Trending Topics:

US Kairos committee slams lobby and Christian Zionists, calls on Christians to ‘pay price’ of anti-Semitism charge so as to speak out

on 22 Comments

An American Christian committee has called on Christians to stop being cowed by fears of being labelled anti-Semites and speak out about human rights violations in Palestine.  “Enough!” the report says. “The time has come for us to do some shouting.”

The US Kairos committee issued its report last week. It is a response to the famous Kairos Palestine document of 2009 that was called, “Christian Palestinians’ word to the world about what is happening in Palestine.”

This new report slams the Israel lobby and the “special relationship,” rejects Christian Zionism “in all its forms”, says Jesus would be troubled by Palestinian conditions, and describes BDS as a “legitimate… legal, ethical and time-tested way of influencing the political process and corporate behavior.”

And in a landmark of the interfaith dialogue, it urges Christians to get over the fear of being called anti-Semites for criticizing Israel. Yes you feel guilty about the Holocaust, Christians, the report says, but this guilt is causing you to excuse serious human rights violations. You must be willing to court “discomfort and conflict” in your dialogue with Jews and be willing to “pay the price” of the anti-Semitism charge so as to condemn the occupation.

The US Kairos committee is made up of prominent progressive theologians, mainline and even evangelical preachers and writers, among them Serge Duss, whom I’ve seen at J Street.

Not surprisingly, the American Jewish Committee has already attacked the document:

“The tragedy is the single-mindedness of a small cadre of Christians attempting to change American understanding of the history and complexity of the Middle East. No pseudo-apologetics or claims to atone for anti-Semitism can disguise their true goal, which is not peace, but the undoing of Israel,” said Marans.


Let me break out a number of significant passages in the report.

On the sham peace process and the U.S. protection of Israel:

Read more here:

As U.S. Christians we bear responsibility for failing to say “Enough!” when our nation’s ally, the State of Israel, violates international law. Our government has financed Israel’s unjust policies and has shielded its government from criticism by the international community. At the outset of the current U.S. administration, our government led Palestinians to believe that at last we would pursue a political solution based on justice. But the “peace process” has continued to be no more than a means for the continuing colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the imprisonment of Gaza and the intensification of the structures of oppression..

The charge of anti-Semitism is unfair, but Christians must be willing “to pay this price” in order to speak out:

We know that raising questions about our churches’ and our government’s support for the State of Israel’s policies exposes us to the charge of anti-Semitism—and for many of us the risk of the loss of hard-won bonds of friendship with Jewish colleagues, friends, and the Jewish community at large. We believe that the charge of anti-Semitism is unfair and in error. Too often, however, unwilling to pay this price, we have failed to speak the truth as we see it and in this way follow Jesus’ path of love and forgiveness…

Here is a good description of the occupation’s destructive impact on both societies:

We have witnessed the daily, grinding humiliation of women and men, young and old; the deaths of civilians; the demolition of homes; the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem; the destruction of hundreds of thousands of olive trees; the unlawful and brutal practice of administrative detention; the relentless land taking and construction of illegal colonies that have made a contiguous and viable Palestinian state impossible. None of these actions has brought the State of Israel the security it seeks. Israel is pursuing a course that is fruitless and corrupting, both morally and politically. We have also observed with deep sadness the damage inflicted on Israeli society, particularly its young people…

WWJD? He’d be appalled by the situation:

The tragic realities of Israel and Palestine today would deeply trouble Jesus and the prophets. The land in which Jesus lived and was crucified by the Roman imperial rulers is again a place of violence, inequality and suffering. Palestinians and Israelis are trapped in a spiral of violence that is destroying their humanity, squandering their resources and killing their children. Palestinians are prisoners in their own land, powerless as Israel’s program of dispossession and annexation continues…

The Holocaust has created a self-defeating strategy in the Jewish community:

We recognize that it was this history of oppression that gave rise to the modern project of the Jewish people to establish a national homeland. We support the right of the Jewish people to live in security and to build a society free of the scourge of anti-Semitism. But the State of Israel’s present course will not bring it the security it seeks nor grant the Jewish people freedom from fear.  The still vivid memories and long shadow of the Nazi Holocaust have fueled self-defeating strategies of self-protection among sectors of Israeli society and the Jewish community at large….

