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 Moyers' Journal (Public Affairs Television) to talk about what evangelicals think about a two-state solution.

Clearly some initial important steps have been taken. But genuine programs will only happen if the U.S. vigorously pushes both Israelis and Palestinians. I believe Condoleezza Rice wants to do that.

Now is the time to tell the president you want him to redouble his efforts to promote a permanent peace between Israel and Palestine. Sign the new statement, write the White House, and tell your congressional representatives to push hard for peace in the Holy Land.

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.

Leaders from some 50 countries and organizations, including 12 Arab nations, are meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, today to begin negotiations for a peace agreement in the Middle East. News reports tell of " restrained optimism" that the event could lead to a Palestinian state.

The op-ed page of The Washington Post tells the rest of the story. Columnist Richard Cohen has a poignant column on the reality of human stories with conflicting narratives. He cites a new HBO documentary, To Die in Jerusalem, the story of a March 2002 suicide bombing in which a young Palestinian blew herself up in Jerusalem supermarket, killing a young Israeli woman. The film tells the story of the unsuccessful attempt by the mothers of the two women to talk with each other. Cohen writes that the reality of the Middle East is in the story of these two mothers:

The deaths of their daughters do not unite them. They talk past each other. They are virtual neighbors, but the distance between them is huge - roadblocks and checkpoints and mentalities ossified by 100 years of bloodshed. One mother is obsessed with the Israeli occupation. The other is preoccupied with terrorism. One is right. The other is right.

Israel must relent. That's for sure. The Palestinians must forswear terrorism. That's for sure, too. The occupation has to end. Suicide bombings have to end. A Palestinian state has to be created. Gaza cannot remain a terrorist base. The West Bank cannot become a terrorist base. It's all so sensible. It's all so logical. But, really, down where it counts, the mothers of two dead daughters cannot even talk to each other.

Until the leaders of both Israel and Palestine understand both of these narratives and can negotiate a common narrative, the tragedies will continue. I pray this Annapolis conference will at long last begin that process.

Gaza is a place isolated and unknown. Although the small coastal strip is all too often in the media spotlight, this can be a source just as much for generalization as information.

The murder of Rami Ayyad one month ago today was a source for such confusion concerning what would have brought about such a horrendous act and who would have carried it out. It is too simple to suspect that which is unknown or those who seem to be opposing "us."

An AFP article quotes Rami's brother Ramzi explaining his reaction:

"We are not afraid of Hamas because as a government they are responsible for protecting people. We are afraid of those who are more extreme than Hamas."

Palestinian Christians number around 75,000, but there are only 2,500 - most of them Greek Orthodox - living in the Gaza Strip among nearly 1.5 million Muslims, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Gaza has no history of tensions between the two communities, and Christians say they are bound to their Muslim neighbours by shared suffering.

The article also quotes Gaza City's only Catholic priest:

"Christians are isolated just like Muslims. They are scared just like Muslims," says Father Manuel Musallam, the head of Gaza's 200-strong Catholic community, his lips trembling with anger against Israel. ...

In a rousing sermon, Musallam - an ardent Palestinian nationalist from the West Bank who Israel has only allowed out of the Gaza Strip twice since he assumed his post in 1995 - called on his weary flock to remain strong.

"The Church has always been under threat, and it has always endured. Rami was not the first martyr, and in the life of the Church he will not be the last," he said, his soaring baritone voice echoing off the stone walls.

"To those who are scared, to those who want to flee Gaza, we must open our hearts, our doors, and our pockets ... and we must always remember the sacrifice of Christ on the cross."

Some may fear that Gaza is going the way of Iraq, spiraling into chaos and out of control. How would you and I manage in a community completely closed; isolated from the rest of the world; being barred from travel, schooling, and work opportunities; locked in an enclave of unemployment and humanitarian dependence? We need to ask ourselves what role we, our governments, have played in allowing such events. This is a question of chicken and egg and it is too simple to blame Palestinians, Muslims, or extremists without looking at the context they exist within.

If people want to take a minute to examine the complexities of Gaza's conflict, here is a 30 minute BBC documentary that is an excellent resource for this:

Philip Rizk is an Egyptian-German Christian who lived and worked in Gaza from 2005-2007. He blogs at: tabulagaza.com

An open letter to Condeleeza Rice regarding her recent diplomatic trip to Israel/Palestine in an effort to re-ignite the peace process.

