In July, 2004, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) initiated a process of phased, selective divestment from companies supporting the Israeli occupation. In doing so, they triggered a flurry of activity from mainline Protestant churches scrambling to deal with an issue that not only forces tough theological decisions, but ensures considerable ecumenical, political and theological consequences.
Jewish organizations and supporters of Israel have fired back. Thirteen U.S. congresspersons sent a letter claiming that the resolution, "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and that it undermines peace by "emboldening those who seek to de-legitimize the State of Israel."1 The churchs Stated Clerk Clifton Kirpatrick responded to this letter strongly, suggesting that the resolution is a result of Congress failure "to be an ally or a balanced arbiter in the negotiations for peace in the region."2
All of this activity has brought new energy into Christian dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The World Council of Churches officially encouraged its members to consider economic methods directed at the occupation in February of 2005, and the Anglican Church, Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ are all considering divestment.
Church and Jewish groups were clearly caught unprepared, the Presbyterian decision arriving in the middle of several failed campus divestment campaigns. Though the debate sometimes focuses more on Christian-Jewish dialogue than on divestment and the reasoning behind it, Israels illegal occupation can no longer be ignored.
"The elephant is in the room. It has always been in the room," Rev. Jay Rock, the Presbyterian Church (USA)s interfaith relations coordinator says. "Now it has grown so big that we have to talk about it."3
The Elephant
While mainline Protestants do not have the same apocalyptic devotion to the State of Israel that drives Christian Zionists unwavering support for Israeli policy, their focus on social justice and human rights has made them natural allies with the Jewish community as well as advocates for Palestinian rights. For years their calls for Palestinian self-determination have been accompanied by statements affirming Israels right to exist, but so far this has not created significant discussion or change regarding the occupation. Church communities have been reluctant to pursue the issue.
The Presbyterian decision, however, and the debate it has created within Christian circles, indicates a frustration that has been growing for some time. Israels consistent refusal to accept international law and what can only be described as contempt for international attempts to intervene on behalf of human rights has led many to wonder what another statement from the church would achieve.
In his response to the congresspersons letter, Kirpatrick says he is "terribly distressed in the failure of the United States Congress to seek a peaceful resolution to this conflict." But what lies beneath Kirpatricks distress is a greater exasperation at U.S. attempts to guard Israel from any criticism and block international efforts towards peace.
The U.S. has used its veto power in the U.N. Security Council at least 29 times to prevent the passing of resolutions supporting Palestinian self-determination and sanctions against Israel. Requests by the U.N. for independent monitors and peacekeeping forces have been consistently ignored or dismissed.4
Israel is also the largest recipient of cumulative U.S. assistance since World War II, when Israel was created, with current annual assistance at roughly $3 billion.5 Though U.S. policy states that the funds are not allowed to be used in the occupied territories, the money is not tracked and there have been several cases in which Israel has been suspected of using the money for illegal activities.
Because of the U.S.s economic and political protection, and because Israel insists that the U.S. maintains a primary role in any diplomatic initiatives for peace, the U.S. is responsible for its failure to bring pressure on Israel, to reduce settlement expansion, or to prevent Israels military dominance from unilaterally preempting final resolutions.
In 1992, the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC stated, "It is doubtful the U.N. has any useful role in solving the Arab-Israeli dispute,"6 and to this day Israel continues to leverage its support from the U.S. against widespread international anger at Israels occupation. By undermining international bodies such as the U.N. and the International Court of Justice, Israel and the U.S. have frustrated peace-minded people all over the world. It is this frustration that Kirpatrick is referring to when he directs his response to the congresspersons.
The interest in divestment can also be attributed to developed relations in the region. By reaching out to Palestinian Christians, churches in the U.S. have been able to improve their understanding of life under occupation. Many who were present at the Presbyterians 2004 General Assembly have indicated that Mitri Raheb, a Palestinian Christian from Bethlehem, was particularly convincing in his support for the resolution.
Participation in programs such as EAPPI, a World Council of Churches initiative that places internationals with Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers, has also strengthened these ties. Their reports and news of their activism has helped lobby the World Council of Churches and, by extension, the many member churches in the U.S.