More on the paying the price issue: We’ve been afraid to offend Jews, so we’ve deferred to the false “security” narrative:

We have allowed to go unchallenged theological and political ideas that have made us complicit in the oppression of the Palestinian people. Instead of speaking and acting boldly, we have chosen to offer careful statements designed to avoid controversy and leave cherished relationships undisturbed.                            

We have accepted the narrative of a vulnerable State of Israel beset by powerful, implacable enemies, thereby excusing the state’s actions that violate international law, isolate Israel in the community of nations and virtually eliminate the possibility of a sustainable peace…

We have accepted a notion of justice that is defined by the powerful and is equated with “security” and “law and order.”…

Here’s the lobby bit:

We have acceded to the reality of a powerful political lobby and an array of advocacy organizations, Jewish and Christian, committed to silencing or suppressing conversation about and inquiry into the human rights practices of the State of Israel while blocking legitimate direct action to bring pressure on Israel…

We reject Christian Zionism in all its forms:

We maintain that it is theologically, historically and politically incorrect to equate biblical Israel with the modern State of Israel. We reject Christian Zionism in all its forms because it supplants God’s gracious presence in all the world with a territorial theology and with the promise of land to one particular people…

We’ve been too busy atoning for anti-Semitism:

Shocked and traumatized by the confrontation with the consequences of their anti-Jewish history, after World War II Christians began a determined process to atone for anti-Semitism and to reconcile with the Jewish people…

This has led to widespread support for the State of Israel among Christian clergy, academics, lay leaders and church establishments…

because of the powerful impulse on the part of Christians to atone for their sins against the Jewish people, vigilance against anti-Semitism today has come to trump working for justice in Palestine and Israel. The Christian need to rectify centuries of anti-Jewish doctrine and actions and to avoid even the perception of anti-Jewish feeling has served to silence criticism of Israel’s policies and any questioning of the consequences of U.S. government support for Israel. Differences between anti-Semitism and legitimate opposition to Israeli actions are avoided or explained away. Responsible discourse about Zionism is often denounced as hostility toward Israel and its citizens or branded as anti-Semitism. We believe that in our dialogue with our Jewish friends, family members and colleagues and in our relationships with the Jewish community on institutional levels, we must confront this pattern of avoiding, denying or suppressing discussion of issues that may cause conflict or discomfort. The fact that anti-Semitism still exists makes it all the more important to differentiate between actual anti-Jewish feelings and criticism of the actions of a nation state. Uncomfortable though it may be, we cannot be afraid to address the urgent issue of justice and human rights in Israel and Palestine with our Jewish sisters and brothers here in the United States. And, increasingly, these conversations must include Muslims….

Here’s the acknowledgment that anti-Semitism has largely vanished in American public life:

In our time, in the aftermath of the most horrific episode of anti-Jewish violence in history, the Jewish people have achieved an unprecedented degree of liberation from anti-Semitism…

The politicians can’t be trusted. Note the reference to Nazi Germany:

The favorable time is now—and the churches are called. It is clear that the political process has failed to bring about the changes that will result in a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine. We know that when politics fail to bring about the necessary changes in our laws, political systems and policies at home and abroad, social movements arise from the grassroots to inform and drive the process of change. We believe firmly that the churches are capable of leading the movement to bring peace to Israel and Palestine. The churches have done this before. We recall the pastors and theologians of the German Confessing Church who opposed Nazism with the publication of the Barmen Declaration of 1934…

We’ve allowed ourselves to be muzzled:

Unwritten “red lines” block any challenge—in the classroom, from the pulpit, in the press and in the halls of our government—to the theological and political assumptions that underlie our unquestioning support for the State of Israel. This captivity of theology is an intolerable and frankly dangerous situation. If there is ever to be peace in Israel and Palestine, it is essential that there be open discussion and active theological inquiry—in our churches, communities and institutions of higher learning. We look forward to the production of books, articles and features in scholarly journals, popular media and church publications, church and community education and Bible study and the vigorous treatment of this topic in conferences and symposia across a wide range of disciplines..

