Talk Is Cheap: “Dialogue” vs. Divestment In the Struggle for Justice in Palestine

By James M. Wall


	A general view of Bethlehem taken days before Christmas 2005 shows Israel’s massive annexation wall snaking through the “little town” where Jesus was born (AFP Photo/Musa Al-Shaer).

THE GENERAL Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is the governing body of a Protestant denomination of 2.4 million members, 11,100 congregations and 14,000 ordained and active ministers. At its last meeting in the summer of 2004, already on record opposing the occupation policies of the Israeli government and prodded by a proposal from a local Presbyterian group in Florida, the Presbyterians voted to begin a process to withdraw their investment funds from U.S. corporations that support Israel’s occupation.

That action evoked an immediate response from allies of Israel within and outside the denomination. These forces began an immediate nationwide campaign to influence the Presbyterians to rescind their divestment decision at their next meeting in the summer of 2006.

Virtually all of the mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S. are on record in support of the end of violence on both sides in the conflict, and most are specifically opposed to the occupation. Pro-Israel forces have learned to ignore those written and verbal criticisms as just so much God-talk. But divestment is another matter, in part because of the lesson of what divestment accomplished in South Africa.

This concern over Israel’s image took the form of a well-orchestrated series of “dialogue” meetings “requested” by Jewish leaders and Christian Zionists. Meetings were arranged with influential pastors, judicatory executives and anyone else with the ability to influence church and public opinion. At least one editor of a national (Catholic) magazine made his first visit to Israel following an e-mail exchange with an influential Jewish leader in the U.S. The rabbi met him in Israel and arranged for a guided tour. (Tom Roberts wrote about his trip in the Nov. 4, 2005issue of his magazine, National Catholic Reporter.)

The demand for dialogue, which began as soon as the ink was dry on the Presbyterian resolution, is an effective tactic to use with Protestants and others who pride themselves on their desire to “get along” with everyone, and who feel a special obligation to maintain positive relations with the Jewish community. Interfaith denominational executives were especially important to this process, since they have spent many years working to create a positive connection between the two religious communities.

In addition to interfaith Protestant leaders, many other Protestants have a strong commitment to peace and justice in the Middle East, with a particular concern to identify with Palestinian suffering caused by Israel’s occupation. In October-November 2005, a group of peace and justice-oriented Presbyterians, in advance of a December vote on divestment within their judicatory body, took a fact-finding trip to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Palestine to meet with religious and political leaders in those countries.

Pauline Coffman, co-chair of Chicago’s Middle East Task Force and a member of the October-November delegation, reported to her constituents that her group was especially interested in the work of churches and its members in Lebanon and Syria, the region in which, under polity agreements with other Protestant bodies, the Presbyterians have worked since the 19th century.

Coffman wrote: “We also met with Sheikh Nabil Qawuq, press spokesman for the social welfare arm of Hezbollah, that wing of Hezbollah we knew had been a primary provider of social services to the people of south Lebanon during the 1978-2000 Israeli occupation, during which several villages and five of our churches were destroyed.” (The New York Times report of Dec. 2 incorrectly described the meeting as taking place with an unnamed “commander” for Hezbollah.)

Coffman’s group had been back in Chicago for several weeks when the report on their trip surfaced in The New York Times, stimulated by news reports circulating in American Jewish publications. Reporter Jodi Wilgoren wrote:

“Scrambling to maintain fragile friends with Jewish groups, local and national officials of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are distancing themselves from a meeting in Lebanon between a Hezbollah commander and a Presbyterian delegation that included the denomination’s Chicago leader [Executive Presbyter Robert Reynolds].”

Signaling that the focus of the story would be “dialogue,” and not the impact of divestment on peace and justice, Wilgoren’s article quoted several Jewish leaders, including Jay Tcath, director of Chicago’s Jewish Community Relations Council, who likened the meeting with Hezbollah to one with the Ku Klux Klan. Nowhere in the Times piece was there any reference to the Presbyterians’ historic involvement with Lebanon’s Christian community.

