For 101 years Passionists have lived in Jerusalem, ‘City of Peace.’ Perched on the back of the Mount of Olives, where those great friends of Jesus–Mary, Martha and Lazarus — offered him hospitality and a home, is the Passionist Retreat of St. Martha.

A gaping hole now tears apart the stone wall round St. Martha’s and a much higher wall is poised to cut through the quiet grounds.

On June 16th, 2002 Israel began building the wall to protect its citizens against suicide attacks. It will be 750 kilometers when finished and enclose almost 400,000 Palestinians. It symbolizes the deepening division between Israelis and Palestinians and makes peace more elusive.

Both peoples have suffered too much from dispossession and pain. A new word –genocide– had to be minted to name the extermination of Jewish people in the madness of the Nazi Holocaust. To create a refuge for the Jewish people, another people was dispossessed of homes and lands in Palestine.

The past four years have seen the needless deaths of hundreds of Israeli Jews (975) and thousands of Palestinians (3,086). Too many were children and innocent bystanders going about their lives.

At the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a dispute over borders. Two peoples with too much history and too little geography.

Without reservation I support Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state and for its citizens to live in peace, free from fear of violence or terror. I support, with equal strength, the Palestinian people’s right to a viable and sovereign state where they can live in peace, without fearing destruction of their homes. I am for both peoples; I am also for that justice of right relationships whence peace springs; facts cannot be sacrificed to rhetoric by either side of the conflict.

If the wall were completed, Palestinians would lose more than 900 square kilometres of their land between the Green Line and the wall. In one town close to Jerusalem, 30,000 people cannot enter the city. In four villages, the source of the people’s income–olive, almond and fig trees–have been torn up. They can no longer reach their land farmed for hundreds of years.

If the wall were truly about security, it would have been built on Israel’s internationally recognized 1967 pre-occupation border (Green Line). But the wall does not follow the Green Line–it cuts deep into Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Concerns about the wall’s impact on peace and human rights, led the UN General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the wall. The Court presented that Opinion on July 9, 2004. As this was happening in The Hague, the Supreme Court of Israel had been asked to give a ruling on the legality of the Separation Barrier.

Both Courts have rejected the present path of the wall. Both courts have ruled the present path violates international law and imposes immense and unnecessary suffering on the Palestinian population. The International Court of Justice advised that if Israel wants to build a wall, it should do so on the pre-1967 Green Line. The Israeli Supreme Court decided to reject most of the present path and to bring the wall much closer to the Green Line. The Israeli government says it will ignore the ICJ’S advice. Perhaps it will listen to the decision of its own Supreme Court.

On July 20th the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to require Israel to comply with the ICJ’s advisory opinion that declared the construction of the separation barrier in violation of international law.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 150 to 6 with 10 abstentions. It calls on UN Member States to fulfill their obligations by not recognizing “the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.”

The Resolution also calls both parties to the conflict to immediately fulfill their obligations to the Road Map for peace. The resolution calls Israel to heed the Court and calls the Palestinian Authority to show clear signs of its efforts to restrain and arrest individuals or groups planning or carrying out violent attacks.

In the early morning of December 6th, 2003, Father Claudio Ghilardi, a Italian Passionist priest living at St. Martha’s monastery near Jerusalem, was awakened by Israeli military bulldozers breaking through the ancient monastery’s stone walls to prepare for a thirty-foot high concrete security wall. Plans are for the wall, estimated to cost over a billion dollars, to wind 450 miles through the West Bank. Running to the site, honored by Christians as “Bethany,” where Jesus found hospitality in the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus,

Father Claudio (right) protested that this was Vatican property protected by a 1997 agreement between the State of Israel and the Vatican. The construction, temporarily stopped, threatens to split not only the monastery property, but also a Catholic complex of orphanage, school and rest home run by other Catholic religious orders.

The Israelis claim the wall is meant to separate Israelis from Palestinians. Clearly, here, deep in the West Bank it will separate Palestinian from Palestinian, and Christian from Christian. “This is not a barrier,” Father Claudio told Larry Fata, from the World Council of Churches, “this is a border. Why don’t they speak the truth? This wall is scandalous.”

Now, Father Claudio offers the monastery property, once a peaceful spread of olive and pine trees, as a thoroughfare for his Palestinian neighbors: men, women and children desperately trying to avoid an Israeli checkpoint in order to get to work in Jerusalem, or visit family, or seek medical attention at clinics. Along with Ecumenical Accompaniers from the World Council, Father Claudio facilitates their passage against the wishes of the Border Police. The Palestinians call him “Abuna” (”Father”).

“They are my guests and this is my house,” the priest says. Fitting words from a spot where the gracious Martha once welcomed her Guest.

Pope John Paul offered a wise reminder that we need to build bridges, not barriers to peace in this place so many of us call the Holy Land. What can each of us do, in the spirit of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, to help create an atmosphere of hospitality once again? What could we do to melt the bitterness and point to a shared way forward for two peoples who in the depth of their hearts want only peace? Oppressed and oppressor are both victims of too much violence!

