Sondra Oster Baras, director Israeli Office of Christian Friends of Israeli Communities
2006.12.21
Sondra;
Thank you so much for meeting with me in Ari'el. I appreciate the time you took to meet with me, however, I did a terrible job at taking notes and I am failing miserably at trying to recall specifics of what we went over. I remember the major themes, but I was wondering if it would be possible to conduct a very to-the-point phone interview that I might be able to record so that I could quote you more accurately so that I may more accurately reflect the views of the settlement movement and Zionism (or at least CFOIC) in speaking arrangements that might result from my visit to Israel and the West Bank. I still have my original written questions, so I could revise and update them and send them to you directly so that you know ahead of time the basic thread of my questions. I expect any 'interview' would not take more than 30 or 40 minutes, but it would invaluable to me in the interest of objectivity in discussing and understanding the conflict in Israel today. Please email me when you have the first opportunity, I hope it would not inconvenience you significantly.
Shalom,
-Logan
2006.12.25
Dear Logan,
I had a very bad feeling from our meeting together. I felt that you came full of information and ideas that you had received from Palestinians and had already "bought into" their version of the story. You were clearly uninformed of the most basic facts regarding the creation of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement etc., which surprised me, considering you had already formed an opinion. I would have expected that you had at least researched the subject. But most upsetting to me was your lack of moral clarity. You blamed Israel for refusing to let Palestinians in to work and therefore justified their bombing of our cities. When I questioned you as to why they were not bombing the Egyptians, who also were not letting them in, you had no answer, but clearly continued to justify Palestinian actions. You went so far as to indicate that if the Palestinians were bombing Israel , Israel must be to blame. When I connected the issue to anti-Semitism, you did not back down, intimating that anti-Semitism had its root in Jewish blame as well. But far worse than that was your answer to my question if you would have been willing to kill Hitler to save 6,000,000 of my people -- you said no. In that case, I have nothing to say to you. If you are willing to stand by and let evil takes it course, I really have nothing more to say to you.
In any case, I don't think I could trust you to present my opinions fairly and accurately. However, if your audiences are interested in hearing from me directly, they are welcome to contact me.
Shalom,
Sondra Oster Baras
Director, Israel OfficeChristian Friends of Israeli Communities www.cfoic.com
2007.12.26
Sondra, I deeply appreciate the time you took to speak with me regarding the settlement movement. However, I am afraid I do not recall much of what you have claimed that I had said. I simply came to further refine and discern the fuller reality (or at least my comprehension of the reality) surrounding the entire issue in the Israel/Palestine conflict, not simply the creation of the state as an event or to place blame on either national entity. I never blamed Israel or Palestine for anything they had done or failed to do, but I was not shy to ask questions that directly related to their shared responsibility for the state of current affairs; both of Israelis and of Palestinians I encountered in the three weeks before I met with you. It was ominously reflective of your worldview when I found you to be the first human being, in 8 months of struggling with the religious justification to use violence, to insist upon the use of physical violence against others as a viable means of conflict resolution. The issues I do remember have remained unresolved, and I invite you to consider them, since I kept most of them to myself, to allow you the opportunity to answer the questions I posed and present the case for the settlement movement.
The first issue I recall is the simple translation in Leviticus 19:18 , when you informed me that the Hebrew word for 'neighbor' should actually be translated 'friend;' "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." (Amplified Bible). I cross referenced it against the Biblia Habraica, Leningrad Codex, and found the words 'neighbor' and 'friend' are parallel. I searched other instances of the English word 'friend' and found the same Hebrew word used. However, Exodus 32:27 uses 'friend and neighbor' in one Hebrew word, implying that the two words may be used interchangeably. Perhaps 'neighbor' is a more general term that includes the idea of 'friend.' I would value your insight on this issue.
