One of the great joys in being part of the PC(USA) is how we Presbyterians, who have differing opinions, can engage in dialogue and debate in regard to the issues and concerns we care most deeply about.   As the Advocacy Chairperson of the Israel Palestine Mission Network, I most definitely have my opinions about church policy concerning the ongoing conflict in the Holy Land and exercise my God-given freedom to indeed advocate for what I believe.   I also fully understand that in the context of such discourse, you win some and you lose some.  As an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament, I take seriously the ordination vows I made in 1981, as do all the ministers and elders I know serving as part of IPMN, and therefore respect decisions made by General Assemblies whether I agree with them or not.

Therefore, I feel compelled to speak to a recent opinion piece ("Fox appointed to henhouse guard" October 29, 2010) published by The Layman Online which at best stretches truth and at worst, in the words of Sarah Palin, "makes stuff up" in regard to the recent actions of the 219th General Assembly and the ongoing work of the Israel Palestine Mission Network in response to that.  Especially egregious is the claim that this official network of the PC(USA) seeks to undermine or circumvent the policies of our denomination

In response to the IPMN endorsement of three products manufactured within illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), the "analysis" goes on to say that according to a blogger who happens to be Presbyterian, the IPMN has on its "hit list...intellectual boycotts of published material and visiting professors."   This is an out and out falsehood.   The network's Advocacy Committee, Steering Committee, and Annual Meeting (all of which I have consistently been a part since 2006) have never considered this matter in any official deliberations whatsoever.  No one has ever brought it up, let alone advocated for it, at any IPMN meeting...ever.  On the subject of boycott, there is no General Assembly action or policy to undermine or circumvent.   This is simply because there has never been a recommendation or overture to any General Assembly to boycott products made, or companies doing business in illegal Israeli settlements within the OPT.  If no General Assembly has ever said "yea" or "nay" on the subject, then no entity of the denomination can be said to have violated General Assembly policy regarding it.

The opinion piece goes on to imply that IPMN somehow did not want the General Assembly to reaffirm its position that the state of Israel has a right to exist.   On the contrary, IPMN was one of the biggest supporters of the Middle East Study Committee (MESC) Report heading into this year's G.A. and was also part of an historic agreement by groups on opposite sides of the issue to endorse the version of the report that came from the Middle Eastern Peacemaking Committee 14 to the plenary, and which passed by an overwhelming margin.  In both the original report that came to General Assembly, as well as the modified version, in the section entitled "Part Two: Recommendations" the original report states:  "We also call upon the various Palestinian political factions to negotiate a unified government prepared to recognize Israel's existence."  Also, it states: "Let us be clear: we do affirm the legitimacy of Israel as a state, but consider the continuing occupation of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) to be illegitimate, illegal under international law, and an enduring threat to peace in the region."  What was added to the recommendations by Committee 14 was item II.b. calling for "the reaffirmation of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions."   This has been the stance of IPMN since its inception in 2004, any claim otherwise by any individual or group is either terribly misinformed or an intentional lie.  The addition of recommendation II.b. was understood by us to be a reformulation of the statements cited earlier in section II.  Our support of Committee 14's final version of the report is a pretty clear indication that IPMN was in agreement with the addition, as we have historically been in agreement with the same exact PC(USA) statement as made by previous General Assemblies.