Dear Condi,

I couldn't help but wonder what was going through your mind as you stood in the midst of some of the "living stones" of the Holy Land last week. Hearing the stories of fellow Christians who have carried on the teaching and ministry of Christ since antiquity – holding firm and weathering the elements of history for the sake of the church's witness. For what it's worth, I commend you for breaking from your diplomatic meeting schedule to sit down with top religious leaders – Christian, Jewish and Muslim. I read that you listened as leaders spoke about "real life" complaints such as the failure of Israeli authorities to recognize the Greek Orthodox patriarch.

But were you surprised to find that so many of your own Christian brothers and sisters are Palestinian – and suffering as a result of the occupation, and less than enthusiastic about the U.S.'s role in the matter? You don't often hear about these folks in American media.

I caught one photo of you and your entourage ducking to get into the church of the nativity (traditional site where Jesus was born) by entering through the low and narrow Door of Humility. Was the irony lost on the U.S. delegation? You remarked to the media that "being… at the birthplace of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, has been a very special and moving experience." I hope that you were able to make some connections between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the present. As I blogged about last year, were you aware that Bethlehem, a town once consiting of a Christian majority, is being choked because the new Israeli "security wall" does not exactly encourage tourism – Bethlehem's economic lifeline? Or that the U.S.'s foreign policy stance in the region (since it is so often framed in religious/moral language) sometimes makes Muslims suspicious of their own Protestant Christian neighbors and confuses for them the image of Christ?

Please forgive my boldness. I don't mean to be a downer. You are a fellow sister in the body of Christ and I do believe that you are a person of faith and integrity. You come from a lineage of spiritual people whose faith sustained them through their own season of oppression – both your father and grandfather were Presbyterian ministers in the segregated south of Alabama. You referenced this experience on your trip as a gesture of empathy. You can relate. This is positive.

I also know that you are a member of National Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C., sponsor of the annual Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation conference that I attended last year where Christian leaders from the Holy Land come to plead with their American brethren for support and acknowledgement of their existence in the body. In fact, it's going on again this weekend.

So then, Condi, do you feel the tension? The tension that all Christians should feel, if they are living out of a healthy theology? That to be a Christian is – above all else – to be a sojourner, a pilgrim: in the world but not of the world? That no matter what our national stripe, our allegiance is ultimately to Christ and his church for the purposes of redeeming all of humanity?

My prayer for the church in America and everywhere is this: God, until your kingdom comes, help us feel the tension.

Deanna Murshed is director of integrated marketing for Sojourners.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, recently returned from a visit to Armenia, Syria, and Lebanon. While there, he met with politicians, Christian and Muslim leaders, and visited with Palestinian and Iraqi refugees.

In an interview with BBC radio, Williams shared some of the observations he gathered, particularly in Iraq and Iran. He spoke movingly about the Iraqi refugees he met, saying, "the stories we heard were, I have to say, really hair-raising." He went on:

We heard of the firebombing of houses and shops, we heard of abductions, and of murders, and we heard stories - for example, one about a young woman who was travelling in a car with her father (a Christian family). Her father had been shot and killed in the car, she had been left for dead because she was covered with his blood, and when she got back to her home afterwards she had further threats - 'next time we'll finish the job …' - and so she had to leave. When you add those stories up by the hundred and by the thousand you see something of the fantastic human cost of what's going on in Iraq at the moment.

When the questions shifted to the war in Iraq as the cause of this situation (which Williams clearly thinks it is), he then had this to say about Iran:

When people talk about further destabilizing the region, when you read about some American political advisers speaking about action against Syria and Iran, I can only say that I regard that as criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous folly. … I mean that we do hear in some quarters about action against Syria or against Iran. I can't really understand what planet such persons are living on when you see the conditions that are already there. The region is still a tinderbox.

