Shifting the debate from rights to interests on
*Paul Ingram
I am going to be talking tonight about the nuclear programme primarily because it is so central in the case that the West has constructed against Iran that I think it is important to deconstruct it. It also has importance in its own right, which I will come to later on.
The trouble with this debate is that it has been dominated so much in terms of rights and perspectives on law. The trouble with this is that it depends very largely on one’s perspective and on which laws or rules one choses to look at.
From Iran’s perspective it is very clear they have very clear rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty Article 4 to develop their own nuclear power technology and to have it provided by the international community. That right has largly been trampled on for the last twenty years, ever since the revolution. This has got even worse recently because not only have they had their rights to this technology restricted but they have been punished for trying to develop their own.
Add to that the quite evident hypocrisy of the nuclear weapon states who develop their own nuclear weapons and break their responsibilities under Article 6 to negotiate away their own nuclear weapons and you have quite a strong case from the Iranian perspective.
From the West’s persepctive you have evidence that they believe Iran had a nuclear weapons programme prior to 2003. That was underlined in the national intelligence estimate before. They think the failure of Iran to answer questions from the programme prior to 2003 and the particular emphasis on centrifuges and one or two other questions has led to a situation where they feel they can’t be trusted which has led to demands to stop the enrichment process.
The result is that we have this process of sanctions and grievances and two very different persepctives without any clear possible solution to those perspectives without some form of coercion one way or the other: coercion or resistance to coercion. Its a stalemate. This harms the interests of both sides. It leads to increased tensions, increased possibility of conflict. It leads, from the West’s perspective, to continued enrichment and proliferation capabilities. In fact as the increased tensions rackett up you have a greater incentive on the part of Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability to respond to those tensions and threats.
The Iranians are held back, they suffer from sanctions and their potential for development is held back. But crucially there is little or no debate on either side in this whole process. So you have in the West this very strong assumption on the part of pretty much every media outlet that Iran is in the wrong, that it is developing nuclear weapons clandestinely. Even if it does not have a weaponization programme under the definition of the national intelligence estimate it has an intention to develop a capability sooner or later.
Largely that perception is because the West tends to see the world as if they were looking into a mirror. Because, believe you me, if Tony Blair or any of the other Western states were sitting in Tehran with American forces in 11 neighbouring states threatening to invade at any moment, by God they would go for nuclear weapons. So they assume therefore that the Iranians are doing the same.
There is no debate here to speak of and I don’t think there is a debate in Tehran either. You have a statement from the supreme leader, a fatwa, that nuclear weapons are against Islamic law and that is the end of the matter, when in actual fact there are very real causes for debate and I will go into the interests for and against weaponization in Iran. If they were able have an open debate would lead to more rational choices.
Similarily with nuclear power. It is pretty much dominated by the concept that foreign governments are incredibly hypocritical in stopping Iran from developing a significant nuclear power programme and that Iran has every right to it and therefore it develops nuclear power without having the rational debate. If they were able to have it there would be a more coherent and a more solid basis from which to move forward. It is a very important debate for Iran.
Let me focus firstly on nuclear weapons. The consequence of not having the debate means many Iranians will see the debate around nuclear weapons in relatively simplistic terms.
On the one hand you have the fatwa, the concept that nuclear weapons are illegal but on the other hand you have the perspective that nuclear weapons bring security in a very unstable world, in a particularly unstable region. You have a situation where the Americans have an official policy of regime change although they change that phrase every so often, but it is quite clear that that policy exists. You have a nuclear weapon state not very far away who is threatening at any moment to attack Iran and posses nuclear weapons in the region: namely Israel.
Any policy of ambiguity is a policy of deception – that is quite clear. You have a nuclear weapon state right on the border of Iran that is just undergoing tremendous turmoil and threatening the stability of Iran. On those grounds it may appear that nuclear weapons would be a very rational choice.
The trouble is that if you don’t have that debate you make those assumptions and you don’t realize some of the more subtle aspects.
The first one recognized within Iranian elites, is that if you start to acquire nuclear weapons you then drive the incentive of other neighbouring states to also go down that route which would harm Iranian security – regional proliferation.
