Overture 01

On Rescinding and Modifying Certain Actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004) Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict—From the Presbytery of Mississippi.

The Presbytery of Mississippi respectfully overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve the following:

1. The 217th General Assembly (2006) reaffirms the 216th General Assembly (2004) for its concern for “a just resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” its support of inspired initiatives that could advance the prospects of peace in the Middle East, and for moving the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to think deeply and speak publicly about what makes for peace. While the desire for peace is reaffirmed, some of the means for achieving peace advocated by the 216th General Assembly (2004) were not appropriate and, in light of changing circumstances, should not be implemented. They should be rescinded or, in some cases, significantly modified to advance more effectively and fairly the cause of peace as in the recommendations that follow.

2. The 217th General Assembly (2006) believes that two of the items contained in the overtures approved as Item 12-01 (Minutes, 2004, Part I, pp. 64-66) undermine the cause of peace because (a) the language is unnecessarily harsh and accusatory; (b) the tone and prescriptions are arrogant and condescending towards the parties involved; (c) the viewpoint expressed suggests bias in favor of the Palestinian cause and prejudice against Israel; and (d) advocacy of phased selective divestment is punitive rather than redemptive—particularly in light of the rapidly changing circumstances on the ground. Accordingly, paragraphs 5 and 7 of Item 12-01 are hereby repealed, rescinded, and declared null and void. Those paragraphs to be repealed, rescinded, and declared null and void read as follows:

“5. Vigorously urges the U.S. government, the government of Israel, and the Palestinian leadership to move swiftly, and with resolve, to recognize that the only way out of this chronic and vicious impasse is to abandon all approaches that exacerbate further strife, lay aside arrogant political posturing, and get on with forging negotiated compromises that open a path to peace.

“7. Refers to Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) with instructions to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for action.”

3. The 217th General Assembly (2006) believes that the overture expressed as Item 12-02 (On Calling for an End to the Construction of a Wall by the State of Israel, see Minutes, 2004, Part I, pp. 853-54) is too broad in scope and does not further the cause of peace. Item 12-02 is a blanket condemnation of the security wall being built by the State of Israel. The 217th General Assembly (2006) does not believe that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) should tell a sovereign nation whether or how it can protect its borders or handle matters of national defense. The problem with the security wall, in 2004 and presently, is its location. The 217th General Assembly (2006) supports fair criticism of the security wall insofar as it illegally encroaches into the Palestinian territory and fails to follow the legally recognized borders of Israel since 1949 demarcated by the Green Line. Accordingly, Item 12-02 of the 216th General Assembly (2004) is hereby rescinded in its entirety, and the 217th General Assembly (2006) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) requests the Stated Clerk to make known to the president of the United States, the members of Congress of the United States, the prime minister of the State of Israel, and the president of the Palestinian Authority its desire to see the parties establish an agreed boundary along the Green Line, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree. To the extent that the security barrier encroaches upon Palestinian land that was not part of Israel prior to the 1967 war, the barrier should be dismantled and relocated unless both sides shall otherwise agree.

4. The 217th General Assembly (2006) believes that two of the actions taken by the 216th General Assembly (2004) in Item 12-03 (On Confronting Christian Zionism, see Minutes, 2004, Part I, pp. 855-61) are confusing, potentially misleading, and extremely harmful to our relationships with Jews. Blanket condemnation of the ideology technically defined as “Christian Zionism,” in the present context, causes great confusion and harm. The claim that “Christian Zionism does not represent the majority of American Christians and the faith of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” is misleading and incendiary. Rather than condemn particular expressions or theological understandings, the 217th General Assembly (2006) supports the call to study and reflect more deeply on this complex biblical and theological subject about which reasonable people of good faith can and do disagree. A pastoral letter from the Stated Clerk prior to such churchwide study and reflection is premature and ill advised. Accordingly, subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Item 12-03 are hereby repealed and rescinded.

The repealed and rescinded paragraphs read as follows:

“1. Call upon the Stated Clerk to issue to all churches in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) a pastoral letter on Christian Zionism and the ongoing conflict in Israel and Palestine by making this letter available on the PC(USA) Web site. The assembly requests the following offices to assist the Stated Clerk in the preparation of this letter; the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, Corporate Witness, Interfaith Relations, Middle East, and the Office of Theology and Worship.

“2. Direct the Stated Clerk to inform current government officials that Christian Zionism does not represent the majority of American Christians and the faith of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”

5. The 217th General Assembly (2006) (a) acknowledges the enormous historical and political complexity and challenges of peacemaking between Israel and Palestine; (b) recognizes and celebrates the fact that great strides towards peace have been made by the elected leaders of Israel and of the Palestinian Authority; (c) wishes to encourage all sides in this conflict to work together for peace and justice; and (d) seeks to nurture and support the peace process in a way that expresses confidence and concern for Israeli interests as well as Palestinian interests. Accordingly, the 217th General Assembly (2006) seeks to avoid advocating particular and specific solutions, and instead advocates the rebuilding of trust and confidence on both sides. We recommend and embrace the balanced approach of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, also known as The Mitchell Report (May 4, 2001), which analyzed the conflict from the perspectives of Palestinians and Israelis and framed its recommendations as “recommendations” to both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This avoids the appearance of one-sidedness and places the responsibility squarely on both sides to work for peace. The Mitchell Report is careful to speak in principle and not to insist on specific solutions: “It is not within our mandate to prescribe the venue, the basis or the agenda of negotiations. However, in order to provide an effective political context for practical cooperation between the parties, negotiations must not be unreasonably deferred and they must, in our view, manifest a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership, notwithstanding the events of the past seven months.” This is the tone the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) wishes to take to promote the cause of peace and the things that make for peace.

