Members of Congress Condemn
Presbyterian Divestment Resolution
Washington, D.C. — Congressman Howard L. Berman (D-CA) and
thirteen of his colleagues in the House of Representatives today sent a letter
to the leader of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, deploring its
recent adoption of a resolution calling upon the Church to divest from companies
doing business in Israel and urging that it be rescinded. The letter
expresses their belief that the resolution is irresponsible, counterproductive
and undermines the prospect of peace by "emboldening those who seek to de-legitimize
the State of Israel."
Berman noted that the letter reflects widespread outrage at the actions of
the Church. The signers are bipartisan and come from many different
religious backgrounds.
Following is the text of the letter:
September 13, 2004
The Reverend Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Dear Reverend Kirkpatrick,
As Members of Congress from various faiths, we are terribly distressed about
the resolution adopted at the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), which calls on the Church to divest from certain companies doing business
in Israel. In our view, this resolution and other associated resolutions
and statements reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, contradict the Church's stated commitment to "the secure existence
of Israel and the Israeli people," and undermine the prospect of peace by
emboldening those who seek to de-legitimize the State of Israel.
We wholeheartedly concur with the Church's call for a just and peaceful resolution
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with two states living side by side in peace
and security. The Israeli people have repeatedly shown their willingness
to make painful compromises to achieve this vision. At the Camp David Summit
in 2000, Prime Minister Barak made an historic offer that was rejected by Chairman
Arafat. Most recently, Prime Minister Sharon, the Father of the settlement
movement, has advocated a groundbreaking plan that will lead to a full Israeli
withdrawal from Gaza and the evacuation of some settlements in the West Bank.
Since the beginning of the so-called second intifada in September 2000, Palestinian
terrorists have murdered more than nine hundred innocent Israeli civilians.
Many Palestinian civilians have also been killed in Israeli military operations.
The loss of any human life is tragic, but in the context of this conflict there
is a critical moral distinction: Palestinian terrorists deliberately target
Israeli noncombatants, including women and children, through suicide bombings
and other barbaric acts that leading human rights organizations have defined as
"crimes against humanity." By contrast, Israel uses military force
only as a response to terrorism, and never intentionally targets innocent civilians.
If the Palestinians stopped all terrorist attacks and dismantled terrorist organizations,
the violence would end, and meaningful efforts to reach a peaceful solution could
resume.
Israel's decision to erect a security fence between Israel and the West Bank
must be viewed against the backdrop of this horrific terrorist assault.
It is truly "the fence that terrorism built." In its "rationale"
for the resolution on the security fence, the Church asserts that the barrier
"decreases the security of Israel." In fact, the exact opposite
is true. Since the fence was completed in the Northern section of the West
Bank, no Palestinian terrorists have infiltrated Israel from Jenin and Tulkarm,
the sources of many previous suicide bombers. A similar fence around Gaza
has been nearly 100 percent effective in preventing would-be attackers from entering
Israel.
As currently planned by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, the security fence
(only about five percent of which consists of a "wall") will encroach
on about 12 percent of the West Bank, leaving over 99 percent of Palestinians
on the Palestinian side, and incorporating 76 percent of Israeli settlers on the
Israeli side. There is no question that the fence will make daily life more
difficult for some Palestinians on both sides of the barrier, including those
that will have to pass through Israeli-controlled gates to reach their farmland.
This is a terribly unfortunate situation, but a small price to pay in order to
save innocent lives, and one that is made necessary by the failings of the Palestinian
leadership.
It is important to recognize that Palestinians have the ability to petition
the Israeli Supreme Court on questions regarding the fence. Several weeks
ago, the Court ruled that the Israeli military must alter the proposed route of
the barrier in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and henceforth apply a strict test of
proportionally in weighing Israeli security needs against Palestinian humanitarian
concerns. The Israeli government has pledged to abide by this decision.
In condemning the security fence for extending into the West Bank, the Church
ignores U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which explicitly acknowledged Israel's
right to secure and defensible borders, as well as the Church's stated commitment-
reaffirmed in its resolution on the fence — to Israel's right to exist
within "secure" borders. Nearly every blueprint for peace — including
the flawed Geneva Accord endorsed by the Church — envisions modifications
to the 1967 lines, including the Israeli annexation of large settlement blocs.
To argue that Israel somehow forfeits its inherent right of self-defense unless
it retreats to those insecure and indefensible borders is a strange reading of
history and recent events.
We disagree with your characterization of the conflict as "rooted in Israel's
continued occupation of Palestinian territories." We believe the conflict
is primarily rooted in the Palestinian leadership's refusal to accept Israel's
right to exist as a Jewish state. Sadly, nothing else can adequately explain
their unwillingness to provide a substantive response or counteroffer to the Israeli
peace proposal at Camp David, not to mention the subsequent campaign of terrorism.
As long as Palestinians and their extremist allies continue to seek the destruction
of Israel, then the Government of Israel has a fundamental obligation- as do all
democratically elected governments - to provide security for the Israeli people.
Unlike the U.N. peacekeeping force advocated by the Church in its divestment resolution,
the fence will provide real physical security and- because Israel will have the
ability to redeploy its forces from much of the West Bank when it is complete-
will help create the conditions necessary for a two state solution in which the
legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians can be satisfied.
We believe very strongly that the efforts of the Church to divest from companies
doing business in Israel — thus penalizing Israel for acting in its
own self-defense — are irresponsible, counterproductive, and morally
bankrupt. Rather than contributing to peace, this approach will only provide
encouragement for those that seek to de-legitimize the very existence of the Jewish
State.
We note with alarm your press release mention that "divestment is one
of the strategies that U.S. churches used in the l970's and the l980's in a successful
campaign to end apartheid in South Africa." South African apartheid?
Surely the Presbyterian Church is aware that Israel is a nation whose population
is nearly 20% non-Jewish Arab with the same rights as Jewish Citizens, including
voting. They even have their own political parties, and serve in the Israeli Knesset.
Israel is a nation that occupies a tiny sliver of land known as the West Bank
only because Jordan, overwhelmingly composed of Palestinians, invaded Israel in
l967 in order to destroy it and thereby lost its ownership of the West Bank.
The resolution's blatant disregard for recent history, and its blatant disregard
for the safety and security of the only democracy in the Middle East leads us
to only one conclusion: the Presbyterian Church has knowingly gone on record
calling for jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.
We urge you in the strongest possible terms to rescind your resolution.
Sincerely,
REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA)
REP. ROY BLUNT (R-MO)
REP. STENY H. HOYER (D-MD)
REP. DEBORAH PRYCE (R-OH)
REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA)
REP. JOHN LINDER (R-GA)
REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN (D-CA)
REP. MARK STEVEN KIRK (R-IL)
REP. GARY L. ACKERMAN (D-NY)
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA)
REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ (D-CA)
REP. TOM FEENEY (R-FL)
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA)
REP. LAMAR S. SMITH (R-TX)
|