Strong, but true words. The region is still a tinderbox, and a U.S. attack on another country would be throwing gasoline on the fire. Williams is an exemplary church leader, a deeply respected theologian and scholar, a poet, and, I would say, genuine contemplative—all rare these days. He has never been prone to overstatement, and clearly his recent experience in the Middle East affected him deeply. What one hears in his strong words is, indeed, the authentic voice of prophetic criticism (again rare among church leaders these days). Bless you, Rowan Williams, and may our leaders in Washington take notice of your warnings.

This latest contribution to The Washington Post/Newsweek On Faith online discussion responds to the question: To what extent are problems in the Middle East about religion, and to what extent are they about politics? Does it matter?

Well that’s complicated. The chief motivator for American foreign policy in the Middle East is clearly geopolitical, with a primary emphasis on oil. But for a vocal constituency in a segment of the American evangelical community, an unquestioning and unequivocal support for the Israeli government’s policies is clearly a religious conviction. And that religious conviction of a key political constituency (especially for the Bush administration) bolsters the demonstrably uneven U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The completely one-sided support for Israel from some conservative evangelicals rests on two things: one, a very dubious interpretation (I’m being generous here) of biblical prophecy and eschatology (the theology of the “end times”) in which the modern state of Israel is still equated with the Old Testament notion of “God’s chosen people;” and two, a complete denial of the very existence of Palestinian Christians.

I had dinner two weeks ago with one of those beleaguered Palestinian Christian leaders who carries feelings of profound sadness and abandonment by other members of the body of Christ. The number of Christians in Palestine continues to decline dramatically as they are caught between Islamic fundamentalism and American fundamentalism. I have always believed that if most American Christians could see the daily and constant humiliation of all Palestinians at Israeli check points in the West Bank they would think such behavior is wrong -- but they never see it or even hear about it in the American press. For any serious debate about Israeli governmental policy you must turn to the BBC, international press, or to the press in Israel itself, which regularly features a far more evenhanded and robust discussion than can be found anywhere in the U.S. media.

One of the most hopeful signs, however, was a recent letter to President Bush by evangelical leaders who clearly dissented from the militant perspective of their Christian Zionist brothers. It said: “We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people, including some U.S. policymakers, that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution and creation of a new Palestinian state that includes the vast majority of the West Bank. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, who sign this letter, represent large numbers of evangelicals throughout the U.S. who support justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

These evangelical leaders are clearly committed to the existence of the state of Israel, to its real security, and its protection from horrendous terrorist attacks -- but also for justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people and their protection from the continual assaults of the Israeli Defense Forces. They are committed to a viable two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and call the United States to take a much more even handed role in resolving it. Last week, their representatives were visiting the State Department.

I include myself in that new evangelical group and hope and pray our number will grow. I can tell you that one Palestinian Christian leader was enormously heartenedby this new evangelical initiative . Let’s hope this religious conviction can help lead to a better political direction.

Here are some key quotes from a Christianity Today interview with "Beirut-based journalist Rami Khouri, a Palestinian-Jordanian Christian. ... An American citizen, he is editor-at-large of The Daily Star, the largest English-language newspaper in the Middle East. He is also director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut."

American Christians could look at Christian Palestinians or Christian Arabs as a potential window into the minds of millions of Muslim Arabs. You would find that what Christian Arabs are feeling is very similar to what Muslim Arabs are feeling. So the real issues at play, in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, are not religious but political. People may call on their religious vocabulary and metaphors and iconography, but we should look beyond the surface manifestations of those religious symbols to the political realities.

I'd add some nuance to the somewhat categorical assertion that the "real issues" are "not religious but political"--at least some of the real issues are religious. But I will take every opportunity I can to relay the views of Middle Eastern Christians to their brothers and sisters in the U.S.

Khouri also makes some interesting observations on the role of the church--and all religious leaders--in resolving political conflicts:

Sometimes, it's not just about getting the ear of politicians. Sometimes, the church needs to shame politicians. Go over their heads. The vast majority of people in the Middle East want the same thing. But the politicians are the problem in many ways. So it would be good if various religious leaderships together explored a way to make the moral values of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism more pertinent to the resolution of political conflict. Political leaders need to affirm the relevance of moral and faith values and somehow get them to underpin the political process and negotiations. One way to do that is to get these religious leaders together to explicitly talk about political issues.

This was exactly the goal of Sojourners' participation in efforts to prevent war with Iran.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.

