[Previous sermon: "Parashat Korach - Death Penalty - June 17, 2004"] [Next sermon: "Superman - October 15, 2004"]
Bereshit - October 9, 2004
A man came to see the rabbi in deep despair. For fifteen years he had been pouring himself, heart and soul, into his business. He had struggled to get it off the ground, investing his family's money to try to make it fly. But it had never really taken off, and now it was actually crashing. Debts were piling up, he was consumed with worry, he couldn't eat and couldn't sleep, his family was in danger of falling apart. He didn't know what to do. Finally, in a desperate state, he decided to see if the rabbi had any advice for him. He told the rabbi all of his troubles and asked for guidance. The rabbi replied, "Try this: Get a beach chair and Bible, pack them in your car, and drive down to the ocean. Bring the chair and the Bible down to the edge of the water. Sit in the chair, place the Bible in your lap, and open it up so that the wind can blow its pages. Then close your eyes, and start to think about your life. Consider all of your challenges and all of your blessings. Think it all through. When you are ready, open your eyes and look at the Bible. Read the first words your eyes fall on, and they will tell you what to do." The man thanked the rabbi for his time, shook his hand and left. Three months later, the man returned to see the rabbi. He drove up to the synagogue in a brand new Lexus. He was dressed in a custom made suit.
He walked straight into the rabbi's office and handed him a six-figure check, saying that he wanted to donate it to the Rabbi's Discretionary Fund to thank the Rabbi for his wonderful advice. The rabbi was delighted to see the man so transformed, and asked him what had happened since their last meeting. "Well, Rabbi," the man answered, "I did exactly what you said. I packed my chair and Bible and went to the shore. I sat there for a good long time with my eyes closed, really thinking about my life and sorting out my issues. And then I opened my eyes, read the words of the Bible and did what they said, and since then my life has never been better." "That's terrific! ' exclaimed the rabbi. 'But tell me. What were the words you saw in the Bible that gave you such helpful guidance? " The man replied, "Chapter 11."
If it were only that easy- that we could actually solve all of life's problems with a trip to the beach and a Bible. Most of the challenges that confront us in the real world are much more complex. There isn't just one answer that stands out above all others as a solution. More often there are many answers, with various possible outcomes. And what we have to do is weigh our multiple options and choose the path we hope will best succeed with the fewest complications. Whether the hundreds of Israelis who went down to the beaches of the Sinai peninsula to celebrate Sukkot and were attacked by terrorists were there to reflect on the complicated situation Israel faces or whether they were there just to get away from it all, we can say for certain, that there are no easy answers in the waves of the ocean or in the pages of the Bible to the problem of securing peace in the region. And there are no easy lines to draw as to which moves Israel makes and which actions the Palestinians take help or harm their respective long term goals. Unfortunately, there are some who paint a picture of the ongoing crisis of terrorism and reprisal in Israel and now even beyond the borders of Israel in very black and white terms, instead of with the nuance and complexity the situation deserves. You may know that the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America at its 216th General Assembly in early July passed two overtures, their term for policy resolutions, concerning Israel, which reflect a naive and one-sided view of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
These overtures are devastating not only to Israel but to the precious relationships that Jews and Protestant Christians in this country and abroad have made efforts to form in past decades and they call for our awareness and action. The first overture initiated a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance with their General Assembly's policy on divestment and or proscription in corporations due to their involvement in military related production, tobacco or human rights violations. In the past, divestment has been an effective tool for putting economic and political pressure on a nation or government that is seen as engaging in gross human rights violations. And the most successful divestment efforts can be credited with helping end Apartheid in South Africa in the 1980's.
Many Jewish groups were involved in that action. Although the Presbyterian church does not cite South Africa in this overture regarding Israel, the only other countries it has singled out for divestiture are South Africa and more recently Sudan. The problems with this overture are many. First, it sets a double standard. While the resolution acknowledges and calls for an end to Palestinian suicide bombings and recognizes that such acts are "abhorrent and inexcusable by all measures," the divestment action nonetheless targets only Israel, and not the Palestinians for economic and political sanction. There is nothing in the overture urging the Palestinian leadership to end corruption within the Palestinian Authority, to cease the incitement of terrorist acts, to stop the misuse of international relief funds, or to encourage political reform.
