|
| |
|
This page is archived from the
217th GA, 2006 |
|
Divestment: a Jewish perspective |
| A Jewish professor of political science writes in
support of divestment [posted by Doug King, 6-6-06]
Commissioners preparing for the coming General Assembly
have received great heaps of letters and other communications from people
and groups wanting them to hear their point of view. And there may be just
a few among those commissioners who have not quite kept up with the paper
flood.
But one letter in the flood is worth reading, whether
you’re a commissioner or not.
Norman G. Finkelstein, who teaches political science at
DePaul University in Chicago, has long paid attention to the
Israel-Palestine conflict, and has worked for lasting peace between the
two nations.
His letter reflects both his experience and his
concerns, and explains why he supports the Presbyterian study of the
possibility of what he rightly calls "a phased, selective divestment from
companies profiting from Israel's occupation."
The letter:
1 May 2006
Dear Commissioner or Advisory Delegate,
Permit me to introduce myself. My name is Norman G. Finkelstein. I teach
political science at DePaul University in Chicago and am the author of many
publications on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am Jewish. Both my late
parents were survivors of the Nazi concentration camps. Every member of
their respective families was exterminated during the war. The most
important lesson they taught me and my siblings was not to be silent in the
face of other people's suffering.
In the spirit of this legacy I have devoted most of my adult life to
achieving a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine. Like many others
I was moved and elated by the resolution taken at the 216th General Assembly
(2004), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to consider a phased, selective
divestment from companies profiting from Israel's occupation. Recently I
have been informed that, in various Presbyteries of the PCUSA, pressure has
arisen to rescind that bold initiative at the forthcoming 217th General
Assembly (2006) of the PCUSA - pressure coming from organizations both
within and outside the church, some claiming to speak for the Jewish
community.
I believe that rescinding or weakening this resolution would be a terrible
mistake. A moral enquiry would pose two questions: Do Israeli human rights
violations warrant your church's initiative, and is such an initiative the
best tactic to achieve the desired goal of ending these violations? In my
view, the answer to both these questions is an emphatic yes.
Israel's real human rights record in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is
barely known. This is primarily due to the formidable public relations
industry of Israel and its uncritical defenders abroad as well as their
tactics of intimidation, such as labeling dissenters from Israeli policy
anti-Semitic.
Israeli human rights violations, many rising to the level
of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the opinion of human rights
organizations, include:
 | Illegal Killings. According
to the most recent figures of B'Tselem, the leading and most authoritative
Israeli human rights organization, three times more Palestinians than
Israelis have been killed and up to three times more Palestinian civilians
than Israeli civilians. Israel's defenders maintain that there's a
difference between targeting civilians and inadvertently killing them.
However, B'Tselem disputes this: "[W]hen so many civilians have been
killed and wounded, the lack of intent makes no difference. Israel remains
responsible." |
 |
Torture. "From 1967," Amnesty
International reports, "the Israeli security services have routinely
tortured Palestinian political suspects in the Occupied Territories."
B'Tselem found that 85 percent of Palestinians interrogated by Israeli
security services were subjected to "methods constituting torture."
Already a decade ago Human Rights Watch estimated that "the number of
Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated" was "in the tens of
thousands - a number that becomes especially significant when it is
remembered that the universe of adult and adolescent male Palestinians in
the West Bank and Gaza is under three-quarters of one million." In 1987
Israel became "the only country in the world to have effectively legalized
torture" (Amnesty). The Israeli-based Public Committee Against Torture
reported in 2003 that, despite an Israeli Supreme Court ruling that seemed
finally to ban torture, security forces continued to apply torture in a
"methodical and routine" fashion. A 2001 B'Tselem study documented that
Israeli security forces often applied "severe torture" to "Palestinian
minors." |
 | House demolitions. "Israel
has implemented a policy of mass demolition of Palestinian houses in the
Occupied Territories," B'Tselem reports. Since September 2000 it "has
destroyed some 4,170 Palestinian homes." Until just recently Israel
routinely resorted to house demolitions as a form of collective
punishment. Israel also continues to routinely demolish "illegal" homes
that Palestinians built because of Israel's refusal to provide building
permits. According to Amnesty, the motive has been to maximize the area
available for illegal Jewish settlers. Israel has also destroyed hundreds
of Palestinian homes on the pretext of security but both Human Rights
Watch and Amnesty agree that Israel's extensive destruction is not
justified by military necessity. Amnesty says that "(s)ome of these acts
of destruction amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention
and are war crimes." |
Apart from the sheer magnitude of its human rights
violations, the uniqueness of Israeli policies merits notice. "Israel has
created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on
discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and
basing the rights of individuals on their nationality," B'Tselem has
concluded. "This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is
reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid
regime in South Africa." If singling out South Africa for economic
sanctions was defensible, it would seem equally defensible to single out
Israel's occupation, which uniquely resembles the apartheid regime.