I first heard about the letter of the evangelical leaders through an e-mail from Professor Ron Sider, who used to teach at Messiah College, where I graduated. It was a gift from heaven after so many bad statements by evangelicals justifying killings, occupation, and the pillage of our land using so-called biblical interpretations. I tried to get the letter to as many media outlets as I know, especially some of the major newspapers and satellite TV stations like al Jazzera and Al Arrabiyeh. I wanted people in our part of the world to know that there are other Christian evangelicals from America who think and speak differently than the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Fallwells and other Christian Zionists.

The same day, my family and I were invited to the home of the pastor of the local Christian Alliance Church in Amman. Reverend Yousef Hashweh and his wife are long-time friends of my parents and my wife's family. My father-in-law was an Alliance pastor in Jerusalem between 1957 and 1975. They had invited us for a good-bye dinner as we were about to travel to the U.S. I have been asked to teach a course at Princeton University on the topic of new media in the Arab world.

When I told them about the letter and that one of the signatories was the president of the Christian & Missionary Alliance, they rushed to their computer and made a print out of the letter. They were checking to be sure that Gary M. Benedict, president of the Christian & Missionary Alliance, had in fact signed a letter calling for a Palestinian state.

We spent the evening trading stories of the many false predictions (spoken as if they were true prophecies) made by Christian evangelicals about our part over the years. I told them my favorite story of seeing Pat Robertson in 1982 opening his Bible while speaking on the 700 Club, stating that the invasion of Israel to Lebanon was specifically detailed in the Old Testament and that PLO leader Yasser Arafat was none other than the anti-Christ. And then 12 years later the same Pat Robertson was taking a photo opportunity with none other than the former anti-Christ, Yasser Arafat, at his Gaza residency as Robertson was giving a donation of milk for Palestinian children.

The letter of the 34 evangelical leaders certainly was a pleasant surprise to many of us Christians in the Middle East who were beginning to doubt our own understanding of our faith in light of so many televangelists throwing themselves blindly behind the Israeli military. Hopefully these voices of sanity will continue and we will hear the true voice of an evangelical community who believes in justice and human rights. Liberty and freedom apply both to the spiritual as well as to the worldly needs of humankind. The sooner the evangelicals of the world embrace that, the sooner this will be a better world for all of us.

Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University and the founder of the Arab world's first internet radio station, ammannet. His e-mail is info@daoudkuttab.com.

I've gotta admit, it hasn't been easy being a Christian Arab-American, much less in the evangelical church. How many times can you explain that Jesus wasn't baptized in the Rio Grande, that there are tens of thousands of indigenous Palestinian Christians still living in the Holy Land, and that loving Jewish people and "blessing Israel" (as is oft cited from scripture) doesn't mean giving the modern (and mind you, secular) nation-state of Israel a carte blanche on foreign policy or grant it some sort of biblical immunity from criticism? For too long, such criticism has been deemed by my fellow American evangelical brothers and sisters as not only unbiblical but sometimes even -- yes, anti-semitic. (Notwithstanding the fact that Arabs are also Semites), the idea that Palestinians had any right to any part of the Holy Land has long been considered anathema by too many of my American kinfolk.

So you can only imagine how tickled I was to read about a letter to President Bush signed by evangelical leaders across America, encouraging a two-state solution. Read the letter published by The New York Times here.

We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people including some U.S. policymakers that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution and creation of a new Palestinian state that includes the vast majority of the West Bank. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What I appreciated even more about this letter was some of the theology they included to counter the notion that "blessing Israel" somehow means "letting Israel do anything Israel wants to.":

As evangelical Christians, we embrace the biblical promise to Abraham: 'I will bless those who bless you.' (Genesis 12:3). And precisely as evangelical Christians committed to the full teaching of the Scriptures, we know that blessing and loving people (including Jews and the present State of Israel) does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted. Genuine love and genuine blessing means acting in ways that promote the genuine and long-term well being of our neighbors.

Are my American evangelical brethren coming around? Hallelujah.

I hope through our efforts for peace, God will bless Israelis, Palestinians, and everyone else. Let's just be careful not to define "bless" too narrowly.

Deanna Murshed is director of integrated marketing for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.