Stirring explanation of why the time is now. Note the Martin Luther King quote: 

the desperate situation of the Palestinians—Christians and Muslims—living under occupation, and to the enormity of loss and dispossession suffered by Palestinians as the result of the establishment of the State of Israel. We are also aware of the irrefutable mandates of international law and human rights that call to us to action, as well as the biblically and theologically-based principles that summon us to witness and to act…

We call to mind Dr. King’s charge to our society in his historic speech on the Vietnam War at Riverside Church in 1967. “These are the times,” Dr. King told us, “for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly..

the time has come for us to do some shouting.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

22 Responses

  1. ColinWright on June 29, 2012, 3:02 pm

    “…The Christian need to rectify centuries of anti-Jewish doctrine and actions and to avoid even the perception of anti-Jewish feeling has served to silence criticism of Israel’s policies and any questioning of the consequences of U.S. government support for Israel…”

    As so often — and not at all coincidentally — the Nazi analogy makes this point much more simply and clearly.

    If I oppose Nazi Germany, it does not follow that this is proof that I hate Germans, and that this is the reason for my opposition to Nazi Germany.

  2. radii on June 29, 2012, 3:03 pm

    all Christians, or anyone else, has to do to rebut the charge of “anti-Semitism” is say, “I am not anti-Jewish. I am opposed to the brutal and vicious policies of Israel toward the Palestinians – which often are actual war-crimes.” And, if they want to continue, can say, “Further, Israel commits its ongoing atrocities with the money, weapons and political cover provided by the United States because they totally control our Congress through their lobby.”

  3. on June 29, 2012, 3:34 pm

    Historically, Jesus was in fact a military-messianic guy who wanted to throw out a foreign occupier (the Romans). – Today, he would be a Palestinian military Jihadist who wants to throw out a different foreign occupier.
    (The Christians purged Jesus’ teaching of its original politico-military elements.)

    • FreddyV on June 30, 2012, 1:58 am

      I don’t know where you’ve got that record from, but I would be interested to read about it if you have sources.

      From a Biblical perspective, Jesus was in fact the total opposite of this. His interest wasn’t land or territory. This is the ultimate failing of Christian Zionism.

      Jesus was tried before two courts. The Jews tried him for blasphemy and the Romans tried him for sedition. Pilate could not bring charges as Jesus told him that His Kingdom ‘was not of this earth’.

      If Jesus’ intention was to bring about an earthly Kingdom, he would have had to agree to the charges laid before Him and the whole Gospel / Messiah message would have been destroyed.

      Putting it another way: Christian Zionism justifies the crucifixion.

      A great scholar called Philip Mauro wrote a piece on this. He was a Supreme Court laywer and brings some interesting insights into the flaws of Dispensationalism.

      • on June 30, 2012, 6:28 am

        @ FreddyV – my source for Jesus having been “military-messianic”:

        The American anthropologist Marvin Harris: ‘Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches – The Riddles of Culture’. Chapters ‘Messiahs’ and ‘The Secret of the Prince of Peace’.
        The Gospel pictures Jesus as the one to ‘turn the other cheek’ and the great Christian message is that evil can be reconciled instead of destroyed. – But historically Jesus was at the center of a fierce guerrilla uprising against the Romans. (‘The Life of Bryan’ is mostly correct.) – And Christians should have at least some understanding that their ‘savior’ also fought a Jihadist liberation battle against a foreign occupation in the Holy Land.

      • AllenBee on June 30, 2012, 8:30 am

        Klaus Bloemker, you are echoing a theme that Israel-firsters in bible study and theology schools are advancing.
        Amy Jill Levine is one representative of this zionized bibliology/bibliolatry ©. It appears to me that the ‘movement’ that Levine is part of (David Ruderman teaches similar concepts) is a ratcheting up of the Scofield Bible: Scofield concentrated on framing the Old Testament to support the zionist cause; Levine tackles the New Testament with the same agenda.

        Late last year Levine published a version of the New Testament that is a follow up to earlier books focusing on the Jewishness of Jesus. I’ve only browsed through the New Testament, but I did listen to all of a 12 part lecture series on New Testament figures by Levine. I kept going back to lect. #6 (iirc) in which Levine excoriates Stephen, the first martyr, for his temerity in criticizing Jews. Stephen did indeed call to account Jews of his day for neglecting the prophets, the ‘ethicists’ of Judaism. For this effrontery, Stephen was ritually stoned to death by the Jewish community. Levine is silent on the morality of that act, suggesting that her overall assessment is “he brought it on himself.”
        Throughout her lectures Levine refers to Mary as a “good Jewish activist against the Romans,” and hammers away at the Jewishness of Jesus and declares that he was crucified because he opposed Roman occupation of Jerusalem.

