The Presbyterian Resolution on Divestment

A Review of the Ethical Arguments

By Robert Traer

In the summer of 2004 at its 216^th General Assembly the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) passed a resolution that condemns the "security wall" being built by the Israeli government and calls for a process of selective divestment of church owned stock in companies doing military and security business with Israel. This action has been sharply criticized both within the church and from outside as well. Some Presbyterians are now proposing a "moratorium" on enforcing the resolution, and fourteen members of the House of Representatives have urged that the resolution be rescinded.

As this decision involves ethical issues of great significance, it deserves a careful review.

In doing ethics Presbyterians, like other Christians, look to scripture and church teaching to identify moral duties, and to past Christian conduct for examples of high moral character. Christians also address ethical issues not simply as individuals, but as members of a community of faith. In addition, contemporary Christians recognize their responsibilities as citizens of a nation that belongs to the community of nations. So, Christians consider acting in ways that protect and promote human rights, as recognized by their nations and international law, as well as by many churches.

As Christians, I believe, we construct ethical presumptions by considering our duties, the character traits of being a good Christian, the relationships involved in a moral decision, and how our action supports human rights. We then act on these ethical presumptions, unless the likely consequences of doing so seem to be more adverse than favorable. In that case, we need to review our options.

If we use this way of doing ethics, as Christians, to review the debate over the divestment resolution passed last summer by the 216^th General Assembly, what conclusions might we draw?

In the gospels of the New Testament Jesus confirms that the greatest commandment given by God to Moses for his people involves two duties: loving God, and loving others. (Mt. 22:36-40, Mk. 12:28-31, Lk. 10:25-28) The teaching of the Great Commandment, as presented in the gospel of Luke, concludes with what is known as the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:29-37). In the gospel of Luke, when Jesus is asked to define the limit of our duty to others by clarifying who our neighbors are, he replies by telling a story about a man who helped another man. The man in need was a Jew, who had been beaten and robbed. Two other Jews came upon the injured man beside the road, but hurried on, before a Samaritan stopped and cared for him. Because Jews and Samaritans belong to different religious and ethnic communities, with a long history of conflict, the parable may be read as applying the commandment to love our neighbors also to strangers, even those who are enemies. Instead of limiting our duty to love our neighbors, the parable of the Good Samaritan expands our duty by defining the neighbors we are to love as all those we are able to assist, no matter who they may be.

The Presbyterian resolution opposing Israel’s construction of a security wall expresses a contemporary interpretation of our Christian duty. If loving our neighbor means helping those we are able to assist, American Christians certainly have a duty both to advocate for a just peace in the Middle East and to use our resources to further justice. Yet, critics of the divestment resolution argue that it is wrong, no matter how well intended. Therefore, we need to look carefully at their reasoning.

Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) is active in opposing the Occupation of the West Bank and in protesting the unjust conditions imposed on many Palestinians by the security wall. But RHR has also responded with dismay to the Presbyterian resolution for three reasons.

First, because the 216^th General Assembly continued funding for local churches that proselytize Jews, RHR argues that the Presbyterian Church has failed to respect Jewish faith. In response to this concern, the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church has noted that the 216^th General Assembly mandated a study to "examine and strengthen the relationship between Christians and Jews and the implications of this relationship for our evangelism and new church development." Moreover, he has clarified that primary decisions about the funding of new church developments are the responsibility of presbyteries, not the General Assembly. (www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2004/04329.htm)

The vote in 2004 on whether to suspend funding for future "Messianic congregations" was 260 to 233 with 6 abstentions. Rev. Susan Andrews, moderator of the 215th Assembly, opposed the funding and noted that Jewish friends "expect us to do evangelism as Christians—but this particular form of evangelism was something that saddened and concerned them, because of the lack of clarity of Avodat Yisrael being a Christian congregation and the way in which sacred Jewish rituals and objects are being used in that particular situation." (www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2004/04542.htm)

International law protects the right to freedom of religious expression, which includes evangelizing. (Article 18, The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights) But the Vatican and the World Council of Churches condemn proselytism, which is defined as coercive, misleading or manipulative forms of evangelizing. The Vatican and the WCC distinguish proselytizing from witnessing, which is seen in both traditions is a necessary part of Christian faith.

We may conclude, therefore, that Christians have an ethical duty to share their faith in ways that are respectful of others, who differ.