Another issue deals more broadly with the idea of (naphesh), the second concept used in the Shema, translated as 'soul' or 'life.' I bring this up because you claimed it would be a sin to sacrifice my life, which has the divine image, and allow evil to continue (in the idea that I would probably not assassinate Hitler). It seemed like a foreign idea that I would willingly give up my life if he had a gun pointed at my (hypothetical) child, in order to allow him, and hopefully my child, to live. If I remember correctly, which I might not, I vaguely recall a comment that one must kill the attacker to save one's own divine image God has endowed them with, I believe the Hebrew used is (tzelem elohim). You seemed to present it as theologically Jewish, something that is largely accepted as doctrine in Judaism. However, I am slightly familiar with the story of Rabbi Akiva, a first century teacher of the Law, and the story of his death. While being publicly tortured by the Romans, he refused to fight off his attackers. His students, who were watching this tragedy, would not either. What caught my eye in the story is that he met with death joyfully, reciting the Shema as he breathed his last, instead of crying out in pain or cursing his torturers. I'm sure his students wondered why he would not act out against his attackers, why he did not attempt to kill them before they killed him. He responded;
"All my life I have wondered about the phrase 'love the Lord your God with all your soul,' wondering if I would ever have the privilege of doing this. Now that the chance has come to me, shall I not grasp it with joy? This endless love, how can we prove it better than by giving up one's life, one's soul for the sanctification of God's Name!"
For me, I would not kill another person because I am not their Judge, YHWH is. I am compelled to remember that they too have tzelem elohim buried, however deep, in their own soul, and this divine image is capable of being restored to a right relationship with the Creator, no matter how egregious the damage they have caused. It is my charge, as a Christian, to view that image, however marred and clouded, with respect and dignity, even if I disagree with what they are doing. Additionally, as a Christian (and perhaps Jews as well, since you stated a theological belief in life after death), I believe that nothing can destroy the divine image within me, save YHWH Himself, and someone with a poor divine reflection, when killed, is eternally separated from God, since they are no longer able to repent of their evils or right their wrongs once they depart this earth. Rabbi Schwartz, of Rabbis for Human Rights, reminded me that it is practicing kiddush hashem, or consecrating YHWH through one's actions, that every believer in YHWH must undertake, Jew or Christian alike. If I were to take my attackers life, I would be desecrating God by allowing my actions to reflect a god who has no mercy, a god who does not seek out the sick and the lost, like Hitler, and wish to reconcile them to Him; keeping them from violence by showing them that it is not His will. It would be hillul hashem to trust in my own force to dominate the evildoer, instead of God's power to dominate the true culprit; fear and hatred.
Here is my more thought-out answer to your question of what I might do were I in the situation you described in which Hitler has a gun to my child and is threatening to pull the trigger. I might wrestle the gun from Hitler's hand, yell at my child to run away, and shoot Hitler. Not in the heart, the head, or any other vital organ, but in a manner that would incapacitate him nonetheless (maybe in the leg). Then, I would calmly empty the pistol of its rounds and render the weapon useless, perhaps separating the upper receiver from the lower receiver. Finally, I would render first aid and dress his wounds, offering my services humbly and without a second thought. I would try to show him the compassion and sympathy that I was shown by God when I was still His enemy. I might shoot him because yes, justice must be served, but restorative justice; the same used by YHWH to 'lure' Israel back to Him when they were exiled because of their great personal and corporate sin. Or a second thought; instead of even shooting Hitler, I would turn the gun on him and threaten him the same way he threatened my child, exposing him to the fear that he inspired and which he still holds deep in his soul, not of the gun, but of himself and his inadequacies. Then I would render the gun useless and tell him to never forget that violence is a failure on one's part to overcome their own inner self-doubt and lack of faith in the one true God, who waits even for him to return from his self-imposed exile from the divine presence. Should I have chosen to end his life, I would have done so in a moment of sin, taking any chance he would have had to experience God's redeeming Grace. I would have been a witness to a very small god uninterested in mercy and love. Should he reject that lesson, I would have a clear conscience, since Ezekiel 3:18-19 reminds us of the task we have before wicked men. YHWH's concept of 'death' is eternal punishment, which the wicked man will meet before the Throne of judgment, a judgment He alone can cast.
