So much bad news is hitting Israel’s leaders, so fast, these days, that they may have overlooked warnings by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), among others, that the United Church of Christ General Synod was considering becoming the first major U.S. denomination to label Israel an apartheid state. The Zionist shock and outrage didn’t have the intensity of the meltdown over the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream affair, which came at the same time, but the UCC’s condemnation of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is sure to resonate with the other mainline American churches — and their millions of members.
The UCC “A-bomb” simply said,
“We reject Israel’s apartheid system of laws and legal procedures,”
but it passed late in the day July 18 with an overwhelming 83% vote and was part of a long and unsparing indictment.
Moreover, the UCC resolution is likely to be only the first blow among many from other mainline denominations, including the Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Quakers and others who will follow the UCC lead in denouncing Israel’s “continued oppression of the Palestinian people” and calling on the U.S. government to support full equal rights for Palestinians.
The UCC denounced almost all of the injuries done to the Palestinians over the decades, with the unstinting support of Washington. Thus, they:
- Affirmed the right of return to Palestine — or to compensation for property losses — of the 5.6 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN Relief and Works Administration, invoking UN Resolution 194 (1948); rejected recent efforts to drastically narrow the refugee definition; and demanded full U.S. funding for UNRWA;
- Affirmed the constitutional right of Americans to protest Israel’s actions through BDS;
- Rejected “the idea that any criticism of policies of the State of Israel is inherently antisemitic” and opposed federal or state legislation to limit free speech on campuses or to constrain or punish BDS;
- Advocated “cessation of U.S. military aid to Israel” until Palestinian rights are “fully realized and protected”;
- Rejected any theology or ideology, particularly Christian Zionism, that “would privilege or exclude any one nation, race, culture, or religion”; and backed up the point with citations to pithy fundamental texts of the Jewish Bible and the New Testament;
- Condemned “Jewish-only settlements throughout the West Bank,” and the 2018 Nation-State basic law, while tying Israel to historical examples of “settler-colonialism” and to the pre-civil rights era racist regime known as Jim Crow;
- Faulted “provocative actions under the Trump administration, including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,” and supporting Israel’s proposed illegal annexation of West Bank territory;
- Endorsed Palestinian Christian leaders’ landmark declaration of 2020 entitled “Cry for Hope: A Call for Decisive Action.”
Looking ahead, a manager of the UCC resolution drive, Rev. John Thomas of the UCC Palestine-Israel Network Steering Committee, said, “We hope that this provides some space for other denominations to follow our lead.” Both the huge vote for the resolution and the muted nature of the arguments opponents raised against it were encouraging, Thomas said. “Even delegates who argued against saying ‘apartheid’ seemed to understand that there is apartheid against the Palestinians but were afraid to name it. They clearly were intimidated by worries about the Jewish reaction.” Yet, the American Jewish Committee’s protests before and after the vote were strangely toothless. Rabbi Noam Marans, AJC Director of Interreligious and Intergroup Relations, mainly complained that the resolution should have mentioned “Israel’s relentless pursuit of peace for 73 years.”
The Episcopal Peace Fellowship Palestine-Israel Network (EPF-PIN), praised the UCC action as courageous, saying, “Standing as they did against attempts to soften and sidestep much needed truth-telling, the Synod members voted overwhelmingly to speak prophetically to the dire conditions facing the Palestinan people. By naming apartheid and calling it sin, the UCC has demonstrated that justice is love in action and has encouraged us and other Christian faith partners to continue the struggle.”
The moment of truth for supporters of the resolution came when they faced a procedural hitch in the process. The UCC committee charged with prepping the proposed resolution used its editing prerogative to soften the language, removing the term “apartheid” and a reference to Israel’s “sin.”
“Some folks wanted to maintain the initial language…, which offered an unambiguous prophetic vision,” the committee chair, Rev. Elliot Munn of Vermont said, as reported in a July 19 “UCC News” article. “Others were more cautious about how particular words would affect their interfaith friends and colleagues.” Rev. Jeff Lukens of Southern New England said, “Toning down the inflammatory use of the word apartheid will help us to speak to the truth of what is happening and allow us to continue to be faithful in our interfaith work.”
Lukens was countered successfully by Rev. David Grishaw-Jones, who said, “Apartheid is an internationally defined and recognized term used in legal systems and international diplomacy to name situations like the current one in Palestine and Israel. The word is profoundly important to our covenant partners in Palestine and Israel, who struggle against the yoke of occupation and oppression every day.”
A “large majority” of the Synod then put the word apartheid back in the resolution, Thomas said.
As for why it was necessary to say Israel’s conduct is a sin, Rev. Shari Prestemon of Minnesota explained, “What we speak of is not just a geopolitical matter. … The systemic oppression and denial of human and civil rights for Palestinians caused by the policies of the State of Israel violate the vision of just relationships set forth by ancient [Hebrew] prophets and the [Christian] gospels. They can rightly be described as a sin against God and God’s children.”
Citing the massive support extended to Israel by the U.S. government, “UCC Leadership” said in a July 19 statement that “as U.S. citizens and as a U.S church,” the UCC has “a special responsibility to speak out on this.” They acknowledged that the resolution would “cause discomfort” for some but insisted that they desired continued dialogue. However, it seems clear that the time for endless dialogue with no action on the part of Israel is running short.
