You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Israel/Palestine' tag.
Today, I read My Name is Rachel Corrie. This short play, edited by Katharine Viner and Alan Rickman, is drawn from the diaries and emails of Rachel Corrie, an American killed in Palestine while nonviolently defending a civilian house from destruction by the Israeli military in 2003. The play was performed on London’s West End and has seen some limited productions in America, though it has engendered controversy because of its frank attitude towards the reality of the ongoing violence being perpetrated against civilians in Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
The work is deeply moving: a sad yet inspiring look at the life and death of a passionate child who became an equally passionate adult. The text of the play comes directly from Rachel’s own journals and letters (with the exception of a few letters sent to her, and minimal stage directions). Her writing comprises sometimes prose, sometimes lists, sometimes poetry — but whatever the form, it remains throughout poignant and compelling, drawing the reader into Rachel’s world and into the development of her ideas and emotions. At the end, I felt not as though I had met a character on a stage, but had actually grown to know, in whatever small way, the person behind the words.
As Rachel lives among the Palestinian people, she is both surprised by, and admiring of, the way they deal with the horrific realities of their existence. In a letter to her mother, she writes:
I am amazed at their strength in defending such a large degree of their humanity against the incredible horror occurring in their lives and against the constant presence of death. I think the word is dignity.
A little later, she reflects on the possibility that more people will recognize and protest the true brokenness of the world, a fracturing of which the oppression of Palestine is symptomatic, but that extends far beyond the Middle East:
I look forward to seeing more and more people willing to resist the direction the world is moving in: a direction where our personal experiences are irrelevant, that we are defective, that our communities are not important, that we are powerless, that the future is determined, and that the highest level of humanity is expressed through what we choose to buy at the mall.
Rachel Corrie’s tragic death served to stir up public opinion about the situation in Palestine. (Sadly, this discussion was quickly overshadowed in the media by the American invasion of Iraq.) In the ongoing debates about the true nature of the occupation and of the Palestinian resistance, Rachel’s writings offer a valuable insight that is underappreciated in the mainstream discussion. The final pages of the play contain her reflections on the response of Palestinians to Israel’s military activities, and here she presents the argument that, despite the fringe cases of terrorist activity by some groups, the vast majority of the population is continually countering the occupation through nonviolent methods in the truest sense. In a letter to her parents, she writes:
You asked about non-violent resistance, and I mentioned the first intifada. The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance. … These people are being shot at every day and they continue to go about their business as best they can in the sights of machine guns and rocket launchers. Isn’t that basically the epitome of non-violent resistance?
My Name is Rachel Corrie thus offers the reader (of, if you are lucky enough, the audience-member) three things: a poignant look at the life of an inspiring figure; an uplifting reflection on the capacity of the human spirit to deal with injustice — the hope for a better future despite present pain; and an intriguing, if cursory, discussion of the role of nonviolence in the conflict. I give the work my highest recommendation to anyone interested in these issues — but be prepared to be deeply moved and greatly inspired.
“Hamas is a prisoner to a logic of hate; Israel to a logic of faith in force as the best response to hate. One must continue to search for a different way out, even if that may seem impossible.“
–The Vatican
Principles
1. As a PACIFIST, I believe not only that war is evil but that in almost all situations aggressive, creative nonviolence is better able to bring about justice. This is evidenced by numerous movements and even nonviolent coups in the last century.
2. As a CHRISTIAN, I give my allegiance not to any nation-state, but only to the very political entity that is the transnational Body of Christ. Thus the situation in the Middle East (and in every similar scenario) becomes not an issue of ‘what countries should get what land?’, but rather of ‘how do we establish justice and peace for the victims on all sides?’
Application
Many argue that peace in the Middle East is unachievable because humanity is fallen. But it is utterly wrong in any theological-political argument to consider humankind’s inherent sin while ignoring God’s love and redemption. This is made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an event as ‘impossible’ as the attainment of peace. As Jesus said (John 16.33), ‘I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.’ The manifesting of God’s kingdom through the Incarnation, and the action of that kingdom through Christ’s Body, makes peace not only possible but practicable. This is seen in the example of not just Jesus himself, but in the political movements of MLK and others. Nonviolence IS a viable alternative to war, a reasonable methodology for justice. And while war has ‘collateral damage’, nonviolence does not create more injustice through its actions.
The idea that “the ends justify the means” is perhaps the most morally bankrupt ethic in existence. It is dangerous, for it promises a false justice that does not require just action, a false peace that does not require the rejection of violence, a false love that does not require opposition to hate, and a false righteousness that does not require the end of sin. It is utterly in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
These principles make it clear that we cannot see either Hamas or Israel as being in the right. Rather, as the Vatican has said, we must reject both Hamas’ hatred and Israel’s faith in violence as the only response to hatred. A third way IS possible.
Because of the situation at hand right now, we must call first and foremost for an end to Israel’s aggression, for it is that aggression that is creating the most injustice at this time. Only then can terrorism be addressed, only then can justice come for both Palestine and Israel; for violence will never end violence.
Israel and Palestine
My approach to the current crisis then, as a Christian and as a pacifist, is this:
A. Christians must BE the Church and embody God’s kingdom in a world diametrically opposed to it. We must pray for peace and work for nonviolence, that justice may be achieved. This may take many forms; perhaps the best I have encountered is that of the Christian Peacemaker Teams.
B. The United States must end its material and financial support of Israel’s military while calling for justice on all sides.
C. The UN must demand an end to violent aggression and terrorism, dispatch peacemakers, and help to achieve lasting justice for both terrorized Israel and occupied Palestine.
Jesus Christ was a light in the darkness of the world, a witness to peace among nations obsessed with warmaking, and a opponent of oppression in the midst of economic, racial, and imperialistic injustice. We, as his Body, must call for no less.
