Presiding bishop writes to Obama on Israeli-Palestinian peace process
Episcopal News Service. January 18, 2011 [011811-03]
ENS staff
Stressing the urgency of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori last weekend wrote to President Barack Obama urging United States leadership to "reignite a negotiations process that can produce immediate and sustainable steps toward a just, comprehensive and lasting peace."
The Jan. 16 letter also cautioned against U.S. use of its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to block a possible resolution on Israeli settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories. Use of the veto "would send the wrong signal to both parties, as it would be interpreted by many as a break from past U.S. positions against settlement building," the presiding bishop wrote.
Stalled peace talks
The presiding bishop's letter comes at a moment when U.S. efforts to broker direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are stalled. The parties briefly came to the table in September in direct negotiations orchestrated and mediated by Obama, but those talks faltered when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to extend a temporary freeze on the construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Palestinian negotiators have maintained that a full settlement freeze is a condition of their participation in peace talks.
For most of 2010, the Israeli government maintained a temporary freeze on settlement construction. Obama had sought this freeze in order to bring the parties to the table, but the Israeli government declined to extend the moratorium past September unless the Palestinian Authority would formally recognize Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinian negotiators refused to do so.
Alexander Baumgarten, director of government relations for the Episcopal Church, has just returned from a two-week fact-finding trip to the Holy Land with U.S. church leaders. He said concern is on the rise among both the Israeli and Palestinian public that the window for peace negotiations is closing.
"There is palpable fear among both Palestinians and Israelis -- the clear majority of whom support a peaceful, two-state solution -- that their political leaders have not demonstrated enough resolve in making negotiations possible," Baumgarten said. "Meanwhile, every day that passes in which a bulldozer destroys a Palestinian home, Israel is hit by rocket fire, or violence is directed to either party by the other, is a day in which we move closer to permanent stalemate.
Israeli settlement building and demolition of Palestinian property has resumed since the expiration of the 10-month settlement freeze in September, including the destruction earlier this month of the historic Shepherd's Hotel in East Jerusalem, an action strongly condemned by the Obama administration. Meanwhile, rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have dropped dramatically in the past two years but still topped 150 incidents in 2010.
"President Obama has been very clear that peace -- which includes a viable, independent Palestinian state living alongside Israel -- is imminently attainable in 2011," Baumgarten said. "The president has worked extraordinarily diligently to bring the parties to the table, including enlisting key support from Egypt and Jordan, but ultimately the Israeli and Palestinian leadership must take responsibility for coming to the table and for avoiding any and all actions that complicate peace talks."
The Episcopal Church has repeatedly stated its support for a two-state solution in which Israel's right to exist in security is affirmed by all nations, while a free, independent, and secure Palestinian state exists alongside Israel. Under such a scenario, the Episcopal Church and most peace advocates support the sharing of Jerusalem as a capital between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
The Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem -- with its 27 parishes and 33 institutions throughout Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon -- is committed to a stable and lasting peace through a two-state solution. The U.S.-based Episcopal Church supports the Jerusalem diocese through partnerships and companion diocese relationships.
If peace talks do not bring about a mutually agreed two-state solution soon, Baumgarten said, the future chances of a satisfactory outcome will decrease precipitously.
"We've seen a growing number of countries stepping forward to say they will unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state," Baumgarten said. "There is a danger that unless Israelis and Palestinians can themselves agree to the contours of a state -- including borders, the status of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, water, and refugee rights -- international recognition of a Palestinian state would produce an untenable outcome."
"I was struck while traveling in the region this month how often people raised a comparison to Kashmir," Baumgarten added, referring to a piece of land whose ownership has been disputed between India and Pakistan for decades. "If the Palestinian people are recognized as a sovereign state but without agreements with Israel on what that statehood entails, the future will be very complicated indeed."
The presiding bishop stressed this theme in her letter to Obama.
"The presenting issues of borders, security, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem cannot be resolved absent direct negotiations," the presiding bishop wrote.
