WSJ op-ed on the Divestment movement:

Religious Radicals
Mainline churches launch a policy to punish Israel.

BY EUGENE KONTOROVICH
Friday, July 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.

"It is the Occupation in its many facets that foments the violence and fuels the conflict [in Israel]," said a report endorsed by leaders of the Anglican Church in at their meeting in Britain last month. They adopted a resolution there supporting divestment from companies doing business with Israel.

The Anglicans are only the most recent on a list of mainline Protestant churches to endorse a boycott of companies with ties to the Jewish state. The United Church of Christ (UCC) took similar action last month, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) passed a resolution last year.

But there is little evidence that the leaders of these churches are representing the sentiments of their members. The Presbyterian action provoked outrage from the church's rank and file, as well as bipartisan condemnation in Congress. The church has yet to actually divest any funds, and its horrified congregants might still reverse the decree.

These denominations are mainline, but their anti-Israel position is far from mainstream. Indeed, they are divesting even as many of Israel's most vocal critics forswear such tactics.

In April, a labor union of British professors adopted a boycott of Israeli universities, prompting widespread revulsion from across the political spectrum. It soon became clear that the boycott was the work of a small group of activists who had foisted their political agenda on the union. True, the union is an unabashedly left-wing organization with long-standing support for the Palestinian cause, but even its members repealed the boycott within a month. Similarly, divestment campaigns at American universities, such as Harvard, have been rejected by students and faculty alike. Critics of Israel have been pleased enough with Israel's planned pull-out from Gaza that they want to continue encouraging such policies.

Even Israel's Arab enemies are backing away from these tactics. Saudi Arabia, because it needs U.S. approval to join the World Trade Organization, is poised to drop its long-standing boycott of American companies that do business with Israel; Egypt and Jordan have already done so.

Still, the divestment movement continues in some Protestant denominations. The United Church of Christ is particularly noteworthy for its hypocritical treatment of Israel. The UCC condemns Israel's security barrier for, among other things, "changing an international border without direct negotiations between partners." Yet the divestment resolution, passed at the same meeting, specifies exactly what Israel's final border must look like and what Israel must give up, including Judaism's two most holy sites.

Even the United Nations Security Council and the recent "Road Map" peace plan endorsed by Europe and the U.S. leave the specifics of a final border settlement to be worked out between the parties.

It would seem beyond the bounds of decency for a Christian church to demand that the Jewish State cede sovereignty over its sacred places. Is there any other religion to which these denominations would presume to dictate the disposition of its holy sites?

Moreover, the denominations condemn Israel without informing their congregants of the broader historical context. The resolutions blame terrorism on Israeli "occupation." But Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians began well before Israel took Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War. At Camp David in 2000, Israel offered to withdraw from almost all these areas and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership rejected the offer and began a homicidal spree that has cost the lives of more than 1,000 Israelis.

The denominations denounce as "violence" efforts aimed at stopping Palestinian suicide bombers. Yet they also condemn the entirely nonviolent security fence, which has kept countless terrorists from entering Israel's cities. The churches' leaders claim to be even-handed when dealing with Israelis and Palestinians, but they are not. The terrorists use home-made bombs. Israel must use more complex devices to protect itself--including construction equipment to destroy terrorists' tunnels and hide-outs--purchased from abroad. A policy of "even-handed" divestment rewards the Palestinians' ruthless asymmetric warfare tactics.

Most American Christians back Israel and its right to defend itself. (The evangelical wing of Protestantism is especially vocal in its support.) A recent nationwide survey sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League revealed that nearly four times as many Americans sympathize with Israel than with the Palestinians, and an overwhelming majority of Americans (71%) believe that Israel is currently taking a "bold step for peace." The same cannot be said, though, for the leaders of these churches.

Mr. Kontorovich is an assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law