Divestment from Israel, the Liberal Churches, and Jewish Responses: A Strategic Analysis (JCPA) JERUSALEM CENTER FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS) by Dr. Eugene Korn No. 52 • 11 Teveth 5767 • 1 January 2007)
JCPA-Jerusalem Center Public Affairs
JCPA-Jerusalem Center Public Affairs Articles-Index-Top
- Liberal church efforts to divest from companies doing business with
Israel are part of a larger anti-Zionist campaign to weaken and
- Hostility to Israel in the mainline churches is confined to a
focused minority, while the majority of liberal American Christians
remain sympathetic to Israel.
- Israel still has the moral high ground and engagement with moderate
Christians can undermine church anti-Israeli campaigns.
- Jews and Christians have common strategic interests in the Middle
East against Islamic intolerance and should forge alliances.
On 30 June 2004, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of
America (PCUSA) passed a resolution by a vote of 431-62 at its 216th
General Assembly calling for selective divestment from corporations
doing business with Israel, specifically corporations that "support
the occupation."1 The main target was Caterpillar Inc. because it
sells tractors and bulldozers (indirectly) to the IDF. Caterpillar
became the Antichrist of this movement: the symbol of everything
wrong with supporting Israel and "the occupation."
The resolution precipitated a crisis in Jewish-Protestant relations
in America. For many years there had been anti-Israeli and pro-
Palestinian rhetoric in member churches of the National Council of
Churches (NCC) in America, Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), and
the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Europe. But it was just that-
rhetoric confined to political posturing. It had few "teeth," and
most Jews and Israelis regarded it as a mild curiosity holding little
potential for serious damage to Israeli or Jewish interests.
However, divestment-or the threat of divestment-crossed the threshold
to action, and the Jewish community interpreted it as a dangerous
sign on the horizon. In spring 2005, Israeli officials in Washington,
D.C., invited a handful of Jewish professionals to the embassy to
discuss the issue, weigh the implications, and devise effective
counterstrategies. There were two subsequent meetings on divestment
at the Israeli consulate in New York. Clearly the Israeli government
Divestment came as a shock to the Jewish community because American
Jews had a longtime informal alliance with the mainline Protestant
churches on domestic political issues. Historically, the American
Jewish community has identified largely with the liberal end of
American domestic politics on principles such as the separation of
church and state, keeping religion out of the public square, and
freedom of choice on abortion. In this posture American Jews were
almost in lockstep with the positions of the liberal churches. Jewish
leaders regarded them as great friends and saw right-wing Christians
as political enemies because they were at odds with much of the
Jewish domestic agenda. Thus when the liberal churches became
spokespersons for the Palestinian nationalism that included elements
of unvarnished anti-Zionism and occasional anti-Semitism, it took the
Jewish community by surprise.2
A Growing Hostility
Yet this harsh anti-Israeli attitude had long been building in
America and Europe. Since the First Intifada in the late 1980s, the
liberal churches have become increasingly hostile to the Israeli
understanding of the conflict, viewing Palestinian violence as a
legitimate grassroots rebellion by oppressed natives against Israeli
colonial conquerors of Palestinian lands. Moreover, during this
period the WCC-which never had great sympathy for Israel-became an
unabashed apologist for Palestinian rejectionism, even refusing to
condemn Palestinian terror.3
In 2000, the churches of the Anglican Communion sent a fact-finding
group to the Middle East to examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
When they returned to England they published a report containing
twenty-two recommendations for peace.4 Tellingly, not a single
recommendation demanded anything substantive of the Palestinians. All
were directed at what Israel needed to do for peace in the Middle
East. It was eminently clear from the Anglican perspective that
Israel was the root of the problem, and so they placed the blame on
The Anglican Church report was representative of the liberal
Protestant perspective on the Middle East conflict. Most church
Middle East resolutions rely on purportedly factual reports about the
conflict and Middle East conditions. The churches authorize fact-
finding missions and as a result of their studies, the national
churches pass resolutions. Significantly, the PCUSA embedded in their
predivestment report the claim that "the occupation is the root of
all evil acts"5 perpetrated against Palestinians and Israelis.
According to this loopy logic, the Israeli occupation is responsible
not merely for perceived human rights violations against
Palestinians, but even for Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. No
blame or responsibility is placed on Palestinians or the Palestinian
Authority. Everything comes back to the original sin of occupation,
for which the Israelis are completely liable.
