I am heartened by your appreciation of the Kairos document.

I heard that somewhere in the Tanakh it speaks of the rights of all people who live in Zion. Specifically, it mentions that in the Messianic Age, all of the inhabitants’ rights would be honored, and the sense was that this did not just refer to the rights of those who followed the customs.

Indeed, it seems that from a moral point of view those like Palestinians who believe in the Tanakh and follow Noahide laws should be shown respect.

Further, isn’t it technically correct that Zionism proposes that the Jewish people gather themselves together and return to Zion, but that the Tanakh technically says that the Messiah would be the one who gathers the Lord’s people, as the nonZionist Orthodox interpret it?

Finally, while the doctrines and interpretations may be done either way, shouldn’t love and morals for our neighbor be our guide?

Shalom!

Rakovsky

I agree that there is no need for a ping pong match but associating my comments with a Myth & Facts approach is your attempt to discount my point of view by connecting it to a hasbara book that you obviously don’t believe exists in its leftist version. Being pro Israel is misinforming and the critics are enlightening. I think Benny Morris would disagree.

Here is another statement from the document that speaks to Palestinian violence.

“We respect and have a high esteem for all those who have given their life for our nation. And we affirm that every citizen must be ready to defend his or her life, freedom and land.”

Do they make the same affirmation for Israelis?

Here is a statement from a Christian organization that perhaps you will reject as being too myths and factsy.

“Fair Witness therefore strongly encourages the U.S. Churches to read the Kairos Palestine document with an open heart but not with an uncritical mind. We also encourage our churches to seize the current opportunity to act as peacemakers — and not to fan the flames of conflict by showing contempt and punishing one side through acts of divestment and boycott.”

Here is their website: http://christianfairwitness.com/index.html

Are these Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans disingenuous and cynical? I appreciate their measured response, their questioning approach, and their rejection of boycotts, divestments and sanctions.

It’s not clear to me how you differentiate between Israel’s occupation and its “administration” of its occupation. Either way, the occupation has has been a corrupt and corrupting enterprise. Israel was not “legally bound” to begin colonizing the West Bank immediately after capturing it in 1967. Israel has not been “legally bound” to settle and expand these colonies steadily over the past forty years. Nor has it been legally bound to extend one form of law to Jewish settler residents and another for the Palestinian population.

I take exception with many of your historical claims – and though I’m tempted to address each of them in turn, I don’t think it would accomplish anything to engage in rhetorical ping-pong. I will only say that your comment reads more like “Israel Myths and Facts” than an honest response to a heartfelt theological statement.

I’m astonished that you find no “self-reflection” in this document. I find it suffused throughout with such a spirit. Statements such as “we cannot resist evil with evil” and “we do not resist with death but rather through respect of life” are not only direct references to Palestinian violence – they are important spiritual imperatives.

I understand that you disagree with the statement, but I’m saddened by your cynicism toward it. As I wrote in my post, I believe it makes an important starting point for inter-religious dialogue. Dialogue does not begin with total agreement but with a good faith attempt at engagement. Hardened attitudes such as yours do nothing to further this critical conversation.

The occupation is not a sin. After surviving the Arab war of genocide in 48, and losing 1% of its population, the new Israel found itself surrounded by hostile Arab countries. Israel was attacked again in 67 from the Jordanian annexed west bank. Israel’s victory led to the legal occupation of the west bank territory and was bound legally to administer it. One can discuss if Israelis or Israeli governments sinned in their administration of the territories, but occupation in itself is not a sin.

The document ignores the invasion of 48, and Arab and Palestinian violence against Israel prior to the occupation.

The document ignores the right of Jews to live and exercise their right to self determination in their homeland by ignoring the continuous history of Jews in Palestine and throughout the middle east.

The document wrongly implies that the Arabs of Palestine were driven out by the Jews. This is not supported by the old histories, nor the new histories, and not even by reputable Arab histories of the conflict. The general thrust of the history is no other than an exodus of Arabs from Israel due to an Arab invasion led by foreign Arab forces and local Arab mafia families. Examples of extreme Jewish acts of violence can not be used to whitewash the actual cause of the refugee problem. Understanding this may enlighten you to the same conclusion today, namely, foreign Arab powers and local mafia families are preventing any chance for real peace.

The document does not self-reflect in any way as to Arab responsibility for any aspect of the current condition of the Palestinians. It sees no “sin” in Arab and Palestinian actions against Israel and Jews.

It is foolish to expect peace, while ignoring those responsible for the problem…the invading Arab armies of the Arab States and the local power brokers of the Palestinians. They must be held accountable for the 60+ years of conflict that followed. It is those countries who should be held responsible for solving the refugee problem. Examples: close down your refugee camps and let the Palestinians become citizens in your countries; pony up $$$$$ for the new Palestinian State.

This document only confuses any hope for clarity. The first real step towards real peace will be a Palestinian movement that seeks reconciliation by acknowledging its own responsibility for the situation, just as so many Israeli movements, leaders, and activists have done for decades.

Finally, I am very confused by a Rabbi who sees Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions as a non-starter for other Jews but not himself. Israel has the right to exist, to defend herself, to be the Jewish homeland, to flourish, and yes, to make peace too. This document will only push the needed peace partner further away from the self-reflective responsible partner that is required.

Palestinian civil organizations, as well as international organizations, NGOs and certain religious institutions call on individuals, companies and states to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation. We understand this to integrate the logic of peaceful resistance. These advocacy campaigns must be carried out with courage, openly sincerely proclaiming that their object is not revenge but rather to put an end to the existing evil, liberating both the perpetrators and the victims of injustice. The aim is to free both peoples from extremist positions of the different Israeli governments, bringing both to justice and reconciliation. In this spirit and with this dedication we will eventually reach the longed-for resolution to our problems, as indeed happened in South Africa and with many other liberation movements in the world.

As I’ve written before, I know that advocacy for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a non-starter for many Jews – and I understand why this is so. At the very least, however, I think it’s important that we understand that it is a form of grassroots non violent resistance on the part of the Palestinian people. (Worth thinking about the next time you hear someone ask “where are the Palestinian Ghandis?”)