BDS and Chukat

BDS. It sounds like the name of a multi-national corporation or a sexually transmitted disease. In fact, it's been a buzzword in Israel for quite some time, but has recently taken over the American Jewish media as well. But what does BDS stand for? What is the excitement all about? Even stranger, how are the Presbyterians involved in the issue? Or more basically, why have I never heard of BDS?

BDS stands for Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions, specifically against Israel. This was a campaign begun in 2005 when over 150 Palestinian non-governmental organizations called for actions against Israel until Israel agreed to abide by international law and respect Palestinian rights. The BDS movement website, BDSmovement.net claims that they are against Israeli apartheid and want to fix this human rights violation before it emerges into a greater issue. The movement asserts they are placing these pressures on Israel in order to prompt Israel to enact the following actions in support of Palestinians/Arabs. 1. To end the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian or Arab lands, 2. To ensure equality for Arabs/Palestinians in Israel, and 3. To allow Arab/Palestinian refugees to return to their homes taken in or after June of 1967. While this mostly refers to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, it also applies to land and people currently living within the borders of Israel.

BDS. Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions. The Boycotts are against any products and/or companies that profit from alleged Israeli abuse of Palestinian rights. This includes but is not limited to companies, sporting events, and academic institutions within Israel. Motorola is an example of a company from which someone can do all three. By boycotting Motorola, you simply do not buy their products (the cell phones they produce). The particular grievance of Motorola is their production of bomb fuses and missile guidance systems. Divestment is mostly an economic and financial tool that involves reduction of an asset in order to achieve some kind of gain. In this case, the BDS movement encourages people and organizations to divest from companies benefiting from work they do in the West Bank that actively violate Palestinian rights (that profit from Israeli settlement). With regard to Motorola, this would simply involve removing oneself from the company as stockholders. Sanctions are actions taken to force a country to obey international law. In this case, the sanctions are against those same companies that profit from production that violates Palestinian rights. For Motorola, this entails not allowing Motorola to produce anything in Israel or not allowing them to export products.

Although this movement has been active for the past nine years with no major changes being implemented, the BDS movement claims that by not instituting the changes suggested, a peaceful solution between Israelis and Arabs will not be reached. The official statement of the URJ is directly opposite: only by supporting both Israelis and Palestinians can we bring about a viable peace option.

Many countries have denounced the movement as anti-Semitic, although the United States has not made a firm statement in either direction. However, the concept of BDS has re-emerged into American awareness as of late (after the American Studies Association urged Universities to Boycott Israel and cancel their Israeli exchange programs), with the recent Presbyterian Church vote, narrowly in favor of divestment from three companies said to abuse Palestinian rights. In order to support the BDS movement, the Presbyterian Church decided to divest from Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, and Caterpillar, after rejecting a similar proposition two years previously.

The Reform Movement, as an active presence at the Church conference, made a statement against this decision to divest, before the vote was taken. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, wrote a letter to the conference participants urging them not to support the resolution, and also spoke to the plenary. However, he did so in a way championing the similar ideology our two movements share. He wrote, "[the] Reform Movement has a long-standing policy of opposition to the Israeli settlements. We stand firmly on this—and for two states–and want to partner with you, but your support for BDS will make this much harder. We firmly believe that our Zionism…should not come at the expense of the Palestinian people who deserve freedom and dignity, in an independent state." He further went on to write that instead of strengthening support of peace, "support for divestment from Israel has only…harden[ed] the position of those who least desire justice for Israel."

In preparation for this Church's General Assembly, many materials were produced for general consumption. One such document, Zionism Unsettled, was a blatant attack on Judaism as well as against the legitimacy of Israel. It named Israel as an apartheid state, comparing her to South Africa. Although many Palestinians cannot vote in Israeli elections or enter Israel whenever they please, this is not apartheid. It is an issue that needs to be addressed, but cannot be labeled apartheid. Even more troubling though, Zionism was labeled as akin to racism and compared the Palestinian experience during the events of 1948 to the Holocaust. This work cheapens the experience of Israel as a country and Judaism as a religion, seemingly negating the importance of the State of Israel and the Jewish people as a whole.

Reading these documents, I am overcome with dismay, but more than that, sadness. I am deeply saddened by the results of this vote, and by the work that is being promoted throughout the Presbyterian Church. For many years, the Presbyterian Church has been hailed as one of the Reform Movement's most ardent supporters, making a Jewish-Christian dialogue both possible and fruitful. With this vote, these relations were set back. However, due to the close nature of the vote, the Reform Movement will continue to maintain ties with the Presbyterian Church, and will work with those supporters who do advocate a two-state solution within Israel. I agree with Rabbi Jacobs that we must continue to maintain close relationships with our local Presbyterian friends and neighbors. Not everyone within the Church agrees with the decision at the General Assembly and we must remember that. We must actively engage in dialogue with those supporters and applaud their support, while at the same time understanding why some of our friends voted in favor of divesting from Israel.

When initially learning about the BDS movement, I was taken aback. I knew that I supported the state of Israel, but did not support occupying another people or land. How could I be against the BDS movement, but also against settlements. Through much discussion I came to realize that I can be anti-settlement in addition to anti-BDS. BDS, as a movement, is boycotting Israel as a country, to which I am vehemently opposed. As we are taught in Deuteronomy 10, we must love the foreigner and our neighbor, because we too were strangers in Egypt. Taking this teaching to heart, I oppose the settlement movement because I cannot sit back and watch my Palestinian neighbors and friends lose their land. The settlements are so popular because of how relatively inexpensive it is to build and produce in the West Bank. Yet, we are not loving the foreigner, in this case our neighbor, by taking the small amount of land they possess and using it for our benefit.

Therefore, we must vocalize our concern over the vote in favor of divestment by the Presbyterian Church while at the same time supporting Israeli withdrawal from the settlements. Interestingly, this evokes images of the red heifer in this week’s parsha. The heifer is a rare, religiously pure, completely red cow that is to be used for the purification from sin. We are told to take the ashes from burning the cow and rub them on ourselves in order to become pure, while at the same time, anyone touching the ashes becomes impure in the process. The logic does not follow. This is the situation we have with the BDS movement. The logic of the movement is not rational and does not evoke a desire to see it to fruition. Like the ashes taking on two different functions, we can boycott Israel as a whole, which is pro-BDS, or boycott products produced in Israeli settlements and be anti-settlement while simulanteously anti-BDS.

We must continue to support Israel as a country and homeland of the Jewish people, simultaneously understanding that there is another people living in Israel who deserve equal opportunity to live freely. However, I also recognize that each person should learn about Israel and develop his or her own unique relationship with her, discovering that Israel is not perfect, that we must learn to live in partnership with her, loving her while also pointing out flaws and issues.

In short, a nuanced relationship with Israel makes this discussion much more complicated. Yet at the same time, we cannot claim to be supporters of Israel and support the BDS movement, especially with writings such as Zionism Unsettled being disseminated and championed here in America. We must actively stand up against Boycotting, Divesting, and Sanctioning Israel. We must actively strive to see the continuation of the State of Israel. We must actively work toward a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians/Arabs can live in peace, in their own lands. We must work with our brothers and sisters here in America and in Israel to engage in dialogue and understand the perspectives, while at the same time maintaining these essential Jewish values. The values that we are all made b’tzelem Eloheim, in the image of God. That we must respect our neighbor as ourself. That of Shalom, of peace.

May this Shabbat find peace within our borders and within all borders, but most especially within the borders of Israel and the Middle East. May these two people find a way to live side by side, to work together in prosperity. Shabbat Shalom.