Earlier this month, the 493 delegates to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA adopted a series of deeply troubling “overtures” (their term for policy statements).
The General Assembly defeated an attempt to cut off funding for “messianic” congregations, which target Jews for missionizing and conversion. It condemned the Israeli security fence and, in an overture supporting the Geneva peace accords, called for exploration of divestment from some companies doing business in Israel.
These statements reveal a chasm separating the Jewish community and the Presbyterian Church USA. But however tempting it may be to entrench ourselves behind defensive and divisive rhetoric, we must strive to mend bridges rather than burn them for the sake of Israel, of our long-standing friendship with the Presbyterians and of our common values and concerns.
Sadly, with one important exception, none of these gestures is new. PC-USA, like many of the mainline Protestant denominations, claims to be “even-handed” in its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yet, by equating terrorist acts committed against innocent civilians with legitimate Israeli military actions, church leaders ignore the security on which Israel depends. One can be a critic of particular policies of the Israeli government, or of specific terror-fighting tactics, without falling into the trap of moral equivalency.
What is new, and most troubling, is the consideration of divestment. PC-USA has set a double standard by singling out Israel for economic and political sanctions.
Where is the PC-USA overture on holding accountable Palestinian Authority officials who facilitate terrorism through misuse of Palestinian and international funds? Where is the demand for political reform in the P.A.? Where are the overtures toward divesting from countries guilty of far greater human rights abuses than Israel: Myanmar, North Korea, China, Iran?
It has long been known by doves in Israel and their supporters around the world that the more economically and militarily robust Israel felt itself to be, the more willing it was to take risks for peace.
An Israeli economy weakened by divestment undercuts that willingness, and if shaped to include military contractors, divestment could weaken Israel’s security.
Although I know that many within PC-USA earnestly seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict, its endorsement of divestment threatens to destabilize the dynamics that are indispensable to a real peace process.
Some in our community have called for ending all dialogue with Presbyterians. I believe that is the wrong response. We need a renewed dialogue that would occur on two levels.
On the national level, we need to reach out to the leaders of the PC-USA and explain to them, without rancor or disdain, that the repercussions of their actions belie their stated support for Israel and deter progress towards peace.
On the local level, synagogues need to reach out to Presbyterian churches in their communities and embrace a dialogue around Israel that will be difficult and may not lead to complete agreement, but is essential.
Part of that difficulty will be responding to these gestures in a firm and critical manner without resorting to exaggeration or distortion. For example, PC-USA’s overture did not, as one national Jewish organization claimed, “call Israel a racist, apartheid state.” Such distortions distract from the sincerity and effectiveness of our response.
To address the immense criticism facing their endorsement of divestment, PC-USA clarified that “the assembly’s action calls for a selective divestment, and not a blanket economic boycott, keeping before us our interest in Israel’s economic and social well-being.”
While welcoming that clarification, it is now our job to explain that divestment in any degree threatens the existence of Israel and the prospects for peace in the region.
And it is our job to ensure that PC-USA lives up to its promise to keep Israel’s well-being not only in their words but in their deeds. Only through honest and sustained dialogue can this be achieved.
We must have the resolve to reach out across the chasm to our Presbyterian neighbors. We must do whatever we can to assure that, where the Presbyterians have gotten it wrong, they will work with us to get it right.
Mark J. Pelavin is the director of the Commission on Interreligious Affairs of Reform Judaism and the associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Loading ...