I will be away from June 12-18 to attend the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly in Detroit. I will be there not as a delegate, but as an advocate, hoping to dissuade commissioners from voting in favor of divesting from, boycotting, or sanctioning Israel and businesses supporting it. Those who promote boycott, divestment, and sanctions (called “the BDS movement”) are good-hearted people outraged by the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Unfortunately, sanctions on Israel are not a solution to the problem and reflect a misunderstanding of the situation on the ground. Furthermore, for our church to promote such sanctions will only further alienate our Jewish friends in the United States while doing little or nothing to advance us to a positive role in promoting peace in the Middle East. To take such a position undermines the very nature of Presbyterian peacemaking: we are a reconciling community, not one that chooses sides.
If the PC(USA) adopts a resolution to sanction Israel at General Assembly, we will be the first denominational body to do so. It’s important to note that, even if the GA adopts such a resolution, it still needs to be approve by over half of 173 presbyteries in the PC(USA). This distinction is generally lost on the news media, who will report the action of the assembly as a done deal.
There is a lot of heated language on both sides of the debate. It’s easy to paint this as a black or white issue. It’s not. Presbyterian Outlook recently presented articles by folks on both sides of the debate, but each does its part to obscure the issue. For instance, an anti-divestment author writes that Israel’s population is 21% Arab and that their legal system “upholds equal rights, liberties and protections for all its citizens” (Douglas, “Peacemaking, Not Divestment,” Outlook, May 12, 2014). I’d add to that that Israel has two official languages, Hebrew and Arabic, the language of the majority of Arabs in the Middle East. Not only that, but an Arab Israeli is a member of the Knesset, Israel’s governing body. Still, things aren’t hunky-dory between Israeli Jews and Arabs. Israeli Palestinian reporter Khaled Abu Toameh says that Israeli Arabs are treated as second-class citizens and there is economic and class inequality. (For more, see my previous article, http://f89.5d0.myftpupload.com/21-05-2014/presbyterians-and-middle-east-peace)
Apartheid? Not At All
But comparisons to South African apartheid miss the mark on several counts. In the first place, the Palestinians on the other side of the “Green Line” wall that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories are not Israelis, nor do they want to be; whereas black South Africans were being denied basic rights in their own country, where they were the majority. Black South Africans suffered indignities and mistreatment because their low estate was enshrined in law. Those indignities included little or no access to jobs, education, or the basic needs of life; and no representation in government. Israeli Palestinians attend Israeli public schools, have access to jobs, live in any neighborhood they want and can afford, and have representation in the Knesset. Could all of those things improve? Absolutely. But by law, they are equal to Jewish Israelis. The Palestinian problem is occupation, an entirely different animal from apartheid laws. Yes, it is fraught with difficulties and injustice, but it is not a war of a nation’s government against its own citizens, as was the case in South Africa—or now in Syria, to the north of Israel, and against whom there is no Presbyterian BDS movement.
There is a key way this situation is most unlike apartheid, making the comparison is ultimately unfair to both Israelis and South African blacks. South African blacks and “coloured” people’s main and most successful strategy was nonviolence. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and other key leaders of the anti-apartheid movement promoted peaceful, mutual means of resolving their issues. In contrast, Israel has dealt with constant violence from the Palestinian side. Hamas, who by their own charter is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, has taken over the Gaza Strip, and is engaged in a constant mortar barrage into Israel. Suicide bombers and roadside snipers were a constant threat until the Green Line Wall was built.
It is hard for us to believe or understand, but Palestinians, and indeed many throughout the Arab world, are indoctrinated into hating Jews from an early age, through government policies and through their education system. It’s not just in jihadist literature—it’s in the average six-year-old’s textbooks. As Abu Toameh reports, even though Palestinians are one of the most educated populations in the world (something like 90% of Palestinians have college degrees), they are “educated, but we have poisoned the hearts and minds of a generation.” This long-term indoctrination makes it difficult for Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, to negotiate a deal with Israel even though apparently he is willing. “No Arab leader has a mandate to negotiate with Israel,” Abu Toameh says. “Abbas has tied his own hands by saying that anyone who negotiates with Israel is a traitor.” Between Abbas’ powerlessness, and Hamas’ stated goal to destroy Israel, there appears to be “no partner for peace with Israel.” “[Palestinians] need to prepare for peace with Israel rather than demonizing them,” Abu Toameh warns.
