Rather than exhibit real solidarity, church leaders appeal to Israel’s occupation to protect Al Aqsa

This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Ritualized solidarity remains the name of the game in Israel-Palestine, as the fate of Jerusalem hangs in the balance once again.

So it was when church leaders in Jerusalem showed a sign of solidarity to Islam and the Muslim community by gathering at the Al Aqsa mosque for a photo-op last week. They also issued a statement on the need to respect the rights of Muslims to worship freely and show respect for holy places. But as the church leaders and their advisors know well the backdrop for their visit isn’t about freedom of religion or worship.

The backdrop for increasing tensions at Al Aqsa is occupation and the dwindling place of Palestinians in Jerusalem and the land itself. It’s about an occupied and ghettoized Palestinian people with their backs to the Apartheid (political and religious) Wall.

So why the innocuous statement of Jerusalem’s church leaders?

We, the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, wish to express our serious concern regarding response to recent activity on Haram al Sharif which has included both full closures and some limitation of access to Al Aqsa Mosque. These events have been provoked by acts of extremism which are becoming a phenomenon both here in the Holy Land and in the wider region.

We condemn threats of changes to the status of the Holy Sites from wherever they may come. The Holy Sites need constant watchful protection so that reasonable access to them can be maintained according to the prevailing Status Quo of all three Abrahamic faiths.

The existing agreed Status Quo governing these sites needs to be fully respected for the sake of the whole community. Any threat to its continuity and integrity could easily lead to unpredictable consequences which would be most unwelcome in the present delicate political climate.

Surprisingly, this statement has been touted as strong and unprecedented. Since the record of the churches in Jerusalem has been one of division, weakness and protection of one’s own fiefdom, this may be true. Yet in the wider context, with Palestinian resistors losing comrades daily in Jerusalem and beyond, the churches statement can only be seen as weak and unresponsive. In short, totally inadequate.

The main points of the text illustrate how inadequate the statement is. Note first, the problem the church leaders point to in relation to recent events surrounding the closure of the Al Aqsa mosque. The problem: “acts of extremism.” However, the church leaders know that the real problem is less Jewish extremists who want the Al Aqsa compound shared or transformed than mainline Israeli occupation policies that deny Palestinian freedom.

Why don’t the church leaders locate the Jewish Temple Mount zealots in relation to the Israeli occupation? It’s the only reason the most recent provocations are possible. Isn’t the real provocation the occupation itself?

Relating the acts of extremism at Al Aqsa to acts of extremism in the “wider region” is likewise misleading. Whatever the reasons for regional instability, the only reason Jerusalem is unstable is Israel’s occupation.

As for the “threats of change to the status of Holy Sites from wherever they come,” this seems to be coded language for “First they came for the Muslims, then they came for us.” Thus reference to the wider region seems Christianly self-involved. The reasoning is that if church leaders stand with the Muslims at Al Aqsa, perhaps Muslims will stop persecuting Christians in the Arab world. Christian leaders do have a responsibility to stand up for Christians but such support shouldn’t be confused with a solidarity with Islam and Muslim holy sites. Instead, the church leaders issue a thinly disguised, conditional, lukewarm and tit-for-tat statement that condemns an extremism elsewhere that is devastating what is left of the Christian presence in the Middle East. The church leaders don’t lay their cards on the table.

Appealing to the three Abrahamic faiths is a tired trope that none of the faiths have time for except when a ritualized solidarity is called for or is demanded by others. Usually, as with the churches statement, reference to the Abrahamic faiths has to do with preserving a status quo that is devastating because religious leaders fear that what might follow would be even worse.

Pray tell, in the context of Jerusalem and Israel-Palestine, what could be worse than what exists now? The churches guidance, the religious status quo, has simply reinforced the political status quo that has decade after decade led Palestinians to the ghettoized reality they experience today.

Yes, worse is possible. The bottom of Israel-Palestine is endless. But more destruction and death is more of the same – which is coming, has arrived and will continue.

Don’t the church leaders get the most obvious point of all, that the religious and political status quo is the death of Palestine and ultimately signals the demise of their own dwindling fiefdoms?

What force can forestall the “unpredictable consequences” the church leaders openly worry about if the status quo, broadly considered, is upended? The only force that can maintain the status quo is Israel. Rather than Islam or Muslims, the churches ultimate solidarity appeal is addressed to Israel’s occupation. It’s the Israeli government’s job to protect Al Aqsa.

Appealing to your enemy to keep the peace has a long history in Jerusalem. History tells us, though, that such an appeal usually falls on deaf ears or, worse, elicits a positive response as a way of restoring oppression as the preferred status quo.

Instead of their appeal to Israel, perhaps the church leaders should have appealed to the Al Aqsa authorities to shelter them in the mosque as they began a fast that lasted until Israel ended the occupation. Then a new status quo of solidarity would have been established.

Who knows, perhaps some renegade Rabbis of Conscience might join the church leaders in their fast within Al Aqsa. Jointly they could issue invitations to the Pope, to Nobel laureates and alike. Quite an Abrahamic faith scene it would be.

Fasting in Al Aqsa and then no doubt in prison would embody a real solidarity, for its own sake, and on behalf of the Palestinian people. Then solidarity would be self-evident. No coded statements needed.