Keeping Our Balance in the Middle East

The Issue:
Will the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) act as a true peacemaker in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians? Or will it take a partisan role in the dispute, acting and speaking as if all justice resided on the side of the Palestinians and all blame should be cast upon the Israelis?

The Business Coming to the Plenary Session:
The Peacemaking and International Issues Committee approved three items that are in tension with one another. Items 11-06 and 11-26 are pleas for even-handedness in our dealings with the Middle East, while the committee’s response to Item 11-01 falls prey to the very one-sidedness against which the two other overtures warn.

Item 11-06 asks Presbyterians to “become nonpartisan advocates for peace” and “a voice for the victims of violence in both Israel and Palestine.” It “condemn[s] all acts of violence against innocent civilians” and pledges, “We will avoid taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.”

Item 11-26 is more specific, promising to “defer from taking actions or making statements that align the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with unilateral support for any of the specific parties involved in the struggle.” It also “appeals to the General Assembly Council to ensure that employees, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks abide by these directives.”

The committee’s proposed response to Item 11-01 is based upon a comment by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), one of the General Assembly entities that 11-26 would instruct to refrain from “unilateral support for any of the specific parties.” But this recommendation on 11-01 is thoroughly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel (see below). Moreover, a minority report seeks to torpedo 11-26’s call for balance by answering that item with the unbalanced 11-01 response.   

Presbyterian Action Recommendation:
The assembly needs to choose either balance or pro-Palestinian partisanship as the guiding principle of its Middle East policy. If it seeks balance, then it should approve 11-06 and 11-26 and disapprove the response to 11-01. Or at a minimum, commissioners should delete 11-01’s endorsement of the tendentious Amman Call (see below).

Historical Background:
The 2004 General Assembly mandated “a process of phased selective divestment from multinational corporations operating in Israel.” It was a gesture of protest against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which that assembly judged to be “at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides.” There was no criticism directed against the Palestinian Authority or other Arab governments, and no divestment targeting them. This unbalanced resolution caused uproar in the PCUSA and strained our relations with Jewish neighbors.

The 2006 assembly moved to correct the problem by issuing a new instruction regarding the denomination’s investments. That 2006 instruction directed that “financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits.” The new instruction expressed equal concern for “the stability, future viability, and prosperity of both the Israeli and Palestinian economies.”

But in 2008 the pro-Palestinian advocates have returned with a fresh attempt to slant the denomination’s Mideast policies against Israel.                 

A Closer Look at the 11-01 Response:
The 11-01 committee recommendation starts with bold language, paraphrasing the Barmen Declaration, about “the obligation of the church to speak to the governments of the United States and all other nations where it sees those governments violating the commandments of God.” But what follows seems directed against only one government: Israel’s.

The 11-01 response encourages use of one-sided pro-Palestinian resources such as the Israel-Palestine Network and back issues of Church & Society magazine. It recommends political pilgrimages to the Holy Land that include “significant time in the Occupied Territories (witnessing conditions, helping sustain isolated and impoverished local economies).” There is no provision for spending significant time among the Israeli people and witnessing their struggles for survival.

The response is eager to “continu[e] the process of corporate engagement [leading toward possible divestment] with companies supporting or profiting from the occupation of Palestine and/or other violence in the region.” The two companies named, Caterpillar and Motorola, are both targeted because they sell products to the Israeli military. No corporations are targeted for their business dealings with other nations (e.g., Syria and Iran) that seek Israel’s destruction.

The centerpiece of the 11-01 response is its endorsement of the “Amman Call” that came out of a 2007 World Council of Churches consultation. Consider the sharp slant in this document:

• The Amman Call is obsessed with the Israeli military presence in the West Bank as the root of all evils in the region. In a brief space, it condemns seven times “[t]he illegal occupation [that] has stolen two generations of lives in this tortured place, and threatens the next with hopelessness and rage.” Also denounced are the Israeli security barrier and Israeli settlements in the West Bank. There are no criticisms of the Palestinian Authority or other governments hostile to Israel.
• The call aims at “ending the illegal occupation” and removing the security barrier. It does not request any specific changes of policy on the part of the Palestinian Authority or other neighboring governments. Nor does it reflect on the fact that Israel has already withdrawn its troops unilaterally from South Lebanon and Gaza, and yet civilians in Israel proper have suffered regular rocket attacks by the radical Islamist Hamas and Hezbollah movements.
• The call proclaims “the right of self-determination and the right of return” for Palestinians. But it does not explicitly recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. (It affirms “a two-state solution,” but does not describe the two states.) Indeed, the return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel proper would bring about the demographic drowning of the Jewish state. The Amman document expresses no concern about Sephardic Jewish refugees who fled their previous homes around the Arab world.
• The call contains a section telling how “[w]e have heard the voices of the Christian churches of Israel and Palestine.” These voices invite the Amman signatories to “[r]isk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with us and with our Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths as we defiantly reject the possibility that the occupation will continue.” There is no indication that the signatories had listened to Israeli voices. Nor does the call pledge any solidarity with Israelis in their insecurity.

This WCC document displays exactly the sort of “unilateral support” for one side against which Item 11-26 warns. The balanced 11-26 should be approved, and the biased 11-01 response disapproved.

Presbyterian Action advises against endorsing the one-sided Amman Call.