Response to Criticism about Divestment Proposals

1. Summary Reply to Fair Witness Letter
   
2. Response to Letter from Fair Witness to General Conference Delegates
   
3. Mission Study on "Israel-Palestine" Is Consistent with United Methodist Policy
   
4. Response to JTA Article on United Methodist Study
   
5. Response to Second Letter From Fair Witness to General Assembly Delegates
   
6. Reply to CAMERA
   
7. Response to MJ Rosenburg of Israel Forum

2) Detailed Response to Letter from Fair Witness to General Conference Delegates

February 15, 2008

Statement: We are very concerned that Divestment, which in other contexts has been a good and a powerful tool for social justice, is being used here as a weapon to unfairly target the Jewish state and greatly oversimplify the very complex Arab/Israeli conflict.

Response: Divestment proposed by United Methodists does not “target the Jewish state.” It is not aimed at Israel or at Israeli companies or at companies that do business with Israel. It concerns only companies…most of them in the US and other nations…that help sustain Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.

It is a common tactic when anyone wants to discourage others from learning about an issue to say that it is “very complex.” This admonition has successfully frightened many people away from even attempting to understand the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Like any other situation, this conflict has events and attitudes that caused it and that keep it going today. Many United Methodists have spent time in the region and have seen for themselves what is taking place. We are obliged to share with others what we know to be true.

Statement: “There was little or no discussion of Palestinian suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism aimed at Israeli civilians, the Palestinian refusal to accept the Clinton peace parameters which would have ended the occupation in 2000 and/or Israeli suffering resulting from years of Palestinian suicide bombing and four years of almost non-stop Qassam rockets terrorizing the town of Sderot.”

Response: Each speaker was given only 8 minutes to discuss the resolutions coming before the General Assembly in April. In the guidelines, they were asked to explain these resolutions, and their position for or against them. This format was not designed for a full discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. United Methodists had already voted overwhelmingly in 2004 to oppose the occupation, and the speakers’ job was not to revisit this, but to relate this and other existing United Methodist policies to the proposals at hand. Nevertheless, at least one speaker did mention the Qassam rockets fired at Israel when she described the worsening situation in the region.

With regard to the Clinton Parameters, we refer to a speech by President Clinton in January, 2001, in which he said: “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/clintplan.htm We also suggest an article entitled “Behind the Camp David Myth” by Robert Malley, Clinton’s Special Assistant for Middle East Affairs at the Camp David talks. Malley says: “Those talks failed, and in the aftermath a myth was born that has had a lasting and devastating effect: that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the most generous offer possible, but that Arafat summarily turned it down.” (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3103&l=1 )

Palestinians have often been blamed for not accepting peace proposals which were never accepted by Israel. After Palestinians and Israelis signed the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Israel put into place severe closures in much of the West Bank and accelerated the building of settlements on Palestinian land. Israel had actually doubled the number of settlers on occupied land by the time of the Camp David talks in 2000, placing pressure on Arafat not to accept these new “facts on the ground.” The large settlements which Barak proposed keeping cut deeply into the West Bank in many places. The resulting disconnected series of Palestinian communities was far different than the contiguous state which had been envisioned by Palestinians and the larger world during the Oslo process. The Palestinians embraced the Roadmap without reservation, but Israel immediately produced 13 caveats which rendered the agreement meaningless. Immediately after the Annapolis conference, Israel resumed its deadly raids on Palestinian refugee camps and villages, and announced new settlement construction in one of the most sensitive areas of the West Bank.

Statement: We are disturbed by the lack of balance and fairness manifest in this presentation and the misinformation that was conveyed.

Response: “Balance and Fairness” in this context means giving equal time to myths we know are not true. When a given narrative has been discredited by many Israeli historians as well as other scholars, we are not required to include it in our educational materials. When the evidence of Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians is clearly visible in the ruins of destroyed villages, in photographs of fleeing refugees, and in the present realities of land theft and settlement expansion, it would be dishonest to say that it has not taken place. When we have seen with our own eyes the brutal persecution of one people by another, we do not have to yield to political correctness and make the actions of both parties weigh equally on the scales of justice.

Everything in the Ft. Worth presentations on behalf of divestment has been documented. (See examples below.) Many United Methodists have witnessed the realities on the ground. Jewish Israelis, as well as Christians and Muslims, have helped us confirm our facts.

Statement: “We are disturbed by the underlying presumptions and attitudes it may be suggestive of.”

Response: This is a thinly veiled reference to anti-Semitism, a label often applied to critics of Israel’s policies, whether they are Jewish or not. It is designed to intimidate people and keep them from speaking out. An eye-opening list of efforts to label Israel’s critics anti-Semitic may be found at www.muzzlewatch.com . This charge has been lobbed at churches hosting conferences of Palestinian Christians, at professors using information from Israel’s own archives, and at eyewitnesses to the persecution of Palestinians. For many of these witnesses, Jews as well as Gentiles, it is impossible to remain silent in the face of crimes that are ongoing and that have been misrepresented for so long in our press. Most of us have decided that God knows our hearts and that speaking out against persecution is a vital part of our faith, no matter what ethnic group the parties belong to.

Statement: There was also misinformation given about an alleged “enormous gap” between the “Israeli rich” whom the speaker erroneously claimed were mostly “connected to the Military” and the rest of Israel which she claimed was “suffering.”

Response: The enormous gap between rich and poor in Israel is well documented, as you can see in the many attached links. Money is being diverted from basic social needs for Israel’s poor and toward military spending and settlement construction. This results in higher incomes for those associated with these sectors, while leaving critical shortages in programs for education, health care and other social needs.

Statement: Although the session on Divestment was supposed to include the Sudan, the speakers focused almost entirely on the Middle East.

Response: Several of the speakers addressed the situation in Sudan, but made it clear that United Methodists are not supporting this situation with our investments. A search of all the companies that have been mentioned as even loosely involved with the Sudanese government turned up only one that might be included in United Methodist portfolios. This has already been reported to investment managers within the conference. Our discussion was focused on areas where our policies are contradicted by our investments, and at present that is in companies that support the Israeli occupation.

Statement: We do not believe that the UMC is prepared to make a decision on such an important issue at this time.

Response: The important decisions have already been made. A decision to oppose the Israeli occupation was made in 2004. A decision that United Methodists should not profit from investments in companies that directly or indirectly violate human rights was made even earlier. It is contained in our Book of Discipline. These previous decisions already form a basis for United Methodist investment managers to withdraw funds from companies that meet that test. The divestment proposals simply remind these investment managers of their obligations to adhere to policies already set by the denomination. They affirm our decision not to profit from activities that violate our social principles. And they let the companies know that participation in Israel’s occupation, which violates international law, has consequences.

Statement: The “Mission Study,” however, makes no attempt to present the facts and the history of the conflict in an honest or balanced way. It is replete with factual errors, misrepresentations, material omissions and distortions that serve to portray Israel as the sole villain in the Middle East. Most disturbingly, we found blatant attempts in the “Mission Study” to portray Jews and Israelis in as damning a light as possible, even resorting to stereotypical racist caricatures.

Response: If there are specific errors which Fair Witness wishes to present, these will be carefully examined and responded to. Blanket accusations are not helpful. The study contradicts myths that Americans have been exposed to for years. This does not make it distorted. It is a valid effort to present facts of which the authors have direct knowledge, as well as facts which have been unequivocally proven by Israel’s archives and by many Israeli Jewish historians. Reverend Sandra Olewine served for years in Bethlehem, and knows the situation of Palestinians and Israelis intimately. Reverend Stephen Goldstein is himself of Jewish origin and can hardly be accused of being racist.

Statement: In 2007, the United Church of Christ Synod passed a resolution on Israel-Palestine which acknowledged that it “may have overlooked many aspects of an extraordinarily complicated situation . . .” and obligated the denomination to engage in “ongoing balanced study, commentary and critique related to the conflict in the region.”

Response: Both the Presbyterian and UCC denominations received significant pressure from organized groups ~ including Fair Witness ~ to back away from earlier principled decisions not to invest in the occupation. While they issued statements pledging, in the case of the Presbyterians, to invest only in companies engaged in peaceful pursuits and, in the case of the UCC, to study the issue in a balanced way, both remain committed to avoiding investments that support Israel’s occupation. The United Methodist church has always stood for justice, and we do not depend on the actions of other denominations to form our policy.

Statement: We entreat you not to vote on the issue of Divestment at this time.

Response: Inaction is a vote to let things continue as they are in Israel/Palestine. All resolutions brought before the General Conference represent hard work and dedication to a process long accepted by United Methodists for establishing church policy. The resolutions concerning divestment simply link already accepted statements of policy, and we are confident they will be voted on just as other issues that are put before the General Conference. Eight annual conferences and two United Methodist organizations have approved some form of selective divestment from the occupation. The issue cannot be ignored.

Statement: This is too serious an issue, with too many significant and potentially far reaching consequences for the UMC to make a strong public statement without having a solid grasp of the facts.

Response: We believe a majority in the UMC do have a strong grasp of the facts. Many have seen first-hand the impact of the occupation on the daily lives of Palestinians. Their experience of staying in Palestinian homes with water shortages, encountering locked gates that keep families from their farmland, and waiting in hot lines at checkpoints with Christians and Muslims provides the credibility our critics lack. What we know compels us to speak out. The consequences for the UMC are far more significant if we remain silent in the face of such clear persecution. It is hypocricy to make money from an illegal occupation we formally oppose. All the conference resolutions ask is that Methodists not profit from a situation our denomination is working to end.

While there will be criticism no matter what we do, we know that in the long term many will be inspired by our principled stand and will be drawn to a denomination that actually puts courageous action behind its words.

Statement: We ask instead that the General Conference commit to taking a long and serious, but most of all balanced and unbiased look, at this conflict. We ask you to make a serious effort to listen to all voices so that we can work cooperatively for peace, rather than merely condemning and attacking one side.