You also have a situation where if you acquire nuclear weapons you immediately become a global target. This is something that the Indians and Pakistanis did not realize. If you get nuclear weapons other nuclear weapon states start targeting you. This is not such a big argument in the Iranian case because they are already targeted. Nevertheless you become a greater target if you posses nuclear weapons.
You also have the problem that if you acquire nuclear weapons it is a sort of corrosive nature in terms of your relationship with other states. It becomes much more difficult to engage in confidence and trust building. But equally important, perhaps really important, are the dynamics of the situation: having nuclear weapons may not make you safer but getting there certainly doesn’t make you very safe. And you are getting that dynamic in Iran today.
One exists if one is trying to develop nuclear weapons clandestinely or openly under the threat of attack at any moment. And to those that say North Korea proves that nuclear weapons bring security I would say to you that that is a fiction. North Korea does not possess the capability of delivering a nuclear war head. The war heads they exploded have been absolutely enormous. You could perhaps deliver them in a truck but you certainly wouldn’t be able to deliver them in an aircraft, yet alone a missile. In such a circumstance you can’t deliver it and you have no nuclear deterrent.
So there is every reason to believe that there are all sorts of other reasons which I could go into but I don’t have time as to why the situation in North Korea has come out the way it has.
If one thinks that nuclear weapons bring status that is also highly questionable in a world where the capability for developing nuclear weapons has been spreading. I would say that there is every reason to suggest nuclear weapons bring isolation and certainly lose moral authority, particularly in a state where nuclear weapons have been declared against Islamic law. I would just say that the case is not shut when it comes to nuclear weapons.
But let us move on to nuclear power. That is a more interesting debate. It is quite clear that nuclear power has been used by some in Iran as an argument for saying that Iran has strong status and pride. The ability for Iran to master the enrichment process, the uranium conversion process, has given it a sense that it is a 21st century power.
That has been largely manufactured by certain politicians within Iran in order to promote their own interests. Status and pride are things that can be used in all sorts of ways.
Let me get onto the more interesting aspects of energy security because I think this is the crucial 21st century issue. Iran is in the process at the moment of industrial take off. What that essentially means is that energy demand is growing at an exponential rate. Couple that with population take off – it is a very young population – and energy demand is increasing dramatically and will continue to increase.
Those that say it can survive on its oil and gas reserves for the next few decades not only ignore the issue of climate change but also ignore the very real concern that Iran has ensuring that it does not run out of energy and also retains and develops its capacity to bring in foreign reserves by the sale of oil and gas.
Iran cannot survive on its oil and gas reserves. There is evidence to suggest that this has been recognized not just in the nuclear power programme but also investments in hydro power which are considerable. But there are other choices as well that Iran could make. The most obvious ones are renewable energy but also energy conservation. Iran has one of the highest solar indices on the planet. That is not because it is particularly close to the equator but because of the way the sun moves and the terrain is particularly conducive in parts to solar power.
In the north there is a lot of potential for wind power as well. Both those technologies have not been exploited. Both those technologies are indisputable 21st century, forward-looking technologies. They are also exportable, unlike nuclear power. Greater investment could be made in those.
Energy conservation is another area where a lot of investment could be made and has not been made. These choices are choices around energy security which have not had the same status or the same political attachment that nuclear power has had.
I feel quite strongly that Iran is falling into the same trap that the West has fallen into over the past few decades and is about to fall into again. At least Iran has the excuse of not having made the mistakes in the past. Nuclear power is expensive and will remain so. It leaves a legacy of waste and pollution for many hundreds of thousands if not millions of years and it has a risk of accident.
Having talked to a number of people on the other side of the Gulf, it is not nuclear weapons they are worried about, it is Russians building nuclear power plants just tens of miles away across the Gulf, having seen the Chernobyl problem.
There is also the problem of proliferation, not just of future Iranian governments, whether revolutionary or otherwise, because we have to recognize that this is a very long lived capability. There is the problem of theft. There is the problem of terrorism that every government needs to be concerned about and it is related to nuclear issues. There is the corrosion of confidence that a sophisticated nuclear power programme brings. There is no coincident that other Gulf states have started to have an interest in nuclear power almost as a direct result of Iran’s nuclear power.
