A Christian Alternative to Divestment From Israel

by

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. — James 3:17

It’s spring in a presidential election year, which can only mean one thing - we’re shaking our heads at the national politics and preparing for General Conference.  Given the ugliness of the rhetoric on the campaign trail, can we expect something better of United Methodism’s global gathering, especially around the typically heated discussions of Israel and Palestine?  We should.

We will be dealing with the same hotly contested issue we have seen in other mainline denominations – whether or not the church should divest from Israel.  Although divestment was voted down by a significant majority in 2008 and 2012, a number of divestment petitions have been sent for General Conference to consider once again this year.

The motivation behind the divestment movement is understandable since it draws on our social justice tradition.  After nearly fifty years of an Israeli military occupation, many United Methodists feel a deep need not only to take a stand for justice but also to do something to end what they perceive as the unjustifiable oppression of Palestinians.  But, we have to think very carefully about what our vision of justice looks like in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and what United Methodists can do to make this vision a reality.

Our Social Principles offer us guidance for our mission “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” The section on the World Community teaches us that “as disciples of Christ, we are called to love our enemies, seek justice, and serve as reconcilers of conflict,”  and also that we must “denounce as immoral an ordering of life that perpetuates injustice and impedes the pursuit of peace.” (The United Methodist Book of Discipline 2012, paragraphs 165.C & D)

So, our vision of justice in Israel and Palestine should be about ending the occupation in a  principled and prudent way, including taking reasonable steps to ensure security for both parties and maximizing the chances of a lasting peace.  It is twofold task: We must work to end the injustice of the occupation and the violence between Israelis and Palestinians and we must do this work in a way that fosters reconciliation.

Divestment fails on both scores.  It will neither help to end the occupation nor will it foster reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.  Divesting from Israel makes a clear assignment of blame. But a strategy that goes no further than assigning blame is not a useful strategy for ending international conflict, especially when both parties have repeatedly taken positions and made choices that have resulted in perpetuating both the occupation and the conflict.  Israel is not solely responsible for the occupation, nor is it capable of making peace unilaterally.

The history of the peace process bears this out.  The closest Israelis and Palestinians ever came to a negotiated peace agreement was during Bill Clinton's presidency when he convened peace talks at Camp David in July 2000 and later (even as the Second Intifada was raging) presented his own peace agreement to Palestinian and Israeli negotiators in Washington, D.C. in December 2000.  The Clinton Parameters for a final status agreement were based on what both the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators stated were their respective non-negotiables in any peace deal.  While President Clinton’s effort ultimately failed (when the Palestinian Authority was unwilling or unable to accept the offer), the Clinton Parameters left us with both a model for an actual peace agreement and a vision for how the United States can work with both parties towards achieving one in the future.

If a peace agreement ending the occupation is indeed part of our goal, then the UMC should use its influence to encourage a more proactive stance on the part of the U.S. government.  It seems clear that the more recent approach of merely encouraging negotiations will not bear fruit.  But because a negotiated peace treaty is the only way to legally and effectively end the occupation, we should work with our State Department and President not merely to encourage the parties to go back to the table, but also to take deliberate steps to precipitate final-status negotiations around concrete proposals that will lead to a lasting and just agreement.

Additionally, as critical as it is to end the occupation, our goal must be not only the creation of two sovereign nations (Israel and Palestine) with defined borders, but also two sovereign nations living in peace and mutual cooperation.  This will not be achieved by a peace agreement alone.  There will be no lasting peace without at least some measure of reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.  After more than 100 years of conflict, terrorism, and mutual aggression, and fifty years of occupation, there is indeed very serious and very difficult work to be done in the field of reconciliation.  But reconciliation is a gospel imperative and is something all Christians are called to do.   Reconciling work is a project truly worthy of our efforts.

The debate at the General Conference should not be about the tired and divisive project of divestment from Israel.  It should instead be about finding a more helpful direction, aligned with our Social Principles, which offers real hope for a new day of peace and justice in the region.

Petitions based on this dual approach -- both calling on United Methodists to advocate for stronger U.S. government efforts for a negotiated peace and calling on United Methodists to be a force for reconciliation -- have been submitted for adoption at the General Conference.  I support these petitions because I believe they are the best witness for a faithful, constructive approach to peace in the region.  I also believe they give us a chance to learn from the wisdom that the book of James praises, which is “first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.”  So may we be.

The Rev. Alex Joyner serves as District Superintendent of the Eastern Shore District of the Virginia Annual Conference and the author of A Space for Peace in the Holy Land: Listening to Modern Israel and Palestine [Englewood Review, 2014].  He is also a reserve delegate to the 2016 General Conference.