Divestment and More: A Strategy Exploration Michael Lerner Tikkun, March/April 1995
This is thinking in progress—not a final commitment on my part, and definitely not “the official position of the Tikkun Community.” Rather, it is an attempt to share some of my own thinking and provoke an exploration of strategies. I know very well that there are members and leaders among the 100,000 members and supporters of the Tikkun Community who disagree with my analysis. Our more than fifty active local communities will be discussing this and other perspectives—and we welcome readers’ letters, a representative sampling of which we will print along with more articles responding to this one in the May and July issues of Tikkun.
I want to explain why I’ve come to support limited and targeted divestment along the lines suggested by the Presbyterian Church. I oppose a broader or more general divestment strategy (that is, one that seeks a general economic boycott against all firms doing business with Israel). Moreover, I believe that even limited divestment can be a dangerous error which will backfire against the peace movement unless we take steps to ensure that it is perceived as a minor and secondary tactic within a larger strategy whose primary focus is to generate an awareness both that there is a specific two-state solution that can work (along the lines of the Geneva Accord) and that the only way to get there is for both sides to develop a compassionate recognition of the validity of the other side’s perspective and needs.
I recognize how painful and emotionally charged any discussion of divestment is, with the (in my view, misleading) associations to the struggle against South African apartheid. I know that some will try to represent this as the position of our organization or of the magazine (though I’ve intentionally not run this as an editorial, and though I’m saying as clearly as possible that this is something for exploration, and that I am opening a debate, not stating a conclusion). Still, I won’t shy away from difficult and painful subjects, no matter how concerned I am that my perspective will be misunderstood, distorted, or attributed to the entire Tikkun Community.
Let me situate this within the current realities and the debates going on inside the peace movement in post-Palestinian-election 2005.
There are some hopeful signs in Israel in the post-Arafat period. The election of Prime Minister Abbas has been followed by hopeful talk on both sides and by concrete actions by the Palestinian Authority to stop violence. It is likely that Israel will implement a withdrawal of its settlers from Gaza. There is even some reason to hope that both sides will use this opportunity to recommence serious negotiations about the future of the West Bank. We should do all we can to encourage these developments and try to build on whatever political momentum toward peace we can harness from these developments.
I don’t have high hopes, however, that this will lead to the basic prerequisites for ending the Israel/Palestine conflict: the creation of a politically and economically viable Palestinian state. The Israeli land grab in the West Bank continues under cover of peace moves. The Wall continues to be built. Palestinian homes continue to be bulldozed by machines constructed for that purpose by the Caterpillar corporation in the United States. A recent Knesset decision allows Israel to seize hundreds of properties in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians. Inch by inch, dunam by dunam, the steady erosion of Palestinian homes and agricultural land continues. The Palestinians see it happening each day. We ignore it and focus on the public relations statements of the various political leaders—and thus don’t understand why even now there is so much ongoing anger in Palestine.
At best, Likud/Labor will offer a Palestinian state that allows Israel to retain almost all of its West Bank settlements, roads that bisect Palestinian land, and a military presence throughout most of the West Bank. The Palestinians will be left with a series of West Bank cantons barely connected by small strips of land, and a sovereignty that will feel empty to most Palestinians. Even if Abbas feels too powerless to demand more and settles for what is being offered, a significant number of Palestinians will feel that what they have been offered is disrespectful, and they will give greater support to rejectionists who wish to fight on, which in turn will be “proof” to right-wing Jews that nothing will ever satisfy the Palestinian people—and the violence may resume.
Let’s reiterate Tikkun’s basic moral perspective here: The Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is morally wrong—as well as destructive to the best interests not only of the Palestinians but of the Israeli people, Jews around the world, and world peace—and should be resisted, publicly challenged, and morally condemned. We call upon the Israeli people, our brothers and sisters, whom we love and care about, to engage in massive nonviolent civil disobedience against the Likud/Labor government until it immediately and unconditionally withdraws from not only Gaza but also the West Bank or until Israel implements the Geneva Accord through negotiations with the Palestinian people.
There are a lot of very decent people in Israel, but there is little chance that they will mobilize around demands for immediate withdrawal, much less participate in the nonviolent civil disobedience needed to awaken Israelis from their moral slumber. Just as we in the United States have so far been unsuccessful in building a large movement for massive, nonviolent civil disobedience against the war in Iraq because not enough people have been able to separate the war from their anxiety about terrorism, so in Israel the Left can’t get enough people to distinguish between withdrawing from the Territories and exposing themselves to Palestinian terror. And given the relative frequency of Palestinian terror attacks, it is much harder in Israel to get ordinary, decent human beings to take personal risks to oppose the Occupation.
Though we proudly salute Israelis who refuse to do their IDF service by enforcing the Occupation, and see these “refuseniks” as representing the best in the Jewish tradition of remaining true to ideals higher than blind nationalism, it’s hard to see evidence that their principled stand will spread, particularly now that the rest of the Israeli Left has mobilized so powerfully against right-wing refuseniks who said they would not implement orders to remove settlers from Gaza. Many Israeli leftists take the stance that the best way to preserve the country from civil war is to give formal loyalty to the IDF, as in “see, we served when we didn’t agree with the army’s policies, so now the Right should do the same.” It’s an argument that actually has little power, but it helps explain why so many peaceniks have not become part of the refusenik movement.