The second objection raised by RHR concerns the assertion in the Presbyterian resolution that the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank "has proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict." RHR condemns the Occupation and is actively involved in working for its end through a peace accord. But RHR argues that the Presbyterian position is "inaccurate and inadequate to explain the situation in all its tragic moral complexity." The appeal of RHR to the Presbyterian Church includes the following statement:

You passed a resolution directed as a "call … on the Israeli government," describing the Occupation in a way that profoundly places Israeli sin alone at the heart of the situation. While we recognize that you deplore terror against Israelis, you direct not one word of criticism to the government of the Palestinian Authority despite its manifest multitude of profound sins against God and the Human Rights of Palestinians and Jews. You ignore the incontrovertible fact that this catastrophe is the product of many causes and that there is guilt enough to share between all parties. People of conscience must act in awareness that the singling out, magnifying and sanctifying of Jewish sins has always been at the core of the terrible evil that we know as anti-Semitism. Failing in this awareness, you cross a line that people of good conscience dare not cross. (www.rhr.israel.net)

The Stated Clerk in his statement of 21 July 2004 has defended the fairness of the Presbyterian Church’s position by invoking the context of previous statements. In 1987 the Church expressed a commitment "never again to participate in, to contribute to, or (insofar as we are able) to allow the persecution or denigration of Jews (A Theological Understanding of the Relationship between Christians and Jews). And on 28 May 2002 the Stated Clerk called on Palestinians to stop attacks on noncombatants and asserted: "Acts of hate and terror inflicted on innocent children and youth, women and men of Israel and the larger Jewish community must be unequivocally condemned and vehemently abhorred." (www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2004/04329.htm)

Yet, Presbyterians should heed the concern raised by RHR, for if this is the perception of our Jewish partners in peacemaking, then surely many other Jews, both in Israel and the United States, will have the same concern. As Christians, we have a duty to assess fairly "the problem" as well as the responsibilities all parties have for achieving a just peace. To be the Good Samaritans we want to be, we must go out of our way to hear the criticism of Jews who share our opposition to the security wall, and then do our best to remedy any unfairness in our position.

The third concern expressed by RHR has to do with the call to divestment. Even allowing that the intention of the Presbyterian Church’s resolution is to be very "selective," RHR sees such an initiative as "a form of collective economic punishment" that would discriminate against Israel.

RHR questions the ethics of any economic boycott of a nation, because such a boycott inflicts suffering on a people and not merely on its government. But RHR also asserts that because of the history of persecution of Jews, a boycott of Israel will reinforce anti-Semitism, which the U. S. State Department reported on 5 January 2005 is now on the increase throughout the world. (www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm)

The Stated Clerk has defended the Assembly’s "authorized exploration of a selective divestment of church funds from those companies whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people, Palestinian or Israeli." He has also argued that although such selective divestment "may be presumed by some to invite comparison of Israeli policies with those of apartheid South Africa, the Assembly has not asserted any moral equivalency between the two." The Stated Clerk says the purpose of the action "is to explore use of a proven tool of economic pressure to motivate real change in Israeli policies and movement toward peace." (www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2004/04329.htm)

The resolution on divestment does not envision a "boycott" of Israel, as the RHR response alleges. Moreover, divestment need not be understood as a condemnation of Israel, and the Stated Clerk has described it as only a tactic that has been useful in putting pressure on recalcitrant governments. But we must consider the ethical challenges to such a strategy, which have been raised by our Jewish allies. Is divestment wrong, because it is a form of collective punishment? And would divestment directed at companies selling to Israel reinforce the heritage of anti-Semitism that darkens our history?

Answering the second question means speculating on what may happen, but we have to admit that the historical record gives credence to Jewish fears. Moreover, the continuing blindness of Christians to the anti-Jewish language in the New Testament, which has long been used to demean Jews and Jewish faith, should make us very cautious. We must not discount the dire consequences that our Jewish friends expect will follow a Christian divestment campaign against Israel.

Answering the first question involves considering how Christians are to confront wrongdoing. The biblical prophets suggest that God punishes the whole people of Israel for the sins of their leaders, but much of the New Testament witness resists such a conclusion. The Christian conviction that Jesus, as God’s anointed one, takes on himself the sins of the world, seems to mark the end of collective punishment. In the New Testament gospels Jesus offers God’s forgiveness to everyone who repents of his or her sin. We are called not only to do justice, but also to embody God’s reconciling love by admitting our own wrongdoing, and by forgiving those who have wronged us.

