On March 19, Israeli forces rounded up Assad Salach and his sons, Fahmi and Salach, and Assad's brother Sa'id and his son Ghassan -- along with more than 300 men age 16 and above -- along its northern border with the Gaza Strip. It is not the first time Israel has arrested the male members of the Salach family.

These days when militants launch homemade Qassam rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, they are usually launched from within the cities, not these border areas. Thus, it makes little sense for these men to be arrested solely for security purposes. Rather, it seems to be a method of pushing the families inhabiting the border areas into the cities and deserting their only source of income, their land. Israel is successfully destroying the potential of the fruit basket of the densely populated Strip. The once-luscious green land is now reduced to an arid no-man's-land, easily overseeable by Israel's security towers and drones overlooking it all. The economic crisis caused by this ongoing, intentional de-development of Gaza's economy is destroying the society's makeup.

The Salach's main family home was destroyed in 2001. Eight Israeli bulldozers crossed the nearby border and flattened the fields. Shortly thereafter, they came back and flattened the home with some family members still inside. That day Abu Assad, the Salach family grandfather, had a stroke, and he and his wife, Om Assad, were taken to the hospital. By the end of the day, Om Assad had lost her husband, her home, and the trees that had adorned the family's fields. She moved half a kilometer down the road to her other son's home. Today, Israel has taken him as well.

Despite a cease-fire, five of the Salach family members remain imprisoned without even a court case. Their fields still lie in ruin as the Israeli army fires at them when they try and approach it. Their old home remains demolished while the memories of the past continue to haunt them daily.

Assad and Sa'id used to collect the tank shells, things of ugliness, which Israel fired on them as they tended to their goats and fields. They would paint them, fill them with flowers, and turn them into vases -- things of beauty. "The day they started doing that the Israelis almost completely stopped firing at us," Assad's wife told me. As soon as the media spread pictures of their act -- turning death into life, ugliness into beauty -- the shells stopped falling. When the men were detained, so were the vases.

Philip Rizk is an Egyptian-German Christian who lived and worked in Gaza from 2005-2007. He is currently working on a documentary film, which is described at thispalestinianlife.blogspot.com.

Recently, I had the unique opportunity of meeting with four Iraqi evangelicals at a conference in a country near Iraq. They were young church leaders. Despite the circumstances in their country, they were upbeat and gracious. Having never been to Iraq, nor having personally met an Iraqi, I was eager to hear their perspectives on current events. My conversations with them helped me understand to a greater degree the true complexity of war.

One of them was a church planter in a large city in Iraq. When he spoke about his people, he was enthusiastic. He talked about how Iraqis were responsive to the gospel in times of peace. But when I pointedly asked him about the war and made it clear he could be honest with me, his response was a mixture of anger and depression saying, "It has been a disaster. My church has been destroyed. Christians had more safety and security under Hussein than we do now."

Another told me that her street was called the "Street of the Dead". The corpses from surrounding areas are collected and deposited on her street. Everyday she sees them; she walks by them; she smells them in her home. One looked at me with eyes full of desperation saying, "my entire life has been a war. I hate war."

I had made it clear to my four conversational partners that they could speak their minds. I also let them know that, on the basis of my religious conviction, I had been opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless I was startled at how angry and frustrated they were about their dire situation. All four of them, two women and two men from three different regions, assured me that life had been better under Hussein. I asked them what the other Iraqis thought. They said everyone they knew, Christians included, felt the same.

Later I mentioned this to an American evangelical who quickly retorted that they sounded like the Israelites after they had been brought out of Egypt. The intent of his analogy was to parallel the Israelites' desire to return to Egypt with the Iraqis' desire for the way things were. I responded, "Then who is God in this analogy? Who is Egypt? Who is Israel?" Though he did not respond, it seemed clear to me that he equated the related decisions of our current administration to the liberating acts of God. This shows the complexity of religion in the context of war.

I assured my new Iraqi friends that I would return to the U.S. and would try to find a place for their voices. I would try to convince others to see the complexity of war and face the fact that too often we equate the decisions of our nation's administration with the will of our loving God.

In a parting discussion, I asked them what message would they like to send to their brothers and sisters in the USA; what would they like for us to do? They unanimously said the following:

1) Insist the U.S. government make security its priority,

2) Help to develop the economy of Iraq so all Christians don't have to leave the country to find a job and

3) Please no more war in the Middle East.

Whether there is ever a "just war" is a matter of debate, but there is never "just a war."

Mark L. Russell (mark@markrussell.org) is Director of Spiritual Integration at HOPE International, a network of 13 Christ-centered Microenterprise Development organizations. He has a Ph.D. in Intercultural Studies from Asbury Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Bachelor of Science in International Business from Auburn University. Mark lives in Boise, Idaho with his wife Laurie, and their children, Noah and Anastasia.

