The UCC's "Israel-Palestine" Resolution

I am not a Commissioner to General Council. I never have been and I never want to be. That's my position right now anyway. I have to condition it with those words, because who knows what God may call me to in the future. If I feel called to become a Commissioner one day, so be it. But so far that call has not appeared in my life. I have, however, been following the debate over the resolution on Israel & Palestine more closely than I usually follow General Council debates. Usually, I just declare the General Council to be what it is in reality to the vast majority of people in the United Church - totally irrelevant, if they think of it at all. Which kind of guides me, actually, in my response to this resolution.

First, the GC obviously recognized its impotence by acknowledging that it can only "encourage" a boycott. It can't do anything else. And, as with other things the GC does, this decision to "encourage" a boycott will be largely ignored. Some will become angry; a few might choose to leave the church; nothing productive will be accomplished. I've even come across a few comments by United Church people who say they're going to START buying products from the settlements in protest of the resolution. This will be a lot of time and energy spent for little if any result.

Within Canada, it will set up walls between the United Church and many in the Jewish community, and I doubt it will have any fundamental impact on our relations with the Moslem community. Sure, some people will applaud us for standing in solidarity with the oppressed. By effectively doing nothing. It will turn out to be what a lot of atheists and humanists and secularists accuse Christians of - lots of words; no real actions. If you really feel called to be in solidarity with the Palestinians, then go to Palestine, live with them, help care for them, run the blockade; be in real solidarity with them. (I do not feel so called, but if you really do feel called - do something concrete; don't just talk about it.)

In the region itself, the resolution is pointless. Let's be honest. Neither Benjamin Netanyahu nor Mahmoud Abbas have been hanging on every word out of Ottawa, nor have they been losing sleep worrying about what the United Church General Council is going to decide. It's entirely likely that neither have heard of the United Church of Canada - and that neither care.

But here's the real rub; the two real reasons I've decided I oppose this resolution and that I will respond in the negative to being encouraged to do with it what it encourages me to do.

First, I don't know what all the amendments have been but I'm shocked that a part of the proposal is to withdraw calls for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. I heard commissioners saying "oh no. This was just us saying that we shouldn't set preconditions for negotiations." I agree with that interpretation. The document is quite clear about Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. But it's going to be portrayed - and, in fact, it has been portrayed by some - as the United Church saying that Israel has no right to exist. Whoever decided to put that in there was foolish. I understand the intent, and I agree that we shouldn't set preconditions for negotiations - and we can't "set" preconditions for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians anyway, since we're not part of the negotiations. Any resolution on this issue is simply a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, the Palestinians should recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That should be gone from the resolution.

Second, as for the "boycott?" Here's the problem. I don't remember the last time I bought a product that was marked "Made in Israel" or "Product of Israel." There are likely some things - but most of us have no clue that what we're purchasing comes from Israel anyway. Here's a partial list of settlement-produced products:

http://meretzusa.org/boycott-these-settlement-products-sold-us

I recognize General Mills, which apparently has some of its Pillsbury products produced in settlements (if this list is accurate.) Otherwise? I don't recognize any of them. And here's another problem: anything bought that's produced in a settlement is not going to bear a label that says "Made in an Illegal Israeli Settlement." It's going to say "Made in Israel." The only way to really effectively boycott products produced on settlements is to boycott anything made in Israel. So, like it or not, and even if the intent is the Israeli settlements, the "boycott" will only be effective if those who want to abide by it avoid anything made in Israel. So, regardless of what we're being specifically "encouraged" to do - this is a de facto boycott of all Israeli products. Because who knows? It's kind of like "fencing the law." You know. You have the Commandments. Then to avoid breaking the Commandments, you set up more rules to make sure that you don't break the Commandments. Then you set up more rules to make sure that you don't break the rules that will make sure that you don't break the Commandments. And so on and so forth.

It's a ridiculous resolution. It's based on the idea that we have sufficient clout to actually have a right to intervene in a complicated matter of international diplomacy - and that such intervention is what we're about as the church. The very idea that the church has such a role is a vestige of a rapidly crumbling christendom - and frankly Christianity will be better off when christendom (with all the corrupting entanglements it gives the church with the world) is gone for good. The resolution  should be defeated. But if it passes, it will be simply for the purpose of being able to puff ourselves up and say, "look at us. We did something." Even though the "something" is effectively nothing. What a waste of time and energy.