FAIR

For decades, the stated desire of the Palestinian people has been to have their own state on the West Bank and in Gaza. Recently, Rev. Ateek has been claiming that Israeli actions are destroying hope for a Palestinian state. (p. 167) But did Rev. Ateek ever support a two-state solution?

• Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center (“Sabeel”) portrays itself as a peace organization that respects Israel’s right to exist. But in light of Rev. Naim Ateek’s repeated references to the creation of the modern State of Israel as a “grievous injustice” (Jerusalem Sabeel Document, 2004) it is prudent to be wary when Sabeel says that it seeks only peace and justice in the form of a two-state solution . A close look at Sabeel’s writings and statements shows that that wariness is indeed justified, and that the single state solution has always figured prominently in Sabeel’s agenda.

• In his 1989 book Justice and Only Justice, Rev. Ateek expresses support for a one-state solution. And he is quite forthright about the outcome of such a “solution”-- the destruction of the Jewish State with Jews being forced to live as a minority under Arab rule:

I still believe that th[e] [one-state] solution is feasible. It is the best and easiest to implement. . . . . As part of a democratic, binational Palestine, the Jews would eventually become a minority in the country.

But then Ateek states that because of Jewish parochialism and mistrust, the idea must be discarded:

However, in line with the biblical injunctions above, I would have to agree, with Israel to reject it. Israel insists above all on being a Jewish state. . . . Furthermore, many Jews so distrust the Palestinians that they would not wish to consign their future to them. So in spite of all of its attractiveness, the idea of a binational state must be discarded.

• In the official 2004 “Jerusalem Sabeel Document,” Rev. Ateek reversed himself and called again for a one-state solution:

“two sovereign states, Palestine and Israel, who will enter into confederation or even a federation, possibly with other neighboring countries, where Jerusalem becomes the federal capital. Indeed, the ideal and best solution has always been to envisage ultimately a bi-national state in Palestine-Israel . . . One State for two nations.

• An article was printed tn the Spring 2007 edition of Cornerstone, Sabeel’s Quarterly magazine, against the “uncritical embrace of the rhetoric of the two-state solution”and supporting “a bi-national future in one state . . . [for] Palestinians and Israelis.”

• In “A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation” (2008), Rev. Ateek talks out of both sides of his mouth, first claiming that he “affirm[s] the foundation in international law for the two-state solution . . . . Both states will be sovereign and independent. (p. 171) But Rev. Ateek openly admits that:

Sabeel has always maintained that one democratic state is the ideal solution for resolving the conflict. However, we have reason to believe that a two-state solution is a more realistic and practical solution today. (p. 169)

and he envisions:

a time when the sovereign countries of Israel and Palestine, along with Jordan and Lebanon (and possibly others), might move from their present status as small independent states to form a federation of states -- a United States of the Holy Land with Jerusalem as its federated Capital.

(p. 175-176)

This is Rev. Naim Ateek’s vision of peace and justice -- annihilating the Jewish state and having Jews live as a minority in an Arab Federation which would in turn appropriate Jerusalem as its Capital.

Ultimately, the only just solution is a two-state solution,

which Rev. Ateek admits he does not want