Washington (JTA) — The 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA voted 483-28 to replace its controversial stance on divestment from Israel, adopted in 2004, with a more balanced, nuanced approach.
They said suicide bombing and terrorist attacks are crimes against humanity. They recognized Israel’s right to defend its pre-1967 boundaries with a security barrier. They atoned for the pain caused by their actions of two years ago.
The hard work of pro-Israel activists, along with intense conversations within the church, helped turn a corner. We must heed the lessons learned so that we don’t go back to the same old place. They include:
• Strategy matters. In the end, we knew, this would be a decision Presbyterians must make. We rejected a frontal assault through newspaper ads and editorials, and we didn’t form an alliance of Jews and Presbyterians to take on the church.
Grass-roots dialogue was our approach. We took our case to church leaders in each city and town, trusting that they would continue the conversation within the church.
Through the Israel Advocacy Initiative, the United Jewish Communities and Jewish Council for Public Affairs partnered to conduct research, hold regional advocacy training, take missions and provide consulting and program assistance to communities.
• Coordination counts. The coalition that helped defeat Israel-focused divestment was broad. We started with the religious streams and defense agencies. Eventually more than a dozen national Jewish groups worked together.
• We share goals. We seek the same goals as our Protestant partners — an end to terrorism, two states living side-by-side in peace, an end to suffering.
Divestment, we said, was a distraction, unlikely to affect the parties in the conflict or the companies targeted. Its predominant effect, we explained, is on interfaith relations.
• We have different narratives. More than just disparate understandings of history, we actually put the cart and the horse in a different order.
For pro-Israel advocates, terrorism is the primary obstacle to peace, and Palestinians must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. For most pro-Palestinian advocates, the occupation is the primary obstacle to peace.
• Motivations can be complex. A conflict in the Christian church between liberals and conservatives plays a central role in this debate.
Evangelicals increasingly embrace Israel and Jews, and portray Muslims almost as antichrists. Some liberal Christians view Palestinians as powerless, virtual co-religionists whose plight is paramount.
Pro-Palestinian activists are not automatically anti-Israel. Many want the same two-state solution we seek. Many do not see the same complexities in the conflict that we may, sometimes because we have vastly different sources of information. True, some embrace classical or theological anti-Semitism, but that is far from the prevailing view.
• Passivism and power are the elephants in the room. For many influential people in the church, power is inherently evil and the weak conversely are innocent. “Turning the other cheek,” in their view, leads to peace, and the more powerful party must make the first move.
Israel is viewed as that powerful party, in fact a colony of the world’s only superpower, an America run by evangelical Christians. They see the West Bank security barrier as an offensive and permanent measure. Terrorism is rejected, but often so is Israel’s obligation to defend itself against terrorism.
We view Israel as a nation under constant threat, we see terrorism as a weapon of devious power, and we see the security barrier as a defensive and temporary measure.
• Tone and message matter. Experience has conditioned us to project strength through confrontation. When things get hot, we start talking. This can cause others to stop listening.
Adjusting our tone facilitates dialogue. Silence can signal reflection rather than disagreement. We must give space for legitimate criticism of Israeli practices, just as we criticize some Palestinian actions.
When we talk, we need to lead with our shared goals of peace, rather than making only Israel’s case. We need to understand the depth of Palestinian suffering, express that and commit ourselves to end it. And we must tell others that terrorism is a complete nonstarter for peace.
Notice the order: Peace first.
• Self-resonating messages sometimes fail. History matters. “Justice,” for us, is doing the right thing. For others, “justice” means alleviating the suffering of the weak.
If someone were to lecture you about the suffering of Palestinians before acknowledging Israel’s right to exist or their rejection of terrorism, you might stop listening and start reloading. There is no reason to expect that our inclination toward recitation of lessons on history and Palestinian terrorism won’t lead to the same communication failure.
• At the end of the day, it’s all about relationships and whom you know. We have reached out and had difficult conversations, and we were heard.
We can’t stop here. We must continue dialogue, bringing well-qualified speakers to churches, taking balanced missions, engaging person-to-person, listening, learning and always keeping our eyes on the prize — a day when Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in peace.
Ethan Felson is assistant executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Loading ...