e United States, there have been a variety of
governmental, religious, and political responses to the Middle East conflict. Among the
American responses, one that especially concerns the Jewish community has come from
some of the mainline Protestant Churches. Working from their deep commitment to social
justice, such leaders have expressed their religious sense of justice on behalf of the
Palestinians. Observing the ways this has been expressed through programming at many
Protestant Churches and in statements issued by various denominations, many in the
American Jewish community have come to regard some mainline Protestant Churches, their
spokespersons, and their publications as biased against Israel. Indeed the relations between
the two communities are strained. This is a problem. In the past, the American Jewish
community and the mainline Protestant Churches have enjoyed a common sense of purpose
and collaboration about a number of basic social justice issues within American society, and
the strained relations are thus especially troubling.
To address this circumstance, a small group of Jews and mainline Protestants came together
nearly three years ago under the auspices of the Dean of the Divinity School at the
University of Chicago. Since then, the group has met many times. It has discussed this
topic, as well as a number of scholarly and philosophical issues, such as the origins of Zionist
thought, the different ways in which each faith community reads and uses biblical texts, and
the place of the Land both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
All involved in these conversations honor the fundamental distinction between criticism of
the political practices of the government of Israel and the rejection of the right of Israel to
exist. Yet the Jewish colleagues who welcome the principle worry that in practice the
criticism, most acutely on the Palestinian question, can itself quickly compromise this
distinction. Jewish colleagues hear some criticism as echoing a denial of Israels right to
exist. For their part, the Protestant colleagues worry that any political criticism of Israeli
policy immediately becomes an audit on the critics support of Israels right to exist.
Based on its sense that better understandings had been achieved, this group began to draft a
statement of common principles, not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but about the way
in which American Jews and Protestants ought to be talking about this, with each other and
with others. Since we began these conversations, tensions between mainline Protestant
churches and the Jewish community have increased significantly. At the same time, hopes
for peace between Israelis and Palestinians have been re-awakened. Both of these
circumstances make this work all the more imperative.
We hope that these principles will contribute to the necessary and important conversation
among Jews and Protestants in the United States, and that the statement will inspire further
conversation in the same spirit.
2
II. Common Principles
1. Both parties to our talks recognize the pain of all peoples in the Middle East. As
professing Jews and Christians, we must give expression to all who are suffering.
Common to our traditions is the inextricable link between love of God and love of
fellow human beings, all of whom are created in the image of God.
2. It is in the best traditions of Judaism and Christianity, as set forth both in the Torah
and the New Testament, to give voice to all who are suffering. The Jewish partners
to this conversation respect the religious commitment of mainline Protestants to give
voice to the suffering of the Palestinian people.
3. The government of the State of Israel, like all other governments, is the creation of
human beings, who, as they practice democracy, make mistakes. It is thus open to
criticism. The criticisms of any one policy or practice of the government of Israel is
not necessarily antisemitic.
4. Though not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, many expressions of anti-Israel
opinion in todays world do contain antisemitic components. It is therefore good to
know the borders of appropriate criticism given the particular climate in the world
today, which has witnessed a significant increase in antisemitic behavior and rhetoric.
Those who criticize Israeli policies should take care to ensure that such criticism not
threaten Judaism, the Jewish people, or the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
5. To distinguish between bias and legitimate criticism, one should note the following
historic tendencies in discussions of the Jewish people and Judaism, which must be
avoided when discussing Israel:
i.
Critiques that partake of classic Christian medieval anti-Jewish motifs
and stereotypes;
ii.
Critiques of Israel that partake of 19th and early 20th century secular
antisemitic notions concerning the Jewish people, e.g. those that
fantasize about Jewish international conspiracies effected through
control of banking and/or the media (as reflected in such publications
as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion);
6. There are some instances in which criticism of Israel for certain practices ignores
similar practices by others. To Jewish colleagues this creates the specter of a double
standard. Similarly, the failure to acknowledge instances in which the State of Israel
engages in peace making, takes risks with the very lives of its citizens for the sake of
peace, and makes concessions for the sake of peace, is experienced by Jews as bias
and as a double standard.
7. Protestant participants acknowledge that Israel is held to a higher standard.
Protestants say that they hold Israel to the same standards that they believe
Americans ought to hold themselves. Protestant participants in the dialogue rejoice
in the establishment of Israel as a democratic polity with universal suffrage, a free
press, and an independent judiciary. They are concerned that their appreciation for
Israel is often not understood by the American Jewish community, and that they are
sometimes accused of holding a double standard for criticizing Israel for something
3
for which they do not criticize Israels neighbors. In their mind, by holding Israel to
a higher standard than the nation-states that do not value democracy and human
rights, they are demonstrating their respect and gratitude for Israels alliance,
democracy, and concern for human rights, and their higher hope for Israel.
8. The Christian participants respect the Jewish self-understanding, in which Jewishness
is an indivisible amalgam of faith, Torah, history, land, and peoplehood. As such,
they celebrate the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and regard as an
act of justice the establishment of a Jewish state after two thousand years of Jewish
exile, wandering, and homelessness.
9. It is important for mainline Protestants to understand that the majority of Jewish
people have never attributed theological or religious significance to Zionism or, to its
successful outcome, the State of Israel. This is not only true for those Jews who
have a secular outlook on life and human affairs. It is also true for many of the
faithful. The classic Jewish faith position says that only a biblical prophet can know
Gods intent for a given event in history and that prophecy ceased in the sixth
century B.C.E. Therefore, one cannot know with biblical certitude Gods intent
regarding any contemporary event. Many Christians may not recognize this because
a small minority in Israel that does view the establishment of the State in theological
categories gains a great deal of media attention.
10. Important differences in the rendering of Protestant Christianity have emerged in the
United States between mainline Protestants and certain groups of Evangelicals.
These two groups sometimes disagree about the theological meaning of the
establishment of the State of Israel. While their ongoing conversation is important
to them, the participants in our dialogue have concluded that it should be conducted
in a way that ensures that the State of Israel and the Jewish people do not bear the
burden of the conflict over these Protestant differences.
11. In general, Christian conversations about Israel, the Covenant, and the relations of
Jews and Christians are complex. When the State of Israel becomes the locus
through which Christians meet and debate their theological differences, Jews
experience negative consequences for Israel. In internal Christian debates, Israel,
Judaism, and the Jewish people come out losing in the eyes of one or the other
Christian group. Jews and Israelis cannot be understood in exclusively Christian
terms. Nor are Jews willing to be put at odds with one or the other Christian group
for failing to meet the test of its faith affirmation.
12. Jewish and Christian traditions are deeply intertwined. We share, and indeed cherish,
many of the same texts. However, arguments based on citations from the Bible
usually lead to a flurry of proof-texts that do not encourage conversation.
Arguments based on master narratives, whether in the service of Christian
triumphalism or Jewish steadfastness, do not encourage conversation. A master
narrative is a national, communal, or personal statement of self-understanding, which
sometimes includes a characterization of others which is not acceptable to those very
others.
4
III. What We Have Learned
The Prote