Although the PCUSA's initiative can clearly be justified on moral grounds,
the question remains whether quiet diplomacy might be a more constructive
alternative. The basic terms for resolving the conflict are embodied in U.N.
resolution 242 and subsequent U.N. resolutions. They call for a full Israeli
withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and the establishment of a
Palestinian state in these areas in exchange for recognition of Israel's
right to live peacefully with its neighbors. While each year the
overwhelming majority in the United Nations vote in favor of this two-state
settlement, Israel and the United States (and a few South Pacific islands)
have consistently opposed it.
Not only has Israel stubbornly rejected this two-state settlement, but the
policies it is currently pursuing will abort any possibility of a viable
Palestinian state. It has been constructing a wall deep inside the West Bank
that will annex the most productive land and water resources as well as East
Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian life. It will also effectively sever
the West Bank in two. Although Israel initially claimed that it was building
the wall to fight terrorism, the newly elected Israeli government has
explicitly acknowledged that the wall will serve as Israel's future border.
In addition Israel has signaled its intention to retain the Jordan Valley
within the eastern border of the West Bank as well as a settlement bloc in
the north which will sever this territory yet again. Palestinians will be
confined to half the West Bank in a multitude of tiny and isolated
communities.
The current policies of the Israeli government will lead either to endless
bloodshed or the dismemberment of Palestine. "It remains virtually
impossible to conceive of a Palestinian state without its capital in
Jerusalem," the respected International Crisis Group recently concluded, and
accordingly Israeli policies in the West Bank "are at war with any viable
two-state solution and will not bolster Israel's security; in fact, they
will undermine it, weakening Palestinian pragmatists…and sowing the seeds of
growing radicalization."
In the face of diplomatic paralysis the moral burden to avert the impending
catastrophe must be borne by individual men and women of conscience. A
nonviolent tactic the purpose of which is to achieve a just and lasting
settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict cannot legitimately be called
anti-Semitic. Indeed, the real enemies of Jews are those who debase the
memory of Jewish suffering by equating your church's conscientious
initiative with anti-Semitism.
I am enclosing with this letter a copy of my recent book Beyond Chutzpah which documents both the misuse of anti-Semitism by
Israel's uncritical supporters as well as Israel's sad human rights record
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Should you find the time to read
it, I am sure you will be convinced that the 216th General Assembly (2004)
of the PCUSA made the right decision and that its reaffirmation by the
upcoming 217th General Assembly (2006) will best encourage and promote, in
the long run, a just and lasting peace for Jews, Christians and Muslims in
Israel and Palestine.
Sincerely yours,
Norman G. Finkelstein
You may
want to explore his website >>
|
| |
|
Do you want to
be notified whenever something new is added to this web site?
Just send a note, and we'll add you to our e-list for brief
notes when something new is posted here.
|
| |
|
This website has been created by a number of progressive
organizations related to the Presbyterian Church (USA), with two
main purposes: 1. We
want to share our concerns and views with commissioners and others
attending the Assembly, and with anyone else who is watching from
afar. While some of our groups focus on one area of concern
and others are more general in their focus, we are all committed to
the wholeness of our world, which we understand to involve justice
and peace and the well-being of all people; and we are committed to
the wholeness and health of our Church and its witness and service
in the world.
2. We want to get to know
you better and serve your concerns and needs in any way we can.
So we will invite you to share your views with us and with one
another with any email responses or questions. We'll invite
your responses with links here and there, and we'll try to post
those that seem to contribute to our conversations.
Just send a note now, and tell us how we can be helpful!
|
|