September 22, 2004

US Congressmen respond to Presbyterian anti-Israel resolutions

September 13, 2004

The Reverend Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202

Dear Reverend Kirkpatrick,

As Members of Congress from various faiths, we are terribly distressed about the resolution adopted at the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which calls on the Church to divest from certain companies doing business in Israel. In our view, this resolution and other associated resolutions and statements reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, contradict the Church's stated commitment to "the secure existence of Israel and the Israeli people," and undermine the prospect of peace by emboldening those who seek to de-legitimize the State of Israel.

We wholeheartedly concur with the Church's call for a just and peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with two states living side by side in peace and security. The Israeli people have repeatedly shown their willingness to make painful compromises to achieve this vision. At the Camp David Summit in 2000, Prime Minister Barak made an historic offer that was rejected by Chairman Arafat. Most recently, Prime Minister Sharon, the Father of the settlement movement, has advocated a groundbreaking plan that will lead to a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the evacuation of some settlements in the West Bank.

Since the beginning of the so-called second intifada in September 2000, Palestinian terrorists have murdered more than nine hundred innocent Israeli civilians. Many Palestinian civilians have also been killed in Israeli military operations. The loss of any human life is tragic, but in the context of this conflict there is a critical moral distinction: Palestinian terrorists deliberately target Israeli noncombatants, including women and children, through suicide bombings and other barbaric acts that leading human rights organizations have defined as "crimes against humanity." By contrast, Israel uses military force only as a response to terrorism, and never intentionally targets innocent civilians. If the Palestinians stopped all terrorist attacks and dismantled terrorist organizations, the violence would end, and meaningful efforts to reach a peaceful solution could resume.

Israel's decision to erect a security fence between Israel and the West Bank must be viewed against the backdrop of this horrific terrorist assault. It is truly "the fence that terrorism built." In its "rationale" for the resolution on the security fence, the Church asserts that the barrier "decreases the security of Israel." In fact, the exact opposite is true. Since the fence was completed in the Northern section of the West Bank, no Palestinian terrorists have infiltrated Israel from Jenin and Tulkarm, the sources of many previous suicide bombers. A similar fence around Gaza has been nearly 100 percent effective in preventing would-be attackers from entering Israel.

As currently planned by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, the security fence (only about five percent of which consists of a "wall") will encroach on about 12 percent of the West Bank, leaving over 99 percent of Palestinians on the Palestinian side, and incorporating 76 percent of Israeli settlers on the Israeli side. There is no question that the fence will make daily life more difficult for some Palestinians on both sides of the barrier, including those that will have to pass through Israeli-controlled gates to reach their farmland. This is a terribly unfortunate situation, but a small price to pay in order to save innocent lives, and one that is made necessary by the failings of the Palestinian leadership.

It is important to recognize that Palestinians have the ability to petition the Israeli Supreme Court on questions regarding the fence. Several weeks ago, the Court ruled that the Israeli military must alter the proposed route of the barrier in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and henceforth apply a strict test of proportionally in weighing Israeli security needs against Palestinian humanitarian concerns. The Israeli government has pledged to abide by this decision.

In condemning the security fence for extending into the West Bank, the Church ignores U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which explicitly acknowledged Israel's right to secure and defensible borders, as well as the Church's stated commitment- reaffirmed in its resolution on the fence- to Israel's right to exist within "secure" borders. Nearly every blueprint for peace- including the flawed Geneva Accord endorsed by the Church- envisions modifications to the 1967 lines, including the Israeli annexation of large settlement blocs. To argue that Israel somehow forfeits its inherent right of self-defense unless it retreats to those insecure and indefensible borders is a strange reading of history and recent events.

We disagree with your characterization of the conflict as "rooted in Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian territories." We believe the conflict is primarily rooted in the Palestinian leadership's refusal to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Sadly, nothing else can adequately explain their unwillingness to provide a substantive response or counteroffer to the Israeli peace proposal at Camp David, not to mention the subsequent campaign of terrorism.

As long as Palestinians and their extremist allies continue to seek the destruction of Israel, then the Government of Israel has a fundamental obligation- as do all democratically elected governments - to provide security for the Israeli people. Unlike the U.N. peacekeeping force advocated by the Church in its divestment resolution, the fence will provide real physical security and- because Israel will have the ability to redeploy its forces from much of the West Bank when it is complete- will help create the conditions necessary for a two state solution in which the legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians can be satisfied.

We believe very strongly that the efforts of the Church to divest from companies doing business in Israel- thus penalizing Israel for acting in its own self-defense- are irresponsible, counterproductive, and morally bankrupt. Rather than contributing to peace, this approach will only provide encouragement for those that seek to de-legitimize the very existence of the Jewish State.

We note with alarm your press release mention that "divestment is one of the strategies that U.S. churches used in the l970's and the l980's in a successful campaign to end apartheid in South Africa." South African apartheid? Surely the Presbyterian Church is aware that Israel is a nation whose population is nearly 20% non-Jewish Arab with the same rights as Jewish Citizens, including voting. They even have their own political parties, and serve in the Israeli Knesset. Israel is a nation that occupies a tiny sliver of land known as the West Bank only because Jordan, overwhelmingly composed of Palestinians, invaded Israel in l967 in order to destroy it and thereby lost its ownership of the West Bank.

The resolution's blatant disregard for recent history, and its blatant disregard for the safety and security of the only democracy in the Middle East leads us to only one conclusion: the Presbyterian Church has knowingly gone on record calling for jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.

We urge you in the strongest possible terms to rescind your resolution.

Sincerely,
REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN (D-CA)
REP. ROY BLUNT (R-MO)
REP. STENY H. HOYER (D-MD)
REP. DEBORAH PRYCE (R-OH)
REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA)
REP. JOHN LINDER (R-GA)
REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN (D-CA)
REP. MARK STEVEN KIRK (R-IL)
REP. GARY L. ACKERMAN (D-NY)
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA)
REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ (D-CA)
REP. TOM FEENEY (R-FL)
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA)
REP. LAMAR S. SMITH (R-TX)