The gospel stories in the New Testament offer compelling examples of ethical conduct. In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus demonstrates that loving our neighbor means loving our enemies by forgiving them (Mt. 5:38-48, Lk. 6:32-36). And in the gospels of Luke and John, Jesus makes it clear to his Jewish followers that Samaritans, and other Gentiles, are also our neighbors, because they, too, are children of God (Lk. 2:32, 9:52, 10:33, 17:16, Jn. 4:7-42). The Jesus of the Christian Bible shows others how to live more ethical lives, by trusting the God they see manifested in him. In this sense Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life," as John 14:6 proclaims. Jesus brings the power of God into the lives of his followers by living a faithful and righteous life.

The prayer that Jesus taught his disciples calls us to forgive, and not merely to seek justice when we are wronged. Doing ethics as a Christian means considering not only how to do what is right, but what to do about any wrong that we may have done.

Presbyterians, as well as other Christians, need to admit that Christians have a terrible record in their dealings with Jews. We must accept that this long, dark history predisposes Jews with good reason to perceive Christian evangelism as demeaning, especially when it is targeted at them. Similarly, Christians must reflect on the history of conflict between Islam and Christendom, and the more recent oppression of the Muslim peoples by Christian, colonial powers. We have to see history as Jews and Muslims see history, in order to act with greater understanding and empathy.

Therefore, Christian ethics should begin with a confession of our sins, and not with a reasoned condemnation of the sins committed by others. As Christians, we are called to embrace the virtues of humility and honesty. Our history is rich in examples of men and women of faith, who have aspired to embody such character traits.

Certainly, American Christians are right to condemn the Israeli government for building a security wall that violates international law. But we should also condemn the actions of our government that violate international law, in the name of national security and a war on terrorism.

We do not accept the argument made by fourteen Congressmen, in a letter to the Stated Clerk dated 13 September 2004, that Israelis are simply defending their security by building a security wall. In his reply of 24 September 2004, the Stated Clerk correctly points out that Congress has failed to be even-handed in its criticism of Palestinian and Israeli actions. (www.pcusa.org/washington/divestment.htm)

But in criticizing the Israeli government, Presbyterians should exemplify a more even-handed perspective. In addition to blaming Palestinians as well as Israelis for their conflict over the land, we must also acknowledge that our own government is part of the problem.

Christian teaching presumes that moral autonomy should be exercised for the sake of the church. The ethical principle expressed by Jesus in the gospels and by Paul in his letters is that individual freedom is subordinate to the good of the community. The New Testament does not attempt to achieve this by imposing a set of rules, but by inspiring Christians to use their freedom for the good of others. Paul argues that our freedom in Christ should be used to build up the life and loving witness of the church.

Statements by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) reveal that its controversial resolution in 2004 was passed in response to passionate requests for support by representatives of Protestant churches in the Middle East. For many American Christians there is a strong desire to act in solidarity with Palestinian Christians, who are seen as innocent victims of the oppressive policies and practices of the Israeli government. (www.pcusa.org/ga216/news/ga04121.htm) Moreover, many Palestinian Christians believe that extremist Islamic and Jewish movements are using the conflict in the Middle East to promote their own separatist visions for Palestine and Israel, which fail to respect the Christian community that has long been present there.

Christians in the Middle East are being pressured to leave by Muslim movements, which see the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty as a violent jihad, as well as by the policies of the Israeli government and the violence of some of the Jewish settlers on the West Bank. But we must respond not only to strengthen Christian solidarity, but also to build with Jews and Muslims a just peace in the Middle East that will enable people of all three religious traditions to live together.

In the twenty-first century Christian solidarity should not be sought at the expense of Jewish-Christian-Muslim solidarity. Members of these three traditions are challenged now to discern how their unique spiritual heritage is related to the other two traditions, by scripture and history, as well as by what lies ahead in a more peaceful and just world.

Christians, who proclaim one God, one faith and one baptism, should also affirm that Jews, Christians and Muslims are united by their worship of the one God. Of course, sin and idolatry corrupt each of these three traditions of faith. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims worship power, money, or their own understanding of God, rather than the God of creation and redemption. Yet, if all share these sins, all also share in the reconciling forgiveness of the one God.