Response: United Methodists have been taking a serious look for a long time, and looking at the situation has not yielded results. We have listened to all voices, and we are glad many voices that have been previously suppressed, especially those of our own faith in the Holy Land, are finally being heard. We are working with many Jews, Christians, and Muslims who know the occupation stands in the way of a just and lasting peace. This occupation is constantly expanding. Divestment from it is simply taking the side of peace.

For citations on Israel's income gap and military spending, see:

Citations for the Israeli Income Gap, Military Spending

3) Mission Study on "Israel-Palestine" Is Consistent with United Methodist Policy

A joint statement of the General Board of Global Ministries and the Women's Division

GBGM Press Release - February 19, 2008
For Immediate Release

A comprehensive 1996 statement on Christian-Jewish relations by The United Methodist Church's legislating General Conference strongly reiterated the denomination's opposition to all forms of anti-Semitism.i Four years later, the quadrennial General Conference, which is the only entity that speaks for the whole church, urged United Methodists to observe Yom HaShoah, the annual Holocaust Memorial Day,ii and also addressed Israeli-Palestinian relations in the Middle East. The latter action endorsed two United Nations' resolutions that asserted the rights of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. The UN measures called for Israeli forces to withdraw to the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war as a contribution to a permanent peace.iii The 2004 General Conference opposed Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and called for study of the matter.ivThe United Methodist Church also has a long history of opposition to violence,v including notation that "targeted assassinations, suicide bombings, and attacks against civilians by both Israelis and Palestinians heighten the fear and suffering of all."vi

These actions and positions form the background of a current United Methodist mission study entitled Israel-Palestine, published in the late spring of 2007 by the Women's Division of the General Board of Global Ministries. This publication is part of its 77-year-old Schools of Christian Mission program. This program develops annual or biennial study guides on selected spiritual growth topics, societal issues, and geographical areas, either country- or region-specific. The printed material for the Israel-Palestine study is a study guide, not a "manual" on Israel and Palestine. The guide was used without controversy in scores of regional and annual conference Schools of Christian Mission in the summer of 2007 and in local congregations and units of United Methodist Women beginning in the fall of that year.

We were surprised when, in late January 2008, the mission study became embroiled in a public debate triggered by an informational session at a briefing for delegates to the forthcoming 2008 General Conference. A panel presentation at that briefing included pro and con considerations of economic divestment as a church strategy for pressuring companies to adopt just practices, particularly in Sudan and Israel-Palestine. One issue in the discussion was a petition to General Conference seeking United Methodist divestment from a company whose equipment is used in enforcing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.vii The Israel-Palestine mission study was not mentioned.

Subsequent to the panel, an organization called "Fair Witness on the Middle East" stated in letters to some General Conference delegates that The United Methodist Church was not prepared to make a decision on divestment and cited the mission study as support for deferring a decision. The letter charged that the mission study represents a "bias to the point of antipathy against Israel and perhaps even Jews on the part of the people responsible for its publication."viii A later "Fair Witness" press release attacked the study even more directly, labeling it as "unbalanced" with regard to its treatment of Israelis and Palestinians.ix

These charges are untrue. Enclosures provided with the letter from "Fair Witness" suggest that the claims are based on a twisted reading of the author's family reminiscences that are included in the study.

The mission study's perspective is in keeping with the thoughtful, informed, and consistent position of The United Methodist Church on Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The United Methodist Church is not neutral on the question of military occupations. Israel-Palestine is a regional study, not an exploration of ethnic identities or faiths. It deals with Israel as a secular nation-state. The study analyzes political actions and aspirations. It seeks to expand the dialogue regarding this matter by including viewpoints rarely heard in public discourse. Many of the phrases and concepts challenged by "Fair Witness" are common in current academic and interfaith discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The United Methodist Church is on record as a firm advocate of both Israeli and Palestinian rights. The mission study was prepared with the goal of helping United Methodists appreciate the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the context of our commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The General Board of Global Ministries and the Women's Division will continue to be guided by the policies and actions of General Conference on issues related to Israel and Palestine.

Bishop Felton E. May
Interim General Secretary
General Board of Global Ministries

Harriett Olson
Deputy General Secretary
Women's Division

Notes

1. Building New Bridges in Hope: Statement of The United Methodist Church on Christian-Jewish Relations, 1996. (Available online at http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=999).
2. "Holocaust Memorial Day (Yom HaShoah)," continued in 2004, Book of Resolutions 2004, #75, pp. 213-214.
3. "United Nations Resolutions on the Israel-Palestine Conflict," continued in 2004, Book of Resolutions 2004, #323, pp. 811-812.
4. "Opposition to Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Land," Book of Resolutions 2004, #312, pp. 787-790.
5. "Plan to Eliminate Terrorism," 2004 Book of Resolutions, # 336, pp. 838-841.
6. Opposition to Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Lands, op. cit., p. 787.
7. Requests for information on divestment should be directed to the General Board of Church and Society, specifically to Wayne Rhodes, information officer, email: [email protected].
8. Letter of Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East, February 5, 2008, p. 2.
9. "Fair Witness Is Disturbed by Methodist 'Mission Study'," Press Release, February 13, 2008

4) Response to JTA Article on United Methodist Study

by Susanne Hoder
Member, New England Conference Task Force on Divestment.