And what does it say to the world that Israel is singled out for sanction, not only before the Palestinians, but before nations such as Iran, North Korea, and China, widely known for committing human rights violations far greater than any found in accusations made against Israel. It cannot be disputed, notwithstanding her faults and missteps as she wrestles to deal with legitimate security concerns, that Israel has been and remains a far more open, tolerant and democratic nation than any of those I just mentioned, let alone the others in the Middle East. The second problem with the overture is that it doesn't take into account that an Israeli economy weakened by divestment, if shaped to include military contractors, could weaken Israel's ability to defend itself against terrorism.
And now we are not only speaking about the Presbyterian Church but also other worldwide Protestant groups who are considering following suit, including the Anglican communion. Third, I wonder if the Presbyterian Church leadership in passing such an overture in an effort to promote peace in the region considered that it may be shortsighted to think that a struggling Israeli economy would help push popular support for the peace process. Especially during a time when Israel already feels isolated and hated by the international community, a movement for divestment would foster that feeling of alienation and could lead to Israel's complete retreat from international involvement in the peace process. Not only that, but such an action which pours salt into deep wounds, makes it even harder to levy legitimate criticism of Israel's policies.
If Israel is constantly made to feel that it is the punching bag of the world, it will stop listening altogether. Those of us who criticize specific Israeli actions, from a love for the Jewish state and a deep concern for her peace and security, will be discredited and lost. Taken all together, a more nuanced approach the Presbyterian Church and others who might follow their lead might take instead of selective divestment, is selective investment - in organizations doing coexistence and reconciliation work between Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East. If peace is what they want to promote, groups like these lay the groundwork for peace by building bridges between divided peoples and they are desperately in need of increased funding.
The second overture the Presbyterian Church passed at its General Assembly concerns the security barrier Israel is constructing, and is equally naive, if not offensive. It calls for the United States not to contribute to the 1.3 billion dollar cost of building what they call "the wall." The overture says, "the best hope for security for both Israelis and Palestinians may be found in laying down all forms of aggression on both sides, ending the Israeli occupation, and finding ways to build bridges of peace rather than walls of separation. Good neighborly relations, rather than mutual isolation and suspicion, are urgently needed to between Israel and its neighbors in Palestine and the Middle East." The error of this overture is that again it fails to recognize that Israel has legitimate security reasons for the security barrier in defending against Palestinian terrorism.
Even those of us who in theory agree with the Church's premise, that walls don't make good neighbors, we have to concede that the security barrier has been effective at saving lives. Border towns like Hadera and Afula which had experienced some of the worst attacks, have been terror-free since the fence was competed in their areas. Equally problematic is that the overture implies that the security barrier is a wall for the majority of its path, when, in fact, it is only a wall for approximately five miles and a fence in all other places. This overture which opposes the security barrier in its entirety also goes far beyond the UN's International Court of Justice which found the security barrier to be in violation of international law only where its route goes beyond the Green Line. And while we should remain concerned about the humanitarian conditions of Palestinians affected by the route of the fence, concern for their lives must be matched by concern for the lives of innocent Israelis living in proximity to those who wish to murder them. The Reform Movement has already begun to initiate dialogue with Reverend Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church's General Assembly and other Presbyterian leaders. But just as meetings with Church leaders would not change a resolution passed by our movement's leadership, these talks haven't changed the positions of the Presbyterian Church, except that they endorse a course of local dialogue to help bridge the gap that has obviously grown between Presbyterians and Jews versus the links of sympathy that they have made toward Palestinians. The Baltimore Jewish community is blessed to have some very sympathetic and interested partners in dialogue in many local Presbyterian leaders.
Already the Board of Rabbis has met with Peter Nord, the Executive Presbytery of the Presbytery of Baltimore, as well as with Chris Leighton of the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies and Jack Sharp, Pastor of Govens Presbyterian Church. In those talks we were able to discuss with candor and honesty the deep hurt the Jewish community feels by the overtures of the national body. And we resolved a few courses of local action. In addition to participating in the important and ongoing programs of the Institute for Christian and Jewish studies, which promotes interfaith understanding through study and scholarship, we are organizing meetings with local Jewish and Presbyterian clergy. Furthermore, a representative from the Board of Rabbis has been invited to speak and answer questions at a meeting of the local Presbytery in Annapolis. And the clergy hope to initiate dialogue at the congregational level as well.
If these overtures of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America are anything, they are a wake up call to our communities that we have lost touch with one another. That we need to recreate the ties of friendship and understanding between our communities. If this Shabbat of Bereshit, of beginnings calls us to do anything, it is to avail ourselves of the opportunities to know our Christian neighbors and to talk to them about issues like these. To build the bridges of which they speak so that real peace and understanding can be realized. Kein yehi razon. May this be God's will for us.
Amen.
Rabbi Batsheva Meiri
