by Mitchell Plitnick
On June 14, members of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) will gather in Detroit, Michigan for their biennial General Assembly meeting. A lot of eyes will be focused on this gathering, particularly those who have managed to maintain interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the wake of the [...]]]>
by Mitchell Plitnick
On June 14, members of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) will gather in Detroit, Michigan for their biennial General Assembly meeting. A lot of eyes will be focused on this gathering, particularly those who have managed to maintain interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the wake of the collapse of the “peace process.”
The Presbyterians are going to revisit a vote on divestment from companies profiting from Israel’s occupation that failed in 2012 by a mere two votes. Given that narrow margin of victory (the final tally was 333-331 with two abstentions), many believe it might just pass this time. As a result, pro-divestment groups have reinvigorated their efforts to support Presbyterian divestment, while opponents have redoubled their efforts to oppose the resolution.
Leading the charge against the PCUSA’s proposal is none other than the ostensibly pro-peace J Street. One can find, even in the Jewish weekly, The Forward, opinions on the absurdity of J Street’s stance. But the opposition of even so centrist a group to the proposal sheds light on efforts to oppose any and all efforts to exert material pressure on Israel to change its policies.
The arguments against the PCUSA’s divestment proposal begin with opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). That movement is a very broad one, and it includes strident anti-Zionists and one-staters as well as Zionists and two-staters. In general, it is fair to say that the only common thread that unites them all is the notion that the most focused effort right now must be directed at changing Israeli policy, and that to do so, economic and political pressure must be exerted.
I agree with that notion; indeed, I have been arguing that the Palestinians have ample material reason to make great compromises — while Israel does not — for over fifteen years, and that economic measures are the best way for citizens of other countries to bring that pressure to bear. Personally, I don’t agree with many of the more prominent and visible BDS tactics, such as academic boycotts of Israeli universities and some of the more over-zealous efforts to pressure artists from performing in Israel. My differences on these tactics are based on my own judgment of their efficacy.
But you simply cannot find a more unassailable proposal than the one the PCUSA is bringing forth. Knowingly or not, opposing it can only mean one thing: supporting the status quo, fighting to maintain the occupation. Of course, that is not J Street’s intention; but it is the outcome of their stance.
The PCUSA will be deciding whether or not to divest from three well-known corporations – Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard (HP) — due to the fact that their business with Israel helps support the occupation. Motorola sells advanced communications technology to the Israeli military, which are routinely and specifically used in the Occupied Territories. HP “…manages all Information Technology (IT) including its operational communications, logistics and planning including the ongoing naval blockade of the Gaza Strip,” and also provides scanning equipment used by the Israeli military specifically at checkpoints in the West Bank. Caterpillar has long been a target for divestment because it sells Israel a great deal of heavy equipment, some of it customized, that is used to both build settlements and destroy Palestinian homes.
It is perfectly legitimate for the PCUSA or any other group to divert their own funds from supporting such practices. Indeed, that is, theoretically, just what is supposed to happen in a free market, open society system. The only way one can possibly equate economic action to oppose, both rhetorically and practically, such business practices is by equating opposition to the occupation with being anti-Israel. That is something that the PCUSA certainly does not wish to be. The Presbyterians are grappling internally with something that should not be a contradiction: being a friend to Jews and supporting the right of all people to freedom and justice. No Jewish individual or organization should be telling them that a decision to take their money out of international corporations that are profiting from Israel’s occupation is somehow anti-Israel.
The arguments against the Presbyterians action are, sadly, quite duplicitous. First, they collapse all economic actions against the occupation or against Israel as a whole into one category and then claim, without basis, that one particular strand of BDS activists represents all of them and, by extension, taints any economic action against the occupation. Such arguments fail a basic test of avoiding fallacious thinking, but they are, without a doubt, persuasive, especially on emotional issues.
At a recent J Street summit, the group’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, echoed such a view, albeit in a more subtle fashion. “Some will say that you have to go toward the path of BDS…and negative punishment that raises the cost, that drives home that this [continued Israeli occupation] is a path that has consequences,” Ben-Ami said. “That’s not the path for J Street. That’s never going to be the path that we go down. We believe that there’s a better way to talk to friends and family than to wield the big stick and bash people over the head. We have to talk with them out of love and out of concern, and we have to bring our message in a way that will really resonate.”
But in fact, the PCUSA proposal does not punish Israel in any way. Far from “bashing” anyone over the head, it is a way of removing one’s own support from abhorrent practices. None of the business activities that the PCUSA objects to have anything to do with Israeli security; they all have to do with maintaining the occupation and the concomitant, daily human rights violations endured by the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. The PCUSA is saying that they will take their investments elsewhere after a decade of trying to convince these corporations to stop doing this sort of business. One must emphasize, again, that the Presbyterians did not at any time implore these or any other corporations to stop or to limit the business they do with Israel that does not support the occupation.
Only by defining, as many supporters of the status quo do, the ongoing occupation as an Israeli security measure, and thereby excusing it and blaming the Palestinians for their own lack of freedom and rights can one justify opposing the PCUSA’s measures. To be sure, there is no shortage of Jewish or Christian groups who do just that (the Orwellian-named “Presbyterians for Middle East Peace” is a shameful example of the latter). But J Street is supposed to be different. They are supposed to see the occupation as a detriment to Israel’s security and not a boon; they are supposed to see it as a threat to Israel’s future.