So if one looks at the interest it is far more complex than the rights story given both here and in Iran. I want to finish by talking about the consequences of this for the West because we are sitting here in London today.
The West has had a strategy of isolation when it comes to Iran’s nuclear programme. It is a strategy that I have already said is counterproductive. If I were running the Foreign Office here I would be encouraging not just unconditional talks, which a lot of people are talking about, but unconditional investment. If we were to be investing in Iran’s economy, its oil and gas reserves, crucially energy conservation and co-operation in the development and exploitation of renewable energies we would be in a much better position to actually start talking and overcoming the hostility that has been at the root at the spat that we have been witnessing over the past few years over the nuclear power programme.
*Paul Ingram was previously Senior Analyst at BASIC. His subject areas include nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament (with a focus on Iran and the UK); the UK debate over Trident replacement; defence economics, particularly subsidies of exports in the UK; and transatlantic security. His work has directly led to policy changes over UK export credits and defence export support. He hosts a weekly peak-time talk show on IRINN (Iranian domestic TV News in Farsi) focusing on global security issues. He is author of a number of BASIC notes and papers, and a documentary series for Press TV on nuclear issues. He also co-teaches systems thinking and practice on the Top Management Programme at the National School of Government alongside Prof. Jake Chapman.
Assessing Western and Christian stands on the Islamic Republic
*Stephen Sizer
There are essentially three approaches being taken by the West toward Iran’s nuclear programme at the moment: isolation, confrontation and mediation. Economic isolation through UN sanctions. Military confrontation from the US and Israel. And diplomatic mediation largely from non-aligned states. This evening I want to concentrate on the second. I want to help explain from a religious perspective why the US is heading for yet another military confrontation in the Middle East.
Economic Isolation: UN Sanctions
But first, lets observe and dismiss the first approach – namely the futility of UN sanctions. Let me quote from the Global Policy Forum:
“In 1979, at the time of the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis, the United States imposed broad economic sanctions against Iran. Since then, Washington has imposed various additional sanctions against Tehran, accusing the Iranian government of developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring or funding terrorism abroad. The sanctions block US-based oil companies from operating in Iran, giving the US a strong incentive to generalize the sanctions and block US firms’ foreign competitors from operating there as well.
In February 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program at Natanz, claiming it was using the technology for peaceful purposes and inviting the UN nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to visit. The US, however, alleged that the program is part of a drive to develop nuclear weapons and sought to refer the Iranian case to the Security Council.
In May 2006, the Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the P5 and Germany offer of diplomatic and economic incentives and demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. In December 2006, after Tehran’s failure to comply, the Council imposed sanctions on Iran’s trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology. Following the IAEA’S offer to Tehran of a 60 day grace period where halting of the country’s uranium enrichment would be exchanged for suspension of UN sanctions which Iran did not take up, the Security Council passed Resolution 1747 in March 2007, intensifying the previous sanctions package. Iran has vowed to continue with its nuclear energy program, but informal talks continue.”[i]
In December 2007 the US National Intelligence Report on Iran’s nuclear programme was declassified. The findings of the US’s 16 intelligence agencies, said with quote "high confidence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 "in response to international pressure".[ii] Nevertheless, the US is currently seeking support for a third round of sanctions against Iran including a travel ban. The fact is sanctions are a blunt instrument as we saw in Iraq when under it was the poor, the sick and children who suffered most. Iran is very different. During a visit last November I observed how Iran is coping. Iran has simply become more self reliant and self sufficient in such things as car and truck manufacture as well as aircraft production. Iran is also now a net exporter of food such as wheat to Egypt, gas to India and oil to China. Despite sanctions, in December 2007 a ban was lifted on the export of shrimps to the EU.[iii] And on Monday of this week, the eighth and final nuclear fuel shipment from Russia for Bushehr nuclear power plant was received. Iran has received a total of 82 tons of fuel since December 2007 for the primary stage of commissioning the Bushehr nuclear power plant, along with auxiliary equipment from Russia.[iv] So much for international sanctions.