The Parliament of World Religions was held in Melbourne, Australia, December 3-9. It was an exciting and exotic experience. In addition, it was also inspiring.

This Parliament originated at the Chicago Exposition in 1896. It did not meet during the two World Wars. It has begun to meet every 5 years, more recently in Barcelona and in South Africa. The purpose is to stimulate inter-religious cooperation to deal with the issues facing the planet and the poor. The meetings, covering the first week of December, took place in the enormous Melbourne Exposition Center.

The Opening Ceremony was a kaleidoscope of colour, sound and music as 12 major religion groups presented their thoughts, prayers and blessing for the work of the Parliament all in their own style, costume; some by word, others, song  and/or movement. The framework was provided by the Victorian Philharmonic Orchestra and 150 strong chorus with music. The indigenous instrument the didgeridoo gave it a clear Australian  indigenous flavour.

We were “welcomed to country” in a beautiful ceremony by Aboriginal elder Professor June Murphy Wandin with her little granddaughter, in her role as the senior woman of the Wurundjeri people, the traditional owners of the land on which the cosmopolitan city of Melbourne now stands. We were prayed over by rabbis, bishops, priests and shamans, Hindu, Muslim, Shinto and Zoroastrian leaders and challenged by several Keynote addresses to seize the moment and take up our responsibility for the earth and its poor. As was pointed out several times in the next week, our generation is the first to be able to consciously shape the course of the development of the world, & this planet.

Up till now we have been passengers in the evolutionary process and in global development. But now we can take an active role in shaping the whole process and with that comes responsibility to all its creatures to assist the growth of all creatures and species to their fullness. This is the “Great Work” of which Passionist Ecologian Thomas Berry spoke and wrote so passionately. Several Panels and workshops focused on Berry’s message and significance at this time of global crisis as we struggle to become “a communion of subjects rather than a collection of objects”.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) featured strongly in workshops and panels. In the year 2000 all member states of the UN pledged themselves to use these practical goals to break the hold of extreme poverty and want on the lives of billions of people. The target date for reaching these Goals is 2015. More than half way through the timeline, many of these goals look like not being met. So poverty, infant and maternal death, lack of opportunity for children to go to school, the continued spread of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS, increasing environmental degradation and insufficient commitment to a global partnership to pay for and meet these goals. Religions and religious traditions were called by the Parliament to take a more active role in making it clear that poverty is not an accident, but is the result of faulty decisions based on greed and selfishness.  To learn more of the MDG http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals 

It was truly inspiring to see a vast array of diverse religious groups seriously working together in a cooperative and respectful manner for the good of the earth. Concerns about food and water scarcity, and the impact of climate change and extreme weather on brothers and sisters forced to live in poverty were made so explicit. There was a palpable concern and mutual respect for each other’s efforts. Seeing and hearing the world in all its colour and wonderful diversity was a powerful parable of how religion and spiritual belief can be a force for good in our troubled world.  

Throughout the duration of the Parliament groups of Buddhist Monks gathered all day in the foyer to sing, chant, drum or meditate. We were invited to drop in on them at any time– a reminder that there is interior work to be done.

As the fruit of the sharing, many resolutions to be brought to our governments and to the United Nations were forged from our shared religious convictions and our commitment to the Earth as our common heritage and our mother.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen broke up on December 19 with a political “agreement”  but with no legally binding treaty to address the greatest crisis facing the world.

“I was born in 1992. You have been negotiating all my life. You cannot tell us that you need more time!”  These were Christina’s words to the government negotiators as she addressed the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Christina is 17, and lives in the Solomon Islands – whose very existence is threatened by sea level rise in her lifetime. At the same time lead U.S.A negotiator Todd Stern referred to Copenhagen as nothing more than a “first step”.

Perhaps it’s time to listen to Christina and her millions of fellow victims of climate change! 

The crisis before us is one that we all face. The Rio Environment conference in 1992 named two principles to help us share responsibility for change as we face the environmental crises. “Polluter pays” and “Common but differentiated responsibility” were principles to which all countries gave their agreement. Now that it’s time to pay up, we find that these were weasel words by the greatest polluters. They refuse to accept their common but differentiated responsibility. Leadership no longer seems to lie with our governments.

Inside the Bella Centre, leaders of rich countries chose to ignore their scientists. The scientific consensus is that the rich world must cut our emissions of the gases that warm the earth by 40% below the levels that existed in 1990. This must happen within the next 10 years if we are to have even a 50-50 chance of not reaching the Point of No Return, when the Earth’s natural processes start to break down and warming becomes unstoppable.

So, do we listen to Christina and the scientists? Or to our politicians and the fossil fuel industries (coal, oil, gas) to whom they answer?

Pope Benedict XVI warns us in his World Peace Day message 2010: “The deterioration of any one part of the planet affects us all…Our present crises — be they economic, food-related, environmental or social — are ultimately also moral crises and all of them are interrelated,”

He reminds us that God made man and woman in his image and gave them dominion over the earth, So God called them to be stewards of creation, drawing from the earth what they needed and safeguarding its riches for future generations. “Environmental degradation challenges us to examine our lifestyle and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view.”

