The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy advises that Item 11-26 be disapproved.

Rationale

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the commonly phrased moral law that is grounded for Christians in Jesus’ summary of the commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

The basic truth in Palestine and Israel is that this is not happening.

The basic concern with this overture is that it seeks to split this moral perception of how a relatively powerless people is being treated from the means by which the church can help move the situation towards fairness. The overture calls for balance in a situation that is not balanced, and it seeks to silence the church’s witness for peace and the justice necessary to achieve it. At the same time, General Assemblies have since 1948 been in favor of achieving a fair balance between Palestinians and Israelis, consistently supporting the two-state solution, opposing terrorism in all its forms (using the FBI definition, in fact), and applying human rights standards in an even-handed (even Presbyterian) manner.

Like all real-life struggles for justice, the situation has complexity, which the church has never addressed in a “unilateral” manner. There are two main stories of victimization, Jewish and Arab or Israeli and Palestinian, narratives that in the minds of extremists make legitimate the taking of land, lives, and livelihoods. (The team writing this memorandum includes the son of a holocaust survivor: we understand something of the force of that experience on the U.S. Jewish community in particular as it influences support for Israel’s policies). Part of the complexity is that violence does not always involve overt force: in 1997, for example, the assembly called “for greater attention to the underlying causes of tension, conflict, and violence in the Middle East, realizing that violence will not cease until the causes are appropriately addressed.”

There are multiple political perspectives, from the support for settlements and “transfer” of all Arabs out of a claimed biblical Israel, to the denial of Israel’s right to exist and the use of terror against its occupying power. Both sides demonize each other, but this is not an adequate reason not to seek reconciliation. The overture never mentions the fundamental fact of the occupation of Palestine, nor the constant expansion of settlements and economic strangulation, nor even the “suppressive” measures of the Israeli government that contribute to further the de-Christianization of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth (example: “Christians Harassed in Jerusalem during Orthodox Easter Celebrations,” April 26, 2008, www.miftah.org).

The Presbyterian church’s long and steadfast role as a witness for justice and peace is, for some, illegitimate due to the history of Christian anti-Semitism in which we as Christians are implicated. However, it has long been the position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that the commitment “never again to participate in, to contribute to, or [insofar as we are able] to allow the persecution or denigration of Jews or the belittling of Judaism” (1987) must be joined with the commitment to seek peace and pursue it. Neither of these two commitments is optional, nor can we sacrifice one for the other. This is not one-sidedness.

The last two hundred plus years of our Reformed history, in fact, give us many examples of resisting authoritarian power and at the same time standing up for toleration and religious liberty. The fundamental role of the churches in supporting the concept of universal human rights has also been backed by prophetic action, such as investment pressure for the peaceful end of apartheid in South Africa that involved criticism of policies of Reformed people much like the majority of U.S. Presbyterians. The overture seems to posit that one cannot criticize the policies of a given nation and at the same time fully support its peace and security.

For those in Israel intent on annexing more land unilaterally, and for extremist Palestinians and their allies, it has been good to have no peace process and no unity among the Palestinians. In the eyes of most of the international community, the United States has consistently confused its support for Israel with uncritical silence on policies that have made the possibility of a “two-state” solution virtually inconceivable—especially since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. The “land for peace” option supported by the PC(USA) and many others is fundamentally jeopardized by the virtually completed “security barrier”—fragmenting the West Bank, protecting “Israeli-only” access roads and settlements, and built predominantly on Palestinian land, according to the borders of 1967. To call for a two-state solution without addressing the real obstacles to it is hypocrisy. In this regard, the debate within Israel itself is far more vigorous and multisided than it is in the United States, and the word, “apartheid,” is increasingly used to denote the reduced situation and prospects of the Palestinians.

The overture mischaracterizes a number of positions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and interprets other developments in highly questionable ways:

1.   The statement of the 217th General Assembly (2006) did not reverse the position of the 216th General Assembly (2004); it clarified the full process of corporate engagement through which any divestment recommendation would be made. That 2006 assembly clearly stated that the church would not profit from corporate activities that do not serve the cause of peace. As for “singling out” Israel, the church has since 1972 addressed corporate responsibility issues in many countries and has divested of its holdings in a variety of human rights violators, nuclear arms manufacturers, and others over the years.

2.         The 217th Assembly (2006) also received a report on the very limited economic prospects of the occupied territories, given literal obstacles to regular communication, transportation, electricity, water, etc. Still, the assembly voted to pursue “positive investment opportunities,” but not at the cost of denying real obstacles, widely recognized by European nations and international bodies seeking to build up the Palestinian economy.

3.   The overture suggests that Hezbollah’s capture of a Jewish soldier was cause of Israel’s invasion and massive bombing of Lebanon, disregarding previous border incursions and the large numbers of Arab combatants and noncombatants held by Israel (for which Hezbollah allegedly sought to bargain). As in that case, it can be argued that it has been the abandonment of a real peace process that has led to the increased radicalization of Muslim groups. In the case of Hamas, Israel initially helped fund the group to offset the influence of Fatah. The group’s rhetoric (and splinter group behavior) deteriorated when the results of a free election were suppressed.

4.   The steady witness of the Presbyterian and other churches has not been “counterproductive,” as it has both encouraged Palestinian moderates, especially in the Christian community, and has helped prompt renewed U.S. efforts for peace, however limited they may be, despite regular allegations of anti-Semitism by defenders of Israel’s occupation.

In evaluating these real differences in approach, commissioners to the General Assembly need to weigh the church’s need for its own voice on matters of justice, the witness of Christians in the Middle East, and the heritage of Jesus and the prophets which invites us, in the Spirit, “to hear the voices of peoples long silenced, and to work with others for justice, freedom, and peace” (The Book of Confessions, Brief Statement of Faith, 10.4, Lines 70-71).

The Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns (ACREC) concurs with the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP)’s advice and counsel.