Evangelical Leaders Meet Rice on Middle East Peace (by Ron Sider)
On Friday, Oct. 26, I was part of a small delegation of evangelical leaders who met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. We were there to follow up the letter we sent to President Bush in late July to encourage more vigorous U.S. efforts to promote a fair, two-state solution for Israel/Palestine.
Secretary Rice understands the formidable obstacles. She spoke of a little moment of opportunity, but she also underlined the urgency. If the Palestinians do not soon have a realistic prospect of their own state for the near future, the extremists will take over the Palestinian cause and things will be much worse. The Arab states are frightened at the danger of a stronger Hamas backed by Iran. Both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders know that the window of opportunity for realizing a two-state solution will not remain open very long.
Secretary Rice indicated very clearly that the support of evangelical leaders for a negotiated agreement that would provide security, peace, and economic opportunity for two independent states is enormously helpful. She also said that the necessary compromises by both sides on the details are clear and available. What we need is a psychological breakthrough.
I am convinced that Secretary Rice is investing her very best resources and efforts to move the dialogue forward toward a just, permanent, two-state solution. She needs our prayers and our vigorous support.
The group that met with her last Friday has plans in the works to rally evangelicals to support a two-state solution. You will hear more of that in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, read and share the letter we sent to President Bush in July with your friends. Urge them to sign it. And pray regularly and fervently that God will guide all the relevant governments - especially those of Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. - to seek the paths that make for a just peace for everyone in Israel/Palestine.
Ron Sider is president of Evangelicals for Social Action, a professor and director of the Sider Center on Ministry and Public Policy at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
'...stronger Hamas backed by Iran.'
So - Iran screwing things up again somewhere else in the world. Does anyone else see a patteren with Iran here. They seem to be causing a lot of problems all around that region and the world. (ok - for the liberals, lets get it out. It's Bush's Fault. If you wake up in a bad mood - it's Bush's Fault) I do not believe that we will see the Iranian Army marching accross the border into Iraq. But they will be backing and training terrorists to do their dirty work. Welcome to military conflict in the 21st Century. Can you imagine what this does to people working in the Dept of State or Defense for that matter. (I know - for the liberals - it's Bush's fault)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 1, 2007 11:30 AM
Hey, Notsomoderatelad:
Check out this editorial from today's Columbus Dispatch:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2007/11/01/Iranfight.ART_ART_11-01-07_A10_LH8B0CM.html?sid=101
D
Posted by: Don | November 1, 2007 11:50 AM
Posted by: Don | November 1, 2007 11:50 AM
Just like reading the Mpls 'Star&cykle'. The hatred that they have for Bush taints everything they write about him. 'Serious Consequences' to liberals seems to be 'code' for 'war'. It could be anything from sanctions, blockades, etc - not that we are lined up and ready to attack. These papers have to print the worst about Bush or they can not sell papers. If Wallis and Co. were union reps. the management of the big corp. would reign free. It is OK for Liberals to have power and threaten people but consevatives cannot do the same thing.
(the handle is just 'Moderatelad' - period)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 1, 2007 12:11 PM
Moderated - the weather here is pretty bad today and I'm trying to find a way to blame Bush for it. You couldn't lend a brother a hand could you? I'm thinking weather... global warming... big oil... Halliburton... Cheney... Bush... something like that.
About two weeks back I met a gentleman who's worked in peacekeepign for decades and recently has been involved in negotiations between Hamas, the Palestinians and the Israelis. He seemed to think that the establishment of parity - for the Arabs to know that they are being taken as seriously as the Israelis is key to negotiations and that part of this involves the Arab countries feeling confident enough in their military capabilities to come to the table from a place of strength not weakness (and with no conditions to disarm while our side retains its military capabilities). Not something that we're used to hearing - especially given the current thinking that ANY arming on the "other" side is detrimental to the peace process.
Myself, I see the point although I woudl advocate for greater de-escalation of arms on both sides rather than an escalation...
Posted by: Splinterlog | November 1, 2007 12:28 PM
Rice is an all-star, and I'm glad Sider and co. actually took the time to listen to her and have a dialogue (and vice versa).
Posted by: kevin s. | November 1, 2007 1:54 PM
Posted by: Splinterlog | November 1, 2007 12:28 PM
Thats the beauty of being liberal - if you can't figure out the cause of something - you just blame Bush and the job is done.
The whole idea is to be able to come to terms so that regardless what one side has compaired to the other - you know how you are both going to work together in this situation.
This could work and I will be praying that all concerned will come to terms.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 1, 2007 1:54 PM
Anyone up for a little prophetic vision? I would predict that we will see some kind of "quasi-imposed" two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian "problem." Within a period of a couple of years, if not months, the Palestinian state will begin hostilities against Israel, acting as a 'base' for other Arab states to move their assets through. Israel will respond as Israel has always had to respond - -and the result will be a Middle East, with Israel still there, and the Palestinian state occupied with Israeli assets. Oh, wait, that is about what we have now!!