An event was organized during the Copenhagen Conference by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and Caritas Internationalis. Joy Kennedy of the WCC Working Group on Climate Change said that climate change, at its root, is a profound moral issue.”

We must understand who we are as people in relation to the earth and God the creator of earth. “If we believe the planet is just a natural resource bank, there to be exploited, excavated, extracted, dumped on, then we will treat it that way. But if we believe we are part of a sacred creation dependent on its gifts for our very survival and for life, then human activity requires responsibility and we will act differently because we love and serve and protect our home.” She called the church to move away from a theology of dominance. We need to find ways to replace greed with an economy of enough if climate justice is to happen.

President of Caritas Europa, Fr Erny Gillen, spoke of the moral responsibility of religious people to involve themselves in the climate change debate. We “share the human condition with all other people living on earth. “It is time we have the guts to name the problem. It is not sex, not money, not the poor. It is the rich. Let’s make poverty history, but shouldn’t we say let’s make richness history, let’s make greed history.”

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, set binding targets for the industrialized countries that produced the majority of the Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants. They were obliged to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 per cent on average below 1990 levels by 2012. FACT:  In 2007, America’s greenhouse-gas levels were 16 per cent above 1990 levels.

Through The Emissions Trading Scheme, industrialised countries are allowed to “trade” their carbon emissions allocations. They could pay for carbon mitigation projects in developing countries to meet their reduction targets. But emissions trading, or offsetting, is not in fact a mechanism to reduce emissions. Such schemes are more about privatising the atmosphere than about preventing climate change; the emissions levels set by the Kyoto Protocol are several times higher than what is needed to stop a 2°C rise in global temperatures.

It is from 50 -200 times cheaper to plant trees in poor countries to absorb CO2 than it is to reduce emissions at source. So the burden of “clean-up” falls on the poor. This looks like a good deal from a market perspective. In terms of energy justice, it is evil to burden the poor twice – first with the climate disasters caused by CO2 pollution and then with offsetting the pollution of the rich.

In a globalised economy, addressing pollution by setting emissions levels for each country doesn’t work. In 2006, China produced 6.1 billion tonnes of CO2; the US produced 5.75 billion tonnes. But in per capita terms the US emissions were 19 tonnes of CO2, compared with 4.6 tonnes in China. But we must remember that China is producing goods for US companies that America will consume. For example Wal-Mart procures most of the products it sells from China.

England’s domestic economy produced only 2.13 % of the world’s emissions. But it is estimated that UK products produced elsewhere (China, India, Africa) amounted to between 12-15% of global total.  

A 2 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures translates into a 3-3.5 degree increase in Africa. That means, according to the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, another 55 million people could be at risk from hunger and water stress could affect between 350 and 600 million more people. ‘You cannot say you are proposing a ’solution’ to climate change if your solution will see millions of Africans die and if the poor not the polluters keep paying for climate change.’ – Augustine Njamnshi (Pan African Climate Justice Alliance)*

Europe understands how much money will be made from carbon trading, since it has been using the mechanism for years. But developing countries have never dealt with carbon restrictions, so many don’t really grasp what they are losing. The carbon market is valued at $1.2 trillion a year, according to leading British economist Nicholas Stern. Contrast this with a mere $10 billion that rich countries are offering to developing countries,

THE BOTTOM LINE

Vandana Shiva suggests that regulating by carbon trading is like fiddling as Rome burns. The only just method is for Governments and the UN to impose a carbon tax on corporations for production – wherever their facilities are located – and for transport. (Interview with Amy Goodwin, courtesy  democracynow.org ) 

So, perhaps it’s not such a bad thing that there was no binding agreement reached in Copenhagen. After describing what 2 degrees would mean for Africa, Archbishop Tutu pronounced that it is ‘better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.’ 

Matthew Stilwell of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development–one of the influential advisers in the Copenhagen talks – says that the wrong kind of deal would ‘lock in the wrong approach all the way to 2020’–well past the deadline for peak emissions. ‘I’d rather wait six months or a year and get it right because the science is growing, the political will is growing, the understanding of civil society and affected communities is growing, and they’ll be ready to hold their leaders to account to the right kind of a deal.’

Stilwell accuses rich countries of trying to exchange ‘beads and blankets for Manhattan.’ He adds: ‘This is a colonial moment. That’s why no stone has been left unturned in getting heads of state here to sign off on this kind of deal. Then there’s no going back. You’ve carved up the last remaining unowned resource – the sky- and given it to the wealthy.’

Meantime, whether we are fellow citizens of planet earth or religious people, we must raise our voices to let our governments know that we will not tolerate selfish ‘solutions’ to leave things as they are and so to punish the people who have done least to cause this crisis and who stand to suffer the most. Once more the question “Am I my brother or my sister’s keeper?”becomes an urgent moral and religious question for each of us.   

The Copenhagen process has been marked by lack of transparency, bullying of poorer countries and the undue influence of powerful industrial lobby groups.

It is clear that our governments cannot be trusted to act for the good of all without the oversight and the questions of us their citizens.  

 * Naomi Klein, Copenhagen: The Courage to Say No, The Nation December 18, 2009