Culture

Victory’s unintended consequences

The line actually was longer than a city block. This lobby is nearly two full city blocks long.
Divestment advocates form a line in the lobby outside the Presbyterian General Assembly last Friday. Photo by Barbara Harvey.

This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

It isn’t time for an evaluation of the recent victory among Presbyterians in the BDS struggle. After all, the after-glow of victory should be enjoyed for at least week or two. But the kidnapping of the Jewish teenagers and the subsequent invasion of Palestine has cast a pall over everything bright and sunny.

Time passes all too quickly in the disenchanted (unholy) land that stretches between Tel Aviv and the Jordan River. Who even remembers John Kerry’s solve-the-issue-once-and-for-all peace plan that dissolved only months ago?

The commentators are a having field day on the Presbyterian divestment vote. Most are rehashing the same scenario but it seems that a major point is absent from the discussion -the unintended consequences of the BDS victory a few days ago may move in a very different direction than the winners hoped for.

Victory is a victory and, though a squeaker, the Presbyterians did vote for divestment from three companies that profit from the occupation of Palestinians. But to say that the Presbyterians have signed on to divestment is disingenuous.

Two years ago, the Presbyterians narrowly defeated a similar measure. We can be sure that the issue will be revisited at the next assembly in 2016. Like many Christian denominations, the Presbyterians are split down the middle on the issue.

But the divestment victory has come at a cost. The cost is simply put. If you look at the hem’s and haw’s of the passed resolution and the comments by Presbyterian officials during and after the vote, the victory is parsed as a supportive measure for a just Israel as, in the Presbyterian’s view, Israel was and could be again. Support for Palestinians, while stated, is secondary. The love expressed toward our “brother and sister” Israelis and Palestinians is further subordinated to the relationships that the Presbyterians have cultivated with American Jews.

If all politics is local, the local Rabbi is much more important – and closer – to most Presbyterians than the local Imam or Palestinian – if either is even in the neighborhood. Another way of putting it: Israel is all over the Presbyterian prayer cycle; Mohammed and Islam aren’t.

The unintended consequences of the Presbyterian vote are important. They include drawing closer than ever to Israel as a Jewish state precisely when the BDS movement is questioning the very possibility of such an Israel embracing a just peace with the Palestinian people. By divesting from three corporations, the Presbyterians affirmed once again the two-state solution and, at the same time, excused from culpability other corporations who benefit directly or indirectly from profiting in the occupation. In actuality, this means any corporation doing business with Israel since in one way or another almost every Israeli corporation participates in and benefits financially from the occupation.

At the same time, the Presbyterians drew the line on BDS. They were explicit: In no way was their action to be interpreted to show support for the BDS movement. At least implicitly, they support the view that one of BDS’s goals is to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

Again, a victory is a victory. But if I were in the Israeli government I would think twice about pouting. Unlike the Presbyterians, Israel has an army which it was using as the votes were tallied. The re-invasion of Palestine is telling as are the limits of the Presbyterians on what really counts in the ongoing – and intensifying – struggle in Israel-Palestine.

When the chips are down, the Presbyterians are on Israel’s side. As they have been.

At this point, what more could Israel ask for?

37 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is all true enough–the Presbyterians leaned over backwards to make the liberal Zionists happy and push the 2ss and yet the major Jewish organizations still attacked them. To the extent that ordinary people pay attention, that’s what’s so revealing about it. It shows that these groups which claim to support a 2SS and a Palestinian state wouldn’t lift a finger to bring it about. The slightest bit of pressure, not on Israel, but on American companies that help with the occupation, is more than they can bear. Their only priority is to ensure that America support Israel no matter what–their claim to support a 2SS is just window dressing.

The Presbyterians got the bot lobbying and professions of good faith. Abbas did too. He followed their instructions and proved they weren’t interested in peace. Israel can’t change and it’ll show its true colours to the Presbyterians too. Bad faith is what kills worthless Zionist assurances. By their actions shall you know the bastards.

I think that you are not so wrong in this article, as you also recognized that a victory is a victory. You did a good job pointing out why it’s not a total or final one.

One thing I disagree with is:
By divesting from three corporations, the Presbyterians… excused from culpability other corporations who benefit directly or indirectly from profiting in the occupation.
It is silent about them, but it could also be the beginning of more divestments, rather than an excusing from culpability.

Not only was the nothing is good enough aspect shocking to us but so was the ultimatum aspect. Our disclaimers were not new but just re-iteration of longstanding Presbyterian policy. Presbyterians were not part of the global BDS movement, until now! Before the flashy motion passed a quiet one proceeded it that called for a reconsideration of the so-called 2 state solution. A report on this will be presented at our next GA when we have learned from the bad faith reaction to our limited, moderate divestment. If we are shunned by the Jewish establishment we will have built two years of relationships with young Jewish activists instead. I am confident of this prediction because my church parallels my own personal journey.

I agree with this article. As one who supports Israel, her policies, and her elected officials, I believe that the church did what they thought would be helpful. Their message behind their rational of investment decisions is concise. As is their commitment to the 2SS. They were wise enough to proactively distance from the BDS.

What I don’t understand, however, is the interpretation expressed by many. For example, the elements that are viewed as positive are the result of the church doing the right thing. If the resolution is not strong enough for their liking, then they are bending over backwards. Can’t have it both ways folks!