This is not to say justice has no place in the Tanakh, or even in the New Testament, which I feel fulfills the covenant promised in Jeremiah , and manifests the 'suffering servant' described by Isaiah. However, God continually uses restorative justice as opposed to punitive, or vengeful, justice. He promised this after the flood, in which He sought to destroy all humans on earth who rebelled against Him. The message of the Flood is that no amount of destruction of those who do evil will end the reality of evil in the human heart. The word used for 'rainbow,' (keshet), appears in the entire rest of the Tanakh as simply 'bow,' the archer's weapon. God has placed His bow in the clouds as a reminder that He has made a covenant to all humanity to restrain His wrath and resolve sin in other means than wrathful judgment; this is why I believe that Yeshua was, indeed, the anointed Messiah chosen by God to be an instrument of atoning sacrifice for all mankind, fulfilling His promise that through the house of Israel, the chosen people, He would bless the nations.
In the book of Hosea, He is again torn between wrathful judgment and how to teach His chosen people the truth. He instructs Hosea to take an adulteress as a wife, "as the Lord loves the Isrealites" He says. They continue to run from God as the adulteress runs from Hosea. However, neither patriarchs (Hosea/YHWH) punish her (Gomer/Israel) as they deserve, and as God/Hosea would be expected to treat them had He been an angry or wrathful god. YHWH says he will save the house of Judah "not by bow, sword, or battle, or by horses or horsemen, but by the Lord their God (Hosea 1:7)." He is instructed to love his adulteress wife (crime punishable in the Torah by stoning , no less), "as the Lord loves the Isrealites, though they turn to other gods (Hosea 3:1 )." Their sins are listed as being so many and their hostility being so great (Hosea 9:7), that they should be stripped naked in public and exposed for their iniquities. Their "arrogance testifies against them (Hosea 5:5)." In (ve'ahavta) however, He spares them punitive justice, since He uses restorative justice to achieve His ends. He will allure her and "lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her (Hosea 2:14 )," and forego punishment for restoration. His purposes never seem strictly punitive, but instead to show His people that they must be restored to a right relationship with Him, as well as the people around them.
Nobody can deny that the covenant made between YHWH and Abraham was unquestionably eternal. However, it has also clearly been eternally conditional. In Deuteronomy, we are reminded of this fact when YHWH instructs Moses that only if His rules are obeyed and observed will He " maintain faithfully for [Israel] the covenant that He made on oath with your fathers ( Deut. 7:12, Jewish Publication Society English translation of the Tanakh)." Again in Leviticus, "If you follow My laws and faithfully observe My commandments ( 26:3, JPS)… I will grant peace in the land (26:6, JPS)." Once more, " Now, if you obey the Lord your God… [He] will set you high above all the nations of the earth (Deut. 28:1, JPS)." The conditions He sets are eternal as well as the promise itself. The conditions He sets presuppose anything that He promises; the rewards are not granted until the Jews have upheld their part of the bargain. This is why the Jews have been exiled numerous times from the land that YHWH Himself promised, is that not correct? The Promised Land is not an unconditional grant, or a gift, which is given without condition; there are certain promises that the Jews must fulfill in order to hold YHWH to His promises, otherwise He would not have instructed Moses to tell the ' House of Jacob' and the 'children of Israel' "Now then, if you will obey me faithfully and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, the earth is Mine, but you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:5, JPS)." The entire earth belongs to God, and if the Jews desire to keep the land He promised, they are still eternally bound to uphold their own promise to God, which includes the condition that they practice Kidush Hashem, to remind the entire rest of the world of God's glory through their actions and their witness; to be an entire nation which reflects the priestly devotion to God and commitment to glorifying God's holiness. Does the Nation-State of Israel do this? Early in our conversation, you conceded that Israel was intended to be a moral example for the rest of the earth. However, I do not see this in it's current domestic policies and practices, nor in it's response to the call by numerous national entities represented in the United Nations.
