“Why I Am Opposed to the PCUSA Position on Divestment in Israel”

By the Rev. Rebecca Kuiken
June 1, 2005
First Presbyterian Church
Portland, Oregon

Rev. Rebecca Kuiken is pastor of Stone Church of Willow Glen, a Presbyterian congregation in San Jose, California and vice moderator of the San Jose Presbytery. A graduate of the University of Oregon, Kuiken attended Harvard Divinity School and the San Francisco Theological Seminary.

I am opposed to the divestment policy of the PCUSA. I – and you – can be opposed to divestment AND supportive of the human rights of the Palestinian people. I – and you – can be opposed to divestment AND critical of policies in Israel with regard to the occupied territories. In conversations regarding the Middle East, there are frequently not black/white, liberal/conservative, pro/anti, up/down positions.  It is why we must all do more homework, even when there are sermons to prepare and people to take care of.

Here are my 4 reasons to oppose divestment

 
REASON #1: GA Action undermines 50 years of PCUSA policy

The General Assembly 2004 action contradicts and undermines 50 years of PCUSA commitment to a two-state solution.

You will remember that the General Assembly divestment decision was adopted as the last of seven recommendations – most of these reiterated previous General Assembly policies. The assembly:

affirmed the right of Israel to live within its own safe and secure borders
affirmed the right of the Palestinians to their own state in which they could also live within safe and secure borders
I have read and heard the words by Vernon and other denominational officials. They say that we are continuing this even-handed fair approach.  In Clifton Kirkpatrick’s July 2004 letter he defended the fairness of the Pause’s position by returning to the previous words and commitments. He cited the 1987 document. He cited the calls in 2002 for Palestinians to stop violence towards the innocents.

It is good thing that we Presbyterians were committed to reflection upon our theological relationship with Jews in 1987. It is a good thing that in 2002 we turned to the Palestinians and said, “stop the violence.”

It is now 2005, however, we cannot point backwards to past “even-handed” commitments – and then place our weight upon the Israeli side of the Middle East teeter-totter alone and call it balanced. I believe, that in doing so, we lose our credible moral voice in this conflict.

If we speak about selective divestment from corporations like Caterpillar, because of its connection with the Israeli government and occupation, should we not also investigate selective divestment from oil companies in Saudi Arabia, and their connection with funding Palestinian terrorism?  Why one and not the other? Why, after years of commitment to not taking sides in the Israeli-Palestine blame game – what has pitched us off track and off course?

In the ten days in Israel, I learned how much Middle Eastern politics and people each have a narrative. Like a string of pearls there are dates and hurts and territories and names. You can reconstruct and re-pearl a history of blame and injustice not just from two sides – Israeli or Palestinian. No, it is far more complicated than that. Imagine you are a secular Jew or a middle of the road religious Orthodox Jew or a New York Jew that came as a settler 30 years ago. Your string of pearls looks different one from the other. Imagine you are an educated Palestinian Christian who stayed within Israel, or a poor Palestinian Muslim whose family left in the 40s, led by the promise of the Arab states that they would win. Imagine you are a second generation Palestinian intellectual raised in the United States providing advocacy.

I, like many people, have found the Middle East conflict complicated because – to continue my jewelry analogy – we want there to be one string of pearls that leads to the one righteous path. We enter conversations equipped with history, geography, names – but there’s never enough information or memory to see clear. Amazon has 5000 books on this conflict. We can’t read them all.

We despair of figuring out the truth -- the shape of the pearl necklace among this person’s distortions and corrections. We despair of locating justice in this person’s stringing of story of pain, blame and tragedy. The narrative string of pearls for each person and side shifts and changes.

One of the people I met in Israel this March was Khaled Abu Toameh, a 20 yearlong journalist who currently works for the Jerusalem Post as their West Bank and Gaza Correspondent. (Please note – Jerusalem Post is a more conservative newspaper than Ha-aretz.) He has produced documentaries for the BBC regarding the FATA corruption of Arafat. He’s worked with NBC as a producer on Palestinian affairs and written for US News and World Report. 

Khaled is one of 1.2 million Arab Israelis. His mother is a West Bank Palestinian. He attended the International Church School, an Anglican school, and Hebrew University. He speaks Arabic, English and Hebrew.