Military Confrontation: US & Israeli Aggression
The present approach of the US toward Iran is typified in the incident that occurred in the Straits of Hormuz earlier this month. The U.S. Navy reported that five Iranian speedboats had approached a U.S. convoy in the Strait of Hormuz and radioed the threat "You will explode." President Bush promptly warned that an expansionist, fundamentalist Iran was up to its old tricks and that "all options are on the table to protect our assets." For a moment, the stage was set for [yet another] confrontation. There was one problem: Pentagon officials noticed the recording was suspect and had to move quickly away from their initial claim that Iranian naval officers had issued the threat. Matthew Weaver in the Guardian notes:
“A heckling radio ham known as the Filipino Monkey, who has spent years pestering ships in the Persian Gulf, is being blamed today for sparking a major diplomatic row after American warships almost attacked Iranian patrol boats. The US navy came within seconds of firing at the Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz on January 6 after hearing threats that the boats were attacking and were about to explode.. the US navy’s journal, Navy Times, has claimed that the threats, which were broadcast last week by the Pentagon, are thought to have come from an infamous radio prankster. It said the Filipino Monkey, who could be more than one person, listens to ship-to-ship radio traffic and then interrupts, usually with abusive insults. Rick Hoffman, a retired captain, told the paper: "For 25 years, there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats. He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy. "Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely."[v]
Samantha Power, writing in Time, observed,
”The war scare that wasn’t stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration’s allegations about the advanced state of Iran’s weapons program–allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate. In the eyes of even our closest allies, the Administration’s Iran policy amounts to a lurch from one imagined crisis to the next.”
When George W. Bush was visiting the Middle East this month, after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the two announced harmonious positions on Iran’s nuclear programme. Yediot Aharonot, the most widely circulated Israeli newspaper, revealed that Bush agreed during his meeting with Olmert to coordinate with Israel in directing a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. All Israeli officials who met with Bush stated that he indisputably affirmed that there is no importance to a report issued recently by American domestic intelligence and stating that Iran halted development of its nuclear programme for military purposes in 2003. Saleh Al-Naami, writing in Al-Ahram notes,
“Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s deputy defence minister and officially charged with facing strategic threats, considered the content of Bush’s speech given in the United Arab Emirates Sunday and directed at the Iranian people as evidence that the American administration has "completely adopted the Israeli conception" of confronting the "Iranian threat and other sources of threat in the region, led by Hizbullah and Hamas."[vi]
“On 7 January, the Israeli intellectual Gideon Levy wrote an article in Haaretz in which he stated that, "there has never been anyone in the White House who granted Israel permission to enact aggression as Bush, who encouraged Israel to wage campaigns of violence and urged it to firmly establish the reality of the occupation." Levy added that, "Bush is the president who granted legitimacy to every criminal act, from the expansion of settlements to even ignoring signed agreements, including those that Israel reached with the Palestinian Authority under the sponsorship of the United States, and who participated in firmly establishing the occupation and making it crueler."
Why? Why is there such a close intimate relationship between the US and Israel? Why has the US vetoed virtually every UN Resolution critical if Israel? Why will you not find a single serving US politician in the Senate or Congress openly critical of Israel? At the same time, why such cruel antipathy toward the Palestinians? Why such implacable hostility toward Iran? Why describe countries such as Iran, Syria, and Libya repeatedly as part of an ‘Axis of Evil’?[vii] And why therefore does so much of the world ‘hate’ America? The answers to these questions will remain inexplicable unless we factor in what is now probably the most influential and controversial movement amongst Christians today – Christian Zionism.
The Significance of Christian Zionism
Let me give you a flavour of the movement and their strategy from a recent speech given by John Hagee.
For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television… If a Christian admits “I believe the Bible,” I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.[viii]
The assumption Hagee makes, that Bible-believing Christians will be pro-Israel, is the dominant view among evangelical Christians, especially in the USA. In March 2007, Hagee was a guest speaker at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference. He began with these words: “The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened.
