Jewish Groups Criticize Presbyterian Vote To Divest From Israel

By Allan C. Brownfeld

Leaders of the nation’s largest Presbyterian denomination, believing that Israel is denying human rights to Palestinians in the occupied territories, have voted to review their investments in Israel.

With the decision, approved in a 43l-62 vote at the annual General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the church, with nearly three million members, is believed to be the largest institution to join the divestment campaign against Israel. It is the first Christian denomination to do so, according to Sister Patricia Wolfe, executive director of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of 275 Christian denominations. “This now raises the issue,” Wolfe said, “and will cause ICCR to have a discussion.”

Jewish groups have been highly critical of the Presbyterian Church decision. Rabbi Gil Rosenthal of the National Council of Synagogues, the first rabbi ever invited to a Presbyterian General Assembly, was “dismayed.” Rabbi Leonard Thal of the Union for Reform Judaism called the resolution “heavy handed.” Rabbi James Rudin, interreligious adviser for the American Jewish Committee, said the action of the Presbyterians was “a catastrophic disaster.” The Anti-Defamation League sent a letter calling the group’s analogy of Israeli actions to apartheid “unconscionable.”

Editorialized the Oct. 7 Washington Jewish Week: “The church sanctions Israel for violating human rights, but says not a word about nations such as China, North Korea or Syria, where human rights violations are far more egregious than any in Israel...Jewish and mainstream Christian groups have long been allies on many domestic issues, civil rights and social justice among them. We hope for the sake of the nation that this attitude on Israel will not create a rift between the two faith communities. But, if church officials think this kind of action is going to give them a place at the negotiating table, they are dead wrong. Alienating Israel and Jewish leaders is not the way to make your voice heard.”

The Oct. 1 Forward provided this analysis: “Presbyterian leaders insist the divestment decision should not be seen as a blanket condemnation of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. They say it is intended merely as an effective diplomatic tool and is not meant to imply a parallel between the Jewish state and the repugnant apartheid regime in South Africa. But South Africa is the only other country that has faced sanctions of this sort. In a world filled with regimes guilty of tyranny and mass murder on nearly every continent, it is against Israel that the church sees fit to take a stand and speak with the power of the purse. How else can that be read but as singling out of the Jewish state?”

“A half-century of interfaith dialogue and shared struggles appear to have counted for nothing.”

According to The Forward, “Given the circumstances, the divestment movement must also be seen as a reflection of the weakened standing of the American Jewish community in its relations with other faith communities. A half-century of interfaith dialogue and shared struggles for social justice appear to have counted for nothing as the Presbyterian leadership has moved toward its obtuse policy. Church leaders are fully aware of the profound importance of Israel to American Jews as a religious value and a token of pride and identity, yet they did not even bother to consult their longtime Jewish dialogue partners about the matter...Above all, the move toward divestment represents a failure of moral vision on the part of the Presbyterian Church (USA) leadership and those other groups that are considering the same step. Churches, more than any other institutions in society, have a mission to speak with a clear voice of conscience. The divestment movement betrays that mission.”

In late September, Jewish and Presbyterian leaders met in New York, but failed to reach agreement on the question of divestment. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which organized the gathering, told the Presbyterians their church’s vote reflected “a fundamental unfairness” toward Israel and would hurt the Palestinians by hardening Israelis against a negotiated solution to the Mideast conflict. The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk, or executive officer, of the Presbyterian Church (USA), said he would continue discussing the issue with Jewish groups, but planned no immediate changes in how church officials will carry out the vote.

A Motivation for Peace

Rev. Kirkpatrick acknowledged that the divestment push “invited comparisons” to the divestment campaign against South African apartheid two decades ago, but insisted that the church did not see the two policies as morally equivelant. “The two situations are distinct,” he said. “The focus of this action is to explore use of a proven tool of economic pressure to motivate real change and movement toward peace.”

According to Kirkpatrick, the church does not plan a “blanket divestment” of its $7 billion in investment funds from companies operating in Israel. Rather, he said, it will target businesses that it believes bear particular responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians and will give them a chance to change their behavior before selling their shares. He cited as one possible example Caterpillar Inc., which manufactures bulldozers used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes. Kirkpatrick said the church would also pull its money out of any companies that are complicit in supporting terrorism.

Some Jewish peace activists supported the church’s position. The California-based Jewish Voice for Peace, which claims 8,000 supporters and has Tony Kushner, Adrienne Rich and Ed Asner on its board, issued a statement applauding the Presbyterian action.

