The United Church and the Israeli Boycott Bruhaha

The United Church of Canada, Canada’s largest Protestant denomination – with roughly 10% of the country’s population describing themselves as adherents – has made another attempt at addressing the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. The General Council Meeting of the church that is held every three years is taking place this week in Kelowna British Columbia and once again has garnered some controversy over a proposed resolution calling for a divestment and sanctions campaign against the State of Israel.

The key issue seems to be specific language used in background documents of the initial resolution calling for sanctions. The CBC is reporting that the background documents that have raised the ire of the pro-Israel lobby group the Canadian Jewish Congress do the following:

• Calls on the Canadian Government to end its support for Israel’s “Occupation” of Palestine.
• Calls for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions in protest.
• Likens Israeli policies towards Palestinians with Apartheid South Africa.
• Questions Canadian Members of Parliament who hold dual Canadian-Israeli citizenship.
• Argues that paid junkets to Israel should be classified as “bribes”.

The references to apartheid and members of Parliament have since been removed from the documents and the council will address the rest of the resolution tomorrow. This comes after a sustained PR campaign by the pro-Israel Canadian lobby that called the documents “anti-Semitic” and threatened that the Church was risking an irreparable “schism” with the Jewish community.

As a member of the Task Force behind the proposal I have some information that the pro-Israel lobby tries to hide: These documents that they call “anti-semitic” were drawn up by both members of the United Church and members of the Jewish Community and rely largely on sources and quotes from Jewish academics and activists in Canada, The United States and Israel.

That efforts to call attention to the brutal occupation of Palestine should be branded “anti-Semitic” should come as no surprise. It is, as a matter of routine now, a shield used indiscriminately against opponents of the Occupation. As rational people see that criticism of a state and its actions against civilians is hardly an indictment against a people based on their ethnicity this shield will show increasing signs of wear. When the day comes that Israel finally realizes that the Occupation is unsustainable and reaches a fair peace deal with Palestine – the travesty will be that the use of the epithet “anti-Semitic” will be so worn the real enemies of Judaism may get a free pass.