Divestment from Israel

REGARDING the recent exchange on divestment from Israel ("Money, morals & Israel," Feb. 8): Ariel Sharon recently complained that during the Holocaust almost no one "lifted a finger" to help the oppressed Jews. That is a shame. It is encouraging to me that in this instance, on behalf of the oppressed Palestinians, the Presbyterians at least are trying to lift a finger.

Scott Simer

Sherburnville Christian Church, Park Forest, Ill.

Ira Youdovin is quite correct that there is healthy debate among American and Israeli Jews over occupation and related issues. As Vernon Broyles doubts Rabbi Youdovin's word, he will probably not accept mine, either.

Let him browse through the resolutions of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, available online (www.ccarnet.com). The June 2004 resolution on "Discriminatory Administrative Home Demolitions in Israel" would be a good start. In the 2003 resolutions, Broyles could discover genuine concern for Palestinian suffering and rights ("Where We Stand on Israel"). Broyles might also like to read the Jewish Forward for a month or two (also available online), where the front page and editorial page regularly demonstrate diversity and even bitter disagreement among US.

I suspect, though, that the problem is not that Broyles is unaware that many Jews yearn for a fair and reasonable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The problem is that Broyles passionately opposes the very idea of fairness to both parties. "The call for balance," he says forcefully, "is ludicrous," for Palestinians are powerless and Israel is powerful. But if we start with the premise that there is no sense in trying to be lair to both parties, what hope is there for dialogue or compromise? The biblical ideal for resolving disputes is impartial justice. We must neither "be partial to the poor, nor defer to the great" (Lev. 19:15).

Ralph Mecklenburger

Beth-El Congregation, Fort Worth, Tex.

I am a Presbyterian whose belief is that the PCUSA divestment initiative is neither just nor moral.

It is telling that the decision to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment does not have the support of a majority of members of the PCUSA. The Presbyterian Panel's own statistics indicate that a large majority of members and elders who expressed an opinion on divestment opposed the decision. A slight majority (5 percent) of pastors who expressed an opinion supported it. Since the General Assembly is designed to represent pastors and elders, the lopsided vote in favor of divestment (83 percent) suggests there must have been a biased presentation of the issues.

It strikes me as ethically dubious to use monies given to the denomination for some other purpose as a weapon to coerce secular governments to conform to the will of the PCUSA.

Will Spotts

North East, Md.

Hardly anyone would oppose the goal of "ending the occupation." But the way this goal is presented in the divestment campaign, with all the references to South African apartheid, makes it sound as if Israel unilaterally took the West Bank and Gaza, as the white South African minority government unilaterally imposed apartheid. Therefore, the argument goes, Israel should unilaterally get out. Yet the occupation is a result of war for which both Arab states (and the Palestine Liberation Organization) aim Israel bear responsibility. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 make it absolutely clear that ending the occupation requires negotiations to end the conflict and action by both sides, not just Israel. A one-sided divestment campaign to "end the occupation" is morally and practically flawed.

Ronald J. Young

Stanwood, Wash.

Criticizing Israel's policy toward Palestinians does not mean lack of support for the existence of the state of Israel. And it certainly does not justify support for Palestinian acts of terrorism against Israelis. I believe the terrorist attacks are not only morally wrong, but counterproductive. A Gandhian type of resistance would help the Palestinians achieve far more than violence does.

Rabbi Youdovin wrongly implies that criticizing Israel "whitewashes" terrorism. His logic can be akin to the story of two brothers fighting. When their mother tried to stop them and she asked for the cause, one brother, trying to exonerate himself, said, "It all started when he hit me back."

The divestment strategy may be ineffective, as Barbara Wheeler points out, but failure to act will likely perpetuate the unjust status quo.

John A. Bertsche

Normal, Ill.

COPYRIGHT 2005 The Christian Century Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning