In the course of a critique of the World Council of Churches, the 2007 "Amman Call" and the 2009 "Kairos Palestine Document," the rabbis had these two paragraphs about our denomination:
The Kairos document quickly won accolades from religious groups including from the Presbyterian Church (USA), which has 2.3 million American members and in 2004 was the first mainline American Protestant group to call for divestment from Israel.
This past February, its Middle East Study Committee announced that it would urge the U.S. government to "employ the strategic use of influence and the withholding of financial and military aid" from Israel. While conceding Israel's right to exist, it appended an apology to Palestinians. In the words of one committee member, recognizing Israel's right to exist "is to give Israel a pass on the way Israel was created and denies the legitimacy of the Palestinian people."
If I had a chance to engage them, I would clarify that the 2004 action of our General Assembly called for engagement with companies that may be contributing to the suffering of people in Palestine, wth a possible recommendation on divestment at some point in the future. (It hasn't happened yet.)The reaction and dialogue which the GA action produced have actually brought many Presbyterians and Jews into deeper dialogue, while leaving our Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee frustrated with Caterpillar, Inc.. Last summer's GA (while recognizing Caterpillar's "positive leadership," donation of "considerable resources and equipment" to help with development and disaster relief, improvement of workplace safety, and environmental action) approved a statement that:
- "strongly denounces Caterpillar’s continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of a number of its products on the basis of Christian principles and as a matter of social witness;" and
- "Calls upon Caterpillar to carefully review its involvement in obstacles to a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine, and to take affirmative steps to end its complicity in the violation of human rights."
- rejected immediate divestment from Caterpillar.
I would point out that the Middle East Study Committee's report was a product of an under-funded and time-pressured group of 9 diligent Presbyterians from a variety of perspectives. (I know three of them personally: Susan Andrews, Lucy Janjigian and Byron Shafer. I can vouch for their integrity and sincerity.) The report created a firestorm of reaction when it came out, not only from Jews but from many Presbyterians as well. I had a lengthy discussion with my friend Rabbi Joel Schwab in Middletown, and we attended a discussion on the topic at Temple Shaaray Tefila in Bedford Corners.
I'd correct the citation on withholding military aid, which actually called on the U.S. government "to exercise strategically its international influence, including the possible withholding of military aid as a means of bringing Israel to compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts."
The comprehensive 2010 General Assembly report on the Middle East was the first since 1997. The paper calls for:
- An immediate cessation of all violence, whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians;
- The reaffirmation of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions;
- The end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories;
- An immediate freeze on the establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and on the Israeli acquisition of Palestinian land and buildings in East Jerusalem;
- And many other steps toward peace in the region.
I'd point to the New York Jewish Week, which headlined the Presbyterian action last summer in this way: "Presbyterians Approve Softer Middle East Report, Reject Divestment."
My personal opinion is that while ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories will not bring sweetness, light, and peace, it is an essential step. These are complex and longstanding conflicts, not to be solved with any single or simple solution. I don't know that it's possible to frame the discussion to say who sinned first, or what led to what. I'm opposed to killing and threats to kill, no matter who or why. I would as vehemently fault the violent anti-Israel rhetoric of Iran, Hamas, etc. as the violent anti-Palestinian words of some who advocate for Biblical boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. I am always willing to engage in discussion, and to provide background for any who want to know what Presbyterians have actually said and done on these or other matters.
--Jack Lohr, Interim Pastor
No comments:
Post a Comment