Call to Action

 

Thank God that President Joe Biden is old! Last night, President Biden gave an Oval Office address about the two contemporary crises in our world - the war between Israel and Hamas and the war between Ukraine and Russia. In the process, he demonstrated once again the value of years of political experience, particularly in international relations, and his own personal gift and quality of empathy. It was perhaps the best speech of his presidency. And he showed why he - rather than someone else - is in the White House. He strode the stage as a true statesman, referencing "petty factions and angry politics" while avoiding overly partisan comments on current GOP-caused chaos.

The President called this crisis moment "an inflection point," situating the current conflicts in the larger international picture and longer political timeline. In this address - as indeed in his overall response to this moment - Biden has faced a two-fold challenge. The first challenge is to support Israel and Ukraine effectively while also successfully keeping both those conflicts within manageable limits. The second challenge - perhaps an even more difficult challenge - has been to muster sufficient and widespread American support for this policy and, in particular, selling his proposed aid package to a Congress, which is increasingly dysfunctional and unreliable, a Congress where the House cannot elect a Speaker and the Senate permits an obstructionist football coach to continue holding up military appointments!

The President was at his best laying out the issues and the corresponding need for American leadership in the world - and for getting our own act together at home both in international policy terms but also in terms of anti-semitism, Islamophobia, and domestic American polarization in general.

Given the immediate crisis on the Middle East and how it has univocally dominated the news now for two weeks, it was interesting that the President devoted so much of his speech to the ongoing war in Ukraine and that the largest share of the proposed aid is for Ukraine. While probably intended to derail the possible normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Hamas attack has also seemingly sidelined the current conflict in Ukraine, which remains a critical font-line in the longstanding conflict not just between democracy and tyranny but also between civilization and barbarism. This may well prove to be the "inflection point" that breaks through the perennial impasse in the Middle East. Crisis can create opportunity. History, however, suggests otherwise when it comes to this particularly intractable problem. Ukraine, meanwhile, remains the real "inflection point" that hopefully will really make a difference in the world.

The Incredibly Shrinking "Two-State Solution"

 

The the chimera commonly called the "two-state solution" has haunted middle-eastern politics for as long as I have lived. Actually longer. The famous UN Partition Plan was adopted on November 29, 1947 - almost four months before I was born. In some alternative universe, had the Arab states been willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state, had they therefore accepted the UN Partition Plan, an Arab state would have been created on part of what was then the British League-of-Nations Palestine Mandate, along with a Jewish state (and a Jerusalem Corpus Separatum).

On February 16, 1948, however, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council that: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." By May, when Britain finally withdrew from its Palestine Mandate, and Israel declared its independence, five Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan) attacked the former Palestine Mandate territory, although Jordan limited its invasion to that part of the territory that the partition plan assigned to the Arab population, now known as Palestinians, territory Jordan would take for itself.

The 1949 Armistice agreement left Israel with a little more territory than it had originally been assigned by the partition plan, plus West Jerusalem. The rest of the Arab-assigned territory (the "West Bank", including East Jerusalem, and the "Gaza Strip") were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Presumably, those two countries could have created the independent Arab state that the UN had earlier envisioned, but they did not choose to do so. Nor does there seem to have been much international pressure for them to do so. The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza continued until Israel's victory in the 1967 war, when Israel replaced Jordan and Egypt as the occupying power. 

In the aftermath of the Israeli victory and occupation, Palestinian nationalism became a sufficiently powerful force, such that Jordan and Egypt effectively relinquished their claims to the territories they had recently occupied and eventually made their own separate peace treaties with Israel. 

Meanwhile, an international consensus formed around the idea of a solution in the form of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The 1993 Oslo Accord, which established limited Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, represented the apogee of aspirations for such a "two state solution." The closest Israel and Palestine ever came to such a solution was probably the plan which Yasser Arafat rejected in 2000. Since then, while the "two state solution" has remained official U.S. policy, it has become increasingly unachievable in reality, and less and less of a priority for Israel's Arab neighbors, which have increasingly pursued policies without real reference to Palestinian aspirations. Indeed, the growing threat from Iran seems to have inspired Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to reconsider their inherited rejection of Israel in favor of accommodation bordering on alliance, with little to show for the Palestinians.

Yet the modern world is a world of nation-states. So, in the modern world, the normal aspiration of  a territorially definable ethno-national group is achieving its own national state. Witness the proliferation of new states in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia after the end of the Cold War! The state of Israel itself is a testimony to the reality that only by having a state of its own can a people properly protect themselves from aggression and even the threat of extinction. It is thus only natural and normal that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza should aspire to a nation-state of their own. Unfortunately for them, their rejection of every previous opportunity to make a real peace and thus achieve something like a nation-state has had the result that the territory available for such a state has shrunken significantly from what they originally could have gotten in 1947. Meanwhile, a history of hostility has understandably made it harder and harder for Israelis to imagine a Palestinian nation-state next door which would not pose an unacceptable threat to their security, a realistic fear which has been exploited by Israel's current government to pursue a policy of increasing intransigence, paralleling Palestinian intransigence.

