Christian leaders meeting in Amman side with the Palestinians against illegal Israeli occupation, writes Sameh Fawzy* At a time in which policymakers, politicians and commentators have been trying to find a way out of the power struggle that erupted in the Palestinian occupied territories, even before liberating them, the World Council of Churches (WCC) decided to break the silence over the issue of occupation in a conference which took place in Amman last week. Attended by almost two hundred church leaders and representatives of many Christian organisations from every corner of the world, the three-day conference entitled "Churches together for peace and justice in the Middle East", sent a strong message to the international community that the problem in the Middle East, in essence, is occupation -- in the case of Palestine still in place 40 years after the 1967 War. "During the 40 years of occupation, there were so many sacrifices, so much blood. There were many efforts from people of good will, with so many visits and consultations in the region: presidents of states, prime ministers, ministers, parliamentarians and so many conferences. Yet the result, 40 years later, all these efforts did not change the situation. We remain under occupation, and our sufferings remain the same," Michel Sabbah, patriarch of the Latin Catholic Church in Jerusalem, said at the inaugural session. The situation is grave, Samuel Kobia, general-secretary of the WCC acknowledged, but insisted that the meeting was organised because there is no alternative to dialogue and continued efforts for peace. Our response, he added must be to mobilise the larger ecumenical family around the imperative of just peace. Our alternative to oppression and violence is to serve the cause of peace as an act of faith in Christ who is our Peace. Since its establishment in 1948, the WCC has been received with great suspicion in some parts of the world, including the Middle East. Some politicians, sometimes Christian, accused the WCC of playing a negative role against communist regimes in 1960s and 1970s in coordination with the United States. In addition, in some Arab and Islamic countries, especially in societies witnessing the rise of political Islam, the WCC has been viewed as a wicked Christian global organisation, erected only to facilitate the conversion of Muslims to Christianity, not more. Both accusations have been denounced by the WCC. "We do work for peace, justice and human rights for everybody. When we support refugees we have never asked about their [religious beliefs]," Kenyan Ambassador Benthuel Kiplagat, who has been closely working with the WCC since 1960s, said. He added: "We don't seek to get Muslims to convert to Christianity; we only seek inter- faith dialogue." The Amman conference ended up with a declaration reaffirming the WCC position on the Palestinian cause: that relevant UN resolutions are the basis for peace; that Palestinians have the right of self- determination and the right of return; and that both Palestine and Israel have legitimate security needs that should be met. The illegal occupation, the declaration insists, has stolen two generations of lives, and threatens the next with hopelessness and rage. Time has not served the cause of peace but has served the cause of extremism. The Amman imperatives are expected to be brought before churches everywhere, particularly in the United States, and be a matter of extensive discussion with policymakers in Western capitals as well as the United Nations. Similar to a number of NGOs, the WCC has a representative in the UN in New York. The WCC was established in the same year as the United Nations, so relations between the organisations are old and deep says Reverend Chris Ferguson, WCC representative to the United Nations. Ferguson stressed the WCC position that all relevant UN resolutions should be abided by in full. Contrary to the standpoint of many global actors, the WCC has a different stance regarding the roadmap for peace in the Middle East, starting from the understanding that the UN should act in independently rather than following proposals ultimately drafted by the United States. As to the WCC, Ferguson explains: "We do our work through advocacy, discussions, and seminars with different UN institutions. In this regard, the WCC has had many proposals on development issues that have gone through, such as the commitment of the industrial countries to dedicate a percentage of their GDP to development in less developed countries. Nevertheless, the WCC role in the [Arab-Israeli] peace process is limited, like other NGOs, due to the Security Council's structure that has put its function under the thumb of its permanent members, especially the United States. For this reason we restlessly push for UN reform." While the outcome of the conference, for many, was satisfactory, especially in light of the growing tendency among some participants to soften the language of the final statement, other participants from the Middle East expressed concern over the situation in Gaza. "We notice with great concern the growth of religious radicalism in Gaza," Mounib Younan, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, said. Many church leaders seem eager to appear neutral because they don't know what the future holds. One church leader, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the subject, told Al-Ahram Weekly there is growing fear among Christians across the Palestinian occupied territories. Christian women have been persuaded to wear the veil in Gaza, and some socio-cultural freedoms Christians are used to enjoy in Gaza City have been forcibly relinquished. The same source added that some church leaders, especially in 2002, tried to mediate between Hamas and Israeli authorities to end violence that affected Christians, but failed due to Sharon's stubborn position. At that time, Hamas leaders agreed to terminate suicide attacks only in return for the release of Palestinian prisoners and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, not to 5 June 1967 but to the status quo of September 2000. The Israelis refused the mediation in principle, along with the offer itself. * The writer is a political commentator.