        I don’t buy most of what Levine is selling, in large part because she works so hard — and uses rhetorical devices rather than intellectually honest methods –to draw connections and conclusions that the facts, objectively assessed, do not warrant. For example, in the lecture series, she opens with claims that Jesus is Jewish because his father, Joseph is prefigured by Joseph who ‘saved the world’ [from famine, in Egypt — a questionable bit of dream weaving/ interpretation: everyone knows that Egypt’s leading geographic feature that underlay its cultural development was the seasonal flooding/silting of the Nile, guaranteeing a harvest], but after several minutes of this explanation, Levine states, soto voce “it is not known who Joseph’s parents were.” Mary is treated in much the same way — her parentage is not known with certainty.

        If that is the case, then it is not at all certain that Jesus was Jewish (if he existed at all). The fact that Persia is nearly completely erased from mention in the New Testament, and that Levine mocks the few remaining New Testament allusions to Persia; namely, the Magi, causes me to give even more weight to the possibility/probability that Jesus was Persian. If one is intent on ‘kidnapping’ a child/icon and claiming him for one’s own, all mention of the child’s true origins would be scrupulously expunged.

        nb. Marvin Harris was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants to NYC. He was iconoclastic, to be sure — his essay on “the abominable pig” argued that Jews did not eat pork because it was more profitable to sell it.

      • FreddyV on June 30, 2012, 11:09 am

        Hi Klaus,

        I’ve been looking into Marvin Harris today. He does seem an interesting read, however, he seems to have taken excerpts from the New Testament narrative, found apparent contradictions and built an entire hypothesis from it.

        I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. I think Jesus’ teachings are often rightly and wrongly placed in boxes to suit whatever message people are driving.

        What we really have to go on is the Gospel message. It’s written that Jesus said His kingdom was not of this earth. In the theology of the Christian Zionist, Jesus is required to reign on earth in the end times after He’s raptured all the Christians up to heaven. This simply isn’t what Jesus stated according to the New Testament. In fact, quite the opposite.

        If all the Christians are in Heaven, they’ll be no one to preach the Gospel to the world. According to the CZ’s the remaining Jews from the Battle of Armageddon will convert to Christianity.

        Irrespective of Harris’ hypothesis, CZ’s take their cues from their interpretation of the Bible and that means no Christian can criticise Israel and when Jesus returns, all the Jews will be wiped out, leaving a small remnant to convert the earth.

        The whole theology is antisemitic in it’s conclusion.

        Back to the real world, CZ’s don’t criticise Israel for fear of being called antisemites or from superstition of a Divine curse. Either way, they’ve got to be called out. Along with the Israel lobby, they’re the ones driving Israel off a cliff, not those who speak out against Israel’s policies.

      • tombishop on June 30, 2012, 12:39 pm

        Elaine Pagels recently had published her book “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation”. As an expert on the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls she is able to show that the entire New Testament is really about a Jewish sect who were followers of Jesus, mostly the lower classes and slaves, and the disputes that arose with other Jews and within the sect about observing Jewish rituals and law. Much of the dispute centers on whether to admit Gentiles into their sect.

        Pagels shows that the Book of Revelation, which is the source of much of Christian Zionist ideology, was written about the hopes for revenge and deliverance from the persecution and oppression of the Roman Empire by the followers of the Jesus sect. The Scofield Reference Bible is the source of the cross referencing other parts of the Christian Bible by Christian Zionists and projecting things into the Book of Revelation that are not there.

        Once the Jewish sect became identified as a separate religion, Christianity, there was much dispute within the Church when the Bible was compiled over whether the Book of Revelation should be included, which Pagels details. In the Book of Revelation, Jews who would not accept Christ as the Messiah are referred to as the “synagogue of Satan.” In the Roman Empire and later the Church this became the ideological root of the anti-Semitism which has persisted for 2000 years.

      • on June 30, 2012, 4:35 pm

        I would put it this way: Jesus sure enough was Jewish by ethnicity but (according to the gospels) not by spirit. Today, most Jews would probably call him a ‘self-hating Jews’. – Anyway, I don’t know enough about it to settle the matter.

        The reason I brought this “military-messianic” Jesus thing up was that Christians should have an understanding for the Palestinian ‘Jihadist war’ against occupation by the foreign Zionists and their Rome (the Americans).