How can church officials be so oblivious to any Palestinian
responsibility for the conflict? There is a natural aversion in
Protestant theological circles to linking a religion with sovereignty
and state power. It should be remembered that one of the most severe
Reformation critiques of the Catholic Church was that Rome had
amassed and abused its vast temporal power. Liberal Protestants have
no analog to Jewish peoplehood and prefer to view Judaism through
Protestant lenses that see religion as a faith system devoid of
Second, many of these churches have close human relations with the
Palestinians, having come to Palestinian villages at the end of the
nineteenth century to do missionary work, and staying until today.
They do social and medical relief work and see the Palestinian
suffering firsthand.6 Because of these human relations, it is
undeniable that they empathize more with the Palestinians than with
This charitable work has a dark side, however, for many in the
churches continue to view the Palestinians as helpless, poor, and
culturally backward. They have retained their nineteenth-century
attitude of Western superiority, and underlying their bias toward the
Palestinians is more than a tinge of racism. When I speak to
Christian audiences in Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas, and Columbus, I
am often appalled by the low opinion of Arabs that many Americans
have-including sophisticated liberals. It is easy for ideologues to
place the onus for peace exclusively on Israel because many American
liberals think Arabs are simply too primitive to live by Western
standards. Their patronizing beliefs indicate the arrogant judgment
that the Palestinians are not capable of moral agency and of assuming
political responsibility. There can be no more demeaning attitude
than this one.
The problem transcends the churches. There were concurrent cognate
campaigns in American universities. Thousands at Columbia, Harvard,
MIT, Berkeley-the elite intellectual circles in America-signed
divestment petitions. All these were trounced by more popular anti-
divestment petitions and thus far have been rejected by university
officials. The divestment campaign was also waged in labor unions,
which are on the very left end of American politics. Boycotts of
Israeli scholars and universities also flared up in England.
How important are the Presbyterian Church and the Anglican Church?
The PCUSA and the Anglican Church are bellwethers with broad
implications. Church campaigns are strategically and organically
connected to campaigns occurring at other major institutions. The
financial clout of American universities and labor unions is very
significant owing to their vast investment portfolios. Should
divestment rhetoric and action go uncontained and spread to these
other major institutions, there would be a severe economic threat to
Israel. This is what worried the Israeli government and Jews around
Hence the proper questions are: (1) Who are the players? (2) What is
the strategic goal of this campaign? (3) What are the most effective
tactical and strategic responses?
American Jews often misunderstand the Christian world, both
theologically and sociologically. In fact, there is no single
Christian attitude or community and one must distinguish between
three clusters of American Christian communities. The first is what
is called the Christian Right, whose members are the best American
gentile friends of Israel politically, diplomatically, and
financially. Second, there is the Roman Catholic Church, with
approximately sixty-nine million members in America. With the
exception of a few mavericks, Catholics have nothing to do with the
divestment issues or the anti-Israeli campaign. One of the great
positive turns of history is that the same Roman Catholic Church that
was the greatest enemy of the Jews for eighteen to nineteen hundred
years is now in many ways the friendliest world religious institution
toward the Jewish people and Israel.
The third community is the liberal or mainline churches: the
Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran churches in America,
and smaller ones like the United Church of Christ and the Disciples
of Christ. These churches comprise the majority of the members of the
NCC and CMEP. A fair estimate of the number of these Protestants is
forty million Americans, or about 15-18 percent of the total
population.7 Historically, however, this community has occupied the
corridors of power and wealth in America.
If one surveys the American presidents and secretaries of state, one
finds that with very few exceptions, they come from these churches.
The Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Carnegies, and the landed
aristocracy of America are found in these churches. Demographics is
but one index, and the influence, power, and wealth of the people
populating these churches far exceed their demographics. Although
liberal Christianity is now declining in America, it still is
culturally and politically important.
One must also distinguish between three different power groups within
the liberal churches. There is a small coterie of highly-charged,
focused ideologues who are responsible for the anti-Israeli
divestment/boycott campaign. They typically function in "Peace and
Justice" departments and church committees given responsibility for
addressing world conflicts. Many of these people tiptoe along the
border of the radical Left. Some are trans- or post-nationalists,
though in practice the only nationalism they try to invalidate is
Jewish nationalism. They are enormously hostile to American foreign
policy and the projection of military power in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere around the world.