There Are Wrongs That Need to be Righted…
In my previous article, I wrote about the ways that boycotting, divesting, or sanctioning Israel are a bad idea for achieving Middle East peace. In real terms, I don’t know how seriously a PC(USA) decision to support—or not support—the BDS movement will have any affect on peace between Palestine and Israel. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant, of course. One pro-divestment writer in Outlook observes that saying divestment does not work “is like saying integrity does not work” (Devoe, “Divestment: Myth and Fact,” Outlook, May 12, 2014, p. 12). His point is that if something is wrong, we are morally obligated to stand against it. I agree. There is injustice in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory that needs to be challenged. Presbyterians should support and promote an end to the occupation and the right of Palestinians to their own state, with secure borders.
Furthermore, with its tacit approval of settler activity and evident ambivalence about the peace process (which once again they’ve recently withdrawn from), it’s fair to ask if the Netanyahu government is seriously committed to the Two State Solution that has been the official Israeli position for four administrations.
…But is Divestment the Way to Do It?
But there are two questions worth asking. One is, why does Israel particularly deserve this treatment—which previously has only been applied to South Africa—but not other nations with far worse human rights records? Another is, is BDS the best that way we, the PC(USA), can take a stand which leads to peace with justice, consistent with our faith? My answer to the second question is an unequivocal “no.”
My biggest concern is that if the PC(USA) supports the BDS Movement, it will undermine whatever ability we have to play an effective role as a peacemaker in the Middle East. We’ve debated this at every General Assembly since 2004. At that time, American Jews felt blindsided. Previously, they’d viewed Presbyterians as their closest Christian relationship. Now they view us with suspicion, anger, and disappointment.
If Not BDS, Then What?
Realistically, a positive role for peace the PC(USA) could play would be in influencing and perhaps even partnering with American Jews to promote a negotiated solution, and perhaps building bridges of understanding between them and Palestinians. According to Outlook, the Pew Forum reports that 48% of American Jews do not believe that “the current Israeli government is making a sincere effort to bring about a peace settlement,” whereas 38% do. Effective partnership could go far to create a US Jewish majority putting pressure on the Netanyahu government for peace. Presbyterians have, of course, good relationships with Palestinians, and those should remain intact; but again, opportunities for building bridges between them and Israelis are sorely compromised by the position we’ve taken. We may never be viewed as honest brokers.
There are many joint Israeli/Palestinian projects in the Middle East, not only dialogue and relationship-building, but business enterprises as well. Presbyterians for Middle East Peace promotes participation and support in such projects, including investing in joint business projects, or in progressive Palestinian projects, such as the city of Rawabi in the West Bank, as a way to promote a more positive agenda for peace.
Right now, Secretary of State John Kerry is working hard to accomplish a two-state settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Presbyterians should be proactive in support of this effort. It’s the stated goal of both sides, but obviously there’s still a ways to go to accomplish it. This is a policy most Presbyterians can support. We do well to keep ourselves on friendly terms with all sides, rather than demonizing one side or the other, and thus build bridges of understanding and cooperation. By doing so, perhaps we can play a positive role in the most important and intractable problem on the world stage today.
Let’s Be Presbyterian About This
We’ve chosen sides in situation where no one is clearly wearing the white hat. This compromises a key value of Presbyterians: we seek, as the Confession of 1967 emphasized, to be a reconciling community. But that is not the role we’re playing here.
It’s also not a role we’re playing within our own denomination. Many US Presbyterians support Israel without much reservation and find our church’s debate on this matter confusing and alienating. That doesn’t mean they aren’t sympathetic to the Palestinian side, but they tend to view it as a two-sided issue. Any good community organizer will tell you that if you can’t organize your base, you can’t accomplish your goal. Finding common ground internally is a key to effective policy externally. I can’t speak authoritatively to this—I don’t have statistics—but I don’t think the BDS position has the backing of most Presbyterians. The BDS debate is definitely hurting us with American Jews. Most of all, it is undermining our ability to play the role to which God has called us: to be reconciling community. That is a role all Presbyterians can agree on. Let’s stop choosing sides and start building bridges.