Doesnt anyone get the fact of history that no Arab or Palestinian over there is going to rest until Israel is "gone?" And Israel is not going to be gone!! For one thing, the US will not allow it, militarily or otherwise. The idea that there exists some kind of "limited window of opportunity" for a "two-state solution" borders on imbecilic. There is no opportunity for peace, when at least one side says the other must disappear in order for their to be peace.
Posted by: joekc | November 1, 2007 3:26 PM
Just like reading the Mpls 'Star&cykle'. The hatred that they have for Bush taints everything they write about him. 'Serious Consequences' to liberals seems to be 'code' for 'war'. It could be anything from sanctions, blockades, etc - not that we are lined up and ready to attack. These papers have to print the worst about Bush or they can not sell papers.
Ummm, the Dispatch endorsed Bush for reelection in 2004. And their editorial slant isn't exactly described as "liberal," either. So your "they just want to attack Bush" take is simply nonsense, at least in this case.
And I'm with what Squeaky wrote regarding your moniker. Truth in advertising is needed. Not much evidence of moderate thinking comes from what you write here.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 1, 2007 4:11 PM
Amen.
Posted by: : | November 1, 2007 5:10 PM
"Rice is an all-star."
An "all star"? Hardly. I find little commendable in Rice when she and her own State Department ignored overtures from Iran around the time of the US invasion of Iraq. She and the administration have made things much worse over there. The fact that she is now sounding more reasonable is because this administration has dug itself into one big, deep hole and they need a way to get out of it- even if it means going against every irrational war-like instinct in their body. I look forward to the day when she is a "has been" that was part of a previous admnistration.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 1, 2007 5:48 PM
"Rice is an all-star."
Yes if you like bland also-rans.
Posted by: carl copas | November 1, 2007 5:58 PM
The administration's "gut" tells it to keep playing whack-a-mole using military, not diplomatic means.
Rice is a don't-rock-the-boat loyalist who goes along to get along so don't expect her to assert herself even if she does have some ideas of her own. And that's a big "if" after years of a well-choreographed underwhelming performance.
So count me cynical that there's anything other than a pretense of listening.
Prayers will continue nevertheless.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 7:12 PM
A long time ago my late father (who by the way was about as tough as nails and who seemed determined to perpetuate an antagonist relationship with me) said to me in a rare moment of kinship; "Patrick, it doesn't cost anything to pay attention - so pay attenion." That was a defining moment in my life!
We can all sit here and pontificate on the meanings of the latest sound bytes and add to the dribble or, we can pay attention.
Iran, Iraq, Venezueal, Panama, Montengro, India, Myanmar, Vietnam, Cuba.... odd infinitum are a result of previous and in most cases, ongoing foreign policy decisions. Until we dissect the cause and effect of our (United States) actions and urgings, we will continue to be lead by the spin of the White House, Congress and the think tanks.
The truth is we have encouraged, trained, inspired many of the counter culture movements that we now call terrorists. We did so because they were a buffer to Soviet and Chinese agression and communism.
I think it would be a far more productive use of our time and collective energies and brain power to come up with forward thinking policies that counter the past indiscrections of our own desires.
Not to say that these were necessarily mis-guided given the threat at the time. Rather to accept that this is how we got here and we are a largely in this predicament due to our own actions.
Let's stop demonizing everyone else's national interests and let's begin a dialogue that is in ALL of our intersts
Posted by: Patrick Pettengill | November 1, 2007 7:59 PM
So - Iran screwing things up again somewhere else in the world. Does anyone else see a patteren with Iran here. They seem to be causing a lot of problems all around that region and the world.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 1, 2007 11:30 AM
Fearing Fear Itself
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 29, 2007
In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.
Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.
And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 1, 2007 8:28 PM
Moderatelad,
I'm concerned when I find any member of the US govt reporting how arab states feel about stronger Hamas backed by Iran.
I wonder why I don't find those sentiments expressed on Al-Jazeera for example.
It is probably prudent to view this anti-Iran sentiment cautiously and not to presume that Rice is actually speaking for the other Arab nations.
There is also the minor inconsistency between Rice's views on what Arab states supposedly think and posts like Joekc's above where he paints the picture of all arab states opposed to the existence of Israel.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | November 1, 2007 9:09 PM
"Red Leter Christians."
Who do these people think they are fooling?
The ONLY thing standing against peace IN THE WORLD is Islam and its practioners.
Do the math.
Posted by: Donny | November 1, 2007 11:51 PM
Thank you, Kevin Wayne, for posting Krugman's column.
Militant Islam is a bankrupt ideology that isn't going anywhere but the dustbin of history. Like communisim. Nobody--least of all most Muslims--wants to live under their pervereted construction of Shari'a. Just look at the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Islamism is a house of cards destined to collapse under its own weight. Our foreign policy should be designed to help it along on that path, not to strengthen it, which is what we are currently doing.