The JTA article calling a United Methodist study on Israel-Palestine a hate document is inflammatory and without foundation. There is no doubt the study contradicts myths Americans have been exposed to for years. This does not make it distorted. Its authors are bringing balance to a discussion that has long been dominated by one point of view. There are two parties to this conflict and two narratives about what has happened in the region. The study JTA condemns is a valid effort to present facts of which the authors have direct knowledge, as well as facts which have been unequivocally proven by Israel’s archives and many Israeli Jewish historians.

When a given narrative has been discredited by respected scholars, we are not required to include it in our educational materials. When the evidence of Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians is clearly visible in the ruins of destroyed villages, in photographs of fleeing refugees, and in the present realities of land theft and settlement expansion, it would be dishonest to say that it has not taken place. When United Methodists have seen with their own eyes the brutal and ongoing persecution of one people by another, they do not have to be silent.

One of the study’s authors, Reverend Sandra Olewine, served for years in Bethlehem and knows the situation there intimately. Reverend Stephen Goldstein is himself of Jewish origin and can hardly be accused of being racist. Many Jewish people have gone through a similar process of rejecting previous notions about Israel after seeing what that country is doing to another people.

In November, a survivor of Auschwitz was a guest in our home for several days. He had come all the way from the Netherlands to speak against Israel’s persecution of Palestinians and to advocate for divestment.

I recently received a letter from a Canadian Holocaust survivor who said, “We must stand firm against these [Israel’s] crimes and employ the tactics of the world movement against South African Apartheid.” and “To demand justice for the Palestinians is not anti-Semitic -- it is a cry for peace and love, and an end to racism and hatred.”

Writing to support United Methodists, a Jewish group from New York said, “We can think of no greater act of friendship than to risk being defamed in order to remind one's friends of their own ideals when they, themselves, have forgotten them… we believe that the day will come, be it in five years or fifty, when the Church’s action in this matter will be remembered with love and gratitude by Jews around the world. There are 22 pages of statements from Jewish groups supporting divestment at www.neumc.org/divest.

This is not a struggle between Jews and United Methodists, but between people who support equality for all and those who support domination by one group over others. It is between people who know what is happening in the occupied territories and people who cling to myths that suit their purposes. It is between people of all faiths committed to a just peace, and those committed to the status quo….which means continued loss of land for Palestinians.

With their fingers in the dike, many well-financed groups in this country are trying to prevent the flood of information about Israel’s conduct from washing over the American consciousness. They are too late. The evidence is too overpowering. The ongoing crime is impossible to ignore.

Susanne Hoder is founder of the Interfaith Peace Initiative and a member of the United Methodist New England Conference Divestment Task Force.

5) Response to Fair Witness

by Steven Sprecher
Chair, Peace with Justice Work Area, General Board of Church and Society

The letter from Fair Witness is as inaccurate and as unbalanced as it claims other presentations to be. It spends much time focused on a document entitled “Israel-Palestine: A 2007-2008 Mission Study,” which was not part of the Fort Worth presentation, nor the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) resolution on Caterpillar, nor the in-depth study our board has taken over the past four years.

The letter wrongly claims the only focus of the discussion at Fort Worth was on divestment from Israel. There were two foci – divestment from a single corporation (Caterpillar), and divestment from the government of Sudan. There was no call to divest from Israel. I spoke of our resolution to divest from Sudan, although few seemed interested in asking follow-up questions in that area.

The GBCS resolution on divesting from Caterpillar has received all the attention and misinformation. The resolution is not anti-Israel, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Our resolution is a faithful effort to implement current United Methodist Church (UMC) policy. Our denomination has a long history of support for the state of Israel. It also has deplored violence on all sides in the Middle East, and has a long history of support for human rights and international law. Based on these foundations, the 2004 General Conference passed Res. 312, calling for the end of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, saying in part: “We seek for all people in the region an end to military occupation, freedom from violence, and full respect for the human rights of all under international law…”

The question is, how do we make our beliefs more than just words? Our Book of Discipline mandates that “It shall be the policy of the UMC … to avoid investments … likely … to support … violation of human rights [among other things] … Boards and agencies are to give careful consideration to shareholder advocacy, including advocacy of corporate disinvestment.” [para. 716]

GBCS takes seriously our responsibility to implement church policy. We recognize that these issues are complex. During the past four years we have prayerfully studied and discussed these issues, involving a number of people from a variety of viewpoints beginning with a representative from the American Jewish Committee.

Our proposal is simply to sell the stocks we as a church own in only one corporation that is fully aware of how their products are used –Caterpillar.

