Removing the Log of Apartheid in Our Own Eye:
US Churches Seeking Justice in Palestine/Israel

By David Wildman

Executive Secretary, Human Rights & Racial Justice
General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church

October 27, 2007

[Delivered at the Sabeel Conference: The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel: Issues of Justice & Equality (Old South Church, Boston)]

On October 26-27, 2007, 900 people gathered at Old South Church in Boston for a Sabeel conference on, “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel: Issues of Justice and Equality.”  This was the 21st regional conference organized by Friends of Sabeel in the United States.  In 2002, at the first Sabeel regional conference, Bishop Desmond Tutu described the conditions facing Palestinians as worse than apartheid in South Africa. 

In the US, churches played a critical role in the anti-apartheid movement and are gradually taking on a similar role in confronting Israeli apartheid.  Yet churches are one of the most segregated institutions in the US.  Christian Zionists are some of the most ardent supporters and funders of Israeli settlements, even as other churches are challenging Israeli human rights violations.  So, in confronting Israeli apartheid, we must also confront the ongoing racism – both in US policies and within the churches -- that pervades our own context. 

Double Standards

Twenty five years ago, in June 1982, one million people from the US peace movement flooded the streets of New York City to protest nuclear weapons.  It was a profoundly powerful expression of popular commitment to peace as the world’s governments gathered at the United Nations to discuss disarmament. 

Just one week before the historic march, Israel invaded Lebanon in order to drive the Palestine Liberation Organization out of Lebanon.  Yet, some of the organizers in the US peace movement insisted that the rally in NY was only about nuclear weapons (though not Israel’s nuclear weapons) and that nothing should be said about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.  Indeed, nothing was said that day about the horrors of war in Lebanon.  In the coming weeks tens of thousands of people were killed, wounded and displaced by the Israeli military – almost all of them Palestinian and Lebanese civilians.  This was my introduction to the painful apartheid realities relating to Israel-Palestine.  I was confronted with an apartheid-like dynamic in the US peace movement that separated issues and silenced any criticism of Israel’s violence against civilians. 

The international community finally intervened to establish a ceasefire that allowed the armed PLO fighters safe passage out of Beirut.  Then in September 1982, the Israeli military under the command of General Ariel Sharon, allowed Lebanese Christian militia to enter Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila, to massacre 1000 unarmed Palestinian women, children, and elderly.  The massacre continued over 3 days.  Israeli soldiers lit up the night sky with flares so the killing could continue.  Almost all of the victims were unarmed Muslims.  This is a brutal form of ‘interfaith cooperation’ which we must always condemn.  In the last few years I have seen a steady erosion of the silencing and separation of issues that occurred back in 1982 as more churches take up the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli occupation, colonization, and apartheid. 

A Biblical Framework for Eroding Israeli Apartheid

The biblical story of the widow and the unjust judge, found in the Gospel of Luke 18:1-8, offers three critical points that guide the work of churches in seeking to end Israeli apartheid and bring justice for all.  It is a story about “the need to pray always and not to lose heart.”  As the conditions on the ground in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem worsen by the day, we certainly may be tempted to lose hope. 

“In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people.  In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Grant me justice against my opponent.’  For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, ‘Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out.”  (Luke 18:2-5)

Now when it says the judge has no respect for people that is biblical language for no respect for international law and human rights.  All of the New Testament was written in a context of Roman colonial rule and military occupation.  It also took place in the midst of an active armed resistance movement (i.e., the Zealots) against colonialism and occupation.  So, if we want to understand fully the meaning of this text for us today, we need to stand with, and listen to, Palestinians and Iraqis who are facing the same oppressive dynamics of colonialism, military occupation, and apartheid. 

First, we must ask, in a context of military occupation, colonization and armed resistance, how did she become a widow?  Maybe her husband was what today would be called, ‘collateral damage.’  Maybe he was in the insurrection.  Maybe he was killed at a checkpoint, or for revenge, or during a targeted assassination, or from torture in prison.  Maybe he was working his fields and his neighbor’s for 16-20 hours a day to try and provide for the family.  Whatever the reason, there were probably quite a few people in first century Palestine, like in Palestine today, who had lost loved ones and could identify with this widow’s demand for justice. 

The story not only lifts up the widow’s plight but offers someone who has suffered violence and oppression as a model for community empowerment and liberation.  The story replaces a ‘blame the victim’ mentality, or a charity mentality, with a challenge to stand in solidarity with the oppressed and take their lead in demanding justice.  The Palestinian civil society call for BDS embodies such a demand of justice. 