      • tombishop on June 30, 2012, 5:33 pm

        Clarification: Elaine Pagels does NOT make a reference about the Scofield Reference Bible in her book. That is my belief. She does say that there are many things in the Book of Revelation that come from the Book of Daniel, but that the fevered language about the last days is a product of the persecutions the sect was undergoing in the Roman Empire.

      • Citizen on July 1, 2012, 4:53 pm

        Klaus, I’d say you pretty much have a handle on the gist of what Jesus’s confict with the Jews means, both then and now (re Rome/USA). So who’s Pontius Pilate these days?

  4. MHughes976 on June 29, 2012, 3:37 pm

    I’ll be interested to see if the Church of England ever starts to react significantly to Kairos.
    I’m not sure if you can rebut the AS charge as simply and effectively as radii suggests.
    We say we’re not anti-Jewish. But what if we disagree with something to which most Jewish people are strongly committed doesn’t that produce an antagonism between Jewish people in general and us, even if some of us are Jewish (self-hating, of course)?
    And are the policies of Israel, rather than the very idea of Israel, the heart of the matter? If Israel is the expression of the democratic rights of the Jewish people then harsh policies are to some extent inevitable.

  5. American on June 29, 2012, 3:44 pm

    “You must be willing to court “discomfort and conflict” in your dialogue with Jews and be willing to “pay the price” of the anti-Semitism charge so as to condemn the occupation.”

    ”We believe that the charge of anti-Semitism is unfair and in error. Too often, however, unwilling to pay this price, we have failed to speak the truth as we see it”

    “”We’ve been afraid to offend Jews, so we’ve deferred to the false “security” narrative:
    We have allowed to go unchallenged theological and political ideas that have made us complicit in the oppression of the Palestinian people. Instead of speaking and acting boldly, we have chosen to offer careful statements designed to avoid controversy and leave cherished relationships undisturbed”.

    Be still my heart!….what I have said for y.e.a.r.s and y.e.a.r.s.
    Just tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, and let the chips fall where they may.

  6. American on June 29, 2012, 4:17 pm

    In some ways though I have to say I don’t really like the idea of a ‘religious showdown’ between Churches and Zionist/ Israel.
    But….. on the other hand if Churches or Christians don’t do it who else has the influence within the public and on politicians to do it?
    When some church/religious institution/group speaks, millions of it’s members listen…’s a super highway all it’s own.
    So if this is what it takes I guess I am on board with it.

  7. tombishop on June 29, 2012, 9:22 pm

    The is a repost of a previous post of a few days ago. I posted it with a several days old article so I know most people missed it. With the kind indulgence of the editors, I am reposting it because I think it is of importance and many would be interested in it.:

    Protestant fundamentalism went off the rails early in the 20th century with the release of the Scofield Reference Bible. Understanding its history is essential to understanding the development of Christian Zionism.

    Protestant fundamentalism developed in the 19th century as a reaction against the historical criticism of the Bible which grew out of the Enlightenment, particularly Spinoza and Hegel. The combination of Spinoza’s philosophical materialism (in his “Theological-Political Treatise” he debunked Biblical prophesy as a predictor of the future and challenged belief in the inerrancy of Scripture) and Hegel’s historical evolutionary view of human civilization had a powerful influence on all areas of thought in the 19th century, including religion. Protestant fundamentalists saw this as an attack on their core beliefs.

    During the 1890′s a Protestant fundamentalist named Orno Gaebelin set up an evangelism ministry among the Jews of New York’s East Side. He learned Yiddish and preached to large meetings of Jewish men on Saturday afternoons. He began publishing a Yiddish monthly newspaper and in 1894, established an English periodical, Our Hope, to publicize his work, to proclaim the immanent second advent, and to alert Gentiles to a “remarkable Zionist awakening among the Jewish population.” Restoration of the Jews to Israel was always a key part of millenarianism, but the fervor increased after Theodor Herzl’s first Zionist congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897.

    For the next 20 years Gaebelin held Bible conferences all over the East coast and the South. One of the most significant documents to come out of this movement was the Scofield Reference Bible. Published by the British Oxford University Press, it took the Protestant Bible and combined an attractive format of typography, paragraphing, notes and cross references with the theology of Darbyite dispensationalism. All through the 20th century it was to have a powerful influence among millions who regularly read it unaware of the distinction between the ancient text and Scofield’s (what later came to be called) Christian Zionist interpretation in its footnotes and cross references.