In these people´s view, President Bush is the Great Satan, and Israel
as the client of America is the Little Satan. They can attack Israel
with impunity-or so they thought-and avoid the serious negative
political fallout from frontally attacking America´s foreign policy.
So they relentlessly portray the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one-
dimensional and simplistic terms that condemn Israel. Their success
lies in their effective organization and focus.
The second group is the officers and top clergy of the national
churches. Fundamentally they are administrators who try to hold
together hundreds of churches across the country and are burdened by
administrative problems. They are not driven primarily by theological
concerns but by administrative coalition challenges. When one strips
away all the high language about peace, justice, and fairness found
in church Middle East statements, it is practical politics that
governs. Generally, the church leaders move in accordance with the
greatest pressure applied.
Lastly there is the "pew level," that is, the lay Christians who come
to pray on Sunday. All polls taken in America over the past twenty
years on attitudes toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict yield
consistent results. Sympathy for Israel runs between 3:1 and 4:1 over
sympathy for the Palestinians. Post-9/11 it is closer to 4:1, and
after Hamas´s election victory, it is exactly 4:1.8
The people in the mainline church pews are like most other Americans,
that is, sympathetic to Israel. They view Israel as a Western country
with democratic values and understand that Israelis are fighting the
same enemies that America is fighting-enemies who use barbaric means
like terror and suicide bombing, and do not recognize democracy, the
sanctity of human life, or secular authority. Separation of church
and state is an article of faith for these Protestants, so they find
theocrats or talk of Islamic theocracy anathema. Unlike many Jews,
however, they do not follow every development in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and tend to minimize its historical dimensions.
Hence they are easily misled.
So it was that a small group of ideologues in the Presbyterian,
Lutheran, Episcopal, and Methodist churches succeeded in hijacking
these churches´ foreign policy agendas. Although a minority, their
focus, organization, and effective propaganda enabled them to impose
a one-sided view of the conflict on the national churches. Hence the
paradox: when I travel around America and speak at local mainline
churches I see that after some initial briefing on the facts of the
conflict, the parishioners are almost always sympathetic to Israel.
Yet the national positions of these churches are openly hostile to
PCUSA has a portfolio of investments of about $9 billion. That is a
rounding error on Wall Street, but PCUSA belongs to a coalition of
Protestant churches with an investment portfolio in America of
approximately $110 billion that can be potentially leveraged against
companies doing business with Israel. The portfolios of American
universities and labor unions far exceed that. Although the
Presbyterian Church alone may not be significant, the Israeli
government and American Jewry are concerned about the potential for
this campaign to spread, and thus pose a serious economic threat to
Israel. There would have to be many Warren Buffets to counter a
threat of this magnitude.
Most important, the strategic objective of this campaign is not
economic. The deeper campaign has been and continues to be about the
isolation and the weakening of Israel´s image in the eyes of the
world-and most crucially, America. The strategic objective is the
delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish state. If one reads between
the lines-and increasingly the lines themselves-of the rhetoric, one
sees the model of apartheid South Africa. Just as there was a
successful international campaign to dismantle that regime, in which
divestment played a tactical role, there is a similar objective vis-à-
Ultimately the strategic target of the ideologues is the one-state
solution, though it is hard for the churches to admit that publicly.
One of the Ten Commandments of Protestant America is to be fair and
grant everyone the right of national self-determination. Nobody among
the landed aristocracy in America will say that Jews do not have the
right to a state. All the churches repeat the mantra that Israel has
a right to exist, but it is rare for them to support Israel asserting
its right to self-defense, and the logic of the radical argument
marches inexorably toward anti-Zionism, not simply antioccupation.
The radical leftists have cleverly sanitized their anti-Zionist
objective and insinuated it into hitherto responsible national
institutions. The mainline churches are not communist university
radicals at Berkeley, but bodies that claim to represent God,
morality, and moderation in the United States. That mainstream
institutions now talk and act in ways that implicitly support the
dismantling of the Jewish state is alarming and must be monitored.