There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel…” As the Jerusalem Post pointed out, his speech did not lack clarity. He went on to warn:
It is 1938. Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler. We must stop Iran’s nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East… Think of our potential future together: 50 million evangelicals joining in common cause with 5 million Jewish people in America on behalf of Israel is a match made in heaven.[ix]John Hagee is not an insignificant individual. He is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church, an 18,000 member evangelical church in San Antonio in Texas. Hagee broadcasts a national radio and television ministry to Americans on 160 T.V. stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks into an estimated 99 million homes worldwide on a weekly basis. In 2006 he founded Christians United for Israel with the support of over 400 other Christian leaders. Dale Crowley, a Washington journalist estimates 25-30 million supporters. The Pew Research Centre recently discovered that 60% of evangelicals said they supported the state of Israel,[x] Hagee is not alone in accessing over 99 million homes worldwide weekly.
A very rough estimate then would suggest that one in five Americans would identify themselves as a Christian Zionist. Obviously within world-wide Christianity, it represents a powerful but small minority, and it is important to note that the heads of Churches in Jerusalem and the Middle East, including Iran, have repudiated Christian Zionism as a heresy. Nevertheless, the Unity Coalition for Israel, which brings together over 200 different autonomous organizations, is the largest pro-Israel network in the world. They claim to have 40 million active members, and lobby on behalf of Israel through 1,700 religious radio stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and 120 Christian newspapers. [xi]. A powerful lobby movement? You bet. Christian Zionism is undoubtedly a dominant force shaping US foreign policy in the Middle East.[xii] Three types of Christian Zionism have emerged in the last 40 years. It is the apocalyptic and political forms that concern us the most. Let me give you a summary of their theology.
1. Ultra-Literal Biblical Hermeneutic
2. The Jews remain God’s Chosen People
3. The Jews are restored to Eretz Israel
4. Jerusalem the eternal Jewish capital
5. The Jewish Temple must be rebuilt
6. Antipathy toward Arabs and Islam
7. There will be a war of Armageddon
Since their theology is essentially apocalyptic, their political involvement is inevitably confrontational toward those who oppose Israel. So,
1. The belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people leads Christian Zionists to a justification for Israel’s military occupation of Palestine.
2. As God’s chosen people, the final restoration of the Jews to Israel is therefore actively encouraged and facilitated through partnerships between Christian organisations and the Jewish Agency.
3. Eretz Israel, as delineated in scripture, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, therefore the land must be annexed and the settlements adopted and strengthened.
4. Jerusalem is regarded as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, and cannot be shared with the Palestinians. Therefore, strategically, Western governments are placed under pressure by Christian Zionists to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem and thereby recognise the fact.
5. The Third Temple has yet to be built, the priesthood consecrated and sacrifices reinstituted. As dispensational Christian Zionists, in particular, believe this is prophesied, they offer varying degrees of support to the Jewish Temple Mount organisations committed to achieving it.
6. Since Christian Zionists are convinced there will be an apocalyptic war between good and evil in the near future, there is no prospect for lasting peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, to advocate Israel compromise with Islam or coexist with Palestinians is to identify with those destined to oppose God and Israel in the imminent battle of Armageddon.
Clearly, not all Christian Zionists embrace each of these six tenets, or with the same degree of conviction or involvement. Nevertheless, as has been argued, the overall consequences of such uncritical support for the State of Israel is inherently and pathologically destructive, both to the future of Israel and the security of the United States.
So, July 2006, at the inaugural event for Christians United for Israel, after recorded greetings from George W. Bush, and in the presence of four US Senators as well as the Israeli ambassador, John Hagee could insist,
“The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation and Second Coming of Christ.” [xiii]
Although it seems that last night Rudy Giuliani lost the race to become the next US President, his views demonstrate the synergy between the religious and political Right in America:
“We’ve seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I’m president of the United States, I guarantee you we will never find out what they will do if they get nuclear weapons, because they’re not going to get nuclear weapons… “Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table.”1 (Oct. 16, 2007)
Sarah Posner, writing in The American Prospect warns,
“While Washington insiders wonder and worry whether President Bush really is bent on a military strike against Iran, Hagee already has spent months mobilizing the shock troops in support of another war. As diplomats, experts, and pundits debate how many years Iran will need to develop a viable nuclear weapon, Hagee says the mullahs already possess the means to destroy Israel and America. And although Bush insists that diplomatic options are still on the table, Hagee has dismissed pussyfooting diplomacy and primed his followers for a conflagration. Hagee calls pastors “the spiritual generals of America,” an appropriate phrase given his reliance on them to rally their troops behind his message.[xiv]
In my introduction, I said there were essentially three approaches being taken by the West toward Iran’s nuclear programme at the moment: isolation, confrontation and mediation. I have tried to show that economic isolation through UN sanctions has not worked and will not achieve resolution. I have tried to show the misguided and destructive influence of the Christian Right in the US lobbying for military confrontation on behalf of Israel. I hope I have convinced you that there is only one way forward – and that is diplomatic mediation.