Why Caterpillar? It builds a huge bulldozer specifically designed to Israeli military specifications for destruction of Palestinian olive groves and homes, and for building the illegal Wall of Separation inside the occupied West Bank. Since a bulldozer ran over and killed Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American peace activist in 2003, many organizations have called on Caterpillar to implement its own Code of Worldwide Business Conduct, which it has refused to do.

We do not call for ending support for Israel or for changing UM policy. We simply do not want our own pension dollars invested in this form of violence.

While we would hope that Caterpillar would respond to dialog such as shareholder action, we recognize that our own Board of Pensions has been part of such a dialog with Caterpillar for over three years with no response.

Our denomination should not make money from the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people. Therefore, we believe it is time to call for divestment of Caterpillar stock until it decides to follow its own Code of Worldwide Business Conduct.

6) Reply to CAMERA

Dear Mr. Van Zile,

We received a copy of your August 7 letter to William Aldrich, Chair of the Divestment Task Force of the United Methodist Church New England Conference. We, too, are very eager for accurate reporting about the Middle East in the American media, and for that reason have responded to each of your questions thoroughly. We will be posting this exchange on our web site.

The Task Force stands 100% behind the material included in its report. We also insist that it be accurately portrayed, and would like to call your attention to many errors in your description of our work, both in your letter and on your web site. These will be handled separately, with responses to your letter first. Your comments are in blue. Our responses are in black.

Mr. Van Zile: As you are well aware, the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church recently issued a blacklist of companies that do business with Israel’s military in hopes of encouraging UMC churches and members to divest from these companies.

Answer: The New England Conference report was not presented as a “blacklist.” That is your term. The Task Force report is an informational document naming some of the publicly held companies which support or sustain the Israeli occupation. It was made available as a service to Methodist investors who have a right to consider whether they want their money to be used in furtherance of an illegal activity. Each investor may consider information gathered about a given company’s role in the occupation and decide how to respond.

Mr. Van Zile: A press release issued by the conference office in Lawrence, Mass., quotes you as saying: “The goal is to make all United Methodists and other Americans aware of their relationship to companies that benefit from the Israeli occupation, and to give them an opportunity to withdraw from such relationships so they are not participants in human rights violations that go against Christian principles of international law.” Another press release quotes Rev. Peter Weaver, Bishop of the New England Conference as saying: “Ending the Israeli occupation is a stated goal of The United Methodist Church. This report provides concrete information that can be used by New England Methodists in working toward that goal.”

Answer: These are simple statements of fact about our process, and we are not sure why you felt the need to repeat them to us in your letter. Both William Aldrich and Bishop Peter Weaver stand by the statements they made in the press release.

It is a fact that ending the Israeli occupation is a stated goal of the United Methodist Church. The national body of the United Methodist Church approved a resolution at its 2004 General Conference calling for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. As stated by Bishop Weaver, the divestment report provides concrete information that can be used by New England Methodists in working toward that goal.

Mr. Van Zile: In addition to the list, the New England Conference issued documents that level serious allegations against Israel and offer troubling assertions of fact. I write this letter in hopes of discovering the sources upon which these allegations are based.

Answer: The documents we issued do indeed level serious allegations against Israel, and though the assertions of fact may be “troubling” to you, they are accurate and have been carefully documented. Actually, we hope these facts are “troubling” to everyone who reads the report, because what is happening to Palestinians in the occupied territories is horrifying, and people all over the world need to know about it.

In addition to the hundreds of sources listed in our report, we used the first-hand eyewitness reports of members of our task force who have spent time in the West Bank.

Mr. Van Zile: CAMERA also has some questions about the process used to gather information and the philosophical and theological assumptions about the divestment campaign adopted by the New England Conference.

Answer: The process used to gather information has been carefully described on the www.neumc.org/divest web site, and the philosophical and theological assumptions are clearly presented in the supporting statement for the resolution that established this task force. This is also available on the web site.

Your questions contain many inaccuracies, and we answer them primarily because our own constituents need to know the facts.

Mr. Van Zile: The first set of questions relate to the following allegations and statements of fact in the “Report of the Divestment Task Force.”

1. “In 2004, the International court of Justice (ICJ) ruled by 14-1 that Israel should halt and dismantle the Wall being constructed illegally in occupied Palestinian territory, and make reparation for the damage arising from its unlawful conduct.”

The issue was brought before the ICJ by the UN General Assembly, not by a party of the Arab-Israeli conflict. (We never stated otherwise!)

Issues brought before the ICJ by other international bodies are not considered binding unless the dispute is between the UN and its employees. Advisory opinions issued by the ICJ are just that – advisory. (We know this and have read the opinion along with all the supporting documentation.) The ICJ’s opinion on the security barrier is not legally binding as the task force suggests with the use of the word “ruled.” Why did the task for[sic] portray an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice as a legally-binding “ruling.”