In response to justifications for violent resistance by some Muslims, Christians must do more than denounce terror. Christians must confess that their silence when Western governments were oppressing Muslim peoples, and their support for proselytizing campaigns among Muslims, were wrong—as wrong as Christian silence during World War II when Nazis were slaughtering Jews.

If we are to strengthen relationships with Jews and Muslims, and also with Christians in the Middle East, we must resist religious violence and all forms of spiritual triumphalism. Christians have long claimed their scripture and faith supercede Jewish scripture and faith, and have long used violence and proselytism in an attempt to destroy Islam. Now, we must strive to build relationships of peace and justice among the peoples of these three historically related religious traditions.

The statement by Rabbis for Human Rights to the Presbyterian Church begins with an affirmation that all human beings are created in the image of God. The story of creation in scripture has led many Jews and Christians (and also many Muslims) to support fundamental human rights. The RHR assertion that the resolution of the 216^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church "violates" human rights is factually incorrect, for freedom of religion under international human rights law allows members of one religious tradition to try to convert members of another religious tradition.

But the demand by RHR for "respectful, equal treatment" is a serious moral demand deserving our thoughtful response. RHR argues that the divestment strategy of the Presbyterian Church will contribute to "discrimination against Jews as Jews, the world over." (www.rhr.israel.net) Even if we believe that divestment is justified by our Christian calling to resist injustice, the possibility of such dire consequences should lead us to pause and reflect before acting.

We also need to consider the argument about Israeli rights asserted by the fourteen members of Congress, who wrote to the Stated Clerk on 13 September 2004. Their statement affirms the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis, but emphasizes "Israel’s right to secure and defensible borders," Israel’s "inherent right of self-defense," and "Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state." Their statement also notes that the U. N. Security Council Resolution 242 recognizes this right. Moreover, the Geneva Accord, which the Presbyterian Church has endorsed, recognizes the need to adjust the 1967 green line separating the West Bank from Israel, to allow Israel’s annexation of some settlements in order to achieve a secure border. (www.pcusa.org/washington/divesetment.htm)

In response to this criticism the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church has with good reason expressed disappointment that Congress "has not proven to be…a balanced arbiter in the negotiations for peace in the region." This is a particularly grave failing, because moral leadership by the United States is required for peace in the region. The Stated Clerk asserts that Congress has done nothing "to pressure Israel to adhere to international law." In fact, he argues, House Resolution 713, "which condemns the International Court of Justice and supports a wall that is in blatant violation of international law," is just one example of how "Israel has been encouraged [by Congress] to violate international law." (www.pcusa.org/washington/divestment.htm)

The Stated Clerk then points out that international human rights law requires attention to the grave injustices suffered by Palestinians under the Occupation. In addition, he argues that the security wall is depriving Palestinians of their right to their land, and its use. While supporting the right to self-defense and security, the Stated Clerk suggests that a security wall unjustly appropriating Palestinian land will only make Israel less secure and peace unattainable.

When there is a conflict of rights, as there is between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the procedures for dealing with the conflict are as important as the substantive principles required for justice. Resolving the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is made more difficult by disagreement on "the rule of law" to be used by all parties.

Israel and the United States have resisted international law, when its forum is an international court or the United Nations General Assembly. Palestinians have refused to enforce the rule of law on terrorists, who are using Palestinian territory to prepare and launch attacks on Israelis. For human rights to be protected there must be some agreement as to what rule of law is fair and just.

Christians should urge that international human rights law be accepted. We must admit that the contemporary concept of rights is absent from the Bible, for the ethical language of human rights is a modern way of describing the social conditions necessary for human dignity. Yet, many Christians have come to support human rights as a reflection of the teaching in Genesis 1, which affirms that each person is made in the image of God, and therefore deserves our respect.

Moreover, in the sixteenth century Protestant reformers found in Paul’s letters justification for asserting the right of conscience, which became the cornerstone for a tradition of civil rights forged first through resistance to church authority and then in wars of independence against sovereigns claiming a divine right to rule without popular support.

The human rights now asserted and protected by international law have been embraced by the Catholic Church and by most of the Protestant and Orthodox churches belonging to the World Council of Churches. These rights are defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, and by the two main treaties implementing this Declaration: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

Civil and political rights protect the freedom of each person, and economic, social and cultural rights protect group rights as well. A Christian view of human rights is concerned both with the freedom of the individual and how the exercise of individual freedom contributes to the good of the community. We are free, but always in relationships with others. Paul argued that individual freedom should be exercised for the sake of the community, and not simply as an individual right. So, Christian ethics weighs the autonomous rights of an individual against the wellbeing of those affected by an individual’s conduct, and the good of each against the common good.

