Presbyterians and boycotts
A measured step or a slippery slope?

An inter-faith firestorm over moves by American Presbyterians to "divest" from firms involved in Israel

Religion and public policy




It was widely seen as a bombshell moment in Christian-Jewish relations in the United States. The American Jewish Committee, a New York-based advocacy group, said the decision was motivated by hatred for Israel. Meanwhile, all three companies have defended their record: Caterpillar, charged with making equipment that flattens Palestinian homes, says it supplies bulldozers to the American government, not to Israel; Hewlett Packard says the checkpoints it helps to establish in the West Bank simply help people reach and carry out their work “in a faster and safer way”; Motorola Solutions says it is careful to obey the law and its own ethical code.

But the torrent of anger over the PCUSA decision has less to do with the choice of companies than with the signal which the vote is seen as sending. The Israeli government and many American Jewish groups have denounced the move as part of a much broader campaign against Israel, and in particular as a victory for the international campaign known as “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” which they see as hostile to Israel’s existence. Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu described the Presbyterian move as as a "disgraceful" act of hostility to Israel.

The PCUSA insists otherwise. The resolution that it adopted includes an amendment saying the decision was “not to be construed…as divestment from Israel or as an alignment with…the global BDS movement.” The church will continue to keep other investments in Israel, as well as looking for projects which improve the lives of Israelis and Palestinians, spokespeople have stressed. But critics reject that assurance; they say the resolution on limited divestment was drafted by people who do support the full BDS initiative. One such critic is Jeanne Bishop, a Presbyterian church elder, lawyer and political activist, who told me after the vote:

I am deeply disappointed. I reject the notion that we can vote to divest from certain companies, and then simultaneously dissociate ourselves from the BDS movement. The middle initial in that movement stands for “divestment” and that is what the General Assembly voted to do.

Ms Bishop is familiar with divestment campaigns. She worked to promote economic boycotts designed to challenge South Africa’s apartheid regime, and to change British policies in Northern Ireland. Based on this experience, she concludes that divestment campaigns often have broader aims than the immediately stated ones: "Historically, the weapon of divestment has been used against entities that people didn’t want to exist. So people in Israel have every right to regard divestment as an existential threat."

But, understandable as it may be, is that a well-founded feeling? Are people right to regard divestment, even on a limited scale, as a first step to a much broader challenge? Doubtless there are some divestment supporters who see things in precisely that way. And when it comes to boycotts with far-reaching purposes, those Presbyterians have form. When the merchants of Philadelphia voted to stop buying British goods in the 1760s, at the urging of a militant Presbyterian faction, the consequences proved far-reaching. But then again, the "slippery slope" argument doesn't necessarily trump everything; it could be used against every limited action that has ever been undertaken, in any cause or purpose, in history.

Reuse this contentThe Trust Project