He talked about working at a PLO newspaper – and finding it restrictive because he wanted to be a real reporter and not simply do PR for the PLO. So he has worked largely in the foreign media. 

I trusted his voice. He is an Israeli Arab – one of the so-called second-class citizens of this society. And, with two strong-voiced African- American politicians in our delegation – I want you to know that the sensitivity and issues related to Palestinians was expressed, argued and raised not only with our speakers but between many of us on the bus. 

I asked Khaled about divestment, he said, “If Christians around the world want to help, side with both sides. Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. If you really want to help, don’t be negative. Act as a bridge. Invest in an Internet café in Palestine. Provide money to the people in refugee camps. I wish that Christians would provide more of a bridge between Moslems and Jews.”

So, I conclude with my first reason:

Divestment distracts the PCUSA from its longstanding commitment to an even-handed solution. It is a fallacy to think that we are even-handed when we place the weight of our action and moral sanction on Israel alone.

 
REASON #2: Unbalanced Reading of History

The GA 2004 divestment action states that the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank “has proven to be the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict.”(I am quoting directly here.)

I am opposed to divestment because it attributes evil to Israel alone, based on a narrow reading of history. It places the spotlight of blame and evil to Israel, in ways that distorts the many interconnecting and systemic injustices and issues of the international community.

Here’s what I notice missing when the denomination calls the Israeli Occupation “the root of evil acts.”

First, all too frequently the culpability of the Arabs is ignored. Do you remember when and how the Israeli occupation began? The PCUSA has a truncated reading of the Israeli occupation as if all military action by Israel began in 1967. In 1967 the Arab states surrounding Israel were planning to attack. Israel responded to this act of aggression. It was a war of defense and out of this war Israel “won” these territories … the Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. We can argue that there was a failure on the part of the international community to prevent this Arab aggression, war, and –therefore – Israeli occupation. But Israeli occupation of Gaza and the Golan Heights and the West Bank emerged out of national defense. It was a war, by the way, far more just in terms of international law than several the United States has engaged in recently.

Second, do you believe that the Israeli Occupation alone is the root of evil acts on innocent people? I, like many peacemakers and clergy, Jews, Christian and Muslim, are deeply critical of actions taking place in the occupied territories.
But I share the concern, expressed by Rabbis for Human Rights that our position is “inaccurate and inadequate to explain the situation in all its tragic moral complexity.” In the Bay Area, I am currently participating with a group of Jewish and Presbyterian leaders to talk about our concerns, our differences, and to build bridges of understanding in the aftermath of the General Assembly Action. Recently, we heard from one of the leaders of Rabbi for Human Rights.  They are listed in the PCUSA resources list in the back of the 2002 Church and Society magazine. Interestingly enough, we hear very little about them. Because another group, Jewish Voices for Peace, agrees with divestment – the denominational literature cites this one group frequently to assert that we have a Jewish partner. But clearly, the fact that I am here with you tonight and the fact that many Jewish groups are alarmed by this stance would lead us to wonder where the offense lies.

Rabbis for Human Rights disagree with the denomination’s divestment strategy. Here’s what they say to us:

You passed a resolution directed as a “call…on the Israeli government,” describing the Occupation in a way that profoundly places Israeli sin alone at the heart of the situation While we recognize that you deplore terror against Israelis, you direct no t one word of criticism to the government of the Palestinian Authority despite its manifest multitude of profound sins against God and the Human Rights of Palestinians and Jews. You ignore the incontrovertible fact that this catastrophe is the product of many causes and that there is guilt enough to share between all parties. People of conscience must act in awareness that the singling out, magnifying and sanctifying of Jewish sins has always been at the core of the terrible evil that we know as anti-Semitism. Failing in this awareness, you cross a line that people of good conscience dare not cross. (www.rhr.israel.net)

Rabbis for Human Rights are one of our longstanding Jewish partners in peacemaking. Many live and work in Israel, and are at the frontlines of seeking justice for Palestinians. Their open letter to Ariel Sharon was published in Haaretz criticizing the home demolitions. They work to oppose the route of the security barrier where it unnecessarily expropriates lands, divides villages. RHR helps guarantee Palestinians access to their olive trees and works to coordinate the reduction of violence yet; this left of center group is critical of our actions. I think we need to listen to them and to our Jewish partners in the Reform movement, and many of our partners and heed their concern.