Recently, I participated in a conference call based on a report from The Task Force For A Responsible Withdrawal From Iraq. The report argued that the United States can and should do the following: quickly withdraw American military forces from Iraq, "carefully pursue diplomatic remedies for the Iraq crisis," and "generously give to help rebuild Iraq in the long run." For the policy wonks, the report offers twenty-five proposals which are subdivided into five sections. For those desiring something more concise, there is also an executive summary.

I understood that the report would be the what, or the content of our conversation, but I also wondered: Why is yet another foreign policy discussion about Iraq important?

During the call, Congressman James McGovern, a Democrat representative from Massachusetts and influential voice in the discussion, provided a response. He stated, "people who have been consistently anti-war have a responsibility to lead the conversation on how to get out of Iraq." Although he did not direct his comments specifically to the faith community, his words nonetheless extend an urgent challenge to those who prophesy for peace.

Perhaps it is no longer enough to inquire about the coordinates of weapons of mass destruction and argue, as Steven Simon does in The Price of the Surge, that the surge reduced violence while also reducing the possibility of a "stable, unitary Iraq." Even as we emulate the prophet Jeremiah and weep for 4,000 dead American soldiers and 83,000 dead Iraqi non-combatants, Congressman McGovern reminds us that we can--and perhaps must--do more. Perhaps the prophetic task is not only to critique what went wrong, but to provide a vision of how things can go right, a vision of how we can responsibly withdraw from Iraq. Perhaps, to borrow an image from Jim Wallis, prophetic voices for peace can "change the winds" of foreign policy discussion and help create a climate for politicians to pursue sustainable peace in Iraq. Perhaps.

Andrew Wilkes is a policy and organizing intern at Sojourners. He is currently pursuing a Masters of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary.

I arrived in the West Bank the afternoon of Saturday, June 7, and hit the ground running. The next morning we starting filming for a film on Palestinian nonviolent resistance I am working on this summer. That Sunday, we did a long interview with Daoud Nassar, whose family owns a plot of land in the Palestinian village of Nahalin, just a few kilometers south of Bethlehem. The legal documents to the land date back to 1916, yet the family has been battling in Israeli courts for more than 15 years to have their ownership recognized by the Israeli state. The land lies on a hill surrounded on all sides by Israeli settlements. The neighboring settlement of Neve Daniel already has a master plan to expand across the land of the Nassars and their neighbors.

Parallel to the legal battles, the Nassars have done everything to prevent the confiscation of their land. In the summers they host children's summer camps and nonviolent resistance training camps. They also continue to come up with creative ways of resisting Israel's intention of removing them from their property by gathering winter rains when they are not permitted to connect to the water system of the nearby village, and digging out old caves because they cannot legally build above ground. Israeli land annexation is occurring all over Israel, yet the Nassar's case reveals a rare example of perseverance and creativity, and they have achieved international support to persist in fighting for their land.

On Thursday, June 19, after months of back-and-forth movements, a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas finally came into effect. With this rare time of calm between Israel and Gaza, many Palestinian farmers with land on the border areas are taking the chance to begin clearing their fields of the damage from recent Israeli incursions. The Egyptian-brokered agreement entails a gradual prisoner exchange and an immediate loosening of the siege that was intensified after Hamas' takeover of power in the Gaza Strip one year ago. Gazans who over the past year have experienced a severe shortage of all sorts of building materials, such as cement, wood, and glass, are hopeful that the agreement will actually be carried through in order to revive some local businesses. In recent months, the most vital commodity to be cut from the Gazan market is petrol. With insufficient supplies, life has been slowed to an excruciatingly slow pace. In such dire days, there is hope that the cease-fire will improve life, yet four days after its start the agreement has allowed for little change to be felt on the ground.

The day prior to the onset of the cease-fire, I had the longest day of filming in my life, from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. In the village of Ghwein, the last Palestinian community before the border between the West Bank and Israel, lies a small community whose inhabitants live in caves as their ancestors have for hundreds of years. In 1948, such farming communities all over the country were forcefully displaced by Israeli troops, the inhabitants of Ghwein also were pushed out of half of their village in the valley. Since that time more and more land has been confiscated, dividing the village from access to much of their farmland and even more vital wells. In these forgotten village lands, Israel will destroy any home that is built, so life in the caves remains frozen in time. Having experienced a dry rainy season, they have barely sufficient water to make it. Life is becoming increasingly unsustainable. If the families leave, tempted by the luxuries of city life, Israel is certain to annex their land for the construction of another settlement, like it has in so many other locations around them. So the families of Ghwein are remaining steadfast in resisting the occupation.

In Ghwein, Abu Mohammed told us of the realities of growing up as a farmer under occupation. Life is suddenly whittled down to the very basics: land and water. This Palestinian Life takes an oral history approach to the Palestinian experience by featuring farmers such as Abu Mohammed, rather than the "expert" opinions of journalists, historians, and political analysts.

Together with a Palestinian film crew from Bethlehem, producer Julie Norman and I have just a week left to capture stories of resistance in the West Bank. Next week I will travel to Gaza to film a final sequence connecting these stories to those of a Gaza under severe siege.