Response: We never said it was “legally binding.” We used the word “ruling” just as Ariel Sharon, the Jerusalem Post and most newspapers around the world did when the opinion was handed down….to describe the result of the court’s deliberations. In fact, we used exactly the same term that CAMERA used in referring to the action of the court. A CAMERA article about the ICJ action used the words “ruled” or “ruling” eleven times. This was on your own web site on July 12, 2004! Have you questioned CAMERA’s motives in using the word? (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=115&x_article=728).

The online Thesaurus lists the following synonyms for “ruling”: decision, verdict, edict, judgment, declaration, and decree. The International Court of Justice issued a decision, conveying its judgment and declaring that after examining all the relevant international laws, Israel’s wall is illegal.

Mr. Van Zile: 2. “More than 4 million Palestinian refugees live in poverty, while Israelis live in their homes and farm their lands.” The statement seems to suggest that all refugees under UNWRA’s jurisdiction (many of whom have never set foot in Israel, and who were born after the conflict that drove their parents and grandparents from their homes) have legal claim to land inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Does the divestment committee mean to suggest that Palestinian refugees have legal claim to land inside pre-1967 Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

Answer: The committee’s report does not discuss legal claims of Palestinian refugees. It is beyond the scope of our work. We do, however, stand by this statement. Palestinian families hand down their trees and their property to their children and grandchildren. This is their legacy, passed down from generation to generation. This legacy is being denied to Palestinians. They would not be living in the refugee camps if their family’s land had not been taken from them.

An Israeli group called Zochrot is working to uncover the ruins of more than 500 Palestinian villages inside pre-1967 Israel that were destroyed by Israeli troops. As Jews and Israelis, Zochrot members have developed the following position on refugee rights: “Acknowledging the past is the first step in taking responsibility for its consequences. This must include equal rights for all the peoples of this land, including the right of Palestinians to return to their homes.” (http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english)

We have read many Israeli Jewish historians’ accounts of the way in which 750,000 Palestinian refugees were either forced to flee from their homes or intimidated through massacres and other atrocities into fleeing. These charges are confirmed by documents in Israel’s military archives which are now available. Ilan Pappe, Tanya Rinehart, Tom Segev, Benny Morris, Michael Hoffman II, Moshe Lieberman, Avi Shlaim and Ran HaCohen are just a sampling of Jewish authors who have written about Israel’s beginnings using this documentation.

One does not need to read history to see what happened. The process of dispossession is still taking place. Members of our task force have been inside Palestinian Christian dwellings and seen the deeds to their ancestral homes in Jerusalem framed on the walls or kept in dusty folders. They have talked to prominent and highly respected Christians who were forced to flee their homes, some hiding behind cupboards to escape the Israeli troops who came to drive them out. Israel has no legitimate claim to homes seized in this manner, any more than a thief has a claim to jewelry handed down through the generations in a family and then stolen. It matters not when the theft is proven or acknowledged. The thief must return it to its owners. He cannot, under pressure, return the Timex watches and costume jewelry while keeping the diamonds and rubies for himself.

The armistice of 1949 provided explicit protection to Arabs in certain villages inside Israel. Some of these villages were emptied out by Israeli troops despite the legal documents that protected them. The village of al-Fallujah is one example. After its inhabitants were forced to leave, it was completely destroyed and replaced with an Israeli town named Kiryat Gat. An Intel plant has been built on land that was taken from Palestinians in that town.

The taking of homes and expulsion of their inhabitants violates both the Israeli Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These actions constitute theft, and where homes were stolen from Palestinians, Palestinians have a right to return and claim the land where their homes stood as well as to receive reparations for those that were destroyed.

Mr. Van Zile: If so, does the task force also feel that Jews driven from the West Bank in 1948 also have legal claim to their homes?

Answer: Again, the task force has not addressed this issue, except to say that international laws should apply equally to all people. If there were Jews forced out of the West Bank in 1948, they should have a chance to return to their homes and be compensated for any property that was destroyed. I am not aware of many native Jewish inhabitants being forced to flee the West Bank in 1948, but would be glad to consider any specifics you can substantiate. It’s my understanding that Arab riots and massacres in 1929, followed by more riots in 1936, had already forced most of them to flee. When Jordan took over the area, most Jews were already gone. A United Nations map of property ownership in Palestine in 1945 would seem to confirm this. (http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg) In four of the five districts that became known as the “West Bank,” Jews owned less than 1% of the land. In the Jerusalem district, Jews owned 2%. Certainly there was no parity between the numbers of Palestinians displaced by Israel and the number of Jews displaced within the West Bank.

Mr. Van Zile: Why is there no mention of the approximately 850,000 Jews driven from Arab countries and Iran in the aftermath of the 1948 war?

Answer: That exodus did not take place with financial assistance from the United States and Methodist investors. We have addressed a current situation for which we are responsible and which we have the means to end.

The flight of Jews from Arab countries after the war had many causes. One was active encouragement by Zionists inside Israel and the spreading of fear and rumors by Zionists inside these Arab countries. Another was public response in those countries to the massive influx of Palestinian refugees pouring across their borders with horrifying accounts of massacres, crop burnings, well poisonings, and other acts at the hands of Zionist forces. No expulsion of people from their homes is permitted under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and our denomination has been consistent in supporting this.

