Recently there have been numerous changes in ICPJ’s Middle East program, and several questions about them. To help provide background to for these changes, here are three documents that address the history of the challenges that we have addressed.

First is a general update on our Middle East work written by our board president, Joe Summers, announcing the changes in our Middle East work. 

The second document was written in March 30, 2006 by the Executive Committee of our board with the hope that if we could name where we were in disagreement we might be able to find our way towards common ground.

Third is an excerpt from an email written by our board president, Joe Summers, to the board.

1. Letter to Members, November 21, 2006

Dear Friends,

At its October meeting the Steering Committee of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice reluctantly voted to disband our Middle East Task Force (METF).  This decision was arrived at only after two and half years of trying to resolve conflicts within the METF and between the METF and the Steering Committee.   This conflict was consuming much of our available time and resources at a time when those resources are urgently needed in a number of areas including working to develop effective interfaith action for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine.

At the core of these conflict were disagreements about core values like what it means to be interfaith, to work non-violently, to respect the dignity of those you are working with, and how we can best be effective.  In almost any intractable conflict each party is likely to have very different perceptions. You may hear many things said about what the Steering Committee has, or has not, done in relation to this conflict, and why we’ve done what we’ve done, that in my best judgment are simply untrue.  If you wish to understand more about how the Steering Committee came to this point  you can read two summaries I wrote about the nature of this conflict which are available either by going to our website: www.icpj.net/middleast or by calling the office.  The first was written in March of 2006 with the hope that if we could name where we were in disagreement we might be able to find our way towards common ground.  The second was written in May of 2006  after the Middle East Task Force  had responded to the earlier document.

We know that our actions will be interpreted by some as ICPJ’s turning its back on the quest of our sister and brother Palestinians to live with Peace and Justice.  At a time when the failure to find create a just peace in Israel/Palestine continues to be on of the greatest threats to peace around the world such a stance would be inconceivable to us.   In the coming months we will determine how we can be most effective in promoting peace with justice in the Middle East.  This includes the listening process whereby we are hoping you, our members, will share with us your ideas about how we can be most effective. ( A copy of the survey is found in your Nov.-Dec. newsletter, as well as, online at www.icjp.net/survey.) In the  meanwhile, we are gong to focus our Middle East Peace work on one of the most critical issues at the moment which is the large wall that Israel is constructing which is driving more people off their land and further transforming Palestinian communities into large prison camps.

Despite coming to this sad point, we remain grateful for all the good work done by members of the Middle East Task Force over the years.  We are also grateful to each of you who finds ways to work for the kind of peace that has its roots in truth and justice.

On behalf of the Steering Committee of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice,

Joseph H. Summers
President

2. Summation of Conflict between ICPJ’s Steering Committee and the Middle East Task Force, March 30, 2006

The Executive Committee hopes the following summation will aid our deliberations about the nature and future of Middle East Task Force. It should be noted that to address the conflicts within the METF and between the METF and the Steering Committee– the Steering Committee hosted a public forum at St. Clare’s/Temple Beth Emeth, worked to clarify ICPJ’s core values and vision in general and in regards to Middle East work, attempted to reconcile these values and vision with the goals of those working on the METF, and attempted to mediate numerous conflicts between METF members, other ICPJ members, staff, and Steering Committee members. After more than a year of making this perhaps the primary focus of its work the Steering Committee is now confronted with the reality that, we are basically as divided as we were at the beginning of this process.

The Intractable Nature of the conflict between the ICPJ Steering Committee and the METF: Six Reasons Why We Need to Act Now

Stewardship: The chief responsibility of the Steering Committee is to manage the resources of the organization. The inability to resolve the conflict over the nature and direction of the METF has led to a squandering of time, personnel, resources, and energy. The Steering Committee needs to attend to all areas of the organization: financial, personnel, task forces, and more. Despite adding a monthly executive committee meeting the Steering Committee has been unable to keep up with what it needs to be doing in large part because of having to keep dealing with this conflict. The first thing that led the Steering Committee to be concerned about what was happening with the METF was a steady stream of volunteers who felt driven away from being able to work with the METF. Despite Steering Committees actions, and in part because of them, we’ve seen a steady loss of more volunteers. As a volunteer based organization this is simply unacceptable. Further, the intractable nature of these conflicts, conflicting expectations, personal attacks, and a constant stream of criticism have taken a tremendous toll on our staff. Finally, the demoralization produced by this conflict is threatening to drive many more away from ICPJ. Whatever way we act we are going to lose more members. However, we believe not acting will cause us to lose many more.