Today, we are challenged to respect not only the right of individual conscience, but also the right of communities of faith to pursue their own vision of what is true and just. For Christians, this means coming to respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities. To protect the rights of all, of course, religious violence must be condemned, whether committed by Jews, Muslims or Christians.

Nonviolent protest and the rule of law are the tools for promoting a just and peaceful society. Christians have a long history of violating their own principles concerning a just war, but this scandalous history does not negate the justice of these principles. War may only be condoned as an act of last resort in self-defense, and the violence used in warfare must be proportional to the threat. In addition, those waging war must distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, and care must be taken to minimize noncombatant casualties.

Certainly, Palestinian terrorists are not abiding by these rules, nor generally are the Israeli defense forces or settlers. But our government also has failed to set a good example, for its war in Iraq was preemptive, and it has denied many of those detained for allegedly supporting terrorist acts of the ethical presumption of innocence, a fundamental human right under the rule of law.

Does this mean we should despair and conclude that war is simply hell and cannot be reined in by ethical principles? Does this mean we should give up our quest to resist violence by expanding and strengthening the rule of law? Not at all! To be true to our faith, we must continue to assert the ethical principles of our just war tradition. And we must aspire to protect and promote the rule of law at home and abroad, for our own sake, and for the sake of our children, as well as for the sake of all the peoples of the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world.

Based on the preceding review of the ethical debate concerning the divestment resolution passed by the 216^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), I suggest that we might construct the following ethical presumptions.

First, Christians should begin all ethical statements about the Middle East with a confession of sin, as to the complicity of Christians for nearly two millennia in the persecution of Jews and for over a millennium in the disparagement and oppression of Muslims. Before we point out the sins of others, in the name of justice, we must confess our own sins. Any position lacking a clear self-critical statement will be unfair, regardless of how well balanced its reasoning is otherwise.

Second, Christians should refrain from worshipping and witnessing in ways that offend our Jewish allies in peacemaking, for we seek their friendship and respect as well as their collaboration. The right to freedom of religion under international law permits proselytism, but we should accept the ethical restraints on witnessing that the Vatican and the World Council of Churches recommend.

Third, Christians can (and should) oppose the security wall being built by Israel, and affirm the right of Israel to secure borders. Arguing that this particular wall, at least in some places, unjustly takes Palestinian land and violates international law, is not an attack on the existence of the Jewish State. Similarly, arguing that any fence or wall segregating Palestinians from Israelis will make attaining peace more difficult, is not a rejection of Israel’s right to defend its people.

Fourth, Christians should only pursue a divestment strategy with Jewish friends. If our Jewish partners, who oppose the Occupation and the separation wall, will not support a strategy of selective divestment, as a way of putting pressure on the Israeli government, then we should refrain from using such a tactic. We need to strengthen relationships, as we work for peace in the Middle East.

The sense of these presumptions might be summed up as follows: In addressing issues of peace and justice in the Middle East, Christians should act in solidarity with Jews, who renounce religious violence and embrace the rule of law.

I have emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening friendship with Jews, as Christians make ethical decisions of utmost concern to both Christians and Jews, because the resolution of the 216^th General Assembly is primarily concerned with putting pressure on the Israeli government. Other statements by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) also criticize Palestinians, who are mostly Muslims, and certainly Christians in considering these positions should act on a similar ethical presumption concerning Muslims.

In addressing issues of peace and justice in the Middle East, Christians should act in solidarity with Muslims, who renounce religious violence and embrace the rule of law.

Thus, our overriding ethical presumption concerning statements and actions about the Middle East may be stated in a single sentence. Christians should act in solidarity with Jews and Muslims, who renounce religious violence and embrace the rule of law.

Finally, we must consider the likely consequences of acting on this ethical presumption, and whether or not these consequences seem sufficiently adverse to justify setting this presumption aside and pursuing an alternative course of action.