These local contacts have been crucial in informing American church bodies of the realities on the ground in the occupied territories and breaking fundamental misperceptions of the conflict. This increased awareness of the conflict, combined with the U.S.s continued failure to address fundamental issues, has supported the move to divest and helped the Presbyterian Church (USA) resist pressure to abandon tangible efforts to end the occupation.
In all of the controversy that has been stirred up, its worth remembering that the Presbyterian resolution was passed in a 431-62 vote. Thats an 87% majority in favor of a phased, selective divestment from corporations profiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This majority, as well as the quick embrace of a debate on divestment from other churches, is a clear indication that the "elephant in the room" has been sleeping on our couch for some time.
The Effect
Now that divestment is being put on the table, advocates for an end to the occupation need to make clear to church communities what can be gained from divestment.
The phased, selective divestment that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has chosen holds several benefits. Though shareholder activism is unlikely to significantly impact a corporations behavior, the selectivity of the divestment helps to highlight the worst practices of the occupation.
This process of identifying problem companies will focus attention on many of the policies of the occupation that are often ignored. A divestment from Caterpillar, for instance, can educate the public about home demolitions. Divestment from settlement products will help people understand the massive proliferation of settlements and the territorial ruptures they create in a contiguous West Bank. By developing strict divestment criteria, the church will require closer scrutiny of the occupation itself.
In divesting, church communities stake a claim �" a personal responsibility �" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that statements have so far failed to create. The nature of divestment as a tangible practice forces communities to discuss the conflict, internally and externally, in the sort of direct terms that have been avoided in the past. It will take work, however, to keep the debate focused on equitable solutions and moral obligations, and away from polarizing rhetoric.
Many opponents are attacking any divestment move as a blanket rejection of Israel. This misrepresentation seeks to move the debate away from the Israeli occupation and onto the Christian-Jewish relationship. But proponents of divestment can prevent this distortion by emphasizing the selective targeting of divestment campaigns and consistently reinforcing the realities of occupation.
The effects of this dialogue centered on the conflict can be far-reaching. The response from the Presbyterian decision is evidence of this, and as more churches get behind divestment, a crucial reframing of the conflict can occur.
In the U.S., the dominating perspective of the conflict inverts the balance of power between Israelis and Palestinians. This misunderstanding is not so common throughout much of the world. For several reasons that are beyond the scope of this article, the U.S. public views Israel as the greater victim of violence, despite the fact that Palestinians are killed in numbers three times greater than Israelis.
Israels military control of the occupied territories is rarely explained or understood by the U.S. public. Except in cases of extreme abuse, such as the home demolitions in Rafah in 2004, the American public is not informed of the daily intrusions, abuses and humiliation that the occupation imposes on the Palestinian people. In addition, the effects of ongoing Israeli military operations, including assassinations, on the civilian population in the occupied territories is almost entirely ignored in the U.S.
As a result, Americans view Israel as a nation under siege instead of a nation undertaking the siege of another people. Those concerned that the rights of Palestinians are being abused are then criticized for a perceived emphasis on Israeli actions, even though Israel is, in fact, the primary perpetrator of violence.
When a church decides to divest, they legitimize these concerns for Palestinian human rights. This legitimization, combined with the process of education that must accompany divestment, is the first step towards recognizing the reality of the Israeli occupation and transforming Americas biased perspective of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Critics
Pro-Israel groups are working to characterize a divestment decision as biased, uninformed and even anti-Semitic, but recent studies by If Americans Knew have revealed considerable pro-Israel bias in mainstream media coverage of the conflict. During the second Intifada, major television networks emphasized Israeli deaths at a rate of 300% to 400%.7
The U.S.s well-documented support of Israel in the face of major international opposition makes it clear where the bias lies. Though this criticism is likely to be very effective for pro-Israel groups, there is so much available information to the contrary that there is little left to do but point people in the right direction. More reasonable critics of divestment, however, have brought up concerns that should be addressed.
Peace Now, a left-wing Israeli organization, has come out against divestment, and much of the press coverage has used this organization to insinuate that divestment is a radical move. What is not often said about Peace Now, however, is that they are a Zionist organization who seeks an end to the occupation primarily to retain the Jewish nature of Israel. They are unwilling to admit Israeli responsibility for the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967, unwilling to compromise on Jerusalem, and interested in retaining major settlement blocks in the West Bank. As a result, they refuse to work with Palestinians as equals and seek peace not on moral grounds, but for ethnic and political goals that are, at a minimum, segregationist and at odds with Christian ethics.