Mr. Van Zile: 3. “83% of the West Bank’s water has been taken for Israeli use, leaving Palestinians with desperate water shortages.” What is the source of this allegation and what period of time does it cover?

Answer: We have used many sources in our extensive research on water distribution and resources. Among them are studies done by the Woodrow Wilson Institute at Princeton University and the Israeli human rights group B’tselem, as well as the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Below are links to these and other sources.

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~wws401c
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn5037.html
http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20010805.asp
http://www.btselem.org/English/Water/Index.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english/Water/Consumption_Gap.asp
http://www.btselem.org/Download/200007_Thirsty_for_a_Solution_Eng.doc
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060626&s=taamallahhttp://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/water_policy_maher.html

We note many assertions on your part that are not accompanied by sources and we would like to know where you got your information. Please define what you mean by “stored water” that you claim is primarily under pre-1967 Israel. You claim that Israel “shares” its water resources with Palestinians, while the reality is that Israel’s Merkerot water system pumps water from the Mountain Aquifer, most of which lies below the West Bank, then sells a small portion back to the Palestinians at exorbitant prices. Israel’s separation fence and wall often prevent farmers from reaching the wells on their own land, thus forcing them to rely on the more expensive water purchased from neighboring towns or from Israel. I spent time in the West Bank with a hydrologist and saw the disparity in water resources first-hand. Israel’s “generous sharing” of water is a myth.

Mr. Van Zile: (Quoting from the Methodist report) “Palestinian Christians are being forced to leave the Holy Land. Their land and water have also been taken by Israel. They now comprise less than 2% of the West Bank’s population, and there are very real fears that there will be no Christian presence in the land of Christ’s birth.”

What about Arab Christians living in Israel? (The Arab-Christian population in Israel has grown continuously in Israel since 1948.)

Answer: Before 1948, Christians made up about 15 percent of the population in historic Palestine. (http://www.elca.org/ScriptLib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?article=3517)

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics lists 146,400 Christians living in Israel in 2005, out of a total population of 6,990,700. That is just over 2 per cent. By the end of 1948, the Arab Christian population in Israel had been decimated.

A book by Israeli Jewish historian Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press, 1988, Appendix I. states that the total official number of "non-Jewish persons living in the part of Palestine that became Israel was given by the British as 725,000 before the state was established. (That is about 10,000 less than other estimates by Palestinians, so let’s use Morris’s figure to be conservative.) By November 1948, Israel’s own Central Bureau of Statistics lists the total number of non-Jews in Israel at only 156,000. (http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_01&CYear=2006).

According to these Israeli sources, it is clear that at least 570,000 non-Jewish Palestinians fled the Zionist troops or were driven from their homes during that time. Between 50,000 and 60,000 of them were Christians. The ethnic cleansing of towns and villages continued through much of 1949, with a total of about 750,000 non-Jews losing their homes and fleeing across the borders to neighboring countries.

Over the past 60 years, some 230,000 Arab Christians have left the region (Dr. Bernard Sabella, Bethlehem University), including refugees from 1947 and 1967; moreover, some 35% of the total Palestinian Christian population has emigrated since the Six Day War, in June 1967. (http://www.hcef.org/index.cfm/ID/286.cfm) Many have been replaced by Russian immigrants, 50 % of whom are not Jewish and may account for some increase in Israel’s Christian population. It’s my understanding that some of the more recent Ethiopian immigrants are also Christian.

Every religious group in Israel has had an increase in its absolute population numbers since 1948. It is the displacement of the native Palestinian Christians by Israel that we referred to in our report.

Mr. Van Zile: Although numerous credible reports indicate that mistreatment of Christians by Muslim extremists is a key factor in the Christian flight from the region, the committee only highlights alleged Israeli culpability for Christian flight from the region. Reports by Khaled Abu Tomeh, an Arab Muslim who writes for the Jerusalem Post and by Justut Reid Weiner, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, indicate that Christians suffer from daily acts of intimidation at the hands of their Muslim neighbors in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In 2005, the Custodian of the Holy Land, Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa affirmed the substance of these reports in an interview with Chiesa, a Catholic publication: (quote follows)

Answer: When I was in Israel and the West Bank in 2004, I met with many Christians. Often, they took me aside and said, “Look, we want you to go home and let Americans know that all this talk of discord between Christians and our Muslim neighbors here is propaganda. We suffer together, side-by-side under Israeli rule. We have lived together in peace for hundreds of years and we respect each other.”

Christian clergy and lay people who have been interviewed since Hamas was elected in 2006 have even voiced confidence in the ability of Hamas to protect their freedom of religion as Muslims have in the Holy Land for 1300 years. I heard occasional talk of jealousy that many foreign aid programs have focused more on Muslims than Christians, and there may be some instances of discord resulting from that. But on the whole, the interaction I witnessed over and over was one of mutual respect, and as a Christian I was warmly welcomed into many Muslim homes and communities.