Non-violence: A core value of ICPJ has been to be non-violent in conduct and speech and attitude. Some members of METF appear to reject this value in regards to speech and attitude. In any case, despite repeated requests they have repeatedly acted in contradiction of this value. This has driven people away from METF and compromised its witness in the views of others. The inability, or unwillingness, of METF to address these forms of behavior has meant that the Steering Committee has felt forced to act.

Interfaith: The effectiveness of ICPJ comes from our creating a space where those from the religious community can express their concerns for peace and justice both within their faith community and to the broader world. A majority of the remaining members of the METF members have no affiliation with any faith community. On its own this would be no problem but many of them view the whole idea of Interfaith action around the Israel/Palestine issue to be a conspiracy to silence the Palestinian voice and the voice of justice. The lack of any religious community affiliation means these members see those who are affiliated with religious communities as pro-Zionist when they articulate what will, or will not, work with their particular religious communities. This attitude has in turn worked to drive away practicing Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

Action: The desire to do actions that promote peace and justice is a value common to people on both sides of this conflict. Although they are not endorsed by ICPJ, and though they do no claim to be representing ICPJ at the vigils, currently the main action being done by members of METF are vigils at a synagogue that is not of their faith. The actions by these members of METF has in turn so alienated many other members of ICPJ that they are unwilling to participate in actions with these members. This means that while METF/ICPJ is able to sponsor a variety of educational forums on Middle East issues we have almost come to a standstill when it comes to be able to act on Middle East issues. As an organization created to act for peace and justice this is an intolerable situation.

Conflicting Strategies & Credibility: This conflict appears to be intractable because for both sides credibility is a core value and both sides feel their credibility is at stake when it comes to the strategy they believe will work to create peace with justice in the Middle East. On the one side, the Steering Committee has long focused on the importance of challenging the U.S. governments unconditional support for Israel and the occupation as a pre-condition for creating peace with justice for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. To do this we have sought to bring together those committed to Palestinian self determination and those committed to the well being of Israel who recognize the importance of universal human (Palestinian?) rights. While not equating the violence on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in trying to build such an alliance we have been careful not to be identified with any actions or statements which seem to foster anti-Semitism, such as critiquing Jewish nationalism without simultaneously critiquing other forms of religious nationalism or by denouncing indiscriminate violence by Israelis and not by Palestinians. In contrast, many members of the METF believe that believe any form of Jewish nationalism is innately evil/oppressive and that working for peace with justice means publicly denouncing “Zionism” as innately racist and that it is leading to the genocide of the Palestinian people. They see any real attempt to work with supporters of Israel as a betrayal of their Palestinian sisters and brothers. We have not been successful in bridging these differences such that each side has felt thwarted in pursuing the strategies they feel we need to be pursuing.

Effectiveness around Middle East issues: The lack of peace with justice in the Middle East is leading to ever new levels of violence and polarization not only in the Middle East but around the world. At a time when effective action is so desperately needed, ICPJ cannot afford to let itself be sidelined by internal conflicts. People on both sides of this conflict have striven without success to make the METF an effective vehicle for action around Middle East issues. This has not happened. It is now time for us to constitute a new Middle East Task Force with the hope it will have greater success.

3. Excepts from May 2nd, 2006 Email from Joe Summers to Steering Committee

Dear Folks,

I want to say that I deeply appreciate all of you trying to stay present through our last Steering Committee meeting. It was clearly very difficult, but maybe necessary. Before I responded to the meeting I wanted to let things settle down inside of me. I’m still pretty worked up but I figure its now time to speak up as I think it would be helpful for us to collectively process where we are before our meeting a week from today. In order to do this, I’m hoping you will be able to make one of the two small informal discussions which Chuck has scheduled and/or share any reflections you have over e-mail.

Thoughts about the Meeting.
After talking with Farouq I came into the meeting open to the possibility that we might find an alternative to suspending the METF. However, though I heard lots of pain and anger from METF members that the Steering Committee would consider doing this, I didn’t hear what I needed to hear to believe suspension is avoidable.

I heard Farouq say that he thought things had changed and would change further in terms of the Task Force operating according to the vision and values of ICPJ as the Steering Committee has tried to articulate it over the past year. After that, however, almost everything that was expressed by the other members of the Task Force seemed clear evidence that this was not the case. Instead what I heard was a series of denunciations which affirmed that we are as far apart as ever.

In reviewing what was said by members of the METF as well as the METF’s written response to the Steering Committee, here’s where I see things standing.