The Quakers already have. Canadian Quakers approved a minute (that is Quakerese for passed a resolution) in 2009, calling on Israel and any future state of Palestine to grant the same rights, privileges, protections, and responsibilities to all their citizens. They were calling on Israel to cease to be a Jewish state, whether they knew this or not. And yes, there are Jewish Quakers.
I expect – I hope – that the main impact of the Church of Christ’s action will be on other Christians, particularly Christian Zionists, who give more money to Israel, and who have more influence on American politicians, than Jews do.
1 of 2
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/7/20/enlightened-israelis-must-admit-israel-is-guilty-as-charged
“Enlightened Israelis must admit Israel is guilty as charged”
“It is time for Israelis to acknowledge apartheid and begin efforts to dismantle it.” By Andrew Metrovica, Al Jazeera, July 20/21
EXCERPT:
“The unforgettable image should still shame enlightened Israelis.
It is July 2014. Israel has decided, yet again, to teach Palestinians a lengthy, lethal lesson. Bit by inevitable bit, day and night, from the land, sea and air, the Israeli army went about methodically obliterating swaths of Gaza and the imprisoned children, women and men who try, often in vain, to survive the recurring terror.
“All the while, jubilant Israelis gathered, perched safely on a hilltop overlooking nearby Gaza. A UPI photographer captured three young men in flip-flops, sporting close-cropped hair and binoculars, sitting on a bulky, cream-colored leather couch. What appears to be a green, half-empty beer or pop bottle rests upright by one man’s bare feet. Another has trained his black binoculars on the violent scenes, to get a closer and, presumably, more satisfying look, at the death and destruction unfolding below.
“The photo of the ghouls on a hill stands as a halting, fixed-in-time indictment not only of the three callous men pictured, but of the too many other Israelis who also treat the wholesale demolition of Gaza and the indiscriminate killing of its Palestinian residents as akin to a leisurely afternoon or evening of sport – with popcorn and refreshments happily at hand.
“Reportedly, the prevailing mood among Israelis on that hill on that day was a giddy mixture of celebration and satisfaction. A gallery of delighted Israelis took selfies and let out cheers and whoops as bombs fell while billowing plumes of smoke and dust filled the sky over besieged Gaza.
“Despite a staple of sad stories about Israelis being seized by a paralysing fear of attack, no one on that hill top seemed afraid of or deterred by Hamas and its combustible kites, balloons or metallic fire-crackers.
“The Israelis smiled as Palestinians died.
“We know that since 2014 Israel has jailed, maimed and killed more Palestinians in Gaza and beyond, including during an 11-day murderous blitz in May. Meanwhile, Israel continues to defy international law to destroy and steal Palestinian homes, businesses and land in occupied Palestine with impunity. (cont’d)
2 of 2
“There are, of course, enlightened Israelis who understand that Israel’s incessant jailing, maiming and killing of Palestinians and the systemic eradication and theft of their homes, businesses and land is illegal, wrong and a blatant affront to decency and any semblance of humanity.
“In January, the Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, found Israel has committed apartheid against Palestinians in occupied Palestine. Israel’s calculated, overarching intent is to impose ‘a regime of Jewish supremacy’ through a decades-old, ingrained policy of ‘divide, separate and rule’ enabled and enforced by a ruthless military occupation.
“’One organizing principle lies at the base of a wide array of Israeli policies: advancing and perpetuating the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians,’ B’Tselem wrote.
“The solution? Enlightened Israelis must resist the apartheid ‘regime’ and dissolve the grinding, dehumanizing machinery of state-sanctioned racism perpetrated in their name.
“’All of us must first choose to say no to apartheid,’ B’Tselem urged Israelis. ‘People created this regime and people can make it worse – or work to replace it… How can people fight injustice if it is unnamed? Apartheid is the organizing principle, yet recognizing this does not mean giving up. On the contrary: it is a call for change.’
“B’Tselem is right. Israelis can, if they choose to, end the injustices and crimes of apartheid visited on Palestinians since Israel’s engineered inception in 1948. But, first, they have to acknowledge finally that the crimes and injustices experienced by generation after generation of Palestinians constitute apartheid as a matter of international law, and not a rhetorical cudgel.
“Too many Israelis have failed this fundamental challenge and test. Instead, too many Israelis have opted to reject any measure of blame for the deep, grievous injury and trauma Israel is indeed responsible for and have found comforting haven in the risible illusion that their country remains a shining avatar of magnanimity and democracy.”
The Church of England has recently published a report called ‘God’s Unfailing Word’ which made great efforts to be constructive and tactful and to preserve some scope for Christian non-Zionism but which shows what uphill work it will be to oppose Z or its major manifestations in the light, if light it be, of modern theological developments, Protestant and Catholic. The work of the Catholic thinker Gavin D’Costa (widely available) is mentioned approvingly. The key thing is the continuity of the Covenant of Sinai and the rightfulness (a topic touched on here by Jay Falick!) of the claim of modern Judaism to be the heir of that Covenant, with the Covenant of Jesus Christ as a companion rather than a rival. From that point it is very difficult to reject the idea of a unique right for Jews in the Holy Land or even, I think, to exclude defence of that right by harsh means reminiscent of those recorded in ‘Joshua’. In the deeper background is the ‘new perspective on Paul’ (E.P. Sanders, N.T.Wright), which strongly disputes the idea of Paul outside Judaism, and yet deeper the Zionist Christianity of Reinhold Niebuhr, the principal theological influence, I think, on Martin Luther King. D’Costa is at pains to distinguish himself from Pat Robertson’s ‘to be against Israel is to be against God’ but he does not really succeed.