A response to Dr. Barry Bryant's article, "Cutting Edges: A Theology of Empty Shirts or Justice?" can be found below. This article originally appeared in the July 2011 issue of
Aware Magazine.
To read the article click here (pg. 12).
Dear Editor,
I recently read Dr. Barry Bryant’s article, “Cutting Edges: A Theology of Empty Shirts or Justice?” in the latest issue of Aware Magazine. It was a compelling introduction to the history and theology of Dispensationalism and its possible connection to the Palestinian struggle. The author’s multiple visits to the region and his commitment to social justice were noted and appreciated. Reading on, however, I was disappointed by the limited view he presented of the complex situation in the Middle East. Most disturbing was the use of the term “apartheid wall’” to describe what is also widely known as the “security fence” or the “anti-terrorist fence.”
Apartheid is a provocative word. Many Israelis who do not support all policies of their current government strongly object to this terminology. If, as Dr. Bryant states, we are working toward “justice, peace, and reconciliation,” then incendiary, controversial labels that demonize the opposition and alienate those who would engage in discussion can only be counterproductive.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. As a member of the G-ETS community, I enjoy reading Aware and I’m grateful for the chance to read and comment on the thought-provoking articles.
Andrea Leftwich,
Associate Registrar and DMin Coordinator
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary
Dr. Barry Bryant has asked that his response to Andrea Leftwich be shared in hopes of continuing this important conversation. His response is below.Hi Andrea,
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your reading of the article in Aware and taking the time to respond to it. As difficult as conversations like this are they are often avoided, but while avoided they still remain often necessary. Thank you for your willingness not to avoid it. I appreciate you and your work as a colleague at G-ETS, your commitment to your faith, and the seriousness with which you have taken the article. But more than that, I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things either in person, or by way of email. I hope that if our exchange continues that we are able reaffirm and maintain the value of the relationship even in the face of disagreement. As I often tell my students, what society is sorely lacking these days is the ability to discuss things in a manner of civility and respect.
It seems the part of article that you most objected to was my use of the word “apartheid” to describe the wall. I am assuming your objection was not just that it was used to describe the wall, but that it was used at all. Up to that point you said that my trips and experiences were both "noted and appreciated." First of all, thank you for that. It acknowledges that my writing about the situation is not done in the abstract, but is taken from first hand experiences over several years, which establishes a broader narrative and social context.
I have to acknowledge that you are correct. There are many Israelis who object to the term "apartheid" and like yourself may find its use “incendiary.” On the other hand there are also those who object to the wall being called “anti-terrorist” and find that term just as incendiary and objectionable. The nature of the wall lies in the eyes of the beholder and when seen from the inside of Gaza, or the West Bank the experience is quite different when seen from the other side. When time is spent with those who see the wall from the other side you hear a different story with a different vocabulary.
In your response you offered no objection to my mentioning Palestinian home destruction as being either “incendiary” or “unsubstantiated.” But let me expand a little bit on that here. Dr. Jeff Halper, founder and director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, estimates that at least 24,813 houses have been demolished in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza since 1967 (see
http://www.icahd.org/?page_id=76). Incidentally, he even goes so far as to label the walls enclosures around Palestine as creating a Palestinian “Bantustan.” He goes even further to argue that the wall is little more than a “matrix of control” that has resulted not in a security wall being built along the armistice line (or the Green Line as it is often called), but in a land grab that has effectively separated Palestinians from water aquifers and farmers from farm land (and this is just in today from "B’tselem" on a high court ruling regarding the wall and water sources:
http://www.btselem.org/separation-barrier/24-aug-11-high-court-approves-separation-barrier-route-al-walajah) . This leads me to the next point in the article.
Neither did you offer objection to the mentioning of the usurpation of Palestinian water rights as being either “incendiary” or “unsubstantiated.” Of all the water sources derived from the West Bank, Israel uses 73%, West Bank Palestinians use 17%, and illegal Jewish settlers use 10%. Agriculture comprises 10-14% of the GDP in Palestine, while 90% of the farmers must rely on cisterns (which are deemed illegal without permits which are impossible to get) and other rain-fed farming methods. On the other hand, only 3% of Israel’s GDP is derived from agriculture, but irrigates more than 50% of its land. There are approximately three million Palestinians on the West Bank who use only 250 million cubic meters of water per year, which averages out to around 83 cubic meters per Palestinian per year. On the other hand six million Israelis use of 1,954 million cubic meters per year, which averages out to around 333 cubic meters per Israeli per year, which means that each Israeli consumes as much water as four Palestinians. Israeli settlers are allocated 1,450 cubic meters of water per person per year. The Center for Economic and Social Rights has noted, “The Israeli confiscation and control of Palestinian water resources is a defining feature of the Israeli occupation and a major impediment to a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.” Beyond statistics, when one can stand in a Palestinian refugee camp where water is strictly rationed and look up the mountainside above and literally can see a water park in an Israeli settlement the disparity becomes poignant. (See,
http://www.cesr.org/downloads/ The%20Right%20to%20Water%20in%20Palestine%20A%20Background.pdf; and,
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/water.html). It did not come as a surprise to many people that in Geneva during the 99th session the UN Human Rights Committee convened July 12-30, 2010, “For the first time ever, the Human Rights Committee also addressed denial of access to water and sanitation as violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), finding that in the case of Israel, they amounted to violations of the right to life and the right to equal protection under the law” (See,
http://washmena.wordpress.com /2010/08/27/palestine-un-human-rights-committee-says-israel-denying-access-to-water/).
