaching the breaking point. If that is the case, we must be there for the Palestinians on all the fronts: to protect them, to play our role in pushing the Occupation into unsustainability, to resist re-occupation, to act as watchdogs over political “processes” that threaten to impose apartheid in the guise of a two-state solution and, ultimately, to ensure that a just and lasting peace emerges. As weak and failed attempts by governments head for collapse, we must pick up the slack.”
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Meaning of Fear
Upon returning to the U.S. from Israel-Palestine, I've thought a lot about fear. In a couple of weeks, the organization I work for is hosting a symposium on addressing fear in the church and broader society. Today on a planning call we talked about how fear is a tool used to exercise power over others and about how we can be instrument to address fear, too, by being aware of the narrative we tell when we choose not to be afraid in a scary situation.
I immediately thought about the opening devotion of our CPT delegation, in which we read from Luke 24:26-51. The risen Jesus appears among his disciples and they are afraid. But Jesus calms the disciples’ fears with greetings of peace, he lets them see him and touch him. He eats with them, opens their minds, and blesses them.
Rick, our delegation leader, offered that Jesus' action in this passage is a model for the incarnational ministry that CPT does and could serve as a model for us on the trip too. We went around the circle naming our fears and exchanging greetings of peace, a perfect way to begin to know each other.
The theme of the devotional struck a chord; I had already been thinking about fear while preparing for my trip. So much so, in fact, that I journaled about it on the plane ride over:
"Is it safe?" "Are you afraid?"-- two questions I've been asked frequently when sharing about my trip. With regards to safety, I don’t know how to answer. I get asked the same question about my neighborhood in DC.
And it's true, in the suburbs where I grew up, you don’t hear nightly sirens or occasional gunshots like you might in my current home. But in reality, safety and security are so often an illusion. We put up barriers, segregate neighborhoods, but at what cost?
It may indeed allow some people to live in quieter spaces with less violent crime, but it also serves to isolate us from the reality that our sisters and brothers on the other side of that gated community, or other side of the world, face. It isolates us from meaningful relationships with them, and from hearing God's voice in the unique way that God speaks at the margins and in suffering.
I think the same dynamic exists in traveling to an occupied territory. Though we can separate our lives, in some ways, from the world’s violent realities, this separation is an illusion. By virtue of being U.S. taxpayers who fund a massive military, sell weapons, and give aid to countries with atrocious human rights records, we, too, are culpable and our fates are inextricably intertwined with those who suffer from abuses of militarism and infringements upon human rights.
When we begin to view our human connectedness as brothers and sisters, responsible for each other’s welfare, we are compelled to tear down the physical and abstract walls which separate and "protect" us. This idea, for me, is tied to that next question of “Are you afraid?”
When I read about acts of violence committed, hatred, kidnappings, rocks thrown, random beatings and abuses, detention and prevalence of machine guns, fear sits at the pit of my stomach.
I don’t like it. I want to make it go away, to dull that feeling by distracting myself, thinking about something else. But I recognize the privilege in being able to do that; threats of violence are real and close for many in the world, and fear isn't dulled by merely turning on the TV.
The presence of threat really does exist for many people in Palestine, so if there can be any semblance of solidarity through experiencing this fear, I don’t want to cover it up, I don’t want to be distracted. I want to be present in it.
It is a reminder that nonviolence is not a warm fuzzy idea, achieved through holding hands in a grassy field and singing. It is a lived-out practice, risky, from which suffering may come. We know this to be true not only by bearing witness to today’s peacemakers but also in studying the life of Jesus, who preached a counter-cultural message (turn the other cheek?!) and lost his life.
So, for these reasons, safety and fear, while important questions to me, aren’t the determining factors in a decision to make a trip like this. A narrative of fear, so prevalent in the media and even in the church, seeks to limit and demonize. I want to challenge that.
"Come and See" was the theme of the homily the last Sunday service our delegation was in Jerusalem - a plea to come and witness the suffering that the occupation causes - holding both Palestinians and Israelis captive in various ways. Coincidentally, its also the title of the document Palestinian Christians have produced encouraging Christan tourists to seek to understand more of the Palestinian story on their pilgrimages.