Others have expressed concern about a Jewish overreaction to the Presbyterian decision. Mark J. Pelavin, director of the Commission on Interreligious Affairs of Reform Judaism, argues that, “In response to these unprecedented overtures, some in our community have called for ending all dialogue with Presbyterians. I believe that is exactly the wrong response. What we need is a renewed dialogue that would occur on two levels. On the national level, we need to reach out to the leadership of PC-USA and explain—without rancor or disdain—that the repercussions of their actions belie their stated support for Israel and deter progress toward a lasting peace. On the local level, synagogues across the country need to reach out to Presbyterian churches in their communities and embrace a dialogue about Israel that will be difficult and may not lead to complete agreement, but is absolutely essential.”

In Pelavin’s view, “Part of the difficulty will be responding to these gestures in a firm and critical manner without resorting to exaggeration or distortion...It is now our job to explain that divestment in any degree threatens the very existence of Israel and the prospects of peace in the region...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.”

The Presbyterians are not alone in reassessing their position with regard to investment in Israel. Early in October, an Episcopal Church committee, the Episcopal Socially Responsible Investment panel, recommended that the church research taking action against companies involved in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The National Council of Churches, an ecumenical alliance of 38 Protestant denominations, also decided to discuss the question of divestment.

In November, Episcopal church leaders said they intend to pursue a Middle East investment policy that takes into consideration “obstacles to peace” on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. A memo from the church’s executive council to its Social Responsibility and Investments Committee states that “the emphasis of this process is not likely to be divestment from companies whose actions are morally questionable, but rather engagement with them.”

During a recent visit to the occupied territories, leaders of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network, a group within the Anglican Communion, the worldwide church body that includes the Episcopal Church, raised the issue of divestment. Network leaders announced that they would recommend a divestment policy be adopted at the church’s annual international conference in June (see November 2004 Washington Report, p. 70). At the time, Brian J. Grieves, director of the Episcopal Church’s Peace and Justice Ministries, said he believed that divestment could be a way to move toward ending the Middle East conflict. According to The Forward, “But then Jewish organizations reached out to Episcopalian leaders. This week [Nov. 12, 2004], Grieves told The Forward that the church would focus on ‘shareholder activism’ instead of divestment.”

Interfaith Relations

While the particulars of the Presbyterian Church’s posture concerning the Middle East may be the subject of legitimate criticism, a larger question relates to interfaith relations between Jewish and Protestant groups. Are they being held hostage to the church groups’ policies with regard to the Middle East, or can interfaith relations move forward without regard to international politics?

Time reported in its Aug. 2, 2004 issue that, “For nearly half a century, few interfaith relationships have been sturdier than that between Jews and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Forged after the Holocaust and during the civil rights movement, the amity reached a high point in l987, when a Presbyterian ‘study document’ acknowledged the Jews’ ongoing and legitimate covenant with God.”

That year the Presbyterian Church issued a document called “A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews,” approved by its l99th General Assembly. The document stated: “We must be willing to admit our church’s complicity in wrongdoing in the past, even as we try to establish a new basis of trust and communication with Jews. We pledge, God helping us, never again to participate in, or to contribute to, or to allow the persecution or denigration of Jews or the belittling of Judaism...The long and dolorous history of Christian imperialism, in which the church has often justified anti-Jewish acts and attitudes in the name of Jesus, finds its theological basis in this teaching [supersessionism]. We believe and testify that this teaching of supersessionism is harmful and in need of reconsideration...For us, the teaching that the church has been engrafted by God’s grace into the people of God finds as much support in Scripture as supersessionism, and is much more consistent with our Reformed understanding of the word of God and Jesus Christ...God’s covenants are not broken...The church has not ‘replaced’ the Jewish people...”

All too often, Jewish groups have made Israel their number one priority, having this sovereign state almost replace God as the object of worship. While they may claim that the Presbyterians hold Israel to a higher standard than others, Jewish groups can be equally criticized for holding it to virtually no moral standard at all.

Jay Rock, director for interfaith relations at the National Council of Churches, describes Jewish-Presbyterian relations as “very good,” saying the problem is simply a difference of opinion on how best to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jewish groups which are prepared to go to war with the Presbyterians over Middle East policy would do well to separate inter-faith relations from international politics. Progress in inter-faith relations—a matter of religion—should not be held hostage to international politics, which concern the actions of world bodies and states.

Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.