I have publicly challenged church leaders on this inconsistency-with
significant success. Initially they deny the problem and ideological
contradiction, but eventually the critique has an effect and
embarrasses these churches into changing their rhetoric. James
Woolsey, a Presbyterian who is the former director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, spoke against divestment before the PCUSA
Assembly in June 2006. He challenged church leaders to look at who
are their allies for divestment from Israel: theocrats, terrorists,
one-state-solution ideologues, and anti-Semites.9 This is still
unacceptable in America. For churches that take enormous pride in
civility and politeness, associating with such people is a cardinal
Much of this anti-Israeli rhetoric originates in a small institution
with little influence in Israel or Palestinian society: the Sabeel
Center for (Christian) Liberation Theology in Jerusalem. Many think
the entire divestment campaign emanated from that one small building
in Jerusalem, and spread like wildfire throughout Europe and the
United States. In the Palestinian community-Christian and Muslim-
Sabeel is almost unknown. In May 2006, I spoke in Jerusalem with
Khaled Abu Toameh, the Palestinian Muslim journalist who covers
Palestinian affairs for the Jerusalem Post. He had not heard of
Sabeel. Abroad, however, Sabeel is the darling of the anti-Israeli
leftists in these churches. Its leader, Canon Nai´m Ateek, and other
Sabeel personalities travel frequently to America and Canada to speak
at conferences and raise money. Again, here is an instance of a very
small focused minority hijacking the agenda.
I came to Israel with a group of ecumenical officers of these liberal
churches in September 2005 and we met with Ateek. He uses deicide
language generously-labeling the Israeli government "the crucifixion
machine" and Israelis "Herods,"10 but I chose to confront him on his
anti-Zionism. I suggested that if he wanted to contribute to peace,
he should recognize Israel´s right to exist as a Jewish state. He
explained that he comes from Beit She´an in the Jordan Valley, and
claims his family was evicted from there in the War of
Independence. "Israel was born in sin. I can never recognize the
right of Israel to exist," he shouted. When I challenged him about
the Bible´s view of the Land of Israel being essential to God´s
covenant, Ateek told me that any theology that takes land seriously
is "immature." In one fell swoop he had delegitimized Judaism and the
concept of the Jewish people.
This is nothing other than the old theology of supersessionism with
its concomitant anti-Semitism, both of which are discredited by
current Christian theologians and all major churches.
The Tactical Response
Even the liberal American church leaders were embarrassed by Ateek
and his old, unsophisticated, and hateful theological ideas. These
supersessionist attitudes may be common in Bethlehem, Ramallah, and
some quarters of Jerusalem, but it is unacceptable to talk that way
in the United States-whether to serious theologians or to the people
in the pews. Hence Jews and friends of Israel should expose the
underlying biased and anti-Zionistic ideology of this anti-Israeli
campaign and force church leaders to choose. This can succeed, since
the leaders cannot have it both ways and retain their credibility.
One must remember that this campaign is waged as a call for peace,
justice, and fairness. Israel´s opponents want desperately to claim
the moral high ground in the tradition of the Prophets who railed
against the immoralities of their day. Of course, the church
invocation of the Jewish Prophets deepens the insult to Jews and
Judaism. This is another not so subtle expression of Christianity
replacing Judaism, or more exactly, Christians replacing Jews.
The Prophets, in any case, are the defenders of the oppressed, the
downtrodden, and the poor. The Palestinians occupy that category, and
therefore all the ideologues´ theological and moral sympathies are
with them. This leads to grotesque distortions of the Bible and the
Prophets. Mitri Raheb, a Lutheran minister in Bethlehem, has written
that Israelis are now the Pharoahs of Egypt and the Palestinians the
people worthy of exodus and God´s liberation.11
Lastly, the ideologues do not bother to ask who is responsible for
Palestinian suffering, nor do they place it in historical context.
They blithely assume that Palestinian suffering is always undeserved
and a result of Israeli oppression. At bottom, their theology can be
reduced to the simplistic rule: "Might makes wrong; weakness is
Some Jews and organizations are quick to pull the trigger and label
the church leaders anti-Semites. I rarely use that term, concluding
that in most cases it is strategically and tactically wrong to do so.
Calling someone an anti-Semite is usually a covert justification to
abdicate responsibility. It signifies an assumption that these people
are irreversibly hostile to Jewish interests, and gives license to
walk away from the problem because there is no chance of reform.
Often this is factually incorrect and contrary to Jewish interests.
As noted, most American Christians are fair and identify with
Israelis as modern Western democrats and Israel as a place with
democratic values of religious liberty, civil authority, and so on.
