Originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 3-10-2005

Three protestant church organizations have introduced a policy to divest from companies affiliated with Israel.  The World Council of Churches issued a recent divestment letter, echoing earlier statements from the leadership of Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches (USA).  Such political positioning is inflammatory and destructive to decades of friendly interfaith dialogue betweeen Christians and Jews.

In these heady times, as we witness the conception of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, it's unsettling to see an erosion of support for Israel, the single bastion of democracy in the region.  Especially now, as bold plans are undertaken by both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is time for hopeful support and encouragement, not condemnation.  The church groups cite familiar reasons for divestment, including: the disputed territories, the destruction of terrorists' homes, the separation fence.  Let's clarify those three central issues:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to implement a complete withdrawal of Jews from the Gaza strip.  Despite the small number of Jews in Gaza (8000) this is a difficult and complicated task.  The ancient Jewish life in Gaza was rekindled in the mid 19th century, long before a Jewish State was conceived; these communities have roots.  The Jews who now live in Gaza operate commercial greenhouses producing tomatoes, peppers, and flowers for Israeli and international markets.

After withdrawal, the tidy Jewish housing in Gaza will probably be left intact: a valuable gift to Arab families who could move right in.  Enjoying miles of beautiful beachfront property, Gaza could see explosive growth in tourism once the explosions end.  Jewish families who have endured countless terrorist attacks on their neighborhoods will be compensated by the Israeli government, but many will be dragged kicking and screaming from communities they built with love and toil.  The greatest danger of the unilateral disengagement is that terrorists might gain a stronger foothold.  Hamas did well in recent Gaza elections.  It will be a crucial test for the Abbas government to control Hamas and other factions; to create an economic engine will require a lasting peace.

In another unilateral de-escalation, the Israeli government ceased its controversial policy of destroying terrorists' homes.  This policy change was made despite ongoing violence, including the recent suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv nightclub killing five youths, a shooting attack at the Jewish Holy Site "Tomb of the Patriarchs," and a huge truck bomb discovered and destroyed before it could be detonated by terrorists.

Israel has spent millions building a separation fence between its population and Arab controlled towns.  The fence has dramatically reduced the number of terrorist attacks, and is a non-violent method to protect Israeli civilians.  Most nations have fences, even in the absence of terrorist attacks.  Disputes over the exact location of the fence should include this important fact: every nation has a primary obligation to protect its population--nations require secure and defensible borders.  Should Arab violence and incitement cease, the fence can be easily modified or dismantled.

There is no occupation, except in response to Arab violence.  When the terrorist groups resumed attacks against Israeli civilians in 2000, the Palestinian Authority controlled 95% of the Arab population.  Now the Israeli military is planning to withdraw from five West Bank towns (from which terrorist attacks have been launched) in exchange for another promise of peace.

Church leadership surely approves the remarkable strides currently being made in the Middle East.  For the first time since Yasser Arafat turned the tables on President Clinton and stormed out of Camp David peace talks in 2000, there is a real possibility for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.  In Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia a new paradigm is born--how to initiate democracy and pluralism? These nations are beginning to clear the logjam created by the decline of the Ottoman and British Empires, clogged by the jetsam of repeated wars, plugged by dictatorships.

The progress throughout the Middle East was not created by wishful bureaucratic proclamations of "even-handedness." Hear President Bush on Tuesday: "By now it should be clear that authoritarian rule is not the wave of the future. It is the last gasp of a discredited past...For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East."  As the Middle East freedom train leaves the station, many of Bush's staunch critics have clambered on board--it's not too late to buy a ticket.

Donald Meissner, Editor, Grateful Right