Israelis and Jews around the world are simply not of one mind on the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? My experience with synagogues in America and in conversations and print in Israeli society is that there are many thoughtful soul-searching debates about the occupation. The Central Conference of American Rabbis, a more conservative body, weighed in again when it passed a stern resolution entitled “Discriminatory Administrative Home Demolitions in Israel.”

Indeed there is a far healthier debate in Israel regarding this occupation than one can find within the United States regarding our own international loss of the moral high ground Recently, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union of Reform Judaism wrote, “While we have vigorously defended Israel’s cause, we have also called for measures to end Palestinian suffering” (“RJ”, Spring 2005).

As Christians, it is our duty to read Middle East history with as much accuracy and fairness as possible.  We are responsible for assessing “the problem” and the responsibilities of all the players in the Middle East peace process. To be peacemakers and bridges, should we not go out of our way to hear the criticism of Jews – particular those who share our concerns for justice? Is it not our responsibility to do our best to remedy any unfairness in our position, particularly when it is expressed by previous Jewish partners in Peace?  Should we not work hard to hold hands with Jewish partners in peacemaking, rather than set policies and pronouncements that stand outside and above them?

REASON #3: Anti-Semitism

I am opposed to divestment out of an overriding concern that our Presbyterian house is not in order when it comes to issues of anti-Semitism. Christianity has a deplorable track record when it comes to relationships with Muslims and Jews. It is only within our lifetime that we have begun to explore the deep-seated forms of Christian anti-Semitism. Most of us here have not personally participated in this history, yet it is a history that persists in its capacity to fuel memory, fear and reactivity.

This track record of deplorable and largely unrepented religious, political and social anti-Semitism does not deny Christians the right to speak out or to challenge the behavior of any nation that is acting unjustly. However, it does call for us to recognize our role in history – and to pay attention to the measure and balance in our actions.  We would do well to start out any criticisms or pronouncements with an admission and repentance of our participation in spiritual and political triumphalism.

I was appalled last year, when the same General Assembly which voted to explore divestment also voted against attempts to cease funding for the “messianic church” of Avodat Yisrael in a Philadelphia suburb, a church that cloaks itself in Jewish symbols. I am gratified that the funding was later suspended. But the presence, however aberrant, of such a congregation and the initial supportive vote suggests strongly to me that we all have ongoing work to do in our congregations and culture to bring to light the festering places of anti-Semitism. Our people are not clear about the relationship between Christians and Jews. And, in the current theological climate in America, it is critical that take on our teaching role in this area.

While in Israel, Nimrod Barak, a representative of the Foreign Ministry spoke to our group about the “3 D’s of Anti-Semitism.” Delegitimization is the first “d”. It represents perspectives and people who think that Israel and Zionism is illegitimate and that Israel does not have a right to exist. “ Demonization” is the second “d”. The final “d” is “double standard.

To my mind, demonization is of greatest concern in the current divestment issue in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Demonization is a form of anti-Semitism in which we mete out blame – for the Occupation, the Palestinian plight – the evils of the Middle East region overly narrowly. It also occurs as American Presbyterians choose to shine the spotlight of our human rights advocacy continually and harshly on Israel – this small country the size of the bay area. Why Israel and not elsewhere? Why not at home first, before abroad? Should we not equally condemn actions of our own government that violate international law?

In 2004 the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a conservative Christian think tank, released a study of church pronouncements entitled “Human Rights Advocacy in the Mainline Protestant Churches (2000-2003),” written by IRD staff, Erik Nelson and Alan Wisdom. Our denomination, along with 3 others and the National and World Council of Churches were the subject of the study.

As someone whose theology was strongly shaped by liberation theology and the struggles of Central America and the anti-nuclear movement in the 80s, I am not terribly sympathetic toward the IRD. However, I have found, with Dom Helder Camara, that if you disagree with me, you may have something to teach me.

It is in that spirit that I offer some of the IRD’s study results

-  69% of the 197 human rights pronouncements directed criticism toward Israel and The United States

- There was not a single criticism of the Second Intifada or the Palestinian Authority between 2000 and 2003

- Middle East nations other than Israel were not criticized – most notably Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt

- Nations with appalling human rights records were ignored: Sudan, Burma, Laos, China, Somalia

Our silence, as well as our speech can feed the appearance and reality of anti-Semitism:

- Why have we maintained silence toward the complicity of the Arab nations and various Palestinian leaders who maintained the refugee status of the Palestinian people for decades? Why do we give the burden of political and social and economic responsibility to Israel alone?