It is therefore critical to distinguish between the ideologues who
are irrationally dogmatic in their conviction that Israel is the root
of all problems, and the overwhelming majority of people within these
churches who are open to honest engagement and persuasion.
The tactical problem is that the many pew-level Christians
sympathetic to Israel are neither organized nor connected. Thus some
Jews took it upon themselves to link up the Presbyterians,
Methodists, Episcopalians, and United Church of Christ people who are
pro-Israeli, and help them coordinate their activities. This strategy
succeeded dramatically. Everyone understood that PCUSA was going to
revisit divestment and the anti-Israeli campaign at the 217th
Assembly in June 2006, and the eyes of all the liberal churches were
fixed on that debate in Birmingham, Alabama.
To show Presbyterians the reality of the situation and enable them to
be fair witnesses in Birmingham, a small number of Jews brought a
group of thirteen high-level Presbyterians to Israel a month before
the assembly. Most were mildly pro-Israeli at the start, some
neutral, and some naive theological students who had been hypnotized
by the leftist rhetoric. We spent eight days with them in Israel and
the territories, hearing from both Palestinians and Israelis.
When they returned to Birmingham, these Presbyterians were the most
effective voices arguing against divestment. They energized pro-
Israeli organizations like End Divestment Now and Presbyterians
Concerned for Jewish-Christian Relations. They pushed for a
resolution to replace the divestment policy, ultimately winning by a
vote of 483-28 and inflicted a crushing defeat on the anti-Israeli
lobby.12 Because the pro-Israeli or the more neutral parties became
more organized, they routed the radicals at the assembly. Yet the
anti-Israeli ideologues are not giving up. They are still promoting
divestment and boycott in some churches and the vicious rhetoric
abounds. The United Church of Canada recently pushed to boycott
Israel, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees has voted for a
So while the immediate battle may have been won, the strategic
campaign continues. As mentioned, the issue is not primarily
economic. Consider the South African paradigm: the apartheid regime
in South Africa was dismantled because in the eyes of the world South
Africa became a pariah, an illegitimate and immoral state.
Fundamentally it was not the economic threat, but the entire penumbra
surrounding the economic threat that ultimately determined the
politics of the day. This is the strategy toward Israel. When the
divestment tactic has been buried or has been eclipsed either by a
new round of violence or some immediate political crisis, the
strategic campaign will surely morph another tactic.
Dhimmitude and Common Strategic Interests
There is one last critical point for both substantive geopolitics and
public relations. There is a natural but yet untapped strategic
alliance of interests between Jews, Israelis, and Christians-in
America and the Middle East.
Jews and Christians in the Middle East are threatened minorities,
both dhimmis in Arab culture. This is the key to understanding why
Israel has been rejected for so long by Middle East governments and
the Arab street. Israel represents the principle of equality in the
Middle East and directly contradicts the notion of a Muslim monopoly
in Dar al-Islam.
The fundamental conflict with the Palestinians may be a territorial
dispute, that is, two peoples fighting over the same piece of land.
That is a rational conflict, classic in the annals of warfare. Why,
however, should an imam in Mecca care who has responsibility for
collecting the garbage in Tel Aviv? Why do the president of Iran and
other Islamists concern themselves about who has sovereignty in this
little strip of land? Bernard Lewis and scholars formerly called
Orientalists before the term became politically incorrect supply the
answer: the idea of a non-Muslim being legally and politically equal
to a Muslim has never appeared in traditional Arab politics or
theology.13 In Muslim eyes, Jews and Christians can be tolerated only
as dhimmis in the region. Jews, however, demand to live in the Middle
East as independent, sovereign, and self-reliant equals with
authority and the ability to defend themselves. That is an affront to
classic Arab political theory regarding Dar al-Islam.
Israel has an army and will not place its fate in the hands of Muslim
authorities. Christians do not have that luxury and are radically
vulnerable to the Muslim powers in their countries of residence. In
periods of tolerance they may do well, but in periods of intolerance
and rising Islamic identity such as today, they are persecuted.
Because they have no protection against Islamic intolerance, Middle
East Christians having the means to leave the region today are doing
so. Four out of every five Lebanese Maronite Christians have left
Lebanon. More than 20 percent of Assyrian Christians had left Iraq
before the American invasion, and many Egyptian Copts have fled
Muslim oppression to America.14 These trends are prevalent throughout
the Middle East.
