Let’s get clear what’s at stake. What’s at stake is not clear.
We love our Jewish neighbors. Any lack of love any of us harbors toward any of them is sin. Our faith is rooted in Hebrew soil. Given the long history of Christian mistreatment of Jews, we bear the primary responsibility to rebuild trust between our communities.
We support the right of the nation of Israel to live in freedom with safe borders.
We love our Palestinian neighbors. Any lack of love any of us harbors toward any of them is sin. We feel a special affection for our ecumenical partners, the Palestinian Christians. Given that an international concern for justice led the United Nations to grant a homeland to the Israeli people, we bear a corresponding responsibility to promote justice for the Palestinians displaced from much of that land.
We support the rights of the Palestinians to live in freedom with safe borders.
We believe that reasonable borders for Israeli-Palestinian co-existence were established in 1948. Those borders were extended by war in 1967. Some dispensationalist Christians promote an unbiblical form of militant Israeli imperialism that would extend those borders even further. We reject that.
Israelis feel threatened by some of their Arab neighbors, especially the Iranians, the Syrians, and the Iraqis. They feel threatened by Palestinian terrorists, whose suicide bombings have destroyed many lives and afflicted the nation with apprehension. They worry that the new Hamas government, which has not recognized Israel’s right to exist, will intensify the conflicts.
Palestinians feel threatened by the Israeli government, whose military strikes them with overwhelming power whenever they choose. Israel’s separation barrier limits movement of Palestinians that cripples their economy and government. The recent decision of the Israeli government to deny economic support in the occupied territories is exacerbating the poverty afflicting the Palestinians, especially those living in refugee camps.
As Americans we have every right to challenge the actions of our closest international allies, especially those to whom we give substantial foreign aid, and all the more when it affects their treatment of minorities within their borders.
As Christians we have every reason to speak a prophetic word of justice and mercy to persons of faith in other parts of the world.
Appeals from General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which have urged both Israelis and Palestinians to treat one another decently and honorably, have largely gone unnoticed for decades. When, at the 216th GA (2004), those appeals turned into a call to divest funds from corporations that support violence and conflict in Israel and Palestine, that appeal led to huge outcry, first from pro-Israeli organizations, then by many Presbyterians.
Our voice has been heard, appreciatively so by Palestinians and many Presbyterians. However, the outcry from so many Jewish friends and so many of our churches reveals a huge divide within our church’s fellowship. And the internal reaction to our official action has not only blunted its cut; it has wounded interfaith fellowships of Presbyterians and Jews in our country.
How shall this year’s GA commissioners respond to this situation?
First, given the massive changes that have unfolded there, it behooves us to form a study group that will revisit and update our social witness policy regarding Israel (last updated in a 1997 resolution). An appointed task force composed of a broad range of Presbyterians could be resourced by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy and would hear testimony from a range of opinions of Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs. They could generate new understandings and fresh ideas for our engagement in that complicated part of the world.
Second, the MRTI committee should continue its conversations with the five identified corporations that fit the existing criteria for divestment. But let the Assembly call off, at least for the next two years, any plans to divest funds. Let any such action be decided by the 2008 GA in concert with the new policy update.
Third, if the commissioners find some merit in those TTFPUP recommendations that call for utilizing mutual study and deliberation of theological controversies, then let them direct presbyteries to form theological reflection groups to tackle this subject. Let the ACSWP and the new task force provide resources. Is it conceivable that a consensus could arise from the grassroots that would produce bold initiatives? We will never find out if we don’t try.
Make no mistake about it. Many positive values are at stake. What has been cast as a win-lose situation could become a win-win-win-win-win situation with some courageous leadership, guided by the Spirit of God.