Dr. Jay Rock, the Presbyterian national coordinator for Interfaith Relations, signaled his own priority for Jewish-Christian “dialogue” over divestment when he “promised” Jewish leaders in a letter, reported in The Times, that Presbyterians would develop guidelines for members traveling in “troubled regions,” adding that those attending the Hezbollah meeting should have made clear the church’s position “against terrorism in any form, and for the security and vitality of Israel.”

Martha Reese, chair of the Oak Park, IL Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine, sent an “open” letter to Rock in which she wrote:

“Are you really proposing that the PCUSA should draft a list of necessary statements to be used in meetings between church members and parties in the Middle East? Perhaps, then, we would be required in meetings with Israeli government and military officials to condemn settlement construction and expansion, land theft by expropriation, home demolitions, population transfer, the kidnapping (indefinite imprisonment under “administrative detention” without legal representation or charge) of thousands of Palestinians, the unrestrained violence of Jewish settlers, and the killing and maiming of Palestinian civilians?”

Reese addressed the Hezbollah issue by noting that “it is important for us to understand why [Hezbollah] has succeeded in building a popular base in Lebanon. Similarly in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and in Palestine, Hamas. Who are they? What do they stand for? How do they explain themselves—in their own words? In all three of these cases, Islamist political movements have gained representation by election to their national parliaments. What does this mean for the growth of Middle Eastern democracy, a cause the U.S. is ostensibly promoting?

“A serious student of the region should gather information and experience first hand—that’s the point of travel. If we’re not going to talk to people and listen to them, shouldn’t we just stay home and let journalists and special interest groups filter our information for us?”

The discussion between “dialogue” and divestment will continue at least through the summer of 2006, when the national church’s General Assembly meets again. Meanwhile, the Chicago Presbytery meets every two months to conduct church business. High on the agenda at its Dec. 13 meeting were two resolutions, each seeking to provide guidance for its national delegates on how to proceed on a vote to confirm or revise its stand on divestment at the June 2006 General Assembly meeting, to be held in Birmingham, AL.

The first resolution, presented by the Middle East Task Force, called for an affirmation of the national church’s 2004 resolution to instruct its Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRIC) to continue action that would lead to the divestment of funds from corporations supplying materials for Israel’s occupation.

The second resolution came from a local Downers Grove, IL congregation that would have the church “engage corporations regarding ethical and responsible business practices so as not to contribute to human suffering.” This resolution, however, instructs the Investment Committee “to remove the perceived threat of divestment by more accurately referring to and renaming the process ‘progressive corporate engagement.’”

This latter resolution was the end result of a 17-month churchwide campaign conducted by supporters of Israel—both within and outside the church—to eliminate the term “divestment” from any resolution related to Israel’s occupation. Debate over the two resolutions was intense, culminating in a vote by around 200 delegates (the exact number was not announced by Presbytery leaders). The leaders announced that the two resolutions had been supported by exactly the same number of delegates—i.e., there was no agreement. Efforts were made over lunch to arrive at compromise language between the “progressive engagement” and “divestment” factions, but were unsuccessful. The debate will resume at the February meeting of the Chicago Presbytery.

Meanwhile, Presbyterians meeting in similar Presbytery gatherings around the country could see that, while the movement to divest from corporations servicing Israel’s occupation has not been derailed, in Chicago, at least, it had been shunted off to a side track. There the two sides will continue to fight for, on the one hand, divestment as a sign of support for Palestinians under occupation, versus continued dialogue to rebuild “fragile” Jewish-Christian relationships in the U.S. through the use of euphemisms like “progressive engagement”—anything to avoid the dreaded “divestment” term.

Of course, everyone involved knows that when the church brought pressure to bear against the white rulers of South Africa, it was the hard economic pressure of “divestment” that led to the demise of apartheid—not “constructive engagement,” as the Reagan administration then called it. Supporters of Israel in the Chicago discussions resent the comparison, but advocates of divestment will not hesitate to evoke the example of South Africa, pointing to the fact that, through laws, walls and other “facts on the ground,” Israel continues to force Palestinians into their own apartheid compounds.

James M. Wall, a United Methodist clergyman who has traveled to the region on a regular basis since 1972, writes frequently on Palestine and Israel. From 1972 through 1999 he was editor of the Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, IL, and is currently its senior contributing editor.