Lately, I have not found much in the progressive media about the Israel divestment debate being waged largely within the mainline Protestant denominations, especially focussing on the Presbyterian Church. Thankfully, The Nation has weighed in with a comprehensive, subtle and balanced analysis of the issue, The Israel Divestment Debate. I’ve used a non-Nation (Agence Global) site since you can’t access the full article from The Nation site unless you are a subscriber.
What astonishes me is the rabidly hostile reaction of otherwise “progressive” Jewish groups (at least regarding their approach to the Israel-Palestine conflcit) to divestment. You’d think the Presbyterians had just called for Israel to be thrown into the sea. Here’s Rabbis for Human Rights:
IDF-operated Caterpillar armored tractor bears down on lone Palestinian protester (credit: Stop U.S. Military Aid to Israel)Rabbis for Human Rights — a participant in EAPPI [the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel recruits church members to “accompany Palestinians and Israelis in non-violent actions and concerted advocacy efforts to end the occupation] that has engaged in civil disobedience to prevent Israeli authorities from demolishing Palestinian homes and orchards — excoriated the Presbyterians for singling out Israel while ignoring “the homicidal ideologies that have so sadly taken hold among some of our Palestinian neighbors” and the “attempts to destroy our country that transcend the Occupation and precede it by decades.”
And here’s Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Reform Movement:
“What we saw emerge very dramatically following the divestment decision of the Presbyterians is a certain mentality that says the occupation is the root of all evil,” says Yoffie. “We just don’t agree with that.” More fundamentally, says Yoffie, that mindset often minimizes terrorism. “They are very quick to use the word ‘evil’ when they apply it to the occupation, but they didn’t apply the word ‘evil’ to terror…. There’s simply no moral calculus that could reasonably lead to that conclusion.”
Yoffie should know better. The Occupation IS the root of all evil in the I-P conflict. If he wasn’t so ticked off by Christians assaulting Israel (at least in his own mind) he’d recognize that. And how can it possibly be that the Protestants don’t “apply the word ‘evil’ to terrorism.” That seems a preposterous assertion & I’m certain it is false. Just goes to show you that even erstwhile progressives like Reform Jews are bellowing like a gored ox.
Two progressive groups I otherwise believe in & admire–American Friends of Peace Now & Brit Tzedek–apparently turned thumbs down on divestment. I’m sure they did so because they’re frightened that it will entirely destroy their credibility to lobby within the mainstream Jewish community.
That being said, I do have some problems w. pro-divestment Jews quoted in the article:
For Jeff Halper, head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and an American-born Israeli Jew…even liberal Jews like Yoffie and groups like Americans for Peace Now are obstacles to peace, he says. “Both the liberals and the super-pro-Israel people see themselves as the gatekeepers of Israel. They resist criticism of Israel and of course criticism from Christians, even progressive Christians…. Liberal Jews are critical of Israel in a general way, but when it comes to taking a real stand, for example with divestment — saying, ‘Look, this occupation is evil’ — they tend not to go there.”
While I’m certainly critical of progressive Jewish responses to divestment–to say that they are “obstacles to peace” is ridiculous overstatement. They are certainly wrongheaded, but there’s a difference bet. being wrongheaded & being an obstacle to peace.
I do however, agree with the mainstream Jewish community’s criticism of the Palestinian allies of the Presbyterian church:
Sabeel‘s “Principles for a Just Peace in Palestine-Israel” does state that “the ideal and best solution has always been to envisage ultimately a bi-national state in Palestine-Israel.” PC(USA) Middle East liaison Victor Makari shares this vision, telling the Jerusalem Report that his “preferred solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a shared democratic state.”
Divestment proponents say that for Jewish leaders to cry foul over alliances with Palestinian Christians who allegedly reject Israel’s legitimacy and a two-state solution is hypocritical, given their own alliance with Christian Zionists who reject the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to any part of what they consider Jewish land. “The institutional alliances with groups both Jewish and Christian, from the Zionist Organization of America to Pat Robertson, that reject out of hand the right of Palestinians to have their own state, are simply never questioned,” says Surasky.
It does the Presbyterians’ cause no good to be affiliated w. any Palestinians who do not support a 2-state solution. Neither the Jewish community nor most of the rest of the world support a one-state, or bi-national solution to the conflict. And trying to throw back in the Jewish community’s face that it makes alliances w. evangelicals who detest Palestinians just muddies the waters.
Take me for example, I support divestment. I oppose the Zionist alliance w. Christian Zionist evangelicals. I also support a 2 state solution. So what do the Presbyterians have to say to me on this score? Nothing, it appears.
Mr. Silverstein,
Once again I’m guilty of naivte thinking that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and Olmert’s plans of further West Bank relinquishment in addition to whatever necessity dictates, would shore up some decent PR. Seemingly it is all but forgotten at least in the minds of the Presbos.
Complaints about Israel’s unilateral initiatives could be deserving of scrutiny but severe economic pressure through divestment and sanctions?
Your quote “And how can it possibly be that the Protestants don’t “apply the word ‘evil’ to terrorism.” That seems a preposterous assertion & I’m certain it is false.”
How are you certain? Is there actual documentation from the Presbos condemning Palestinian terrorism as evil or you professing certainty and making assumptions just to avoid cognitive dissonance? Sorry if that comes across as rude or nasty – it’s unintentional; just attempting a rhetorical question.
While the analogy may have it’s limitations, I’m reminded of a remark made by some activist from the International Solidarity Movement that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza makes it harder for the ISM to get velocity going in their protests. In other words, with a diminishing number of obstacles to peace, how can the ISM present and forward what’s likely a quite sinister agenda cloaked in the external visage of justice and human rights?