Chiesa is not a “Catholic website.” It is a web site run by a man named Sandro Magister who claims to be a Catholic. The article on that web site you referred to was written by him. The interview he has supposedly quoted from is not consistent with anything else I have read by Father Pizzaballa, and I question its authenticity. Google produces nothing confirming this interview other than the Chiesa source, and there is nothing in the archives of the newspaper CORRIERE DELLA SERA (which supposedly conducted the interview) on Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa. The only other mention I could find of this quote is from Front Page Magazine, a very right wing, pro-Zionist publication. It carries the same quote that was in Chiesa. There is no confirmation anywhere that the newspaper in which it supposedly appeared actually carried that quote, which Front Page attributed to a September 4 interview by Father Pizzaballa with Lorenzo Cremonesi. There is an article in Ha’aretz Newspaper on September 4, mentioning an interview Father Pizzaballa had with Lorenzo Cremonesi who supposedly wrote the article in the Italian paper. Yet nowhere in the Ha’aretz report of their interview was there any mention of remarks about Muslims like those Chiesa reported.

Other quotes by Father Pizzaballa from legitimate Catholic sources include the following: “In this land where dialogue with Islam prevails, the Custody has built schools, hospitals and social centres which are open to all.” (http://198.62.75.4/opt/xampp/custodia/?p=2159) and “As religious we must stay out of politics. Politicians must concretize that which religious say in prophetic ways. We must work especially hard at inter-religious dialog. Indeed, one cannot make distinctions between religions and society in Israel and the Holy Land. Yet we must limit ourselves to act within inter-religious, educational and cultural fields when arousing public opinion. And, wherever possible, we can inspire politicians to meet with each other….… Nowadays there is much talk about (links between) Islam and terrorism. It is because of this very bias, brought on by fear and ignorance, that the only constructive position is still that of St. Francis.” (Building bridges for Jews and Muslims by Bernardo Cervellera May 26, 2004: “An interview with Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, OFM, the Vatican's new Holy Land Custos”, http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=864)

For years we have witnessed the efforts of Zionists to portray Muslims as the cause of Christian emigration from Israel and the West Bank. It has been an aggressive effort, and in some cases has succeeded in driving a wedge between individuals. You mention two sources that I would not rely on for assessing the Christian experience in the Holy Land.

One is Khaled Abu Tomeh, who as you said is a Muslim on the payroll of the conservative Jerusalem Post. He participated as a speaker in an Israeli activism training course at the Jewish Student Information Center of Jerusalem, in conjunction with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (http://www.jeffseidel.com/israel_activism_syllabus.html) He also spoke at a program called “Write On for Israel,” an advocacy journalism program for high school students sponsored by The Jewish Week and funded by the Avi Chai Foundation, which is “committed to the perpetuation of the Jewish people, Judaism and the centrality of the state of Israel to the Jewish people.” He is undoubtedly paid well for saying things that make Israel look good and Muslims look bad.

The other is Justus Reid Weiner, again, an unlikely authority on the Christian experience despite a “study” he has written. He works for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is headed by Dore Gold, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations and author of a book claiming that radical Islam has long desired to seize Jerusalem and cut it off to Christian and Jewish believers.

I prefer to listen to real Christians discuss their experience with Muslims in the Holy Land and their views on why Christians are leaving. Below are some sample articles:

1. From The Holy Land's most endangered flock
by Andrew Mills for the Toronto Star -

“After last year's elections, when Hamas took control of the Palestinian Authority from the formerly entrenched Fatah party, many Christians feared the hard-line Islamists would make little room for them, especially since most Christians support making peace with Israel.

But those fears haven't come true in Taybeh or elsewhere in the territories.

"With the coming of Hamas, the fact that we have been able to continue living as before is an indication that Hamas respects the traditions of mutual openness and tolerance between religions," says Bernard Sabella, a Fatah party member of the Palestinian legislature and a Palestinian Christian. "We should give them credit for that."

Says [Father Raed] Abusahlia: "Hamas has dealt with us Christians better than anybody else because it is in their favour to show the world that they are not fanatics. "But the world did not give them the chance to govern." …

"Jesus Christ was mighty," says Father David Khoury, pastor of St. George Greek Orthodox church here. "He could have cleared all the checkpoints in His way by saying a word. But people like us, we're powerless. We can't resist the gun. We can't resist the bulldozer. We can't resist the checkpoint."

Villagers are allowed to cross the separation barrier only if they hold special travel permits, a constant reminder of the occupation, which Palestinian Christians blame for the social and economic hardships that have been forcing their people to emigrate overseas.

Before Israel became a state in 1948, Christians made up 7.3 per cent of the population of the Holy Land. Now, at fewer than 160,000 people – 110,000 in Israel and just 50,000 in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza – Christians account for only 1.7 per cent of the population, according to a survey conducted for Sabeel, a Palestinian Christian grassroots group in Jerusalem….”