The Issue is Jerusalem

David Blewett's keynote address to the 1997 annual meeting of the California Christian Committee for Israel

by David Blewett

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you this afternoon at your annual meeting. For many years I have been a fan and follower of the California Christian Committee for Israel and it's good to see so many friends here. To my way of thinking all of you who make up the California Christian Committee for Israel have set the standard for what should exist in every state. I and many others who support Israel appreciate so very much all that you do for Israel, the US-Israel partnership and for the Christian witness of integrity and morality in today's world.

And to Jewish friends who are here, thank you for your generous encouragement and support. Both the California Christian Committee for Israel (CCCI) and my organization, the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, focus our efforts on changing attitudes in the American Christian communities towards Israel -- people, land and state. Your moral, spiritual and financial support make it possible for us to continue doing what we do. I want you to know how profoundly grateful we are for all your generosity to us. Thank you very much.

The National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI) is a network of Christian organizations and individuals who actively support the people, the land and the state of Israel. NCLCI acts as an advocate for Israel in public forums, in the press, in schools and in churches across the country. When needed we have conducted fact-finding missions to Israel and the Middle East. NCLCI leaders regularly organize and lead tours to Israel. NCLCI also drafts and distributes public statements on significant issues pertaining to Israel and the Middle East. We also publish a newsletter and educational background pieces. But I think our real effectiveness lies in what we can do to help you, pro-Israel Christians in local areas, make your non-Jewish voices heard for Israel.

In New York we can publish articles, we can develop material, we can continue the dialogue with national religious and political leaders, these things we can and are doing. But if we do that without thinking about you here in California or elsewhere we are minimizing our effectiveness. Real change is going to happen in the local communities where you live.

This afternoon I would like to think about one specific issue that needs to be addressed by all friends of Israel, especially Christians because it is Christians who have raised the issue. That issue is Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the city of David, the city of Jewish kings and prophets, the city of the Temple. The city that Jesus loved so much that one day he wept when he saw its beauty from the Mount of Olives. What a beautiful, dynamic, vibrant city -- Jerusalem.

On December 21, 1996, a full-page statement was printed in the New York Times that declared Jerusalem should be open to and governed by two peoples, three religions and that the mechanics of this should be worked out by negotiations right now. That statement was sponsored by a group known as Christians for Middle East Peace and signed by the Bishops of almost every mainline Protestant denomination. It was then republished, with a few changes, in the Washington Post the Saturday before President Clinton's second inaugural. That statement was loaded with accusations, false information and a dangerous disregard for history. But the statement may have produced one good thing -- people are now talking about Jerusalem and the peace process like never before. That could turn out to be a good thing if we Christians who value Israel make ourselves heard in the discussions now taking place.

One point that caught my eye was that the December 21 statement called for immediate negotiations on Jerusalem. Those who agree with that statement ignore the fact that some negotiations have already taken place regarding Jerusalem. Part of the Documents of Principles that Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat signed on the south lawn of the White House in September 1993 was the negotiated agreement that Jerusalem would be the last item dealt with, it would be part of the final status negotiations. There were several reasons for this, the primary one being that having wrestled through all the other issues, both sides would have too much to lose by not reaching an agreement on Jerusalem.

Those who call for negotiations to begin immediately on Jerusalem ignore the fact that negotiations have already determined that Jerusalem must wait. I would suggest that this is an indication of how that side of the argument will react to any negotiated settlement that they disapprove of -- simply ignore the agreement and call for negotiations. People who do not have a historical memory will hear the call for negotiations and assume that they have not taken place and wonder why Israel refuses to negotiate when, in fact, they already have.

In other words, they ignore what they do not like and then complain that the whole world is ignoring them or throw a temper tantrum and start rioting. That is not how peace is made. True peacemakers negotiate to reach the best possible agreement and then redeploy and begin living with the new arrangements. No one is ever completely satisfied with compromise but the proof of one's commitment to peace is how one lives after the agreements have been signed. I would suggest that Israel's redeployment in Judea and Samaria demonstrates overwhelmingly its commitment to true peace in the Middle East.

Those church leaders calling for immediate negotiations on Jerusalem need to be reminded that there is a history to the peace process.

The New York Times/Washington Post ad declared what the Churches for Middle East Peace want -- a city under the supervision of two peoples and three faiths. As I tried to figure out what that meant it dawned on me that, in point of fact, that situation exists today. There are Jews and Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, working together on all levels of the Jerusalem municipality including city planning, the city council and as top advisors to the Mayor Olmert. But those who signed the statement obviously want something different. What is it they want? Two municipalities? Maybe three? Anything but a Jewish mayor?

I would suggest that the answer can be found in the outrageous reactions to Prime Minister Netanyahu's announcement that he will allow construction of 2,450 homes in an eastern section of Jerusalem known as Har Homa, near other Jewish and Arab neighborhoods. Three fourths of that construction will be on land paid for, not confiscated, from Jews and the rest on land paid for, not confiscated, from Arabs.

The Prime Minister also announced that he would allow construction of 3,500 new homes in Arab neighborhoods throughout the city and that the government has allocated $50 million for the development of more infrastructure in those same Arab neighborhoods, sewer, security, electricity. Public reaction has focused on Jewish homes, does anyone know or care about the new Arab homes and infrastructure?

Granted, the new Har Homa neighborhood, as I understand it, will separate what is known as "East Jerusalem" from Arab Palestinian territories in Judea and Samaria, making it more difficult to create one geographic unit between Jerusalem and other Palestinian territory. But on the other hand, if you visualize Jerusalem as being one city in which two peoples of three faiths live, learn, work and worship then you would want to develop an integrated city without ghettos or segregated neighborhoods where people can live wherever they want and can afford. This is the vision of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mayor Olmert. But, if you visualize Jerusalem as being two cities, one Arab and one Jewish, then you would want to make sure that Jews have their own area and Arabs have their own area with no confusion as to where the boundaries are.

This seems to me to be the major point of contention over the Har Homa development. Jews will be living in "East Jerusalem" where some would say Jews do not belong. The implication is that "East Jerusalem" is a separate, independent city from Jerusalem, just as East St. Louis is distinct from St. Louis. That is not true.

Jerusalem is a city made up of many different neighborhoods and groups. That is why people speak of Jerusalem as a mosaic. There is the Old City with its Arab Quarter, Christian Quarter, Armenian Quarter and Jewish Quarter. There is the New City with its western neighborhoods and its eastern neighborhoods, the Russian Compound, the American Colony, Mea Sherim, Talpiot, and Mt. Scopus to name only a few distinct areas. Just because eastern Jerusalem has its own unique flavor does not make it a separate city any more than the uniqueness of the Armenian Quarter makes it a separate city. Jerusalem is one cohesive unit. Jerusalem is more than the capital of Israel. It has been the point of Jewish identity for 3,000 years. Teddy Kolleck, the former beloved mayor of Jerusalem, once said:

For three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish hope and longing. No other city has played such a dominant role in the history, culture, religion, and consciousness of a people as has Jerusalem in the life of Jewry and Judaism. Through centuries of exile, Jerusalem remained alive in the hearts of Jews everywhere as the focal point of Jewish history, the symbol of ancient glory, spiritual fulfillment, and modern renewal. The heart and the soul of the Jewish people engenders the thought that is you want one simple word to symbolize all of Jewish history, that word would be "Jerusalem."*

Is it any wonder then that this is the city that is under attack? It is not Tel Aviv, the commercial center of Israel; it is not Haifa, the industrial center of the country; it is Jerusalem the heart and soul of the Jewish people, land and state. The assault on Jerusalem is more than an assault on the political capital of Israel, it is an attack on the Jewish people as well.

That is why I have difficulty understanding why those denominations that are most involved in Christian-Jewish dialogue are least concerned about Israel and Jerusalem, you would think they would be the most concerned.

The battle for Jerusalem has begun and Christian friends of Israel should assume a highly visible position in the coming debates. Now is the time to arrange opportunities to discuss Jerusalem and the peace process in churches, community forums and chat groups on the Internet, and then take part in those and any other discussions available to you. Now is the time to tell the news media as well as our church leaders and elected officials that attitudes like those expressed in the ad that was published in the New York Times and Washington Post do not represent the majority of Christians.

And above all, now is the time to go to Israel and see for yourself the history, meet the people, visit and pray at the holy sites and just generally absorb the splendor of that totally unique place. There is no better way to stand in solidarity with Israel than to be there. Every year I lead a tour to Israel and wrestle with how to keep the costs down. I know that price can be a problem, but I also know that to allow news or events to keep us away gives the victory to the anti-Israel element in today's society. People need to go and show their solidarity with Israel in Israel.

Jerusalem has known only two periods of greatness, and they were separated by two thousand years. Greatness has only happened under Jewish rule. That is because Jews have loved it most, and have remained constant in that love throughout the centuries of their exile. It is the longest and deepest love affair in history.

Common decency, not to mention Christian integrity, would demand that we honor and respect that heritage and seek to preserve it, not dismantle it. To make sure that it is preserved, we need to make our non-Jewish voices heard alongside the voices of our Jewish dialogue partners. Together CCCI and NCLCI can make a difference. We have in the past, we will in the future.

Thank you very much for your attention and for all that you do.

____________

* Teddy Kolleck. Jerusalem. (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy; 1990) pp. 19-20.