In regard to divestment from Caterpillar, it is no secret that IPMN has advocated for this since 2004, has expressed its point of view to the Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) Committee, and has worked to pass divestment overtures in succeeding General Assemblies.   Even while supporting the MESC report, we disagreed with its position that official "denouncement" of the business practices of Caterpillar, Inc. in the OPT was good enough and instead, worked towards passage of the overture calling for PC(USA) divestment.  In addition to the MESC, MRTI also called for "denouncement" of Caterpillar.   Denouncement passed, divestment lost, it is in the books that way, and as good Presbyterians, the IPMN respects that decision.  We reserve the right to support future divestment initiatives in a manner that is consistent with our common commitment to engage in church polity "decently and in good order."   The Layman Online might wish to downplay the denouncement action taken this past summer by describing it parenthetically as chastisement rather denouncement, but the power of that language was not lost on the Committee 14 commissioner from the Presbytery of Great Rivers.  At one point during the committee's deliberations he pleaded with his fellow committee members that if they had a mind to approve anything that it be for divestment instead of denouncement because he considered the latter to be worse. 
Just recently, CAT has announced that it has delayed filling an order from the Israeli Defense Force for $50M worth of D-9 bulldozers.  This might possibly be a tactical move on the company's part for publicity purposes during the Rachel Corrie court case.  If by some chance the recent PC(USA) denouncement is part of the cumulative impact of many global voices upon the conscience of company executives that is leading to a change in corporate behavior, we would be more than happy to state for the record that the General Assembly action we opposed worked and we are happy with the outcome.

Now, in regard to its claims about the Kairos Palestine document, compare the following two statements--the first is a direct quote from The Layman Online article and the second is from the approved Middle East Study Committee Report:

1) The General Assembly ...chose not to endorse the Kairos Palestine document as policy.  The General Assembly did, however, choose to distribute it "for study," in order that Presbyterians might be informed of opinions held by some Palestinian Christians. 
2) The 219th General Assembly... commends for study the Kairos Palestine document, and endorses the document's emphases on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation.  We lift up for study the often neglected voice of Palestinian Christians.  We direct the monitoring group for the Middle East to create a study guide for the document.

Any rational reader can see how statement #1 spins the clear intent of the General Assembly-approved action stated in #2.  The G.A. action does exactly what the leadership of the entire Christian community in Palestine asked us to do: receive the report as an official communication to other Christian communions throughout the world.  By commending it for congregational study, and by endorsing the document's emphases on hope, nonviolence, love and reconciliation we did more than just receive it.  We let them know we are hearing their plea.   In addition, by officially calling upon the U.S. Government to make aid to Israel contingent upon following U.S.  and international law (as stated in both the MESC report, as well as through an overture on military aid approved by the 219th General Assembly), the General Assembly approved the "S" (Sanctions) part of the Kairos Document's call for BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) as peaceful, non-violent resistance to military occupation. 

The biggest spin and untruth told, first by The Presbyterian Layman print edition immediately following the General Assembly meeting, and now repeated in this latest online article, has to do with the implication that somehow the idea of a monitoring committee to oversee implementation of the MESC report was the result of a last minute effort by opposition at G.A. to slap greater controls on the process beyond Minneapolis.   Along with this is the implication that somehow the General Assembly perceived the Middle East Study Committee process as flawed, and then put an end to it once and for all because it "shared IPMN's lopsided position." This is about as creative as journalistic license can possibly get.   The author also wants readers to believe that MESC and IPMN were somehow in communication and dialogue throughout the two year committee process and that the network had influence that no one else did.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   As many Presbyterians did, we waited for the publication of the report in early 2010 to know what was in it.  We heard rumors about what might or might not be in the report from various uninformed sources along the way.  When we finally read the report, it was evident that we knew nothing and that the study committee had truly kept a tight lid on the entire process.

Here are the facts:  The Middle East Study Committee was appointed for two years. At the completion of that time, it was slated for dissolution.   Knowing that, the MESC, in its original report to G.A. (Section III.b.) recommended "the creation of a Monitoring Group on the Middle East for the next two years...guiding actions to ensure adequate implementation of policy directions approved by this General Assembly."  That recommendation was retained in the Committee 14 version that was finally approved by the entire General Assembly.

Once again, the Israel Palestine Mission Network welcomes the debate and respects the opinions of all groups and individuals involved.   Even as we defend the proposition that all Presbyterians are entitled to their opinions, we also make it clear one more time that none are entitled to their own facts.   We encourage all Presbyterians with interest in and concern for a just peace in Israel Palestine to read the historical record and determine for themselves what is accurate reporting and what is nothing more than ideological spin.