3. Diplomatic Mediation
This is how Samantha Power, writing in Time this week summarised the benefits of diplomacy:
“A new Iran policy should start with the premise that any country behind a problem can also be behind a solution. No aspect of the Iraq quagmire can be resolved without Iranian involvement. Washington has a better chance of modifying Iran’s influence in Iraq—and Afghanistan, Palestinian territories and Lebanon–than of immediately halting it.
To do so, we need to broaden the range of policy tools we draw upon. That means refraining from redundant reminders that military force is still "on the table," which only strengthen the hand of hard-line Islamists and nationalists. It means broadening cultural contacts with the Iranian people, bypassing the regime through Voice of America and the Internet. And it means trying high-level political negotiations, something the Bush Administration has so far shunned. Supporters of engagement should not equate dialogue with concessions. We should ask international negotiators to insist–as we did with the Soviet Union during the cold war–that Iran address human-rights issues as well as security concerns. It’s true that earlier attempts at engagement have produced few dividends. But what negotiations can do is diminish perceptions of U.S. arrogance and remind the world of the urgency of getting Iran to cooperate on issues of shared interest, from preventing state failure in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan to caring for Iraqi refugees.
Engaging Iran won’t guarantee improved U.S.-Iranian relations or a more stable gulf region. But not engaging means more of the same. The longer we wait to rethink our Iran policy, the greater the likelihood that the next crisis will erupt into a full-fledged confrontation.”[xv]
I would want to add one further dimension to diplomacy and that is what the respective faith communities can bring to the table. Three weeks ago I participated in a consultation bringing together Evangelical and Muslim leaders at the invitation of the World Islamic Call Society in Tripoli. Last week I was in Beirut at the invitation of an Islamic group to talk to them about Christian Zionism. There is real potential when we are willing to address our own complicity in the conflict. Let me close with two practical steps.
Repentance
We must put our own house in order first, before we try and fix other’s. Jesus said,
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the other person’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3, 5).
Jesus is emphasizing that we must examine our own motives and actions before we criticise others. It is too easy and convenient for Christians to blame the Arabs or Islam for the ills of the world. This is unjust. We must be honest about our historical complicity in the conflict and commit ourselves to justice, if we are to expect others to listen to us when we talk of peace. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian writer said “the dividing line between good and evil does not run between races, cultures or nations but through the middle of every human heart.
Reconciliation
Jesus is described as "The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6) and has commanded his followers to pursue a ministry of reconciliation. “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19) In the light of this the Bible tells us to "Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it." (1 Peter 3:11). At the end of the Book of Revelation is a beautiful image of paradise restored in which the Tree of Life bears fruit every month. We are told " And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations." (Revelation 22:2). If this is God’s view of the future, then we need no greater motivation to work for justice, peace and reconciliation.
We cannot afford to leave it to our politicians and militaries. The Road-map to peace needs peacemakers. Thank you.
* The Reverend Dr. Stephen Robert Sizer (b. 1953) is the incumbent at Christ Church, Virginia Water, an Anglican parish in Surrey, England. He gained his BA from Sussex, an MA in Theology from Oxford University in 1994 and a PhD from Oak Hill Theological College and Middlesex University. He holds to an evangelical theology and has several wider roles outside of his parish ministry, many related to his interests in Christian Zionism and the theology, politics and history of the Middle East, especially Israel. He opposes both Christian Zionism and any forms of Antisemitism as he holds a Covenantal overview and hermeneutic for the Bible. He is a proponent of liberation theology in light of the Christian gospel as applied to the plight of the Palestinians through the Sabeel Palestinian Liberation Theology Center. He is author of many articles and books, mostly on subjects relating to Zionism and the land of Israel. His writings have been translated into Persian and Arabic.
