When we prepare to meet new people we almost instinctively prepare and rehearse our personal story. We do this as individuals, families, religious communities and nations. What will we share? What will we emphasize? What aspects of our "history" will be open for discussion and what will be our secret, sacred myth? To whom will we divulge what? How much of our past do we manufacture or repackage? What can we put on the line?
In a therapeutic relationship we may ultimately choose to accept the therapist's skills as she unbundles and assists in unknotting our past. Can we, the authors of our personal and communal stories and histories, accept the unfettered, imperfect forms we have offered and authored?
Historians of religion devote their careers to the separation of the historical evidence (the story as it reveals itself) and historical memory (the story as we have chosen to remember it).
Most contemporary biblical scholars, for example, would agree that the Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt. However, the historical memory of the biblical writers -- and those who have "interpreted" the stories -- would argue differently. The Hebrew people, without the story of the Egyptian sojourn, are a different people. They are people of a different story.
Modern history -- personal, familial, communal and nationalistic -- also is challenged by evidence and memory, content and form.
Modern Israel and modern Palestine are mired in the historical evidence-historical memory muddle. President Jimmy Carter has again inserted himself into the midst of this Israel-Palestine picture. Historical memory, even of the moment, declares he is uninvited and unwelcomed by some.
Historical evidence will show he is the welcomed and sanctioned guest. His mission, quite different than that of Condoleezza Rice, is to assist two peoples in the deepest exploration of their historical and mythical narratives.
If in the long term he succeeds, and I pray he ultimately does, the evidence will be neither immediate nor applauded. If the Israelis and Palestinians will examine and share their real and mythical stories, a new chapter may be written in their hearts and minds.
The fact that Condoleezza Rice, the State Department and the Bush administration have carefully and publicly distanced themselves from Carter's visits and warned former President Jimmy Carter against meeting with members of Hamas does not mean they forbade his visit or asked him not to go. They knew all along what he intended to do, with whom he planned to meet and why. The perception that the Bush administration may be talking to Hamas through the back door may be real (and necessary).
President Bush wants a significant Israeli-Palestinian advance toward peace -- or accommodation -- before he leaves office. Whether the stories will be shared and examined according to Bush's time frame is doubtful. That they must be opened up to new light, new evidence and new interpretation is essential. The more Israelis and Palestinians examine their mutual and exclusive stories, the more real they become to one another as people; in fact, relatives. The more the Bush administration denies any knowledge or involvement in the Carter mission the more history will disprove the myth.
Albert Micah Lewis is rabbi of Congregation Beth El in Traverse City.
Print this story
E-mail this story