I’ve said before that I’ve known Jeremy Ben-Ami and many other people involved deeply with J Street for many years. I know they are not intentionally acting against peace and against Palestinian rights. But they are attempting to square a circle that cannot be bent in that direction by trying to both shield Israel from the consequences of its 47-year old occupation and, at the same time, pressing to end the occupation with nothing more than words.
It doesn’t work that way. Indeed, Ben-Ami and J Street are actually putting forth the very dangerous notion that somehow Israel is different from any other country. Governments don’t make decisions from a sense of morality or ethics; they make concessions or take risks because of pressure, whether that pressure is internal or external, military or economic, political or diplomatic. That is as true for Israel as it is for the United States, Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Luxembourg, Uganda, Chile or any other government, democratic or dictatorial. To pretend otherwise is unrealistic and counter-productive.
If one wants to see a future where Israeli Jews live in peace and security, the occupation must end. But Israelis, both the leaders and the public, are (in some ways, understandably) reluctant to make anything close to the necessary concessions and agreements. Only pressure will change the stance of the Israeli government, as is the case with any government. Opposing such pressure means supporting the occupation. J Street doesn’t mean to do that, but it is what they will be doing at the PCUSA’s General Assembly. The chance for some kind of peace lies in the hope that enough of the Presbyterians at the GA can understand that.
This article was first published by LobeLog and was reprinted here with permission.
Photo: Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) demonstrated last year (June 28-July 3) at the Presbyterian Church (USA) GA in Pittsburgh. Credit: Rae Abileah
]]>by Mitchell Plitnick
The story of Stephen Hawking’s decision to pull out of the Israeli President’s Conference just got more interesting. A major United States newspaper, the Boston Globe, published an editorial offering strong support for Hawking, and, while not supporting or opposing boycotting Israel as a tactic, took [...]]]>
by Mitchell Plitnick
The story of Stephen Hawking’s decision to pull out of the Israeli President’s Conference just got more interesting. A major United States newspaper, the Boston Globe, published an editorial offering strong support for Hawking, and, while not supporting or opposing boycotting Israel as a tactic, took a firm stance in saying that the boycott tool is a legitimate, non-violent means to protest Israeli policies. It actually called the “overreaction” to Hawking’s decision an impediment to finding a resolution to this vexing conflict.
Perhaps the most important part of the Globe’s editorial was this: “The movement that Hawking has signed on to aims to place pressure on Israel through peaceful means. In the context of a Mideast conflict that has caused so much destruction and cost so many lives, nonviolence is something to be encouraged.”
This is a truly groundbreaking shift in the US discourse around the Israel-Palestine conflict. Among many infuriating tricks the supporters of Israeli policies (be they supporters of hard-line Likud policies, or supporters of endless negotiations as pushed for by the previous Kadima governments) have employed over the years, one has recently become more prominent: casting support for Palestinian rights as a tactic designed to “destroy Israel,” thus blanketing even non-violent actions in language that defines the action as being violence by other means. The point is that once actual Palestinian violence diminished, it was crucial that Israel still be seen as somehow facing an “existential threat.”
For years, the mantra has been that the Palestinians are bent on destroying Israel, and their whole movement is nothing more than a cover for their raging hatred of Jews. This mode of thinking, in various forms, resurged, for understandable reasons, during the second intifada, which witnessed by far the most inter-communal violence since the 1948 war (however imbalanced that violence might have been).
So, in 2005, towards the end of that bloody uprising, 171 Palestinian civil-society groups issued their call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) directed against Israel. “These non-violent punitive measures,” the appeal asserted, “should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people‘s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law.” The groups defined that compliance as ending the occupation, ending discrimination in form and practice against Palestinian citizens, and “Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”
One may agree or disagree with those goals, and certainly anyone who disagrees is perfectly justified in opposing the BDS movement. But supporters of Israeli policy are not entitled, on one hand, to berate the Palestinians for using violence to end the occupation and address their dispossession while, on the other, to condem them for using non-violent means such as these proven methods to achieve their goals.
The Globe editorial appeared a day after my weekly column at Souciant.com did. There, I wrote the following: “Ultimately, one can support or oppose a boycott. But the BDS movement was conceived as a way to advance the Palestinian cause without physical violence. There are good reasons, not based in a lack of understanding of the conflict, much less in anti-Semitism, why people support the boycott. Do pundits really want to send the message that a non-violent method is unacceptable? What options does that leave for the Palestinians, now that they have irrefutable proof that the Israeli government is farther away than ever from a willingness to end the occupation and the United States is more feeble and feckless than ever? Oppose the boycott if you wish, but trying to make it illegitimate is self-defeating and inspires more violence.”
Israel’s supporters have constructed a paradigm that states that the only method that can be used to oppose the occupation and promote Palestinian rights is to ask Israel, very nicely, to grant these things. The Globe editorial is proof positive that this paradigm is crumbling.
Challenging the notion that Israel should only be persuaded (with carrots), and never pressured (with sticks or at least the withdrawal of carrots) to end its occupation and oppression of Palestinians has had some watershed moments in recent years. Most notably in the United States, perhaps, was the publication of John Mearsheimer’s and Stephen Walt’s paper and book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Hawking’s action and the shift in discourse that the Globe’s implicit legitimization of the BDS movement may well mark the beginning of another.
The more such popular, cultural, economic, and political pressure on Israel to change course is seen as acceptable, the more possible it becomes for US Middle East to change, as well. And that, in turn, increases the possibility that the Israeli public and elite will reassess the country’s current trajectory and where it is taking them. That, to be sure, is still a very distant dream. But our policy has largely been formed by interest groups leading and the government following. As our discourse shifts more, even some of our most feckless politicians will eventually have to follow.
]]>