If there remained any doubt of the incorrigibility of such Palestinian intransigence, last Saturday's barbarous sneak attack on Israel by Hamas has undoubtedly confirmed it. (It is, of course, possible in principle to distinguish between Hamas and the ordinary Palestinian population. On the other hand, there is little evidence to suggest that that population does not support Hamas' goals, and it is worth recalling that Hamas became the government of Gaza as a result of popular election by the local Palestinian population.)

This is not the first war between Israel and Hamas terrorists. And there is no guarantee that it will be the last. There is no guarantee that Israel will be able to defeat Hamas as decisively as it obviously needs to. Nor is it clear what victory over Hamas would ultimately look like or accomplish. Would such a victory suddenly dispose the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to seek permanent peace with Israel? Not likely. Would it end all possibility of Palestinian terrorism? Not likely. Would it bring peace and stability to the rest of the Middle East? Very unlikely. Would it cause Iran to abandon its aspirations to regional hegemony and its seemingly ineradicable hatred of Israel? Absolutely unlikely. 

But one outcome that seems so likely as to be near certain is that any "two-state" solution will be even less likely than at any time since it was first proposed in 1947.

Climate Maximalism vs. Climate Minimalism

Perhaps not in any age, but certainly not in our contemporary democratic media age (when everyone feels entitled to an opinion and has access to information and the means to express his or her opinion) should anyone be surprised by disagreements within religious communities, including disagreements between leaders and members of religious communities. 

Still, an interesting contrast can be identified between Pope Francis' pronouncements not he climate crisis and the views of many of American Catholics (and indeed other American Christians). 

As everyone who cares at all about such matters knows, in 2015 Pope Francis issued a landmark Encyclical letter, Laudatory Si', "On Care for Our Common Home," which forcefully made the case for the need to respond - now -  to the climate crisis. Last week, on the feast of Saint Francis of Assisi, quoted in the titles of both documents, the Pope followed up with an Apostolic Exhortation, Laudate Deum, which caused David Wallace-Wells, presumably an ally of the Pope on this issue, to describe Francis as "a climate alarmist, a techno-skeptic and a degrowther, sympathetic to activists," among other things.

Laudate Deum is well worth reading not just for its comments on climate but for its larger socio-political critique. "Not every increase in power represents progress for humanity," the Pope aptly reminds us, referencing "historical moments when our admiration at progress blinded us to the horror of its consequences." In contrast to what he calls "a healthy ecology," the Pope laments "the technocratic paradigm" that "has destroyed that healthy and harmonious relationship." And he regrets how "global crises are being squandered when they could be occasions to bring about beneficial changes." That is what he believes happened in the 2007-2008 financial crisis and then again in the Covid crisis. Regarding those squandered opportunities, he quotes his recent encyclical Fratelli Tutti: "the actual strategies developed worldwide in the wake of [those crises] fostered greater individualism, less integration and increased freedom for the truly powerful, who always fund a walk to escape unscathed."

It seems hard to quarrel with much, maybe most, of the Pope's diagnosis. In this regard, it is interesting that he begins his latest critique by invoking the analysis of the Bishops of the United States, who is 2019 "expressed very well this social meaning of our concern about climate change, which goes beyond a merely ecological approach, because 'our care for one another and our care for the earth are intimately bound together. Climate change is one of the principal challenges facing society and the global community. The effects of climate change are borne by the most vulnerable people, whether at home or around the world."

At home, however, recent studies suggest that such sentiments are not being heard or, if heard, have been largely rejected. According to a recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, only some 20% of U.S. white Catholics and 31% of Hispanic Catholics appear to agree that climate change is such a crisis. (For comparison sake, only 22% of white mainline Protestants, 19% of Black Protestants, and 16% of Hispanic Protestants agree that there is a climate crisis. American Jews lead with a mere 32%. Thus no American religious community can claim that even one-third of its members are fully on board on this issue.)

As with so much else in contemporary American religion, such views may be reflective of more encompassing political stances, which increasingly determine people's religious perspectives, rather than the other way around.

To quote Pope Francis' final words in Laudate Deum: "when human beings claim to take God's place, they become their own worst enemies."

Photo: Burned building remains after the fire in Lahaina, Hawaii.

The Danger in Distraction

 

It happened almost 50 years to the day since the last war that appeared to take Israel by surprise - the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That was a conventional land and air war between Egypt and Israel. The latest provocation is a terrorist attack by Hamas. The surprise attack and the sense of unpreparedness are what most obviously tie the two wars together. Inevitably, there will be other aspects of this latest incarnation of Pearl Harbor that will also prove important in the long term.