Just as many details could be provided regarding the illegal building of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory (and with them the construction of highways only settlers can use), the destruction of Palestinian olive tress (which is both symbolic and substantive to Palestinian families), and the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints (many of which exist not at the wall, but set up in the West Bank itself to inhibit free movement). What could also be added are the accounts provided by ex-Israeli soldiers talking about their experiences in the occupied territories as they detail their participation in the many of the issues above (see,
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/).
It is precisely because of these things, in addition to many others, that the Israeli, Uri Davis first called the situation in Israel apartheid in his book, Israel: An Apartheid State (1987) where he substantiates his claims. His use of the term was based on the 1973 definition ratified by the UN General Council which defined apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." (For the document see,
http://web.archive.org/web/20061001200717/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm). Since his use of the term then, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as reaffirmed the definition of apartheid as acts “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” (See the following for the UN’s adoption of this treaty,
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=enAs a result of the ongoing and expanding practices in Israel regarding treatment of Palestinians there is a growing number of Israelis and Jews in America who refuse to call the situation and the wall anything else. More recently former president Jimmy Carter has used the term. More significantly, Desmond Tutu (who should know a thing or two about the true nature of apartheid) has used the word “apartheid” to describe the situation in Israeli and to describe the function of the wall there. More recently and more locally, Rabbi Brant Rosen from here in Evanston posted a blog in which he stated, “I’m fairly sure that if I used the word ‘apartheid,’ to describe the socio-political reality in Israel/Palestine, I’d be tarred and feathered six ways to Sunday by the American Jewish establishment. Meanwhile, some truth-tellers in the Israeli press are openly using the “a-word” because, well, because it’s just becoming impossible to ignore what’s really going on in their country.” (See,
http://rabbibrant.com/2010/10/31/jews-and-arabs-in-israel-what-would-you-call-it/)
It is not my intent to “demonize” anyone by using the word “apartheid” any more than it was Uri Davis' intent, Desmond Tutu’s intent, Jimmy Carter’s intent, or Rabbi Rosen's intent. I think the word is used because it accurately depicts the situation as it exists. Use of the word "apartheid" is far from “unsubstantiated.” I have used the word in same way these individuals have probably come to use it- as a result my personal experiences and observations, as well as the legal definitions recognized by international law, but also as a result of research into the issue which has been largely based on work by Israelis and American Jews. I think your objection to my use of the word also reflects the turmoil that is going over its use in the Israeli and Jewish communities themselves, and obviously I am only an observer of that.
I came across a quote recently from Edward Said, considered by many as the founder of post-colonial theory, who objected to Orientalism as a way of describing Arabs and Palestinian people in general. He was a long time friend and colleague of Noam Chomsky, whom Chomsky remembers fondly. Said wrote, “Nothing in my mind is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you need the approval of a boss or an authority figure; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate… For an intellectual these habits of mind are corrupting par excellence. If anything can denature, neutralize, and finally kill a passionate intellectual life it is the internalization of such habits. Personally I have encountered them in one of the thoughts of all contemporary issues, Palestine, where fear of speaking out about one of the greatest injustices in modern history has hobbled, blinkered, muzzled many who know the truth and are in a position to serve it. For despite the abuse vilification that any outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and self-determination earns for him or herself, the truth deserves to be spoken, represented by an unafraid and compassionate intellectual. “ (Edward Said, Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures, p. 11).
I offer this not as an attempt to say that you are wrong in what you think about my use of the word “apartheid.” Neither is it an attempt to convince, correct, or rebuke. What I offer here is an explanation of why I used the word to describe what I see there and Said articulates some of the reasons why.
With kindest regards,
Dr. Barry E. Bryant
Associate Professor
United Methodist and Wesleyan Studies
Dear Dr. Bryant,
Thank you for your detailed response to my letter to the editor of Aware Magazine. As mentioned in our earlier conversation, I appreciate the time and thought that was put into your email but believe that you may have misinterpreted the letter. Had I intended to debate the suitability of the word apartheid in this context, I would have defined the term and provided supporting arguments. In this case, I was talking about the impact of sensational language (representing any point of view) on communicaton when working toward reconciliation. Examples of alternative ways to describe the barrier were given precisely because, as acknowledged in your response, “The nature of the wall lies in the eyes of the beholder," a concept that does not come across in the original article.
It’s a pleasure to work with someone who is passionate about social justice and who so strongly lives his faith. I too hope that we can continue to respect and learn from each other.
Andrea Leftwich
Aware Magazine is a quarterly publication of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. Current (October 2011) and past issues can be found on the seminary's website,
www.garrett.edu/Aware.
We invite our
Aware readers to share their thoughts, opinions, and article suggestions for future issues. To submit your feedback or suggestions email Betty Campbell at
elizabeth.campbell@garrett.edu.