Philip Rizk is an Egyptian-German Christian who lived and worked in Gaza from 2005-2007. The film project is still underfunded -- check out the film site and make a contribution at thispalestinianlife.blogspot.com.

Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist and the author of The Clash of Civilizations, contends that unless things change, we are facing an era marked by religious wars.

Just about every military struggle between 1945 and 1995 was over political-economic ideologies. This was true of revolutions in Latin America and Southeast Asia led by Leninists and Maoists trying to establish Communist regimes, or by the CIA endeavoring to overthrow governments that were antithetical to U.S. interests. But from 1995 on, Huntington points out, revolutions and wars generally have been fought over religion.

In the Philippines, Kashmir, Sudan, and in several other “hot spots,” religious militants have been endeavoring to establish domination in the name of their gods through the muzzles of guns. It remains an obligation by religious moderates to stand up against such militants and to work for reconciliation between conflicting religio-political camps. The alternatives are all-out war on a mega-level, or endless acts of terrorism.

Those of us who are Red Letter Christians have still another concern with respect to these religious wars. We are a people committed to evangelism, and we realize that as religious wars escalate, our opportunities to preach the gospel in many places, and especially in Muslim countries, where it is seldom heard, are dramatically diminished.

At just about every conference on missions, there are regular calls for new missionaries to spread the gospel to the millions of people who live in the 10/40 window. The 10/40 window refers to the land mass that reaches from 10 degrees above the equator to 40 degrees below the equator, and stretches from the Atlantic eastward to the Pacific. The population in the 10/40 window is overwhelmingly Muslim.

It doesn’t take much for Red Letter Christians to recognize that the hostilities between Muslims and Christians have increased greatly as of late because of certain geopolitical events—particularly as we consider what has been happening in the Holy Land and the consequences of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. It is not surprising that the Islamic world is growing more hostile toward the gospel than ever before. Around the world, Muslims are viewing the American army in Iraq as a Christian army reviving the likes of the medieval Crusades, which were marked by a massive slaughter of Muslims and the occupation of holy Islamic lands by so-called “Christian” conquerors.

The American toleration of the oppression of Arab peoples in Palestine, which our government could work to stop, has exacerbated a jihad that will settle for nothing less than having the Jewish people pushed off the land and into the sea, and an unbridled hatred of Christian Zionists.

The ramifications of our nation’s “big-stick” foreign policies in the Middle East have been severe for missionary work. For the first time in a thousand years, churches in Baghdad are being burned down. The Coptic bishop of Iraq was kidnapped and later found dead. Christians, facing persecution, have fled Iraq by the tens of thousands, so that a Christian community that once numbered more than 1.3 million is now down to 600,000.

In Pakistan, missionaries are finding it harder and harder to continue their work. Where once there were as many as 400 missionaries, it has been reported that the number is now down to 40.

Red Letter Christians should recognize that there is a certain unity among Muslim peoples that is ritually generated and sustained. Consider the social and psychological sense of solidarity of a billion people around the world who, five times a day, all turn and bow toward the same city, Mecca, and recite the same prayers. It should be easy to understand how this spiritual oneness creates a milieu in which injustice to any of their people can be deemed an attack on the entire Islamic people. It requires little imagination to recognize that America’s militaristic ventures in the Middle East, and the CIA’s toppling of legitimate Muslim governments (check the 20th-century histories of Iraq and Iran) are setting up barriers to the missionary enterprise in the 10/40 window.

It baffles me as to how the same evangelical Christians who are committed to spreading the gospel in the 10/40 window support with enthusiasm military actions and diplomatic policies that make evangelizing those who live in that part of the world nearly impossible. Perhaps in the long run they put nationalistic jingoism and our lust for oil above the call of Christ to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

We Red Letter Christians have a responsibility. We must act quickly to not only stop an immoral war and end the oppression of Arab peoples, but to help our missionary-minded evangelical brothers and sisters understand that America’s militarism is curtailing our capacity to spread the gospel.

Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.

President Bush's remarks, made last week in Israel, suggesting that anyone who wishes to talk with a violent enemy is the contemporary equivalent of a Hitler appeaser, are so wide of the mark, patronizing, and simply untrue that they must be challenged.

The fact that he used the emotive context of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations as the background for these comments is an abuse of an already misused people. And implying that Sen. Obama wishes to appease terrorism is not only factually inaccurate, but morally troubling.

Why? Because this is to suggest that the only two options available to "good people" in responding to terror are to terrorise the terrorisers, or to cower in fear or denial. This has never been true. It does not become the president of the United States, a self-affirming follower of Jesus, to endorse the sport of violent revenge and the belief that there are certain people in the world who are so irredeemable that we should not talk to them. This aside, it is not politically efficient to suggest that terrorism can only be defeated by beating its proponents down.