The theological reasons the Settlement/Zionist movement use to justify their deeds, I'll use Ezekiel 37:14 for the sake of the argument since it is used at the Yad Vashem, stands upon shaky ground at best, and constitutes a willful misinterpretation at worst. Ezekiel, and every other Prophet, must be looked at contextually. To appropriately justify any type of action based on their writings one must understand their message as their audience would have understood it, not to apply it liberally to every situation one wishes to without comprehending the intended message.
Ezekiel was a prophet during the Babylonian exile, a period of only 40 years, he watched the destruction of the First Temple. When he claims that Israel will be " placed in [their] own land," the Israelites did, in fact return to Jerusalem after their exile in Babylon. The Temple was rebuilt and the prophecy was fulfilled. To try to generously apply such texts again in this modern age seems suspiciously convenient for the Zionist movement (who's founder, Thomas Herzyl was a secular Jew). Has there been another prophet who reinstitutes the promise again, after the Roman Exile in 70 AD? Or is Israel attempting to justify their actions by using promises that ancient Prophets reminded them of, while willfully neglecting their warnings?
I could not find the book you mentioned, though I would hope that someone with a legal background, such as yourself, might be able to make a stab at overviewing the legal legitimacy of settlements, both in domestic Israeli Law and the governing body of the international community, which Israel rested upon for the establishment of its very state, but refuses to acknowledge the applicability of UN Resolutions to Israel's annexation of "disputed territory" or its demand that Israel treats the Occupied Territories humanely and within the confines of basic human decency. In legal terms, I find this highly selective and discriminate. Please advise me on my "legal-ese" error, if there should be one. Additionally, if there is no justifiable right to return, where do you find the justification for Israel to return to 'its' land? Again, this appears convincingly selective and discriminate -not to mention again that the right to return is supported by numerous laws and ratified treaties signed into law by the very same international body that granted Israel it's "right to exist (which it accepts while denying Palestine the exact same right, is that not correct?):"
UN General Council Resolutions 242, 338, 476, 478, 446, 36/226, 242, 681, 238, 46/82, and 46/76, etc. to name just a few. To touch on just one, 46/76, signed in 1991; it reminds the international community that settlers have been documented, numerously, " opening fire… that result[s] in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians." Is this inaccurate? Aren't settlers (Israeli civilians) permitted to carry assault rifles (which I witnessed firsthand in Hebron and other settlement areas), and Palestinians forbidden to posses or carry weapons of any kind? The only two countries to vote against UN Res. 46/76 were US and Israel. There were five nations abstaining, saying later, in their remarks that they could not support language that did not allow for the Palestinians self-evident right to defend themselves corporately. One hundred forty two nations signed in agreement; countries such as Australia, China, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Poland, Mexico, Spain, and even the UK. I find it suspiciously ironic that two countries claim that the rest of the entire world is "one sided and distorted" -their remarks after the vote. I am reminded of Ezekiel 5:5-8, and every other prophet who reminded Israel that it's "continued disregard" (UN Res. 46/76, line 5) would result in exile (Isaiah 5:12-13). Did you not remind me that it was because of such mistreatment and lack of regard for God's purpose that caused the nation to be exiled on multiple occasions? From my very humble (though widely held) perspective, it appears that Israel has judged it's own blood redder than that of their neighbor, the Palestinians, and the Talmud is clearly in stark opposition to anybody jumping to that conclusion.
I'll close in addressing the question that I brought up, and later double checked, of the US Administration's policy on the settlement movement (past and present). I offer a few examples of how the past few administrations have viewed the settlement movement (if I remember correctly, you stated that they have never been viewed as illegal? I think that is what I remember…):
"…setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention…"
- Johnson's Dept. of State to the Embassy in Israel, 1968
"The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied territory as intact and unaltered as possible, …and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation."