And Donny, do the history. Warfare was around for a long time before Islam showed up. Trying to eliminate Islam will not bring peace.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 2, 2007 7:49 AM
Posted by: Don | November 1, 2007 4:11 PM
You know that the 'Dispatch' is the St Paul paper and is a good paper. (better than the one in Minneapolis) But if memory serves - the Dispatch has just been purchased by the Star, so I am thinking that things are going to change.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 2, 2007 8:13 AM
"Red Leter Christians."
do the math
Since you can't seem to spell, do you want US to do the math because you can't add either? :)
Posted by: splinterlog | November 2, 2007 8:29 AM
You know that the 'Dispatch' is the St Paul paper and is a good paper. (better than the one in Minneapolis) But if memory serves - the Dispatch has just been purchased by the Star, so I am thinking that things are going to change.
Nevertheless, the fact that you seem unable to recognize is that one does not have to be a Bush basher to understand that his and Cheney's inflammatory rhetoric vis-a-vis Iran is dangerous foolishness--and that's putting it mildly.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 2, 2007 9:55 AM
"Rice is an all-star."
How'd Jerry Rice get into this discussion?
Posted by: canucklehead | November 3, 2007 12:01 AM
"...but the political culture of the paper led to an insular set of hiring practices, passing the baton to largely mediocre journalists who fit the paper's cultural ouevre."
So how long did you say you had worked there?
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 3, 2007 1:30 PM
Condi, the "All Star,"is an accessory to the mass murder perpetrated by this administration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posted by: El Petey | November 3, 2007 8:55 PM
"How'd Jerry Rice get into this discussion?"
Dude, that's so racist. They're all the same to you, aren't they, you Canadian honky?
Posted by: kevin s. | November 3, 2007 11:16 AM
Yes, that was precisely my point, all-knowing one. How'd you guess? When I think "All-Star," the first Rice that comes to my mind is not Condi.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 3, 2007 9:45 PM
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 1, 2007 8:28 PM :
"Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties."
I'd agree with most of that & say well said except that I'm afraid the Democrats too have fallen into the "fear other nations &cultures" trap also albiet to a lesser degree and also I do NOT belive a nuclear armed Iran actually does pose the supposed menace its hysterically painted as threatening by the Neo-con-fascists.
On the contrary, Iran actually has far more to fear from us than we from it - even Israel.
After all :
Israel itself has nukes.
The USA has nukes.
The Russians have nukes.
India has nukes as does Pakistan as does France, England etc ..
All claim these weapons are for deterrence & in at least two cases : (The Russo-American Cold War & the Indian-Pakistani one)
BOTH sides having Nukes has PREVENTED all out war.
Iran has been threatended byu America and Isreal -both with vastly larger and better equipped militaries.
Its enemies are next door having occupied it s neighbour in Iraq and are nearby in Israel.
Can you then blame them for wanting parity in WMDs and some deterrent of their own?
I strongly belive the Iranians are NOT as mad as supposed and would not bring about their own lands complete destruction by launching a war themslves or giving nukes to terrorists as alledged by the Neo-confascists. (Hey what they do to others seems aptly done to them!)
Personally, I'd love to see Iran get nukes today and enough of them to pose a real deterrent threat - I think that'd be the best hope of peace we've got and their best chance of avoiding a US or Israeli attack that would spark further regional and global disaster.
Not because I love Iran but because its the one thing that may make the madness of PresiKing George II and his Israeli attack dog pause for thought.
Posted by: SCR | November 4, 2007 2:43 AM
Like communisim. Nobody--least of all most Muslims--wants to live under their pervereted construction of Shari'a. Just look at the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Don I hope your right , but remember communism also did much harm . I see caution everywhere . The thrrd world is gaining access to tech and the ability to help itself , there is going to be tremendous need for energy resources in the next 50 years . Unless the free world can step up to the plate and come up with enery efficient alternatives , it will be a rocky road .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 1:56 PM
SCR nails it. It's possible that only a return to the days of M.A.D.-mutually assured destruction- will deter the imperialist designs of our facist government, as well as Israel's belligerent and expansionist stance.
This is not to be read as an endorsement of the internally repressive government of Iran.
SCR,I commend you for being informed and for setting the record straight.
Let us all pray, pray, pray for peace.
Posted by: El Petey | November 4, 2007 11:15 PM
Don I hope your right , but remember communism also did much harm.
I didn't say they weren't dangerous. I said their days in the sun are limited. A summer thunderstorm can be dangerous, but it's not in the same league as a hurricane. Sure, they can do a lot of damage in the meantime. And we should be prepared and ready to act when they necessary.
But we need to put it all in perspective. It's no excuse for fearmongering.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | November 5, 2007 7:50 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?