I call upon all of my readers and loved ones to "come and see," too, - to visit Israel-Palestine, if possible, as well to visit all the places in our hearts and lives in which fear and prejudice still reigns, to examine that fear, and to courageously challenge it through following the command of "be not afraid" and crossing the boundaries in our lives which "protect" and separate. By crossing into those places, literally and metaphorically (which may occasionally involve some risk to personal safety!) we experience a richness and liberation in new relationships and understanding.
I immediately thought about the opening devotion of our CPT delegation, in which we read from Luke 24:26-51. The risen Jesus appears among his disciples and they are afraid. But Jesus calms the disciples’ fears with greetings of peace, he lets them see him and touch him. He eats with them, opens their minds, and blesses them.
Rick, our delegation leader, offered that Jesus' action in this passage is a model for the incarnational ministry that CPT does and could serve as a model for us on the trip too. We went around the circle naming our fears and exchanging greetings of peace, a perfect way to begin to know each other.
The theme of the devotional struck a chord; I had already been thinking about fear while preparing for my trip. So much so, in fact, that I journaled about it on the plane ride over:
"Is it safe?" "Are you afraid?"-- two questions I've been asked frequently when sharing about my trip. With regards to safety, I don’t know how to answer. I get asked the same question about my neighborhood in DC.
And it's true, in the suburbs where I grew up, you don’t hear nightly sirens or occasional gunshots like you might in my current home. But in reality, safety and security are so often an illusion. We put up barriers, segregate neighborhoods, but at what cost?
It may indeed allow some people to live in quieter spaces with less violent crime, but it also serves to isolate us from the reality that our sisters and brothers on the other side of that gated community, or other side of the world, face. It isolates us from meaningful relationships with them, and from hearing God's voice in the unique way that God speaks at the margins and in suffering.
I think the same dynamic exists in traveling to an occupied territory. Though we can separate our lives, in some ways, from the world’s violent realities, this separation is an illusion. By virtue of being U.S. taxpayers who fund a massive military, sell weapons, and give aid to countries with atrocious human rights records, we, too, are culpable and our fates are inextricably intertwined with those who suffer from abuses of militarism and infringements upon human rights.
When we begin to view our human connectedness as brothers and sisters, responsible for each other’s welfare, we are compelled to tear down the physical and abstract walls which separate and "protect" us. This idea, for me, is tied to that next question of “Are you afraid?”
When I read about acts of violence committed, hatred, kidnappings, rocks thrown, random beatings and abuses, detention and prevalence of machine guns, fear sits at the pit of my stomach.
I don’t like it. I want to make it go away, to dull that feeling by distracting myself, thinking about something else. But I recognize the privilege in being able to do that; threats of violence are real and close for many in the world, and fear isn't dulled by merely turning on the TV.
The presence of threat really does exist for many people in Palestine, so if there can be any semblance of solidarity through experiencing this fear, I don’t want to cover it up, I don’t want to be distracted. I want to be present in it.
It is a reminder that nonviolence is not a warm fuzzy idea, achieved through holding hands in a grassy field and singing. It is a lived-out practice, risky, from which suffering may come. We know this to be true not only by bearing witness to today’s peacemakers but also in studying the life of Jesus, who preached a counter-cultural message (turn the other cheek?!) and lost his life. So, for these reasons, safety and fear, while important questions to me, aren’t the determining factors in a decision to make a trip like this. A narrative of fear, so prevalent in the media and even in the church, seeks to limit and demonize. I want to challenge that.
"Come and See" was the theme of the homily the last Sunday service our delegation was in Jerusalem - a plea to come and witness the suffering that the occupation causes - holding both Palestinians and Israelis captive in various ways. Coincidentally, its also the title of the document Palestinian Christians have produced encouraging Christan tourists to seek to understand more of the Palestinian story on their pilgrimages.
I call upon all of my readers and loved ones to "come and see," too, - to visit Israel-Palestine, if possible, as well to visit all the places in our hearts and lives in which fear and prejudice still reigns, to examine that fear, and to courageously challenge it through following the command of "be not afraid" and crossing the boundaries in our lives which "protect" and separate. By crossing into those places, literally and metaphorically (which may occasionally involve some risk to personal safety!) we experience a richness and liberation in new relationships and understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