The head of Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, says that the "immediate response" from Israelis to divestment is "anger and mistrust."8 He also claims that divestment "will not convince Israelis that the occupation is a bad thing."
The churches interest in divestment, however, goes beyond the "immediate response." It is not only about ending the occupation, but also about larger moral problems.
The Israeli occupation is responsible for considerable land confiscation, regular attacks on Palestinian civilians, the isolation of East Jerusalem and many other cities from the West Bank, the maintenance of checkpoints that regularly contribute to Israels growing list of human rights abuses, and the prevention of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
A decision to divest is not only a long-term commitment to developing the proper conditions for peace, but it is also the result of a moral obligation to socially responsible investment of funds �" an obligation that arises directly from the illegal occupation. In working towards a peace with justice in the region, "anger and mistrust" are regrettable but acceptable when they are part of the process of fulfilling this commitment and moral obligation.
Though many people are questioning how effective divestment can be, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, believes that "there could be a domino effect that other churches might ultimately follow. Its a serious threat that we take seriously."9 It is unclear, at this point, how far the recent activity surrounding divestment will spread, but it is clear that churches need to explore new ways of working towards peace, and divestment has proven successful in the past.
Other critics have tried to insinuate that a divestment from Israel, and not a corresponding divestment from other major human rights abusers in the region, is unfair. While these critics consistently de-emphasize Israels own crimes, they are correct in asserting that other countries in the region also abuse human rights.
In making this argument, however, they lose sight of Israels relationship with the United States, preferring to selectively identify Israel as one more nation in the region; this despite the fact that most of their time is spent making the argument that Israel deserves special consideration among nations.
Israel is indeed the target of a special focus in the region, for many reasons. For the purposes of a discussion on divestment, however, the primary reason that the occupation must be singled out is because of its continued reliance on U.S. financial and political support. The U.S., and by extension its citizens and churches, has a particular responsibility for Israels actions, as it is not only a casual supporter, but the primary defender of the occupation.
Another concern has been raised over the timing of divestment. On the part of well-meaning Christians, this concern is primarily the result of a misguided sense of hope. It also serves Israeli interests by deflecting attention from the ongoing hardship of the occupation and postponing the debate while Israel finalizes its control of the West Bank. Christians are certainly called to a sense of hope in all that they do, but in this conflict hope has too often translated into an eagerness to see light around every corner.
There are many interesting things happening now, with the impending Israeli redeployment in Gaza, the election of Abbas and the shifting politics in the occupied territories. These actions should inspire hope, but they must be understood alongside parallel developments, such as the completion of the Wall, the expansion and consolidation of settlements surrounding Jerusalem, and the abandonment of the Road Map. These events make it clear that the conflict is not headed towards peace, but simply a perpetuation of Israeli military ideology: security through violence, peace through domination.
Instead of feeling cautious now, churches should consider divestment to be an act that takes advantage of the moment, a positive contribution to the conflict that supports a Palestinian leadership struggling for reform, and that emphasizes a need to end the occupation before a peace with justice can be attained.
Though mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. have had a long history of advocating for Palestinian rights, it is clear that these efforts have failed to apply enough pressure on Israel. With the Wall winding its way through the West Bank, a unilateral solution is finalizing the abandonment of a Palestinian state, the imprisonment of Palestinians into tiny cantons; the abandonment of Palestinian refugees and of a Jerusalem for everyone, of reconciliation and regional integration. Christian churches concerned with social justice in the region must admit their failure and act now to find new means of working towards a lasting peace.
Footnotes
1 Church
Responds to Congressional Criticism on Divestment
2 Ibid.
3 GAC
authorizes pastoral letter on Assemblys divestment action
4 Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Fmr. Sen. Paul Findley
5 Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, Congressional Research Service
6 Myths and Facts, Bard and Himelfarb, 113, cited in Deliberate Deceptions, Fmr. Sen. Paul Findley
7 Off
the Charts: Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine, If Americans Knew is
a research institute focusing on media coverage of Palestine-Israel
8 Divesting
could harden Israel
on Palestinian issue, groups warn
9 Ibid.