Christian Solidarity With Both Jews and Palestinians: A Critical Response to Dabru Emet
by Yehezkel Landau
The twentieth anniversary of Dabru Emet is an opportunity to reflect on the document’s significance and to assess both its laudable elements and its deficiencies. My comments here are focused on the third of its eight statements, which addresses Christian responses to the establishment of the state of Israel. My perspective is shaped by my dual Israeli–American citizenship and by my efforts over the past 40 years to foster better relations among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and to heal the tragic conflict between Jews and Palestinians.
At the outset, a word about historical context is in order. Dabru Emet was published in newspapers and on websites on September 10, 2000, seven years after the Oslo Accords were signed on the White House lawn, almost five years after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, two and a half months after the failed Camp David 2000 summit, and eighteen days before the Second Intifada erupted. By early September of that year, the hope generated by the iconic 1993 handshake between Rabin and Yasir Arafat had waned. Political violence, reinforced by the failed Barak–Arafat–Clinton deliberations, created a tinderbox atmosphere primed for an explosion. Such a challenging moment made the composition of any statement about the Holy Land a fraught and risky undertaking. So, credit is due to the four authors of Dabru Emet for making the attempt.
Those authors, and the more than 200 additional signatories, “applaud” support for the Jewish state from Christians who see its creation as the fulfillment of a promise that is integral to the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Although the paragraph ends with a recognition that “Jewish tradition mandates justice for all non-Jews who reside in a Jewish state,” nothing is said about a distinct Palestinian people or its right to national self-determination. Neither the word “Palestine” nor “Palestinians” appears anywhere in the document, including the final statement, which asserts that “Jews and Christians must work together for justice and peace.” In addition, there is no reference in Dabru Emet to Islam or Muslims, whether within the Palestinian people (of whom some 97 percent are Muslim) or elsewhere. I appreciate that inclusion of such political or religious language could have seriously limited the number of signatories and might have even engendered disagreements among the four authors. The published statement may have been the most achievable rhetorical consensus among Jewish communal leaders at that time. And since the primary focus of Dabru Emet is relations between Jews and Christians, mentioning Muslims or Islam may have been deemed extraneous to the issues addressed in the document.
At the time Dabru Emet was published, I was living in Jerusalem, working as a religious educator and peace-builder. I recall lamenting those omissions even then. With the hindsight of two subsequent decades, I view the language in the third statement as even more problematic and in need of rectification. I would argue that any bilateral statement within the Abrahamic family of faiths has to take into account the presence and the sensitivities of the other siblings. The emotionally charged issue of Israel/Palestine offers perhaps the clearest demonstration of this principle, which needs to be applied in practice. A land considered holy (for different reasons) by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druse, Baha’is, and others deserves compassionate and inclusive modes of discourse about its past, present, and future. It also demands a collective commitment to justice and peace, lest unilateral or even bilateral actions (including public statements) end up causing marginalization, injustice, and suffering for others.
Despite the positive intentions behind Dabru Emet, the restrictive statement about Christian support for Israel creates an opening for partisan cheerleading that celebrates the Jewish homecoming to the “Promised Land” without any regard for Palestinian yearnings to return to the same homeland after being displaced and dispossessed. Accommodating both Jewish and Palestinian liberation movements and territorial claims in an inclusively just framework is not only a political challenge; it is a theological and moral imperative for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.
Another crucial point is that the covenant linking the Jewish people to the land of Israel is, biblically speaking, conditional on observing the Torah’s precepts. Jewish tradition teaches that collective exile is a consequence of violating those precepts. As a faithful Jew, I would ask: How can Christians affirm this moral aspect of covenantal theology so that they can be allies of Israeli Jews and their Diaspora co-religionists while, at the same time, criticizing Israeli government policies that violate Palestinian human and political rights? In Jewish tradition, this kind of constructive candor is called tokhachah, compassionate rebuke.
Over many years of engaging US, European, and Middle Eastern Christians on peace and justice issues related to Israel/Palestine, I have come to lament the division of concerned Christians into two partisan and polarized camps: pro-Israel “Christian Zionists” and pro-Palestine liberationists. Both stances opt for a sometimes-dualistic view that valorizes one side and denigrates the other. Neither position advances the cause of inclusive justice and genuine peace.
I have repeatedly called on Christians, especially outside the Holy Land, to demonstrate a religious and moral commitment that is both pro-Israel—that is, affirming the Jewish historical and spiritual connection to Jerusalem and to the land of Israel—and pro-Palestine, expressing compassion for the Palestinians’ national tragedy and support for their struggle to attain freedom, dignity, and security in their own state within the boundaries of historic Palestine. It would add a spiritual and moral dimension to Middle East peace-and-justice activism for Christians to affirm dual solidarity and to direct criticism, when warranted, at both sides, reflecting a single standard of inclusive justice and a vision of Israeli–Palestinian interdependence.
Those are the questions and concerns that stand out for me, as an interfaith educator and peacebuilder, when I reread Dabru Emet today.
Yehezkel Landau, D.Min, a dual Israeli–American citizen, is an interfaith educator, leadership trainer, author, and consultant who has been working to improve Jewish–Christian–Muslim relations and promote Israeli–Palestinian peace-building for more than 40 years. (landau-interfaith.com)