Surely there are many factors that contributed to the catastrophe of this surprise attack, all of which will undoubtedly require analysis in due time, once Israeli victory has hopefully been achieved. But one particular aspect that surely has been noticed and which will likely receive greater attention in post-mortem punditry is the potential impact of distraction - among both Israeli elites and ordinary citizens. By that, I don't mean that border guards were asleep at their posts or intelligence officers at their desks, although there does seem to have been some unaccountable element of intelligence failure. By "distraction," I am referring to the incontrovertible fact that, for some time now, Israeli politics and Israeli society more generally have been distracted by contentious partisan divisions, alleged scandals, and overall governmental dysfunction.

What other country does that sound like?

Hamas is not likely to invade the U.S. in a sneak attack across the U.S.-Canadian border (or anywhere else). But the U.S. too - American policy and American society more generally - have been inordinately distracted by our own contentious partisan divisions, alleged scandals, and overall governmental dysfunction - all vividly on display recently on the Washington, DC, political stage and almost totally dominating our political punditry. The point is not that we are imminent danger of invasion (although terrorism, both foreign and domestic, remains a real threat), but that across a whole range of issues the national interest is being dangerously neglected while we distract ourselves with manufactured political crises.

From appropriating the money to operate the government, to aiding Ukraine, to managing immigration, to confronting climate change, almost everything that government exists in order to do is being hobbled. While the dragon of government shutdown has been tranquilized for another six weeks or so, metaphorically at least the gears of governance have been gradually grinding to a halt. Instead of the national business, the daily news - whether delivered via traditional TV, political podcasts, or social media - is distracted by the political bridge to nowhere which we keep moving farther out on.  

When Donald Trump first announced his candidacy for president in 2015, an acquaintance casually commented on how interesting, even exciting things were going to get. The curse of living in interesting times! Meanwhile, not only have our actual politics gone almost completely off the rails, but we seem to have lost any interest in the things that politics is about. We have become dangerously distracted, increasingly oblivious to the danger in distraction,

Photo: NY Times (October 8, 2023) A fire burning after a rocket attack on Saturday in Ashkelon, Israel.

Credit...

Amir Cohen/Reuters

Credit..Amir Cohen/Reuters

The Two Sons

 The familiar words we just heard from Saint Paul [Philippians 2:1-11] were written from prison to the Christian community Paul had founded at Philippi, to thank them for their generosity in the past and to encourage them in facing the future, a future that probably seemed even bit as worrisome for them as ours does for us.

Have the same attitude that is also in Christ Jesus, he advised them. Paul’s idea of encouragement was to identify with the fundamental truth about Jesus, which he proceeded to express – not in his own words but with what most likely was already an existing Christian hymn, an early profession of faith in Jesus:

Who, though he was in the form of God, 

did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave … 

becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Because of this, God greatly exalted him 

and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 

that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend … 

and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

In direct and conspicuous contrast to typical, ordinary, normal, human behavior, Jesus was unselfish, humble, and obedient. On this day of almost government shutdown, we are again invited to contrast the self-centered pursuit of power, domination, and control, which directs so much of human behavior and history, with Jesus, whose obedience has made it possible for us to undo that destructive pattern and alter the course of human history, by creating new kinds of relationships for us, both with God and with one another.

Jesus’ obedience to his Father was not some isolated act. It was a total attitude that characterized his whole self. In the biblical account, that was how God originally intended all of us to live. We can no longer return to that original state – or, indeed, to any past state - but, with God’s help, we have been enabled to change course – like the first son in the parable in today’s Gospel [Matthew 21:28-32], who first answered, “I will not,” but who then afterwards changed his mind.

It is certainly true that we cannot undo the past. How well we all know that! But that obvious fact can also become an excuse, a rather lame excuse, and a particularly poisonous excuse, to do nothing, becoming silent spectators in the story of life. How often have we heard someone say – or perhaps have said it ourselves – “What can I do? That’s just the way it is,” or worse “That’s just the way I am. I just can’t change!”

 

It’s true, of course, that we cannot undo the past, and that we are all in some sense always products of our past, both good and bad - both the things that have happened to us that we couldn’t control and all the good and bad decisions and choices we have made and the long-term consequences they have caused. But the good news of the Gospel is that, while we cannot undo that past, we can change course in the present, by remodeling ourselves in the image of God’s Son and so share in his new life – already here and now in the community of his Church on earth and then forever when our risen selves are joined with Christ completely in the kingdom of the Father.

 

America used to be known as the land of second chances. That may or may not be true anymore. But, in telling us this parable about the two sons, Jesus makes clear that he does not want us to focus forever on our first response, on our initial (and however often repeated) failures; but rather to do like the first son and change. Let’s get going, Jesus is telling us, into that vineyard where his own life and example are leading us!

 

Homily for the 26^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Saint Paul the Apostle Church, NY, October 1, 2023.