I live in a place -- Northern Ireland -- where the government is now stewarded by two parties, both of whom could be caricatured as representing ancient warrior traditions. Their most recent manifestation, in the form of Irish Republican terrorism (the IRA) and militant Protestant fundamentalism, contributed to the horrors of my childhood, where political murder was a near-daily occurrence. After decades of terror, we did exactly what President Bush denounced last week -- we negotiated with each other and arrived at a settlement that sees former terrorist leaders share political power with those who consider themselves to be their victims. Successive U.S. administrations did not condemn this. In fact, the negotiations between terrorist leaders and constitutional democrats were chaired by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. President Bush has visited Northern Ireland to endorse the process. He has shaken the hands of former terrorist leaders. He made a video appearance at an investment conference in Belfast two weeks ago, encouraging U.S. businesses to set up shop here and to work with, among others, the current representatives of the organizations responsible for our violent conflict.

His suggestion, therefore, that anyone who wishes to sit down and talk with terrorists is automatically the moral and political equivalent of a Hitler appeaser is not only historically false (in that we know for a fact that such negotiation at least sometimes actually does produce peace), but so absurdly detached from the reality of his own administration's practices that it suggests either a malevolent and politically expedient attention-grabbing propaganda opportunity, or that President Bush simply does not know the truth about Irish politics.

I imagine I will be criticized on at least two fronts for writing this. One, that I am singling out President Bush for no reason other than my personal antipathy toward him. To that I respond with the following: I believe President Bush is a human being in need of redemption, like the rest of us. I do not share much of his politics, but I have been willing to offer praise when he has made good decisions, such as his progressive engagement with HIV/AIDs in Africa. I also believe that his predecessor made terrible errors of judgment regarding violent conflict, not least in Rwanda, and might have been likely to make similar remarks had he been in office and in Israel last week. I hope I would have had the integrity to write this article about President Clinton were he seeking to make the same dishonest political capital.

The second criticism is more nuanced -- the suggestion that the Northern Ireland conflict is not comparable to that in the Middle East. To which I can only reply that the sectarian political divisions on this island have lasted for at least 800 years, and that the violence has at times been at least as barbaric as anything done by Hamas or al Qaeda. I think the real reason that people don't consider my home conflict comparable to others is quite simply racist: They think that Northern Irish Christians are more capable of persuasion than Middle Eastern Muslims. Or, more practically, they don't want to acknowledge that the distasteful and difficult journey traveled in Ireland may have broken the path that the rest of us need to travel too.

What is even more likely, President Bush's remarks mask what might be called another inconvenient truth. When historians uncover the background story to this moment in international relations, they will discover one of two possible facts -- either that the Bush administration is already secretly negotiating with terrorists, or that they really do believe their own propaganda. British military intelligence had a secret back channel to the IRA from at least the early 1970s. Without this, alongside the contribution of politicians, business and church leaders, and other forces, there would be no peace in Ireland today. It would be unthinkable if the U.S. authorities are not already, in some sense, talking to representatives of Hamas, Iran, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Raoul Castro, and all the other members of whatever "axis of evil" we are told is most threatening at present. For to be honest, if the Bush administration is not engaged in dialogue with such as these, President Bush is both failing to heed the lessons of the history of conflict resolution, and, more seriously, to protect the American people.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com.

I recently joined many prominent Christian leaders in signing a joint declaration on Israel's 60th anniversary. The signers are too many to list here but they include church leaders, theologians, and the heads of international missions agencies who have an intimate knowledge of the region's history, theological significance, and present reality. (To name just a sampling: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director/CEO, World Evangelical Alliance; Lynn Green, international chairman of YWAM; Rev. Garth Hewitt, canon of St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem; James W. Skillen, president of the Center for Public Justice; Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland church; Rev. Kathy Galloway, leader of the Iona Community; Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire; Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; Rev. Glenn R. Palmberg, president of the Evangelical Covenant Church; Arli Klassen, executive director, Mennonite Central Committee; Brother Andrew, author of God's Smuggler; Charles Clayton, national director of World Vision in Jerusalem on behalf of World Vision International; Dr. Vernon Grounds, chancellor of Denver Seminary; Old Testament theologian Walter Brueggemann; and author and Sojourners board chair Brian McLaren.)

The statement begins by recognizing the achievement and necessity of the state of Israel:

We recognise that today, millions of Israelis and Jews around the world will joyfully mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel (Yom Ha'atzmaut). For many, this landmark powerfully symbolises the Jewish people's ability to defy the power of hatred so destructively embodied in the Nazi Holocaust.

But as is so often the case in human history - including U.S. history - one people's escape from persecution and tyranny resulted in the suffering of others. So the statement also says:

We also recognise that this same day, millions of Palestinians living inside Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the worldwide diaspora will mourn 60 years since over 700,000 of them were uprooted from their homes and forbidden from returning, while more than 400 villages were destroyed (al-Nakba).

The statement confesses that "To hold both of these responses together in balanced tension is not easy," and that many segments of the church - and I would add, especially U.S. evangelicals:

while extending empathy and support to the Israeli narrative of independence and struggle, many of us in the church worldwide have denied the same solidarity to the Palestinians, deaf to their cries of pain and distress.

