Methodist conference passes anti-Israel resolutions
by dan pine, staff writer
| Follow j. on |  |
and |  |
Local activists were disappointed by two anti-Israel resolutions passed at a regional United Methodist Church conference, fearing that they threaten to harm relations between the Christian denomination and the Jewish community.
The first proposed that California and Nevada Methodist congregations divest from Israel to protest ongoing Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank. A majority of the 900 attendees also endorsed the World Council of Churches’ so-called Amman Call, a 2007 resolution that among other things supports a Palestinian right of return.
(The right of return holds that Palestinians who left what became the State of Israel in 1948, as well as their descendents, now numbering in the millions, have the right to go back to their original homes.)
To the relief of Jewish observers attending the conference, an amendment tacked on to the Amman resolution also passed. The amendment declared that solutions to Palestinian and Jewish refugee issues (such as the right of return) should be left up to the parties in the conflict.
The amendment effectively neutralized the Methodist call for a Palestinian right of return, but the overall results of the conference saddened supporters of Israel.
“It was a heartbreak for me,” said Archer Summers, a staunchly pro-Israel minister from Palo Alto’s First United Methodist Church, and the man who wrote the amendment. “The ideologues were able to get what they wanted.”
Last year at the Methodist Church’s quadrennial General Conference in Fort Worth, Texas, similar measures were roundly defeated.
Equally disappointed was Karen Stiller, director of the Peninsula region of the Jewish Community Relations Council. She lobbied both clergy and lay leaders to vote down the two resolutions.
She said it could have been worse. The Amman Call resolution passed in committee by such a wide margin, it did not even have to go to the convention floor for a formal voice vote, according to Summers. However, he managed to get the resolution to the floor.
“We have phenomenal, wonderful friends in the Methodist Church who passionately worked against these resolutions,” said Stiller, “and who really understand the perspective of the Jewish community. My read on this: Most people that voted in favor did so not from a position of malice but of not really understanding the issues.”
Stiller attended the entire conference, as did colleagues from the JCRC organizations in Silicon Valley and Sacramento. Together they passed out letters from the three regional JCRC directors urging delegates to vote no.
The letter read in part: “We are profoundly hurt by the lack of empathy and balance in these resolutions that single out Israel as the major impediment to peace, while not directly mentioning the ongoing terror perpetrated against Israelis … These resolutions are the handi-
work of those who seek to divide, not unite.”
Both Summers and Stiller agreed that the net effect of both resolutions is more symbolic than anything else. And that, they said, made it hurt all the more.
“The effect is not meaningful,” said Stiller. “To do something hurtful purely for symbolism in many ways makes it more painful to us.”
“I don’t think they can lawfully do this,” Summers added, referring to divestment. “One of the individuals from the task force that presented this [resolution] said this course of action could not be pursued.”
As for a next step, Stiller expects the JCRC and other Jewish organizations will analyze the church’s position and settle on an appropriate response.
“The long-range effects are unclear but it is disturbing,” she said. “I was very disappointed. I felt very let down. At the same time, I’m really thankful for the great friends we have in the church.”
Comments
Be the first to comment!
Leave a Comment
In order to post a comment, you must first log in.
Are you looking for user registration? Or have you forgotten your password?
All