Churches and others are slowly taking up the cry for justice in Palestine.  One of the goals of the United Methodist Board of Global Ministries, for example, is: “Seek Justice, Freedom and Peace.”  It expresses the kind of solidarity needed with the widows and oppressed today: “We will participate with people oppressed by unjust economic, political and social systems in programs that seek to build just, free and peaceful societies.” 

Second, the unjust judge does not change his mind, but he does change his behavior.  How often have we in the churches acted as if only political leaders would read one more book or be exposed to facts on the ground, then they would end their unjust ways.  If only the US public traveled to Palestine and met with Palestinians and Israelis doing nonviolent resistance, then they would demand changes in US policies that perpetuate military occupation. 

The story of the widow offers, not a strategy of converting leaders by sharing statements and information, but a justice-based strategy of erosion!  In a context of systemic oppression, violence and ongoing colonization, her tireless, repeated, persistent action simply wears him out.  Sojourner Truth and the Abolition movement practiced erosion against the institution of slavery.  Rosa Parks and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the US civil rights movement slowly eroded the institutions of Jim Crow segregation.  Immigrant farm workers today practice eroding injustice through boycotts and grassroots organizing to demand just wages.  The global anti-apartheid movement involved years of struggle to erode apartheid regimes throughout southern Africa.  The growing movement for BDS also constitutes a slow, persistent effort in eroding the longstanding injustice of Israeli apartheid.  

Third, the widow’s story about the need not to lose heart, takes place in a public confrontation with unjust authorities that exposes their oppressive practices.  Such public actions invariably lead to vicious attacks from the powerful.  One unjust judge that we must confront today is the US administration’s use of the veto at the UN.  Since 1970 the US has vetoed more UN Security Council resolutions than the other 4 permanent members combined.  More than half of US vetoes were to block the international community from criticizing Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.  One third of US vetoes were to block criticism of apartheid regimes in southern Africa.  Thus over 83% of the vetoes cast by the US were to protect apartheid governments from international criticism and sanction. 

With sanctions effectively blocked by the US, the anti-apartheid movement turned to boycott and divestment as a major form of non-violent, moral, economic measures to end unjust corporate support for apartheid South Africa.  So too, churches and activists are turning to BDS as nonviolent moral pressure to end Israel’s longstanding violation of international law. 

Reframing Palestine/Israel as Apartheid & the struggle for Equal Rights

Over the past few years, a reframing has gone on in how churches are approaching Palestine-Israel.   The US government and media repeatedly depict the situation as a conflict between two sides – one good, the other bad; one democratic, the other terrorist.  In this framework, the goal is an end to Palestinian violence and priority is placed on Israeli security as the primary measure of peace.  The shift from analyzing Palestine/Israel as a conflict between two sides to a situation of systemic oppression demanding justice marks a crucial step in mobilizing greater international solidarity among churches in the work for justice. 

The rigid dualism of today’s US-led War on Terror (‘you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists’), like the unequivocal embrace of the Israeli government no matter what it does, stems in part from a racist colonial mentality that divides the world into civilized settlers and dangerous ‘natives.’  Colonialism invariably distinguishes between good and bad people on the basis of identity (race, ethnicity, national origin) rather than on the basis of just or unjust behavior.  Apartheid represents the most explicit institutional means of using identity-based discrimination to advance colonial land grabs. 

I want to offer seven definitions that help situate the significance of an anti-apartheid movement, and the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, in the reframing from a racist to a justice-based approach. 

1. “Terrorism” is the name the powerful give to the violence of the weak.  While all definitions of terrorism include the targeting of civilians for political purposes, they often exclude state actions from the definition, thereby weakening the application of international law. 
2. “War Crimes” are charges for human rights violations, but they are usually imposed only by victors on the losers. 
3. “Just War” is the name the powerful give to their own violence.
4. “Crusade” is the name used to demonize the ‘other’ and to exempt one’s own racist violence from criticism.
5. “Apartheid” is the name the international community and international law give to the violence and discrimination of governments that divide people on the basis of identity in order for one group to dominate over another. 
6. Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) are nonviolent, moral, economic measures to end unjust behavior.  The BDS movement broadens the communities that can be involved in justice work.  Consumers can boycott, investors can divest, while only governments can impose sanctions. 
7. “Direct Action” is a nonviolent effort to disrupt and deflect the violence of oppressors.  Christian Peacemaker Teams, the International Solidarity Movement, the Bil’in local committees, the WCC’s Ecumenical Accompaniment Program for Palestine-Israel are all examples of groups using nonviolent direct action to resist Israeli colonization and violence. 