Tagging Peace Now’s intransigence on jumping the divestment bandwagon as some kind of cheap PR stunt to keep them in the mainstream loop sounds more like a gratuitous jab than an unbiased analysis. So now they’re in agreement with more conservative groups on a specific line item, that means ipso facto they’re exercising ulterior motives? And this defense is from someone who disagrees with them probably more often than otherwise.
Furthermore, is it so simple to separate the wheat from the chaffe regarding the Presbos affiliation with extremists like the Sabeel center? It’s almost as if you dismiss their affiliation as just an obscure curio or afterthought?
Personally I can’t help but find their intentions to be suspect considering that they participate in the bait and switch missionary work more often associated with the likes of Southern Baptists and other right-wing churches. Their missionary center falsely advertised as “Temple Beth Avodah” in Philadelphia is Exhibit A.
One could counter that the Evangelcals do the same thing, claim support of Israel and have captured the hearts of (too) many in the Jewish community; so how come no one complains about them? For what it’s worth, I publicly voice that getting cozy with the Evangelicals and their ilk is sheer folly mostly because of their covert missionary stuff. If anyone of a more “progressive” stripe feels this way as well, then they shouldn’t let the Presbos off the hook either.
Hello,
It seems as though your RSS feed is down at the moment. Any ETA on when it’ll be back?
B’shalom,
Casey Sheldon
It seems self-evident to me. Since it is not to you, I will try to do some research to get a more definitive answer for both of us.
Whoever said that is imo pretty dim. Gaza withdrawal is a first step. Perhaps the end of the beginning to quote Churchill. Not until there is full, final & mutually agreed upon peace bet. both parties will there no longer be a need for peace activists to get involved in this issue. And I’d love to see the day this happens (peace that is).
No, I didn’t say “cheap PR stunt,” you did. It is pragmatic political calculation on their part. IMO a purely moral calculation would allow one to approve of divestment (which is why I do). But they are trying to impact the mainstream American Jewish (and Israeli) community. Divestment is currently a detested position by the mainstream leadership (which remember is far more conservative than most American Jews). If you want to retain credibility, APN & BT calculate that you must sacrifice this position for the sake of pragmatic politics. While I regret this “calculation” on their part, I don’t berate them for it & certainly don’t see them as obstacles to peace as Jeff Halper does. I understand that politics is a delicate business & that Mideast politics is some of the most delicate in the world.
There are ‘extremists’ & then there are EXTREMISTS. There are dangerous extremists like Islamic Jihad or Al Qaeda. And then there’s the Sabeel Center. I’m only prepared to concede that their embrace of a bi-national state is an extreme position. I’m not prepared to concede that the entire organization & its other positions are extreme as well. I’d have to know more about it before making such a sweeping determination.
Not sure what you mean. My blog is full of jeremiads against Christian evangelicals who support the Israeli hard right. I do nothing but complain about them. And this Nation article to which I link above mentions (if I recall my source correctly) that Abe Foxman had a big mtg. w. Eric Yoffie of the Reform movement & other bigwigs to discuss the ill winds blowing our way fr. out alliance w. evangelicals. So I think at least part of the mainstream leadership is becoming more aware of the danger they pose to Jews (& possibly Israel?). But they sure better wake up quick because those evangelicals can do a lot of damage fast (witness Pat Robertson’s idiotic comment about Sharon being punished w. a stroke for giving up the Land).
It’s working again. Thanks!
Keep up the wonderfully informative posts!
B’shalom,
Casey Sheldon
Please let me clarify since it was too vague regarding “how come no one complains about them?” This was an expected retort on your part regarding the potential hypocrisy of those (usually of a more conservative leaning) who would voice complaints about the Presbos’ covert missionary work but remain silent when the Evangelicals do the same thing since the latter are pro-Greater Israel. I was attempting to be proactive. While submitting a complaint on the part of the Presbos bait ‘n switch missionary stuff, I didn’t want you to assume that I’m of the type who purposefully turns a blind eye to likewise behavior on the part of the Evangelicals since the latter are pro-Greater Israel or whatever.
Hope that provided some clarity.
Putting aside the remark of “cheap publicity stunt” regarding Peace Now’s refusal to participate in pro-divestment activism, I still think your being unduly harsh in accusing them of selling out. Granted, you likely have a greater command of interpreting their nuances, but from my point of view this is a breath of fresh air; that their tactical approach is more the result of ideology than being held to ransom by intriguing (and in this case hopefully ephemeral) trends.
Your take on the ISM’s statement about the Gaza withdrawal:
“Not until there is full, final & mutually agreed upon peace bet. both parties will there no longer be a need for peace activists to get involved in this issue.”
Considering the ISM has kept suspicious contact with suicide bombing terrorists, one need not get too hasty in tagging them a “peace group”. Support for Palestinian rights, statehood, etc does not ergo make one a “peace activist”. Al-Qaeda for example.
“The Occupation IS the root of all evil in the I-P conflict.”
Hardly! The “original sin” of Israel – refusing to allow 700,000 Palestinians to live in their own homes – is just as egregious, if not worse. Your continued embrace of a so-called 2 state “solution” is neither realistic or grounded in anything resembling a humanist tradition. When Israel is a nation of all of its citizens, when it applies the law of Return without ethnic distinction, when it returns to the humanism articulated by Prophet Hillel the Elder, on that day Israel will truly be a Jewish state.
@ Tom Hayes: Did you note when this post was written? 2006. Seven years ago. I’d urge you to read my more recent posts about BDS and two state solution. My views have developed since 2007.