Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 19, 1993 TAG: 9309230080
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The Declaration of Principles signed by Israelis and Palestinians last week just put off all the difficult problems in the two peoples' relationship - including what to do about Jerusalem.
Jews continue to use the Holocaust - the "Auschwitz trauma" - to minimize their accountability to the rest of the world for Israel's oppression of Palestinian people.
Those are just a few of the more- or less-radical ideas put forward at last week's conference on "The Middle East & The Third Millennium" held at Virginia Military Institute. And all those came in just one session of the conference.
The first proposal - that since there are no "pure races," no religious or ethnic group can make a credible inherent claim to what we call the "Holy Land" - was made by a Christian minister and Middle East peace activist, the Rev. Donald Wagner.
The observation that the new treaty postpones all the really tough questions in the Middle East was made by a Muslim businessman/astronomer of Palestinian descent, Imad A. Ahmad.
The notion that Jews fear real healing of the wounds of the Holocaust because that event is used to justify Israeli imperialism and brutality was offered by a Jewish author and theologian, Marc H. Ellis.
The three men technically were addressing the issue of what to do about Jerusalem - the Holy City cherished by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. The discussion couldn't help extending beyond that one issue, though the panelists conceded that the fate of Jerusalem is perhaps the biggest obstacle to long-term peace.
All three presentations were insightful, but it was Ellis' comments that drew the most applause and highest degree of interest from the luncheon crowd.
Perhaps some of the reaction can be attributed to the relative novelty of hearing a Jew so adamantly defend the rights of Palestinians in the Middle East and so directly criticize the state of Israel for its role in the oppression of its Palestinian residents.
Maybe it was Ellis' boldness in asserting that Jews perpetuate the trauma of the Holocaust because many fear that without it they "would no longer have a rationale for continuing to be Jewish" that interested an audience that appeared to be predominantly pro-Palestinian.
Indeed, the discussion panel - though it included representatives of each of the three dominant faith groups in the Middle East - lacked a defender of the Israeli state.
After the session, Ellis - professor of religion, culture and society programs at Maryknoll (N.Y.) School of Theology - contended that "Israel has been the main impediment" to peace in the Middle East.
Though he was willing to give credit to Israeli leaders who acknowledged Palestinian suffering as they signed the new accord, Ellis believes the agreement is essentially a defeat for the Palestinians.
Israel's willingness to release Gaza simply allows it to get rid of a "burden to the Israeli military and body politic" and push that problem onto Yasser Arafat. Giving up the village of Jericho cost Israel nothing of significance, he said, and gave it a public-relations victory.
Given the current climate, the agreement may be the best Palestinians could have expected, Ellis said, but he sees long-range problems with the notion of "limited self-rule" - not only for Palestinians, but for Israelis as well.
Limitations on self-rule force Israel to continue to be an "imperialist state" forcing its rule on unwilling subjects, the way Ellis sees it. That reinforces an attitude of justification of the oppressive measures needed to maintain control.
Israel - and all Jews - must look beyond limited self-rule to complete reintegration of Palestinians into the life of that region, Ellis said.
Israel not only must limit colonial advances into the West Bank, it must reverse "as far as possible the years of occupation." Jerusalem must be truly shared by Jews and Palestinians before long-term peace will be possible, he said.
"Thus a true Palestinian victory, a reversal of occupation - ostensibly a reversal for Israel - may be, over time, a victory for Israel as well."
Ellis knows his positions represent a minority view among American Jews - whom he considers generally uninformed about the true state of affairs in Israel. His positions likely would be rejected by many Christians, as well.
Radical as they are, idealistic as they are, difficult as they are, Ellis' positions do at least offer another approach to seeking still-elusive lasting peace.
This latest breakthrough ultimately can be successful only if both sides are willing to continue to risk innovative approaches to ending their ancient enmity.
Cody Lowe reports on issues of religion and ethics for this newspaper.
by CNB