    World War I stimulated great interest in the second advent of Christ and the interpretation of prophecy. In May 28-30, 1918 a conference was organized by Philadelphia businessmen and attended by over 3300. The British capture of Jerusalem by General Allenby had stimulated several British prophecy conferences. The conference included a glowing tribute to C.I. Scofield and his Scofield Reference Bible. The two keynote speeches were “The Regathering of Israel in Unbelief” (the “unbelief” was Jews not recognizing Christ as the Messiah) and “War on German Theology.”

    The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association was founded in Philadelphia in a conference held from May 25 to June 1, 1919. 6000 attended from 42 states and Canada. It adopted a nine-point creed which included the verbally inspired and inerrant Bible and the premillenial, immanent return of Christ.

    During the 1920’s the Association turned its attention to the fight against Darwinian evolution. The founder of WSFA, set-up the Anti-Evolution League of Minnesota n 1923. William Bell Riley preached that evolution was “an international Jewish-Boshevik-Darwinist conspiracy to promote evolutionism in the classroom.”

Being widely disseminated by radio preachers in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Fundamentalism was to develop all through the 20th century and emerge as a political movement in the 1980’s. The defense against the higher criticism of the Bible increasingly turned into an attack on the scientific method itself.

    The source of most of this information is “The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930”; Ernest R. Sandeen; The University of Chicago Press; 1970

    • Citizen on June 30, 2012, 6:14 am

      Yes, tombishop; all the fundies I’ve known use the Scofield bible; they know of no other. Related in a reverse way: The Reform Judaism rabbi who taught Jewish Culture Studies when I was at university in Chicago used Maimonides and Hegel as his guiding lights.

      • tombishop on June 30, 2012, 11:53 am

        Hegel said of all contemporary philosophers, “You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.”

        Not only Spinoza’s writing but his biography is of great interest. Because of his expulsion from the (Sephardic) Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam on July 27, 1656 at the age of twenty-three and subsequent refusal to convert to Christianity, he has been called the first secular Jew of modern Europe.

        The Lantern Theater Company in Philadelphia did an extended run of “New Jerusalem, The Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza at Talmud Torah Congregation: Amsterdam, July 27, 1656” last Spring. It had the highest attendance of the company’s 17 year history. As a result, they are bringing it back for a limited engagement September 4 – 23, 2012.

  8. DICKERSON3870 on June 29, 2012, 9:48 pm

    RE: “The tragedy is the single-mindedness of a small cadre of Christians attempting to change American understanding of the history and complexity of the Middle East.” ~ American Jewish Committee

    MY COMMENT: One of the tricks/strategies defense attorneys (both civil and criminal) frequently use is to try to make everything seem so very, very complex! Like the DNA evidence implicating O.J. Simpson in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

  9. dbroncos on June 29, 2012, 10:32 pm

    A sleeping giant…

  10. Citizen on June 30, 2012, 6:05 am

    Apparently US Kairos has not yet read issue # 2 of Capt Israel: Kosher Comix brings U Capt Israel!
    Where was Capt Apartheid S Africa when he was needed?

  11. Blake on June 30, 2012, 12:08 pm

    Good on them! Carrying on from last year.

    In June 2011 a group of U.S. clergy, theologians and laypersons inaugurated a new movement for American Christians. The impetus for the formation of Kairos USA was the 2009 call of our Palestinian sisters and brothers in Christ to stand with them in their struggle for their fundamental human rights. In taking a bold, prophetic stand for justice in the Holy Land, we are also expressing our love for our sisters and brothers in Israel who for their entire history as a state have been suffering from the social, psychological and spiritual costs of militarization and war itself. There is an urgent need to support nonviolent resistance to oppression on the part of Palestinian and Israeli civil society and to continue to build the growing international grassroots movement that will break the current political logjam.

    We lift up the example of the 1985 South African Kairos document “Challenge to the Church” that called its own government and the church itself to rise up and name the evil of apartheid, signalling the beginning of the end of the system that had so poisoned their society. We recall the central role of the church in the Civil Rights movement in our country, when the courage of African American pastors spread throughout the churches of our land, changing the political and social landscape of America.

  12. W.Jones on July 1, 2012, 11:10 pm

    You seem to have a problem in your article. The seventh paragraph down is missing text. It says:


    Let me break out a number of significant passages in the report.

    On the sham peace process and the U.S. protection of Israel:

Leave a Reply