While many differ on the comparison of South African apartheid with Israeli apartheid, the practices defined as the crime of apartheid in the International Convention (which came into force in 1976, see http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm ) are remarkably similar to Israeli practices regarding Palestinians:

• ‘arbitrary arrest,
• illegal imprisonment,
• deliberate imposition on a racial group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• any measures calculated to prevent the right to leave and to return to their country,
• any measures designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos,
• the prohibition of mixed marriages,
• the expropriation of landed property.’ 

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: Today’s Movement to End Apartheid

In the global struggle against apartheid the World Council of Churches took a bold step in 1968 when it created its Program to Combat Racism.  Much of the program lent nonviolent support to liberation movements across southern Africa that were resisting apartheid regimes.  The churches suffered harsh attacks for this program.  Right wing critics accused the WCC of aiding terrorists.  Despite these attacks, the WCC’s moral courage to stand for justice in the face of systemic oppression contributed greatly to eroding support for apartheid regimes. 

It is important to note that the WCC did not create a program for peace in the midst of colonialism.  The churches understood that only a program aimed at eroding systemic injustice would help build just and lasting peace for all.  What is emerging today among churches is a similar movement for justice: an ecumenical program to combat Israeli apartheid.  In June 2007, 130 representatives from churches in the holy land and around the world met in Amman, Jordan to issue, “The Amman Call: Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East.” 

The Amman Call for ‘Costly Solidarity’

The Amman Call (see http://www.oikoumene.org/index.php?id=3748 ) expresses the urgent call from Palestinian Christians, “No more words without deeds.  It is time for action.”  More than one more statement, the Amman Call seeks to mobilize broader church actions that embody “costly solidarity.”  It issues challenges from Palestinian Christians to churches worldwide to:

• “act with us to liberate all peoples of this land from the logic of hatred, mutual rejection and death; 
• resist evil in all of its guises;
• speak ‘truth to power’ and name with courage the injustices we see and experience;
• risk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with our Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths;
• insist with us that all dispossessed peoples, all refugees, have the right to return.” 

The final paragraph expresses the commitment of the global ecumenical movement to “risk reputations and lives to build with you bridges for an enduring peace among the peoples of this tortured and beautiful place – Palestine and Israel – to end these decades of injustice.” 

At the UN World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, the Ecumenical caucus of church representatives joined with other NGOs pushing for a justice-based approach that condemned the discrimination of foreign military occupation. 

In late 2001, several US churches joined with other activists in launching the US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation (see www.endtheoccupation.org ) based on freedom from occupation and equal rights for all under international law.  Now the US Campaign includes 250 organizations and represents the broadest interfaith effort to change US policies that for decades of supported Israeli apartheid practices.  Since 2002 US groups have worked to challenge Caterpillar to stop selling bulldozers and other equipment used by Israeli military to level Palestinian homes and build apartheid roads and the wall on Palestinian land. 

In 2004, Caterpillar was one of five companies profiting from occupation and human rights violations in Palestine/Israel that the Presbyterian Church identified to challenge based on its resolution calling for a process of ‘phased, selective divestment.’  The other companies were ITT Industries, Motorola, United Technologies, and Citigroup.  For four years now, several religious shareholder groups have filed shareholder resolutions with Caterpillar to examine the misuse of their equipment by the Israeli government.  While the company denies all these efforts have any impact, they have changed the time and location of their annual meeting to a much more remote place.  Caterpillar management also changed their procedures to limit severely shareholder discussion – much of which was devoted to human rights violations by Israel. 

Like an ever eroding stream, morally responsible investing and divestment resolutions are slowly spreading among churches in the US.  Due to heavy attacks from major Jewish organizations (e.g., American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League) as well as from Christian Zionists, some denominations have dropped the word, divestment, from their resolutions, yet the push to identify and pressure corporations profiting from Israel’s occupation continues to grow. 

Critics of divestment, who try to equate any criticism of Israeli practices with anti-semitism, tend to pursue a top-down strategy.  They target bishops, clergy, Congress, trade union leaders, University presidents and other top leaders to pressure them to adopt blind affirmation of Israel and to repudiate any nonviolent human rights-based actions like divestment. 

Advocates of BDS, on the other hand, embody a bottom-up, grassroots approach that involves many local church members in justice and peace delegations to Palestine/Israel.  These grassroots efforts are having a slow but steady eroding effect.  For years, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and other denominations have had human rights-based resolutions calling for the upholding of international law by all in Palestine/Israel, but with few if any actions connected to these principles. 