U.N. Security Council resolution
Meanwhile, some Arab nations are expected to introduce a resolution this week in the U.N. Security Council condemning as illegal the ongoing construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. While the resolution uses language previously employed by the U.S. government to refer to the settlements, Obama administration officials have criticized the resolution and its timing, stating that it will complicate rather than help the process of bringing Israel and the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table.
Many observers believe that if the resolution is considered by the Security Council in its current form, the U.S. would block it through use of its veto, a power it retains as a permanent member of the Security Council. Every American president from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush has used the veto -- or the threat of the veto -- to block resolutions critical of Israel. While Obama has not formally exercised a veto and has criticized the practice, his administration did work to prevent consideration of a Security Council resolution last summer in the wake of Israel's interception of a flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip. The administration has sent clear signals it would consider the use of the veto against the settlements resolution if the president believes that the final resolution will undermine the peace process.
Seeking to avert this situation, U.S. negotiators are working for changes to the resolution. For this reason, the final resolution could be significantly different than the current draft, or Arab states may pull the resolution altogether if they believe it is impossible to change it enough to avert an American veto, Baumgarten explained.
Should a resolution emerge, however, "the United States should not exercise its veto against it," the presiding bishop wrote to Obama. "A veto would undermine the credibility of the U.S. as a fair and honest broker between the two parties and create new levels of frustration and mistrust among the Palestinian people."
Returning to the theme of the need for direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the presiding bishop wrote that "the appropriate response of the United States government to the present efforts in the Security Council is to work urgently to reignite a negotiations process that can produce immediate and sustainable steps toward a just, comprehensive and lasting peace."
What lies ahead
Baumgarten said the pathway toward the resumption of direct negotiations is not yet clear.
"One possible option is for President Obama to lay out a clear American peace plan and seek to gain buy-in for its contours from the two parties. It's not clear that he is ready to do that, but what is clear is that dramatic U.S. action is needed to reinvigorate the peace process," Baumgarten said.
Meanwhile, Baumgarten said it's important that Americans remain focused on advocacy for the two-state solution.
"The two-state solution remains the only politically viable solution on the table, but we are aware that it will not be on the table indefinitely," Baumgarten said. "This is among the many reasons we oppose settlement construction; it creates facts on the ground that make a two-state solution less likely."
"Still, we recognize that there is no realistic alternative if a two-state solution loses viability," he said. "That's why it's so important that Americans keep advocating for the U.S. government to work to make peace happen now."
The full text of the presiding bishop's letter follows.
January 16, 2011
The Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I write to share the views of the Episcopal Church on the prospective resolution of the UN Security Council resolution concerning ongoing settlement building by the Israeli government.
First and foremost, we support the administration's efforts to broker direct negotiations between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Like you, we believe there is no substitute for bilateral negotiations toward a two-state solution that respects the sovereignty and security of Israel and creates a viable and independent state for the Palestinian people. Only direct negotiations and shared commitment can produce a viable and sustainable peace for the two parties. For this reason, it is imperative that the United States take bold and decisive action to reinvigorate the stalled peace process.
The draft resolution circulated among U.N. member states is a symptom of frustration at the present impasse in the negotiations process. In one sense, the resolution breaks no new ground, simply restating past statements by the United States and the international community in opposition to settlement building, and building on existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. In another sense, however, the aim of the resolution, as stated by its supporters, is to create a political spark at a moment of standstill.
Should the draft resolution be considered by the Security Council, the United States should not exercise its veto against it. Doing so would send the wrong signal to both parties, as it would be interpreted by many as a break from past U.S. positions against settlement building, including this month's strong statement by Secretary of State Clinton in response to the demolition of the historic Shepherd's Hotel in East Jerusalem. Moreover, a veto would undermine the credibility of the U.S. as a fair and honest broker between the two parties and create new levels of frustration and mistrust among the Palestinian people.
Still, resolutions by the Security Council are not an alternative to a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. The presenting issues of borders, security, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem cannot be resolved absent direct negotiations. For this reason, the appropriate response of the United States government to the present efforts in the Security Council is to work urgently to reignite a negotiations process that can produce immediate and sustainable steps toward a just, comprehensive and lasting peace.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter, and please know that this comes with my prayers for you and for all who undertake the costly work of public service. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church