Yesterday's news that CAT has delayed a $50M order of D-9 bulldozers for the IDF cannot help but leave us wondering what this is all about.   Even Sydney Levy of Jewish Voice for Peace was wondering about that as he was furiously sending e-mails while 30,000 feet in the air.

Since the Rachel Corrie trial is presently underway, one could certainly imagine the possibility that an executive decision was made to delay the order so as not to bring more attention to the D-9's and what they do in the midst of litigation.   From a business standpoint, such a decision would be prudent.

But one also wonders:  Does this signal a philosophical change?  Are corporate executives reading the tea leaves?  And more to the point for us:  along with other efforts, from Hampshire College to Berkeley, did a PC(USA) public denouncement add to some type of cumulative effect that is starting to turn CAT another way?   There is no way of knowing that, of course, but we can hope for the best.  Maybe someone in the boardroom or in the front office remembers the snowball effect that occurred back in the anti-apartheid days and have become leery.

My best cynical guess is that it is tactical, although I would love to be proven wrong.  But if it is indeed tactical, it is a mistake.  If it is tactical, my rationale for a 2012 divestment overture is writing itself.   Let's take a look at that:

Having authored the divestment overture that went before the General Assembly in Minneapolis, my rationale was all about the experience of sitting in as an observer at the November 2009 Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) committee meeting that took place in Cincinnati, Ohio.   This was the meeting where MRTI decided what to report to the February 2010 General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) about the issue of divestment from CAT.   The chairperson of MRTI made no bones about the fact that if CAT had ever cooperated with the PC(USA) process of corporate engagement (highly questionable), the evidence was clear that the company was doing so no longer.   The committee also had a letter from IPMN, with the signatures of those who attended its annual meeting just weeks earlier, calling for divestment.   I personally handed that letter to the chairperson before the MRTI meeting started and he told me that it would be distributed to every committee member (and it was) and that after lunch he would allow committee members to ask questions about our letter.   But over the lunch hour a small task group convened and invented an intervening step in the process of determining whether or not to divest.   That step was called "denouncement" and described as "something we have never tried."   The issue of divestment was never formally considered and the IPMN letter was never mentioned again.

Frustrated, I went home and wrote the overture.   A portion of my rationale had to do with the fact that MRTI faithfully followed the process, knew that CAT was uncooperative, but when push came to shove could not bring itself to take the next step.  And it was in fact the case that when the chairperson of MRTI spoke to General Assembly about its recommendation, he actually presented one of the most articulate, impassioned speeches for divestment I have heard.  The only problem?  He said "denouncement" and not "divestment."  

One of the key arguments of the divestiture overture had been: if we have a defined process and do not follow it, what is the point of having the process?  If we don't abide by our own guidelines, do we not signal every other company with which we are corporately engaged that in the final estimation of things we do not have the will to follow through?

If "denouncement" (as voted by MRTI and as a result of the approved recommendations of the Middle East Study Committee) has indeed been a factor in the present set of circumstances, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.   But if this is only tactical, we will be asking MRTI, GAMC, and ultimately, the 220th General Assembly why it is that CAT saw fit to delay an order so as not to draw additional fire during the well-publicized Corrie trial only to resume when all was said and done.  If CAT believes in the righteousness of its business practices in this regard, doesn't this righteousness speak for itself in the face of even bad publicity?  If it is morally correct to sell this equipment to the IDF then it is morally correct in all circumstances, and the moral agent that defends the action needs to have the backbone to support that in all circumstances.   If it is morally repugnant, it is not so simply in times of bad press, but in all times.   That is what the overture to the 219th General Assembly argued, and that is what we continue to say. 