- Nixon's UN Representative to the UN Sec. Council, July 1, 1969
"The presence of settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and it's neighbors ."
- Ford's US Ambassador to the UN William Scranton, March 23, 1976
"We consider [ the establishment of Israeli settlements] to be contrary to international law… Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and in the judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be… that [ settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories."
- Sec. of State Cyrus Vance, March 21, 1980 (under Carter)
"Our position on settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal."
- Pres. Carter, April 1980 interview
"The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements… Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel."
- Reagan Plan, Sept. 1982
"New settlement activity… does violate United States policy."
- Sec. of State James Baker, May 22, 1991 (under George Bush Sr.)
In response; "Sec. Baker was speaking for this administration, and I strongly support what he said… I'm one hundred percent for him."
- Pres. George Bush Sr.
"We do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem."
- Pres. Bush Sr. March 3, 1990
"Unilateral actions, such as the expansion of settlements, …could halt progress made by the peace process. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel."
- Letter written to Benjamin Netanyahu, signed by 8 former US Secretaries of State, Dec. 14, 1996
"The Israeli people also must understand that… the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment."
- Pres. Clinton, in his farewell address, Jan. 7, 2001
"Israeli settlement activity must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with UN Resolutions 242 & 338."
- Pres. George W. Bush (Jr.), Rose Garden address, April 4, 2002
"Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements."
- US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kertzer, May 29, 2002
"Settlement activity …preempts and prejudges the outcome of the negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The US has long opposed settlement activity and… settlement activity must stop."
- Richard Boucher, US Dept. of State, Nov. 25, 2002
"Israel must make sure that there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home."
- Pres. George W. Bush (Jr.), June 3, 2003
It is true I do not support the settlement movement; however, I actively sought an informed discussion in order to objectively explore the legitimacy of the movement in the religious and legal realm. I was surprised that I was met with repeated diversions to the Holocaust and accusations of being a sinner because I would not kill another human being. I had hoped that I could expect a considerate, responsible approach to the issue of Settlement and the legitimate justifications supporting it. As you have read, I do not see that justification in the set of Holy writings our unique spiritual foundations share. Additionally, I was alarmed that you, a graduate of the esteemed Law School at Columbia, had absolutely nothing to offer in the way of legal defense of the legality of the settlements. I asked pertinent and objective questions that are on the minds of millions of Christians in the US; if they can expect the kind of response that I received, I do not feel it would be productive to refer them to your office.
Finally, if it is your belief that moral clarity means that you claim in an online letter "We do not support violence of any kind (January 26, 2006)" and then tell me that you would "bomb Gaza to kingdom come," then I would conclude empirically that you are dangerously conflicted at best, and religiously bigoted at worst. Isn't true (religiously based) moral clarity the practice of approaching and discerning difficult moral issues and the ability to defend them against the truth of the Tanakh, honestly and confidently? Your silent response can only be seen as a convicting affirmation of the failure, on your part, to be able to stand up to the truth that animosity and hatred toward your neighbor, as outlined clearly by the Torah, the Nevi'im, and even the Kethuvim, are a desecration against God and disobedience against His commands.\n When someone decides to 'act the ostrich' by putting their head in the sand of total denial, you can jump up and down and declare an obvious truth, and that person is not going to listen or respond.
I, and others, eagerly and humbly await your response.
-Logan Laituri
2007.01.02
Sondra;
Yesterday I returned from a Christian missions conference in St. Louis. While I was there, I learned a lot more about the evolving conflict in the Middle East. In one of the general sessions, I heard something that stuck out to me, though I don't remember the context within which it was used. Speaking about visiting despairing peoples around the world, they said;
"We often adopt the biases and attitudes of these people toward their oppressors."
I think I understand more fully now what you meant when you told me that you felt I came to the discussion with an opinion already formed, and why you may have thought that that opinion would not change.