Christians are persecuted particularly in the Palestinian
territories.15 Israel had administrative control over Bethlehem until
1995, when it ceded the town to the Palestinian Authority. Before
Israel left, Bethlehem was 80 percent Christian and had a Christian
mayor and predominantly Christian municipal council. Today Bethlehem
is less than 20 percent Christian, and Christians have been stripped
of all municipal power. Ramallah also used to be a Christian city.
Jews and Christians are both fighting the same enemy: an Islamic
monism that brooks no equality, liberty, or independence for non-
Muslims. That extremist vision keeps gathering force in Middle East
geopolitics. Hence, furthering the security of Israel at this
critical time will only strengthen the principle of pluralism in the
Middle East. This, in turn, will inevitably redound to the security
of Christians in the region. That is the essence of the common
strategic interests between Jews and Christians in the Middle East.
A Strategic Alliance
When this argument is made cogently, it will be compelling. Despite
mistakes, Israel does have the moral high ground because it is
willing to live with the Palestinians if the Palestinians are willing
to live with it. With the rise of Hamas, Hizballah, and an aggressive
Iranian theocracy, all of which reject Israel´s right to exist, it is
increasingly hard to say that about the Palestinians and Israel´s
regional enemies. Even hitherto anti-Israeli opinion in Europe is
changing somewhat in light of this situation.16
Yet the facts of Christian persecution by Islamic authorities as well
as democratic Israel as a marker of religious pluralism and freedom
in the Middle East have thus far failed to gain serious traction in
America or Europe. Much work needs to be done to publicize these
crucial realities. When these stories are told effectively, a
powerful alliance can emerge between Christians, Jews, and Israelis.
The alliance will not be merely between Israel and the Christian
Right, but will include liberal Christians and all who value freedom
and liberal Western society.
Dr. Eugene Korn is director of Jewish affairs at the American Jewish
Congress, adjunct professor of Jewish thought in the Department of
Christian-Jewish Studies at Seton Hall University, and editor of The
Edah Journal: A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse. He holds a
doctorate in moral philosophy from Columbia University and was
ordained by the Israeli Rabbinate. He has published numerous
scholarly monographs and articles on Jewish thought, Israel, and
1.The text of the resolution can be found at
2.See "The Quest for Peace" in the September/October 2003 edition of
PCUSA´s journal Church and Society.
3.References to many anti-Israeli church documents and Middle East
positions can be found in Meeting the Challenge: Church Attitudes
toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (New York: Anti-Defamation
5.See endnote 1.
6.A prime example is Augusta Victoria Hospital on the Mount of
Olives. The hospital is run by the Lutheran Church.
7.Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 2005 (Nashville, TN:
National Council of Churches, 2005).
8.See "American Attitudes toward Israel," conducted by the Martilla
Communications Group for the Anti-Defamation League, found at
10.See Dexter Van Zile, "Sabeel´s Teachings of Contempt: A Judeo-
Christian Alliance Report," June 2005, and "Sabeel: An Ecumenical
Facade to Promote Hatred," 10 July 2005, found at www.ngo-
monitor.org; Adam Gregerman, "Old Wine in New Bottles," Journal of
Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 41, Nos. 1-2 (2004).
11. Mitri Raheb, I Am a Palestinian Christian, trans. Rosemary
Radford Reuther (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), 86-91.
13.See Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1993), Ch. 2, and What Went Wrong? (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002), Ch. 4.
14."The Cross and the Crescent," Catholic World Report, January 2002,
Charles Sennott, The Body and the Blood: The Middle East´s Vanishing
Christians and the Possibility for Peace (New York: Public Affairs,
15.See "The Palestinian Authority´s Treatment of Christians in the
Autonomous Areas," Israeli Government, Prime Minister´s Office,
Jerusalem, October 1997; David Raab, "The Beleaguered Christians of
the Palestinian-Controlled Areas," Jerusalem Letter, No. 490,
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 2003,
www.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm; Justus Reid Weiner, Human Rights of
Christians in Palestinian Society (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs, 2005); Khaled Abu Toameh, "Rapidly Dwindling
Christian Minority in Palestinian Arab Controlled Territories,"
Jerusalem Post, 11 November 2005.
16.PEW Global Attitude Survey, 13 June 2006,
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=827; recent survey by
the Israel Project at
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY