as appeared in THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL- BULLETIN, February 28, 1998

The pursuit of peace in the present Israeli-Palestinian encounter has been a long and strained one, and for an obvious reason. The Palestinians, without a definite homeland, seek peace and territory; Israel seeks peace and security. These different aims have led to hostility. To understand why, one must go back a half century to the beginning of Israel's dangers.

In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states, one Israeli, the other Palestinian. The Palestinian Authority rejected the partitioning and joined five Arab nations in a war against Israel in an attempt to take over the whole of Palestine. In this they failed, as they also did in two later Arab-Israeli wars, not to mention the numerous Arab attacks on Israel's borders and the Palestinian Intifada within Israel.

But is not all of that a thing of the past? Must Israel slow down the peace process for her own security? The proper answer is: She must if she is to remain Israel. Why so? Because the Palestinian Authority and their allied Arab nations have not abandoned the hope of a total take-over of Israel.

It is only months ago that Yasir Arafat told a Palestinian audience that "When we stopped the Intifada, we did not stop the Jihad (Islamic Holy war) to establish Palestine with Jerusalem as our capital. We know only one word, Jihad, Jihad, Jihad." He is not alone is such a threat. Recently, Ahmed Yasin, founder of Hamas, one of the most violent terrorist organizations in Palestine, declared: "It is prohibited in Islam to make a truce or permanent reconciliation with the enemy . . . or to desist until the destruction of Israel." Given such threats, is it any wonder that militants and terrorists remain out of control in Palestine? And why would they desist when the Palestinian Charter retains its long- time aim, the "destruction of Israel." There is but one conclusion possible: Israel remains in perpetual danger.

Is it not strange to find Christians in Israel and elsewhere who, despite the ominous back- ground, favor larger and faster concessions to the Palestinians? Are they not aware that Christians in Islamic states and lands, including Palestine, suffer persecution? Again, is it not strange to find Christian religious leaders who call for a Jerusalem "shared" by Jews, Christians and Palestinians which, of course, means a divided city "shared" by religionists who are not fully reconciled.

Arafat insists that the "old city" of Jerusalem must be the capital of a Palestinian state. This "old city" is the original Jerusalem, Holy Zion, that was given by God to the Jewish people 3,000 years ago and has been revered by Jews as a place of pilgrimage throughout the centuries. It is also the city in which Jesus died and rose, and where Christianity was born. In Islam, Jerusalem has ranked third, after Mecca and Median, and it is not mentioned once in the Koran. Justice requires that Jerusalem should remain with Israel.

It is unfortunate that Christians, especially those in Israel, have not become acquainted with or convinced by Pope John Paul's recent writings on the Jewish-Christian relationship. Therein he shows how our bond with Judaism is a close one, and holds that to diminish the "history of God's relationship with the Israelites diminishes Christ." He is not referring to the present Israel but to the Israel of the past, present and future, the timeless center of Jewish existence.

If Christians saw Jewish history, past and present, as Pope John Paul does, they would favor Islamic Palestinians less than they do and would entertain a truer appreciation of Israel and the Jewish people.