It is true that I came to our discussion with an idea about what I thought the conflict was about and who was responsible for what. However, as I told Becca, I want my biases to be destroyed. In our meeting, I was hurt because I found many of the negative biases regrettably confirmed. This is not to say that you are like every other settler, or that you fulfilled every misconception that I had been taught about Israeli settlers. It is simply to say that I wanted to believe you were something you may not be, and that I had no right to shape you into a stereotypically cookie cutter shape in my mind. I do, though, wish more of my questions were answered directly, which would have done much in destroying the misconceptions I held about the settlement movement.
I realize my biases, but I try to seek truth objectively. The only way to move forward in knowing that is to acknowledge those biases and to try to remain true to the actual facts despite my own feelings about the issue. Yes, Hamas must change their ways. Yes, suicide bombings and continued rocket attacks are horrific and violate international laws of warfare. Yes, the PLO had a history of corruption. However, one cannot excuse Israel's own responsibility in the matter; the wall does not follow recognized borders and is a suspiciously poor route for security purposes, home demolition irrefutably discriminates against Palestinian property above Israeli property, and Israel is breaking international law in administering their domestic law to an occupied territory.
However hard people around me try, I willfully refuse to allow imposed stereotypes to keep me from seeing the tzelem elohim in every human being. Should I allow myself to be shaped by what others think of people they do not understand, I would not be living very honestly with myself or before God. For example, should I accept what many white Americans said about Martin Luther King or some British loyalists said about Ghandi, I might very well be inclined to kill them as well. Should I accept everything that I had heard and saw of Israeli settlers, I would be justifiably repulsed by the idea of meeting with you. But I wasn't. I wanted to understand you, not to hold you guilty for everything others might claim you are responsible for, being a settler.
My efforts are usually spent breaking stereotypes; trying to figure out how to see people as God sees them, which isn't always how Man sees them. Man might see a terrorist, but God might see a culturally humiliated and spiritually frustrated child who simply wants his family to live in comfort and peace. Man might see a religiously ideological settler bent on killing or humiliating the people who are on land that doesn't "belong" to them, but God might see a child who sees their people victimized by indiscriminate violence and does not see how else to keep violence from occurring than to return it with more violence. Man might see a coward who will do anything to avoid deploying to Iraq, but God might see a child willing to do anything and go anywhere to follow His commands and love His children as He loves Israel, even people Man teaches him to fear.
I stand by a vast majority of the arguments I stated in my last email, though I am less than proud of the way I presented them. It was inappropriate to use such harsh language in my conclusion, and for that I apologize. If you do not feel comfortable responding to me, I understand and support your decision. However, I am reminded that I have actually learned the most from people I do not agree with, and I think that you and I have much to learn from one another. Truth be told, I was nervous going into our meeting because of encounters I had with settlers in Hebron. Nevertheless, it would be in poor character if I held you guilty for their actions. In the same way, I would fail in my objective search for truth had I held every Palestinian guilty for what only a few had desperately resorted to.
I am compelled to act against my fears and judgmentalism because I do not want to feel like I am hiding behind a curtain of lies or propaganda. I am thankful that I have been able to overcome my fears; I have learned so much as a result of confronting issues and people I am taught to fear or to keep at a distance. In this way, I refuse to pass that fear on to others, including what the Moshiach called 'the least of these.' He said "anyone who causes one of these to sin (Luke 17:1&2, Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:5&6)" is deserving of the worst punishment imaginable. I do not want to be a party to passing such fear and animosity onto my children, Palestinian children, or Israeli children.
Please accept my apology for the language I used and my inability to speak the truth in a considerate manner. As I have said, I do not blame you for not wishing to keep in touch, though I would welcome any correspondence we might share, as I know I would be a better person for learning from what you have to offer. I hope that you will consider what I have said and may approach anything we do not agree on against the truth of God's word. If you should find anything that I must reflect on, I would like to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Logan Laituri