The growing call among churches for morally responsible investing and divestment, like the WCC Amman Call, seeks to move churches from words to action.  In the United Methodist Church, for instance, ten regional bodies known as Annual Conferences have adopted resolutions calling for corporate engagement with companies profiting from Israel’s occupation.  Such resolutions call for research, letter writing and meetings with company management, shareholder resolutions, and divestment. 

The New England Annual Conference of the United Methodists has done the most extensive research and activism of any group (see www.neumc.org divestment resources for full listing of companies, all correspondence, and documentation).  After adopting a resolution in 2005 they formed a research taskforce which identified and documented over 100 companies profiting from, or supporting, Israeli occupation and other violations of international law.  They then wrote letters to many of the companies asking them to stop all business they did which violated international law.  In some cases, companies replied saying it was not their responsibility.  But the New England United Methodist taskforce sent further letters citing the Nuremberg Principles and the moral obligation for companies to insure that they do not engage in activities violating international law. 

Finally, in June 2007, New England Methodists placed 20 companies, that had all refused to change their practices, on a divestment list.  This process is a model for other churches to take up as well.  The research is being widely shared not only with churches and campuses in the US but with churches, trade unions and activists in Europe who are doing similar work.  Such grassroots, nonviolent, moral efforts seek to break the flow of money from profits off Israel’s occupation.  Companies in turn give generously to US Senators and Representatives, who repeatedly vote billions of dollars in further arms shipments and other support to Israel. 

In February 2006 at the WCC Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a number of US churches met with Palestinian Christians to hear their pleas for greater nonviolent economic measures to end corporate support for Israel’s brutal military occupation and ongoing colonization.  This has led to an ecumenical working group of denominational socially responsible investors engaging in similar nonviolent measures with companies involved in Palestine/Israel.  Hundreds of letters and several shareholder meetings with company managements have taken place.  Shareholder resolutions, like the ones with Caterpillar, are now being filed.  Again, none of these actions will bring an end to Israeli occupation and apartheid practices, but together they slowly document the unwillingness of companies to end their unjust behavior.  It is all part of the BDS movement’s slow erosion of injustice and apartheid. 

Praying with our Feet: the March for Justice in Palestine/Israel

This past June, many church activists joined with the US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation and over 100 other groups in a national mobilization to end all US support for 40 years of Israeli occupation and human rights violations.  Unlike the silence of the peace movement in 1982, United for Peace and Justice (the largest anti-war coalition in the US today) joined in co-sponsoring the rally and march, “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation.”  Over 100,000 postcards were distributed calling for an end to all US support, major ads were placed in Washington, DC metro stations (seen by millions). 

Much work remains ahead for US churches to embrace fully a BDS program to end Israeli apartheid. Many churches still limit their actions to opposing occupation and have not yet confronted the 60 years of dispossession of Palestinian refugees and their right of return.  This is why I think an anti-apartheid framework for ongoing BDS work plays such a critical role at this time.  By analyzing Israeli apartheid, it links the call for ending colonization and occupation with the need to end discrimination inside the green line.  Churches that are not yet calling for divestment are beginning to ask tough questions about discrimination against Palestinian workers at companies in Israel. 

Since the US Campaign adopted an Anti-Apartheid framework in September 2006, thousands of End Israeli Apartheid posters have been distributed and more local events, like the Sabeel conference, are empowering people to challenge Israeli apartheid.  The WCC Amman Call included workshop recommendations to identify five companies for coordinated nonviolent economic measures from churches globally.  In September 2007, the US Campaign overwhelmingly endorsed a focused campaign on Motorola that would lead to launching a boycott if the company does not end its sales of equipment to support Israeli occupation. 

Such efforts all seem small in relation to the desperate situation Palestinians face each day.  Yet they are all part of the slow but growing movement of BDS that is eroding support for Israeli apartheid.  Like the widow who kept confronting the unjust judge, slowly but surely churches are joining the nonviolent movement to end Israeli apartheid and to establish justice for all in Palestine/Israel. 

As we finished the Sabeel conference in Boston, we processed outside for a public demonstration opposing apartheid.  We were met by a few Zionist protestors.  More importantly, United for Peace and Justice, which had organized marches against the war in Iraq in 11 cities on October 27th, met us in the rain-soaked streets of Boston.  In all eleven cities across the US signs filled the streets proclaiming, “Occupation: Wrong in Iraq, Wrong in Palestine.”  As an African proverb declares, ‘No one can stop the rain.’