Last week’s vote on the Presbyterian Church’s motion to divest from three multinational companies that manufacture goods to sustain the Israeli occupation may have been a watershed moment. It is not only that the motion failed by just two votes (of 664 cast). It is that the wall-to-wall opposition to it by the entire “pro-Israel” organizational world demonstrates that perhaps divestment is the best tool opponents of the occupation have to start the process of ending it.
Think about it.
Not only did the usual pro-occupation stalwarts like AIPAC, American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs follow the Israeli government’s lead and oppose the resolution, they were joined by both J Street and Americans For Peace Now. That means that the Israeli government and the lobby delivered a clear message to those organizations: either you join us in fighting this resolution or we will drum you out of the community. You will be deemed un-kosher. Our rabbis will not sit on your boards. You will be beyond the pale. Your fundraising will suffer.
It certainly wasn’t the substance of the resolution that disturbed these groups. I mean, really, are we supposed to believe that APN and J Street honestly believe that the Presbyterians have no right to invest or dis-invest from whatever company they choose to? Are they not permitted to use whatever means at their disposal to oppose the abomination that is the occupation? On top of that, the motion was in no way directed at Israel itself but at the occupation these organizations exist to oppose.
J Street and APN opposed the resolution because they themselves were threatened by the lobby establishment, the kind of threat APN in turn then directed at the Presbyterians. (If you support this you will be fueling hatred of Israel, anti-Semitism, the whole kit and kaboodle).
The bad news here is that both J Street and APN shamed themselves and demonstrated that when threatened, they fold (not for the first time). The good news is that the establishment’s fear and trembling at the very prospect of divestment from the occupation demonstrates that it is an effective tool, one that should be utilized, company by company, again and again.
A few months ago, when Peter Beinart, the centrist author, called for boycotting the settlements, I was amazed that his call came under attack (including from J Street). After all, how can one claim to oppose the occupation and then oppose targeted opposition to it?
But it is now clear that the Israeli government is deeply threatened by any attempts to isolate the settlements from Israel itself. This became especially clear yesterday when a report issued by a committee of jurists established by Prime Minister Netanyahu concluded that there is no occupation at all and that all settlements are, by definition, legal.
As far as the Israeli government is concerned, there is no difference between Nablus and Tel Aviv (a point of view Hamas shares). It’s all Israel. Every last inch. As for the Palestinians, to hell with them.
That is why the Israeli government, the lobby, and all their cutouts joined in defeating what appeared to be a fairly innocuous resolution. The Presbyterian motion threatened the occupation and, to the right, that is no different than threatening Tel Aviv or Haifa.
J Street and APN were had. Big time.
On the other hand, Jewish Voice For Peace, which led the forces for the divestment motion, looks like the future of the Jewish anti-occupation movement. By not caring what the lobby and the Netanyahu government think, it demonstrated that it understands that making common cause with the lobby is the ticket to irrelevance. As we said back in the 60′s, if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. JVP is part of the solution.
Last week, J Street and APN were more than part of the problem. They were the problem. Without them, the motion would have passed. (They should have “given cover” to supporters of the resolution; instead they gave it to the opponents). They should be ashamed. I bet they are.
Meanwhile, JVP and Beinart should take a bow. It is time to fully divest from and boycott the occupation and all those who sustain it in any way. Both Israel and the Palestinians deserve no less.
Last point: Read this interview with Peter Beinart from Alternet. Shouldn’t J Street and Americans For Peace Now start questioning their mushy course when Beinart, a traditional Jew and a centrist American, openly and unabashedly supports boycotting the occupation? Beinart has broken with the establishment which now despises him when it formerly adored him. Clearly, he believes it is worth it to lose friends and backers for the cause. And he has advanced that cause more than any other individual in the American Jewish community. J Street, in particular, can take a lesson from him. Changing the world requires guts. If the other side still likes you, you simply are not doing your job.
While I’m sympathetic to the arguments here, I think it may overstate the influence that J Street and APN had on the Prebyterian delegates’ decisions. A delegate that I spoke with after the vote attributed the defeat to people wanting to avoid alienating friends at a time when the Church is already shrinking, and also due to theological beliefs that favor Zionism.
Do you have any evidence that APN and J Street were “threatened” by “the Lobby”? APN actually has longstanding policy against divestment. You may disagree with it, but that’s their position.
I just wanted to say, I always enjoy your articles and tweets, and I read them regularly. It is good to read insights from someone who comes at this issue from an ethical point of view, and who can also understand it from the “inside” perspective as well. Thanks!
Regarding Peter Beinart, I agree that what he is doing, given his background and position, takes immense courage. While I may disagree with him on some things, I cannot but have huge respect for the immense character he has shown.
Fact-free speculation. J Street and APN don’t agree with your preferred method of ending the opposition, therefore they MUST have been blackmailed into abrogating their beliefs by the insidious lobby!
Maybe J Street and APN think we should oppose the occupation through the democratic process rather than through an economic boycott which, however much we may agree with the end, hurts Israel as the means.
Its a fact you can’t get around. Hurting the economy of Israel hurts Israel. There are ways to end the occupation that dont , though they may be slower.
RE: “Its a fact you can’t get around. Hurting the economy of Israel hurts Israel. There are ways to end the occupation that dont…” ~ Eric Fraker
FOR AN ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE SEE:
“Ilan Pappé: the boycott will work, an Israeli perspective” ~ Ceasefire Magazine, 6/16/12
[EXCERPTS] . . . After almost thirty years of activism and historical research, I became convinced that the balance of power in Palestine and Israel pre-empted any possibility for a transformation within Jewish Israeli society in the foreseeable future. Though rather late in the game, I came to realize that the problem was not a particular policy or a specific government, but one more deeply rooted in the ideological infrastructure informing Israeli decisions on Palestine and the Palestinians ever since 1948. I have described this ideology elsewhere as a hybrid between colonialism and romantic nationalism.[1]
Today, Israel is a formidable settler-colonialist state, unwilling to transform or compromise, and eager to crush by whatever means necessary any resistance to its control and rule in historical Palestine. . .
. . . there is really no other alternative [to BDS]. Any other option—from indifference, through soft criticism, and up to full endorsement of Israeli policy—is a wilful decision to be an accomplice to crimes against humanity. The closing of the public mind in Israel, the persistent hold of the settlers over Israeli society, the inbuilt racism within the Jewish population, the dehumanization of the Palestinians, and the vested interests of the army and industry in keeping the occupied territories—all of these mean that we are in for a very long period of callous and oppressive occupation. . .
Great article. Two corrections, however: 1. 666 votes were cast (there were two abstentions) and 2. The Israel Palestine Mission Network “led the forces for the divestment motion.” Jewish Voice for Peace, along with the Pittsburgh Palestine Solidarity Committee and several unaffiliated activists, dutifully followed.