First, while we in no way want to equate physical and verbal violence, the Steering Committee has insisted on rejecting violence, including verbal violence, as a core value of Interfaith. The Task Force responded that “it is insulting to the victims of real physical violence to characterize harsh words as violence.”

Secondly, the Steering Committee’s has insisted that ICPJ needs to have an interfaith approach to this issue. Many/most members of the Task Force believe that such an approach would represent a conspiracy to silence the issue of Palestinian rights.

Third, the Steering Committee has called for a strategy that brings together those committed to Palestinian self-determination with those who are committed to the well being of Israel and who recognize the importance of universal human rights. The task force has declared that “no such things is possible” and that “any real attempt to work with supporters of Israel (is) a betrayal of the Palestinian people” and “a deep betrayal of … ICPJ’s core values of justice and peace.”

The METF/JWPF connection
The last meeting made it evident that a clear majority of the remaining METF members are members of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends and are participating in the vigils at the synagogue. They continue to believe that ICPJ should stand with them in their protests against the Jewish congregations in our area, which they characterize as believing in “Constantinian (militaristic) Judaism.” The language of “Constantinian Judaism” comes from the work of the theologian Marc Ellis who has articulated what he believes are the grounds for reconstituting an authentic Jewish faith. However we feel about this struggle going on within the Jewish community about the nature of Judaism, I don’t believe it is appropriate for us as an Interfaith Community to define the Jewish faith.

Given that most members of existing Jewish congregations who oppose the occupation will not work with those participating in the vigils, and that the leadership at the Mosque has declared it “isn’t appropriate to protest in front of a place of worship” (May 06 AA Observer p. 30), and that a significant sector of those committed to the Palestinian cause within the Christian community have similar reservations, it means that the METF, as it is presently constituted, even if it wanted to, could not create the kind of Interfaith action for Peace and Justice in the Middle East that the Steering Committee has committed itself to.

Lastly, a number of the current members of the METF have rejected the idea that it is important for us to take seriously and strive to understand the views and values of those we are struggling with. Part of my own feeling that METF simply no longer expresses the vision and values of ICPJ comes from my ongoing experience of seeing myself and others approached with assumptions and judgments that are both wrong and terribly unproductive. This was particularly evident to me in the insistence on seeing the Steering Committee concerns and agenda as being controlled by its Jewish members. (That has simply never been the case.) I believe it is imperative ICPJ’s approach the broader community, particularly those whose attitudes we are seeking to change, with a dialogical approach that reflects a sincere attempt to understand them.

On the Question of Suspension
I believe we should immediately suspend the work on the Middle East Task Force. The Steering Committee is the part of ICPJ that is responsible for determining what ICPJ wants to do or endorse and what it doesn’t want to do or to endorse. As painful as it is, I believe the current breakdown in trust and communication and the fundamental disagreements over values, vision, and strategy mean that I can’t, in good conscience, continue to endorse the METF as reflective of the core values and vision of ICPJ as the Steering Committee understands them.

On the Question of Mediation
I am skeptical about the benefits of mediation. Mediation works when the two parties have some kind of overriding common interest which allows them to work on their communication and slowly rebuild trust. I don’t see that here. Instead we have two groups who have very different values and visions of how we can achieve peace and justice which they believe are more important than being able to work together. Part of why we have come to where we are is the intractable nature of the conflict between the METF and the Steering Committee has demoralized our staff and driven away volunteers from both sides of the conflict. At a time when we our energies and focus is needed in a wide variety of areas I don’t want us to commit ourselves to something that would further depletes our resources of time and energy unless there seemed some reasonable basis for believing that it would be really productive to do so.

On the Question of Democratic Process and Decision Making
Finally, we also heard broad disagreement about whether ICPJ should be a representative organization or what was characterized as a membership or grassroots democratic organization. For myself, I believe our membership clearly elected us to lead and make decisions for ICPJ. However, when it comes to making fundamental changes in our life together I think it is always helpful to go back to the membership. At our membership meeting in September I think it would be helpful for the Steering Committee to get the memberships response to whatever we decide to do regarding Middle East work. If, for example, we decided that we wanted to have a Middle East Task Force that was constituted by elected representatives (rather than open to all) than it would be important for the membership to either endorse or reject this idea. If we went that particular route, we might also want to go ahead and have the membership elect those they wanted to represent ICPJ on the Task Force.

Those are some of my thoughts. I’d appreciate your sharing yours either over e-mail or in the small groups so that we all have a chance to consider where we are and what we should do in an atmosphere that isn’t as highly charged as our next meeting may be.

My apologies for how long this is. Thank you for taking the time to read it.
Joe Summers