- Why have we not called for political reform of the Palestinian Authority to combat rampant corruption and limitations on freedom of expression and the press?

- Finally, while our denomination did call for an end of homicide bombings, why were the General Assembly actions not multi-lateral and unequivocal in condemning all parties to the conflict, holding them equally responsible? Why did the GA Action single out Israel and the occupation as the “root of evil acts?

For those of you who would like some thoughtful theological starting places regarding Christianity and anti-Semitism … in a small dose, 4 pages, I would refer you to a Christian Century online, an article written by Robert McAfee Brown in 1988. It is entitled “Speaking About Israel: Some Ground Rules.”

REASON #4: Divestment as a tactic

Finally, I am opposed to the use of divestment, selective and phased, because I disagree that it can achieve the purposes identified by the 1984 General Assembly.

In his article in Church and Society, Bill Somplatsky-Jarmen notes that the 1984 GA identifies two primary ethical purposes for divestment:

1)   As an effective strategy for transforming an intractable situation;

And

2)   The demonstration of integrity in the church’s witness.

I don’t see divestment accomplishing these goals in the situation of Israel/Palestine

First, Middle Eastern politics are perhaps “intractable” – but they are also incredibly volatile. In July 2004 – when the PCUSA voted on exploring divestment – no one could possibly have known what the situation on the ground in Palestine and Israel could be. Yet, we must now live with this exploration for two years.  So, not only is divestment problematic regarding its long-term diagnosis for Middle East Peace (undercutting 50 years of PCUSA policy, demonizing Israel as the sole problem and bearing roots of anti-Semitism) – I don’t believe it can practically keep up with current developments.

When the PCUSA gave this vote. Arafat was alive and Ariel Sharon had not begun his astounding moves towards disengagement.  When I was in Israel in March, David Horovitz, editor of the Conservative newspaper Jerusalem Post noted: “We have a political revolution in Israel at present. Many Israelis believe Abu Mazen is a decent person. People see there’s been a tactical change. And, now with Ariel Sharon moving towards disengagement we have a world turned upside-down. He has become the Prime Minister that he warned against.  There are 1.3 million Palestinians and 8,000 Jews in the Gaza. So, this move toward disengagement is based on 2 reasons:  1) Demographics, 2) Efficiency for Security.

He pointed out the key obstacle to Peace. First, would a coalition cabinet pass the budget or would the whole government collapse? And, would Sharon survive? He pointed out the risks of assassination and the ominous parallels with Rabin – one politician’s charisma being central to the Peace Process.

We went to the Knesset, talked withy two different MP – one from the secular Shinui part, another was the Labour Party leader, who had run against Sharon on a platform that called for disengagement. He was very diplomatic in his gloating, I must add.

The budget (passed later that month)

Second, the concept of divestment is deeply tied to the moral imaginations of most Protestants over 45 with the history of South Africa… where the systemic evil of apartheid called for prolonged and broad tactics.  Despite denominational attempts to minimize its impact, to speak of phased and selective – the talk of divestment as a strategy has deeply scarred Jewish-Presbyterian relations.  We have much to repair.

Third, the church’s integrity in the Middle East calls us to strengthen relationships with Jews and Muslims who renounce religious violence and embrace the rule of law. Divestment without partnership breaks a critical relationship. It undermines the integrity of the church’s witness. While Jewish Voices for Peace has embraced the tactic, other less marginal and more mainstream partners have criticized it. If Jewish partners, who oppose the Occupation and the separation wall, such as Rabbis for Human Rights, do not support selective divestment as an effective strategy for putting pressure on the Israeli government then we should refrain.

SUMMARY
REASON #1              
The General Assembly action contradicts and undermines 50 years of PCUSA commitment to a two-state solution.

REASON #2
It attributes the “root of evil” regarding the Occupation to Israel alone and thereby distorts the locus of injustice – and therefore cures.

REASON #3
Anti-Semitism, particularly in the form of demonization, remains alive and well. pause.

REASON #4
Divestment as a strategy does not achieve the purposes for which it was intended.