Since the IPMN news release about the network endorsing boycotts of Ahava Cosmetics and King Solomon and Jordan River brands of dates, as well as announcing that we are compiling a list of companies doing business in illegal West Bank settlements, the hysteria machine has begun moving into full gear.   The first thing out of the mouths and blogs of the loyal opposition is that we are "boycotting Israel," which, of course, is a bald-face lie. Not only that, it is a phrase being pranced out in a very calculated way that intends to manufacture linkage back to 1930's Germany when boycotting the businesses of Jews was the earliest hint that holocaust was coming.  Without saying it, they want to set up the implication that such actions are akin to Nazism and anti-Semitism, hanging it out there to be picked up on by others even while maintaining plausible deniability themselves.   But it does not wash and it is both tragically cynical and intellectually dishonest.  We are doing no such thing. 

What we are doing is calling for boycott of Israeli, American, European and other international companies that are profiting from activity in illegal settlements.   Duh?  We are talking about settlements which the U.N. and international courts call outlaw.  We are talking about settlements which both Republican and Democratic Presidential administrations have repeatedly said are illegal and a major roadblock to peace (even if our leaders have never had the backbone to really follow up on such rhetoric--the lack of resolve does not make the rhetoric any less true).   If the settlements are illegal, as clearly stated by the entire global community, then it stands to reason that any business taking place in the settlements is illegal as well.

So IPMN is saying: Time to call it the way we see it.  In fact, time to call it the way every rational observer on the face of the earth sees it, whether they have the resolve to actually do the right thing or not.  This is by no means rocket science.   The simple message is: Don't buy stuff manufactured in places where that economy depends upon the oppression of human beings.   Don't trade with companies that think they can do business in our neighborhoods as well as in support of an apartheid regime on the other side of the world.  You can't have my business and be responsible for the destruction of a people at the same time; I won't permit it.   It seems like a no-brainer.  If we can boycott (and successfully, mind you) a company that sprays dangerous chemicals on its produce in the fields and then hires poor migrants to go into those fields and be sickened, then how is it that we do not see the moral outrage in regard to wholesale theft of land, resources, human rights and freedom, as well as every measure of the human dignity and self-worth of an entire people?  How is it that you can stand below the hills covered by illegal Israeli settlements watching the sewage of countless thousands from the tops of those hills flowing out of pipes onto what is left of actual Palestinian land and not think that this does not differ very much from forcing workers to pick produce out in fields of poison?

Mark Braverman was in Tiffen, Ohio which is a very rural part of the state and home of Heidelberg University as well as Tiffen University.  He was the keynote for an Israel Palestine conference sponsored by Pax Christi, and it was held at a Catholic center there in the town.  A mixed crowd, with some, like me, who  made the 90 minute drive from Columbus and with whom I cross paths in our common efforts to strive for Just Peace in I/P.  There were also a lot of nuns and priests, but Lutherans and Methodists and Mennonites and Presbyterians and more.  And then...there was a group representing John Hagee's Christians United for Israel (CUFI) sitting at the table with a Jewish couple representing Zionists of America.

Mark, as usual, captivated the crowd.   In this crowd of 200 (pretty good for that far out in the sticks) there were people present who knew a lot about this issue as well as many who were hearing this stuff for the first time.   I watched their faces while Mark spoke.  It was an eye-opening, mind-expanding experience for them.   Later I heard the buzz from folks and it was all about enlightenment.   I ate lunch with Mark, and then he told me he was going to approach the CUFI/ZOA table.  I wished him luck.  Then I watched the interchange from a distance.   Mark was his typical non-plussed self, asking questions and then listening to the answers.  Later he told me he felt weird, but he seemed to have a good handle on the situation.

This is the kind of grassroots groundswell that Mark has been saying has to happen and is happening to bring movement to this issue.  No one knows how long it will take, but when you watch it happen you know that this is the right approach.   Later I told Mark that we could be pretty certain that 10 or even 5 years ago there was no way a conference like this would be taking place smack dab in the heart of rural Ohio.  The groundswell is continuing to grow...I can see it when I attend events like this.   We just have to keep supporting the Mark Bravermans out there on the front lines.