Many Christians in the U.S. and around the world - including myself - have traveled to Israel and Palestine to learn about the geographical origins of our faith, and to meet the people whose lives are still shaped by the struggle over that Holy Land. We've heard stories of lives destroyed by terrorist violence, and lives destroyed by the violence of occupation. While it is tempting to either emphasize the suffering of one people over the other, or to impose an oversimplified narrative of false symmetry and intractable conflict, our biblical imperative remains, as the statement cites, to "seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:14).

Finally and most powerfully, the declaration urges

all those working for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine to consider that any lasting solution must be built on the foundation of justice, which is rooted in the very character of God. After all, it is justice that "will produce lasting peace and security" (Isaiah 32:17). Let us commit ourselves in prophetic word and practical deed to a courageous settlement whose details will honour both peoples' shared love for the land, and protect the individual and collective rights of Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land.

So can we authentically celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut while we mourn al-Nakba? Can we "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep" (Romans 12:15)? Biblical justice demands it.

Dear Israel,

Wow, you're turning 60. Incredible. Happy birthday to you!

I feel a little bit like I'm showing up at your birthday party without a gift. The truth is, you and I don't really know each other. I know we're related, but we don't have much of a relationship. That's been my choice, I realize. I wasn't sure how to feel about you, so I turned my attention elsewhere for a while.

I get frustrated sometimes by how much attention we lavish on you. I worry that an overfocus on you means we don't pay enough attention to Jewish education in the diaspora, or to the many other human dramas unfolding around the globe. Often it has seemed to me that American Jews perceive you're the only place that can be truly holy -- which does a disservice both to you and to us.

But this is a big birthday. And I've been feeling increasingly like it's time for me to reach out. As a rabbinic student and as a Jew, I need to know you better than I do. So here I am, saying hello. I'm even coming to spend the summer with you. I'm excited about that -- and nervous, too.

Many people I love tell me the moment they touched your soil they knew they'd come home. They tell me that one Shabbat in Jerusalem, one desert sunrise, one rousing round of "Hatikva" will be enough to bind me to you for life -- indeed, that we're already bound together, whether I know it or not.

Others look at me askance when I mention that I'd like to get to know you in a more nuanced way. They remind me about your insular religious establishment; they point to the security barrier, to the painful realities of Palestinian life, to your decisions that make me angry or sad.

I often feel caught between people I know and love who adore you, who support you without reservation -- and people I know and love who find your choices problematic at best. And, of course, everyone in between. I experience cognitive dissonance where you're concerned. To your detractors, I want to defend you fiercely; to your defenders, I want to point out every way in which you fail to live up to my hopes and dreams.

And maybe that complicated welter of mixed emotions is precisely how I know we do have a relationship after all. I wouldn't be so emotionally invested if we weren't family.

I suspect that the better I get to know you, the more I will love you -- and also the more I will question you and disagree with you. It's going to take work to make our relationship whole and holy. Maybe that's the gift I can offer: my desire to know you well enough to know what about you I want to celebrate, and what about you I want to work to change.

So hey, Israel, happy 60th birthday. I don't know what the years to come hold, but I look forward to finding out -- together.

Love, Cousin Rachel

Rachel Barenblat is a student in the ALEPH rabbinic program who blogs at Velveteen Rabbi. She's a contributing editor at Zeek, a Jewish journal of thought and culture, and author of three poetry chapbooks, most recently chaplainbook, a collection of poems arising out of hospital chaplaincy work (Laupe House Press, 2006.) She co-founded the Progressive Faith Blog Con, a gathering of bloggers of progressive faith that took place for the first time in the summer of 2006. She lives in western Massachusetts.

When approaching a conflict, any world statesperson would consider trying to break up the logjam. A Christian leader who has always stood for justice and human rights and who takes the issue of the sancity of life seriously has no choice but to try and see what he or she can do to stop the bloodshed. In a protracted conflict, adding new ideas from a high-profile figure can help shake up the status quo. While it is unlikely for an ex-president to be able to extract major concessions, what President Carter has done in his meetings with Hamas is to show the world that the issues are much more gray than Israeli and U.S. government spin portray them to be. The visit and seven-hour talks that Carter conducted with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal put to rest the attempts to paint them as merely an al Qaeda-like terrorist organistion that one should never consider talking to. In spite of its indiscriminate violence against civilians, this movement was elected in free and fair elections two years ago that Carter and other international monitors observed.

Carter's visit also showed that while Hamas, like most Palestinians, are bitter about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, they are pragmatic enough to accept a two-state solution negotiated by the moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, so long as the Palestinian public gets a chance to approve it in a popular referendum. It is important that the sitting president take this into consideration when deciding U.S. policy. Keeping 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza under permanent siege is illegal and immoral. Israel, and indirectly the U.S.'s, refusal to accept the offer by Hamas of a ceasefire is illogical.

While Carter has certainly not won over enough concessions from the Palestinian movement, he has shown that they are open for talks. Naturally they would be more willing to make concessions in return for recognition by the U.S. and other world powers.