6. The 217th General Assembly (2006) believes that, in the future, it would be better for the church to engage in discussion and dialogue before votes on significant theological or social positions are taken. The damage done to Presbyterian-Jewish relations could have been minimized had the church been encouraged to debate and discuss the overtures that, in their cumulative effect, have been construed as anti-Israel. Many churches first learned of these actions from Jewish friends. This is not good process and does not further the peace, unity, or purity of the church. Accordingly, the 217th General Assembly (2006) directs the Stated Clerk to refer all future overtures that might reasonably be expected to damage the relationship with Jews to the presbyteries for a period of study and reflection before voting to approve or reject such overtures.

Rationale

The Presbytery of Mississippi subscribes to the goal of peacemaking reflected in the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004), but cannot accept or support some of the means advocated by that General Assembly. We call on the great church of Jesus Christ to obey St. Paul’s exhortation “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). The paired prescriptions of phased selective divestment and wholesale condemnation of the security wall fail to make for peace and mutual upbuilding. They fail to grapple fairly with historical complexity, are overbroad, produce pernicious side-effects and unintended consequences, and function more punitively than redemptively. While the goal of peace for Israel and Palestine is laudable, the means are accusatory, one-sided, simplistic, and punitive.

As a matter of conscience, the congregations comprising the Presbytery of Mississippi cannot support divestment as an economic sanction against American companies legally doing business in Israel and/or Palestine. The underlying purpose of divestment is to inflict economic hardship and harm on companies doing business in Israel or Palestine. In clear cases—like genocide or apartheid—such action can be justified. In the present situation, however, where there is justice and injustice on both sides, it is unjustified and inappropriate.

The price of phased selective divestment falls disproportionately on one party to this conflict, namely Israel. Such remedies do not make for peace. The use of economic sanctions as a weapon in peacemaking puts the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the position of a judge passing judgment and imposing a sentence rather than a partner for peace. To rank and file members of the church, it appears arrogant, condescending, and punitive. Such actions, however well intentioned, do not make for peace.

Blanket condemnation of the security wall does not further the peacemaking process. The wall may be, for now, a necessary evil to deter attacks and counterattacks. To criticize the encroachment of the wall into Palestinian territory is legitimate. To tell a nation that it cannot protect its borders or defend its people from mortar or suicide bombers is naïve, arrogant, and hypocritical. The United States has protected borders to prevent illegal immigration. To tell Israel that it does not have the right to protect itself against enemy attack is simply wrong.

The Presbytery of Mississippi does not share the blanket condemnation of “Christian Zionism.” Reasonable Christians can and do read the Bible differently in respect of God’s promises to Israel. We realize that the position taken by the 216th General Assembly (2004) is specific and highly technical. However, in the context of the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it suggests, and creates the appearance of a stand against Israel. Thus, Item 12-03, passed by the 216th General Assembly (2004), creates more problems than it solves and is potentially misleading to the public. It is appropriate to call on the church to study this difficult and complex matter. It is improper to make blanket condemnation of positions that many Reformed Christians hold in good faith and with good biblical support. If we are to bear witness to the Truth, our public pronouncements must be carefully drawn so as not to misrepresent or mislead our position with respect to Israel. Greater clarity and charity is called for here.

The Presbytery of Mississippi objects to the negative and partisan tone of the overtures that condemn Israel’s role in the conflict. If our denomination wishes to encourage both sides to pursue the things that make for peace, we suggest a tone and balanced approach reflected in the report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, popularly known as The Mitchell Report (May 4, 2001). This report analyzes the conflict from several perspectives, acknowledges culpability and responsibility on both sides, frames its prescriptions as “recommendations,” and does not attempt to dictate or advocate specific foreign policy solutions. We believe this tone is much more consistent with the biblical role of peacemaking and the ministry of reconciliation than the strident, accusatory tone expressed in the overtures of the 216th General Assembly (2004). If the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) wishes to be taken seriously as a mediator, it must avoid the appearance of partisan politics and find ways to address both sides of the conflict. We believe this is the role to which God is calling us.

Finally, the Presbytery of Mississippi deeply regrets the fact that the overtures approved by the 216th General Assembly (2004) were not widely circulated or discussed in the larger church in advance of their approval. The reaction from Jewish communities and many Presbyterian members who typically do not follow General Assembly matters closely attests to the advisability of discussing and reflecting on weighty matters before overtures are approved. Items 12-01, 12-02, and 12-03 seem more like advocacy of a determined minority than the product of considered debate, reflection, and judgment of the larger church. The unintended consequence of rushing to judgment (and action) is to destroy trust in the decision-making process and in those leaders who are supposed to shepherd that process. Therefore, we call on the General Assembly Council to adopt a policy and set in place a procedure to refer controversial subjects to the presbyteries for a period of discussion and reflection in advance of taking a binding vote. Had this been done in 2004, Presbyterians could have discussed the issues among ourselves and with our ecumenical partners and Jewish friends in an atmosphere of trust and inquiry rather than after-the-fact in a defensive and highly charged atmosphere of suspicion and broken trust.