WHITE HOUSE Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told an audience this spring that “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state.”
McDonough decried the illegal construction of settlements in Palestinian territory, under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his predecessors, as intentionally seeking to divide Palestinian communities. He added, “like every administration since President Johnson, we will continue to oppose Israeli settlement activity since it undermines the prospects for peace.”
But many activists refuse to continue to merely decry the occupation, year after year, decade after decade, while facts on the ground worsen and a just peace grows seemingly more elusive. For these activists—and they include many U.S. churches, peace groups, and humanitarian organizations—the time has come to put teeth into efforts to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and thereby impel progress toward a just peace in the region.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been debating various divestment measures since 2004, and last year the denomination voted to divest from three companies that supply equipment used in the occupation of Palestinian territory.
“We as a church cannot profit from the destruction of homes and lives,” said Rev. Gradye Parsons, the denomination’s stated clerk, after the vote to remove church funds from Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar, and Motorola Solutions. The church said it has communicated directly with the companies to urge them to stop profiting from the occupation by supplying Israel with surveillance technology, bulldozers, and other products.
“We continue to invest in many businesses involved in peaceful pursuits in Israel,” Parsons told The New York Times. The church is “still committed to Israel and its right to exist, but we’re concerned about the occupation and think Israel can do better.”
The broader, global BDS movement—which stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions—grew out of a 2005 call from more than 170 Palestinian organizations. The Palestinian coalition, which included church, religious, and cultural groups as well as academics, unions, political parties, and civil society organizations, urged the international community to implement boycott and divestment initiatives to encourage the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and support for Palestinian civil rights. A group of Christian Palestinians that grew out of the 2009 Kairos Palestine document “A Moment of Truth” called for “the beginning of a system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel,” while condemning “all forms of racism, whether religious or ethnic, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.”
In the U.S., Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers, and other U.S. religious bodies have also taken steps to divest from companies that profit from the occupation. The American Friends Service Committee has developed a screening tool to help investors determine which companies profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. “Companies that consistently and knowingly participate in violations of international law and war crimes cannot be regarded as responsible investments,” said AFSC’s Dalit Baum. Like most U.S. church groups, AFSC recommends that investors target “only companies that support the occupation, settlements, militarism, or any other violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.” The group explicitly “does not call for a full boycott of Israel nor of companies because they are either Israeli or doing business in Israel.”
The United Methodist Church has called on all countries to prohibit “any financial support ... for the construction and maintenance of settlements and the import of products made by companies in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land”—activity the Methodists say “contributes to serious violations of international law, promotes systemic discrimination, or otherwise supports ongoing military occupation.” Like other churches, the UMC doesn’t support a boycott of products made in Israel, but rather products made by Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories.
An inappropriate tool?
Despite the churches’ efforts to target their divestment at companies profiting from the occupation, their explicit acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist, and their clear commitment to not divest from Israel, several Jewish organizations have denounced the denominations’ activism. “The [church] leadership is facilitating the delegitimization of Israel in the guise of helping Palestinians,” said Rabbi Noam Marans of the American Jewish Committee after the Presbyterian vote. “An American church punishes the sole Middle East democracy for the sin of safeguarding its security,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center said.
Even the liberal advocacy group J Street has criticized church divestment actions, writing that it “does not believe that boycotts or divestment will bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to a two-state solution to their conflict, nor are they, for us, appropriate tools in pushing toward resolution of the conflict.” The group added, “We support the Presbyterians’ decision to endorse a two-state solution where ‘a secure and universally recognized State of Israel lives alongside a free, viable, and secure state for the Palestinian people.’”
But other Jewish groups have supported divestment efforts by churches as a nonviolent way to encourage change in the Middle East. The Times reported the presence during the PC(USA) convention last year of young Jewish activists wearing black T-shirts with the slogan “Another Jew Supporting Divestment.”
Rabbi Alissa Wise, a staffer for the organization Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment from companies that profit from the occupation, said that divestment “helps Palestinians build their power so that Israel is convinced, not by force, but by global consensus that something has to change.”
For many church activists committed to a just peace for all people in the Middle East, the choice seems clear. If nonviolent means of resisting injustice, such as divestment and boycotts, aren’t possible, then violence will continue to be inevitable. “It all boils down to the money,” Palestinian Tasneem Amro told Al Jazeera earlier this year. “Boycott could be more efficient than throwing rocks.”
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!