President Carter should be applauded for his efforts. With the words of our Lord Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist, professor at Princeton University, and founder of the Arab world's first Internet radio station, Ammannet. His e-mail is info@daoudkuttab.com.

In the Washington Post and throughout the blogosphere, debates rage about the recent spate of violence between Palestinians and Israelis, each side condemning with righteous indignation the sins of the other and proclaiming their own side's innocence. In a recent Post letters section, for example, Yaffa Klugerman wrote, "I was shocked to read [the] assertion that the murder of eight students in a Jerusalem seminary ... was reminiscent of a 1994 attack by Baruch Goldstein, a Jew who shot a group of Palestinians at prayer" (killing 29 Muslims and wounding another 150).

Another writer decried the Post's lack of balance in putting the seminary killings on page one and having no mention at all of an attack a few days later in which Israelis killed five Gazans. (A short news item in the April issue of Sojourners magazine reported on Hamas rocket attacks that sparked reprisal raids into Gaza by Israeli Defense Forces, but the magazine went to print before the killings at the seminary.)

For those seeking to justify their next round of violence, there will always be another provocation to point to; revenge and retaliation will never end anything, but merely create the rationale for the next bloody attack. And both sides can legitimately condemn acts of inhumanity committed by the other. The only way to stop the deadly spiral is to stop – to recognize that all life, on both sides of the conflict, is sacred, and that the proper, humane response to suffering inflicted even on one's enemy is mourning, not vengeance. Until then, violence will continue to beget violence, and hopes for peace in the Middle East will remain a pipe dream.

Jim Rice is editor of Sojourners magazine.

We are told the war in Iraq is a necessary part of the "War on Terror" (WOT), and its goal is to bring democracy to the Middle East. Despite this rhetoric it is blatantly clear the US is pursuing its own interests at the cost of democracy in the region. This raises the level of anger in the Muslim world more than Americans can imagine.

Nowhere are the hypocrisy and contradictions in US policy more apparent than in

Pakistan, a long time US ally, whose citizens have consistently demonstrated their commitment to democracy, most recently in their February 18^th election. Despite this staunch democratic commitment, the US continues to act in ways that undermine democracy in this crucial country. The contradictions in America's Pakistan policy go back decades, at least to the late 1970s when the US worked with the Islam-touting dictator, General Zia ul-Haq and Pakistan's intelligence services to arm the groups that have naturally morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That story is well known.

Less publicized are the contradictions in current US policy. Since 9/11 we have given over $9.6 billion in aid to General Musharraf's regime (plus an additional $5.3 billion in reimbursements for Pakistan's assistance with the war in Afghanistan) – even though he unconstitutionally remained chief of the army while also serving as president, and despite the fact that in the 2002 election he whipped up Islamicist parties to generate a base of support for himself – a ploy the Pakistani people have now seen through and completely renounced in last month's election. But he is Bush's friend because he allows US planes to bomb inside Pakistan, and last November 3^rd he unconstitutionally imposed a state of emergency, suspended the constitution and dismissed all the judges who were not willing to swear a new loyalty oath to the emergency order. While the press widely reported he did this to prevent the court from ruling against him remaining army chief during a second term as president, he also did it to thwart the Supreme Court's demand that he account for hundreds of people who have been "disappeared." Many of these people have likely ended up in US interrogation cells in other countries.

For the first time Pakistan's government is "disappearing" its critics. It now dares such impunity because this has been normalized by the US's use of the practice within the country. It is one of the horrible contradictions of the WOT – we fight a war 'for democracy' by undermining the global commitment to habeus corpus and fair trial rights. The other contradiction is that in that move Musharraf killed the independence of the judiciary and the free media, two other democratic practices sacrificed to this war to bring democracy. What was the US response? Some noise but no serious demand to restore the constitution, nor to reinstate the court, nor to give an accounting of the disappeared.

On December 27^th former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and Musharraf's government acted in ways that smacked of a cover-up. Again, the US's response was very muted, despite the fact that "BB" was the first democratically elected woman leader of a Muslim country, and she had a long and close association with the United States. Why the waffle? Because more than wanting democracy in the Muslim world, the US wants a free hand to run the WOT by any means it deems necessary, to serve the US interests du jour. In Pakistan's case this means not only complicity in disappearing people into the rat holes of the US's secret global interrogation system, but also the freedom to continue to conduct bombing raids on Pakistani territory – increasingly without even consulting the Pakistani government. This practice, which is to be stepped up – at least until the US election next November, will likely undercut Pakistan's newly elected government.

Muslims everywhere see through these contradictions and the hypocrisy in US policy. It fuels their anger, which in turn fuels militancy and less willingness to dialogue or compromise. Without that willingness there can be no movement in any peace process: not for Palestine/Israel; not for Iraq; not for Afghanistan.

Cris Toffolo, Ph.D, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and in the Justice and Peace Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.

I commend Pastor Nathan for the courage and commitment to truth required to publicly reconsider what has strangely become status quo in parts of the U.S. evangelical world - an almost "biblical immunity" and unconditional support granted to the modern nation state of Israel. I especially appreciated the way he offered a lens for even the most serious adherents of scriptural authority to theologically unravel Christian Zionism.