Some Jews support the present Presbyterian position on selective divestment, and would certainly oppose any retreat. In December 2004 Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) clarified that it does not support a campaign of general divestment, but rejected "the accusation that general divestment or boycott campaigns are inherently anti-Semitic." JVP praised Presbyterians for "their courage in taking on this critical human rights issue," and reminded "the many groups that are alarmed by the Presbyterian Church’s actions that the best way to stop the growing divestment movement is to eliminate its root cause—Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land." (www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org)

Palestinian Christians support the divestment strategy, and other American church groups are considering similar actions. Some argue that support for selective divestment will increase, once there is understanding that the process will review investments that may be aiding Palestinian terrorism, as well as investments in companies making equipment used to oppress Palestinians. (www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2004/04497.htm)

Counter arguments to the divestment strategy are offered by Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish and Christian Relations. PCJCR is circulating a petition that notes the "considerable division and distrust this action has caused both within our church and within the Jewish community," and asserts that the recent resolution "distracts from our denomination's historic commitment to a two state solution to the conflict." PCJCR calls "upon Presbyterians to work toward the reversal of the divestment decision by building support for overtures to be presented to the 2006 [Presbyterian] General Assembly." (www.pcjcr.org)

The likely consequences of pursuing selective divestment, or of implementing alternative strategies, cannot now be known. Therefore, we may reasonably conclude that any such predictions do not meet even a convincing burden of proof, which would justify setting aside our ethical presumption that Christians should work for a just peace in the Middle East with Jews and Muslims, who renounce religious violence and embrace the rule of law.

Jews who oppose the Occupation and condemn the injustice imposed on Palestinians by the Israeli security wall do not all agree about the wisdom of the selective divestment strategy initiated by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Jewish Voice for Peace has warmly embraced the tactic, but other Jewish peace groups, such as Rabbis for Human Rights, have expressed dismay. Presbyterians, and other Christians working for a just peace in the Middle East, should now make every effort to converse and cooperate with Jews who oppose divestment, as well as with those who endorse it.

Support in Israel and the Occupied Territories of Palestine for the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program of the World Council of Churches demonstrates that there are many Jews and Muslims willing to work with Christians to end the Occupation and to achieve a just peace for Palestinians and Israelis. Participating organizations in the WCC program, in addition to Palestinian churches, include the Israeli Committee Against House Demotions, Machsom Watch, Rabbis for Human Rights, and the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B’Tselem), as well as the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees, and the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network. Information on all these groups is available on the WCC’s Ecumenical Accompaniment Program web site. (www.eappi.org)

In the United States Jewish organizations working for a just peace in the Middle East, in addition to Jewish Voice for Peace, include Brit Tzedek v'Shalom: Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace (www.btvshalom.org), the Tikkun Community (www.tikkun.org), and the Shalom Center (www.shalomctr.org). Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, with chapters in many American cities, endorses the Geneva Accord, as does the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The Tikkun Community has also called on religious and community leaders to support the Geneva Accord. The Shalom Center has recently issued, with Jewish, Christian, and Muslim support, a Call for Peacemaking in the Middle East.

The Interfaith Relations Office of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) suggests on its web site (www.pcusa.org/interfaith/index.htm) that Christians, who wish to learn more about American Muslims, visit the web sites of three Muslim organization: the Islamic Society of North America (www.isna.net), the Islamic Circle of North America (www.icna.org), and the Council for American-Islamic Relations (www.cair-net.org). Certainly, there are opportunities here for dialogue, and perhaps also for collaborative action.

From my experience in international interfaith work, I know that Jews and Muslims are at times unwilling to act publicly with Christians, or with each other, even when privately they may agree. But Christians, who hope to stand in solidarity with both Jews and Muslims, need to accept rather than criticize such wariness. For there is much to be learned by doing so, and learning from Jews and from Muslims is crucial for all those who hope to contribute to a just peace in the Middle East.

Robert Traer teaches Ethics at the Dominican University of California, and has a J.D. ands a Ph.D. in religious studies. He is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and former General Secretary of the International Association for Religious Freedom, an interfaith NGO. He is the author of Faith in Human Rights: Religious Support for a Global Struggle (Georgetown, 1991), and his writings on human rights are available online at www.religionhumanrights.net. This spring Bob will take part in the WCC’s Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel. To receive by email his weekly letter from Jerusalem, beginning in mid February, send an email to jerusalem-subscribe@list.christian-bible.com.

Home   Exegesis   Scripture   Worship   Ethics   Dialogue   Parables   Email   

1 in Faith: A Christian Bible Study † Copyright © 2000 by Robert Traer