As he showed, the way forward depends neither on tossing certain passages aside, nor on citing them individually, but on viewing them in light of the overarching meta-narrative of the Bible and the general direction of God's redeeming history.

Although there is more that I said amen to than questioned in this sermon, I'll offer (humbly) some things he may want to consider as he continues, or expands this dialogue:

1. The role of the U.S. and Great Britain in helping establish the fledgling Zionist state. Many Americans just don't realize where Arab anti-American sentiment stems from because they're unaware of how their own country has operated (and continues to operate) in foreign affairs.

2. That Middle Eastern Christians, or "Arab" Christians, are not monolithic in their opinions on the creation of modern state of Israel. There are a great deal (probably most, actually) who did NOT support the initial establishment of an Israeli nation state, however limited in its borders, and even if they now support its security. This is often confused as anti-Semitism though it has more to do with the above point (about the assistance of Israel by western powers) and that Christian Arabs have lived side-by-side with their Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters for millennia without national separation. Many may also not view biblical justice as necessitating land ownership via a newly created nation-state.

3. That biblical justice is also linked to the idea of restitution, in the sense that he who commits the crime is the one expected to pay for it. The part in the sermon about biblical justice can also acknowledge that the horrendous mistreatment and annihilation of the Jews was not done by the Arabs of the East but by the Europeans of the West. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that their homeland does not belong in the East, but there may be a rub (for Arabs) in implying that biblical justice would demand Easterners to pay (in land and lives) for the sins of Westerners. Of course, no ethnic group is ever totally innocent, but the presumptuousness of Western nations in applying solutions is a part of the problem for Arabs of all religious faiths.

4. Finally, under the last heading "What Christians should do" – I would add that one of the main things is for American Christians to get connected with the Palestinian church. One of the most powerful paradigm shifters is the realization for many U.S. Christians that Arab Christians (if they recognize their existence at all) are not a small fringe group who have been persecuted by Muslims. In the case of Palestinian Christians, there are (or were) hundreds of thousands. Christians blindly supporting U.S. foreign policy can take credit for shooting themselves in the virtual foot of Christ. For example, wouldn't it surprise most congregations to know that until recent years, in areas such as Bethlehem, Christians were the majority?

Deanna Murshed is director of integrated marketing for Sojourners

In November our friend Pastor Rich Nathan sent us this compelling sermon and we've been looking for a good time to post it ever since. The occasion of Bush's trip to the Middle East seems to be a good time for Christians to reflect on their relationship with the modern nation of Israel. You can click to read the full text, or download mp3 audio from Rich's church, Vineyard Columbus.

Now, the issue of Israel is not just academic to me. Most of you know that I was raised in a Jewish family. And in terms of my personal identity, I consider myself to be a Jew who believes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the one promised by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are three branches of modern-day Judaism. The strictest, that is the most adherent to Jewish tradition, is called Orthodox Judaism. The most liberal is called Reformed Judaism. And the middle is called Conservative Judaism. I was raised in the branch of Judaism known as Conservative Judaism.

So, growing up I went to a synagogue in which the prayers were all said in Hebrew. I wore the skull cap known as the yarmulke and a prayer shawl known as a tallis each week as I attended synagogue – and I attended weekly. I went to Hebrew School and Hebrew High School. I was bar mitzvah which is a rite of passage for Jewish boys at age 13. In growing up I had a deep attachment to Israel. I gave money as a child to plant trees in Israel. At Jewish holidays we always greeted each other with the Hebrew greeting, L'shana habaa biyerushalayim which means "Next year in Jerusalem."

In other words, next year may we celebrate this holiday in Jerusalem. As a child I celebrated the victory of the 6-Day War. "We won!" I remember saying that in my 6th grade class, "We won!" My Roman Catholic teacher responded and said, "The State Department doesn't recognize the victory in Israel as an American victory." I thought to myself in the 6th grade, "Well, maybe it is not an American victory, but it is my victory!" I even considered leaving college my freshman year and joining the Israeli Army when the Yom Kippur Day War broke out in 1973. I would have been able to do this as a Jew. I could have immediately enlisted in the Israeli Army.

Now, Israel is at the very center of almost all of the great divisions in the world today, especially the division between America and the Arab world. Many Christians believe that America must support Israel because the land was promised to the Jews by God 4000 years ago. And many Christians see the formation of Israel as the major sign that the return of Jesus Christ is near. Other Christians are not so sure. As we continue this series on the end times, I've called today's talk, "How Should Christians Relate to the state of Israel?" Let's pray.

Archbishop Elias Chacour, an Eastern-rite Palestinian Catholic bishop in the region of Galilee, is escorting President Bush on a tour of the Mount of the Beatitudes in Israel on Friday, Jan. 11. This date also marks the sixth year since the arrival of the first prisoners to the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay.

Chacour, a leader in the Christian peace movement, told Catholic News Service:

The Sermon [on the Mount] was calling for action in a certain direction. This is where Christ was calling on all his followers to get up and do something to get their hands dirty, protect the poor, heal the sick, release the prisoners - including those in Guantanamo Bay, and I will tell [President Bush] that.

Father Chacour, author of Blood Brothers and We Belong to the Land and three-time nominee for the Nobel Peace prize, is president and founder of Mar Elias Educational Institutions in Galilee. The school system serves 3,000 students from the major faith traditions in that area - Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews.

Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.

President Bush is in Israel today, meeting with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and expressing optimism that a peace treaty could be signed by the conclusion of his term: "with proper help, the state of Palestine will emerge."

But even as he expresses support for a two-state solution, President Bush is hearing a lot from extremists in the religious right who oppose a just peace between Israel and the Palestinian people – and who'd like the White House to believe that their misguided fundamentalist theology and reckless militarism represent the views of all U.S. Christians.

Don't underestimate how extreme these groups are. A recent report by Bill Moyers covered a group called Christians United for Israel (CUFI), whose leader, Rev. John Hagee, has gone as far as to suggest that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God for U.S. support of Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. He's also urged a pre-emptive military strike against Iran.

Of course, Christians of every theological and political stripe care for the well-being and security of the Israeli people. But the extreme right goes too far by opposing diplomatic efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership. And there's reason to believe they have the ear of President Bush - who sent a personal greeting to be read at a recent CUFI convention:

I appreciate CUFI members and all event participants for your passion and dedication to enhancing the relationship between the United States and Israel. Your efforts set a shining example for others and help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. Laura and I send our best wishes for a memorable event. May God bless you. George W. Bush, President of the United States.

Fortunately, dozens of evangelical leaders, including our own Jim Wallis, have recently come together to present an alternative point of view. In a public statement, they wrote:

In the context of our ongoing support for the security of Israel, we believe that unless the situation between Israel and Palestine improves quickly, the consequences will be devastating. ... As evangelical Christians, we believe our faith compels us to speak a word together at this crucial moment.

The Bible clearly teaches that God longs for justice and peace for all people. We believe that the principles about justice taught so powerfully by the Hebrew prophets apply to all nations, including the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. …

We call on all evangelicals, all Christians, and everyone of good will to join us to work and pray faithfully in the coming months for a just, lasting two-state solution in the Holy Land.

At this critical juncture for Mideast Peace, Sojourners has just launched a petition to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, letting her know that Christians support a just peace in the Holy Land. We invite you to join us in signing it.

Michael Sherrard is the online organizer for Sojourners.

So I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the latest progressive addition to the classic nativity scene: the separation wall.

Either way, I love it.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out Christian Peacemaker Teams' "No Way to the Inn" campaign. Or, to purchase your own little shocker, check out the UK-based charity, Amos Trust, online where you can purchase "A nativity set with a difference ... poignant, ironic, and made in Bethlehem. Available in two sizes." Just imagine what a great conversation starter such a display could be:

Uncle Al: "What is that wall doing separating Jesus from the wise men?"

You: "Well, this year, the wise men were denied security permits."

For more talking points, read my synopsis from last year. Join the campaign and tell us how it goes. Who knew Christmas could be so educational?!

(And sorry I waited so long to post this – since I last visited the site, Amos Trust has sold out of both nativity set sizes and are currently waiting for further supplies to come in from Bethlehem. And I learned they don't ship to the U.S. But you can still download a free " Bethlehem Pack" for prayers, reflections, and songs about Bethlehem.)

Deanna Murshed is director of integrated marketing for Sojourners.

The Nov. 27 Annapolis meeting on Israel/Palestine has launched us into a momentous one-year process to seek a permanent peace agreement between Israel and its neighbors. What is at stake is whether after more than 50 years of ghastly conflict and widespread bloodshed, genuine peace can come to one of the most dangerous areas and most divisive problems in our world.

Important steps were taken at Annapolis. The leaders of Israel and Palestine publicly pledged to negotiate a permanent peace before President Bush leaves office. They have promised to meet personally every two weeks. And the U.S., especially Condoleezza Rice, is committed to working vigorously to use America's enormous influence to facilitate the process.

Not everyone is pleased. Christians United for Israel totally oppose any plan in which Israel gives up any land to a Palestinian State (an essential component of a final peace). CUFI has already publicly protested the Annapolis meeting and will certainly organize a segment of the evangelical world to oppose a two-state solution.

Fortunately, CUFI represents only a minority of American evangelicals. I am sure that a majority of evangelical leaders agree with the new "An Evangelical Statement on Israel/Palestine," released on Nov. 28, signed by more than 80 evangelical leaders who endorse a two-state solution and call on evangelical Christians to encourage, pray for, and support all the leaders working to reach this historic goal (go to ESA's website to read the statement and add your signature).

CUFI is already bombarding the White House with letters opposing this peace effort. We must mobilize those evangelicals (a majority of the evangelical world, I am sure) that do support a two-state solution to make its voice known now.

On Friday, Nov. 30, I was on Bill Moye