The PC(USA) in general and Vernon Broyles in particular, still don’t get it. In his latest left-wing rant in the October 2004 issue of Presbyterians Today, Broyles once again tackles the topic of . The main point of the article, from my reading Divestment and Israel, was that the media got it all wrong when they reported that the PC(USA)was going to immediately divestment all of its holdings in Israel. As I’ve mentioned earlier, even if that were the case, I doubt seriously Israel would feel a thing giving the drastically declining membership of the PC(USA).

Broyles, in an apparent attempt to make us feel better, says that in actuality the PC(USA) only voted for a selective divestment in Israel. Now they are calling it a “Selective, Phased Divestment Process”. It seems to me, and this Op-Ed piece by Broyles, seems to be an attempt by the PC(USA) to backtrack on their decision. They still don’t get it.

Whether it is a selective or full divestment, some of us just don’t care; any divestment in protest is too much. The PC(USA) is not so much interested in solving the problems as they are in making themselves feel better. Boycotts simply do not work. Sure, we can point to South Africa and Apartheid, but was it the boycott or world opinion that resulted in changes there. How long did we have embargoes on Iraq? And what was their impact? What about Libya? Are we to believe that about the time the US and a few dozen of its closest friends kicks some Iraqi butt Libya realizes that it has suffered enough economic damage and caves in? Or does it make more sense to believe that Libya caved because they realized they just might be next? Bleeding heart Broyles would likely say they were afraid of a boycott by the PC(USA) or the World Council of Churches.

No, Broyles, like many of the PC(USA) elite, just don’t get it. The security wall has resulted in fewer terrorist attacks in Israel. Fewer radicals waling into shopping and blowing themselves up appears to me to be a good thing. But when you take the anti-Semitic view as Broyles does what else can you expect?

I seem to recall not too many years ago, a summit with President Clinton and Palestine and Israel. Depending on whom you listen to and believe, Arafat stood to gain 90 to 95% of what he wanted. Not everything, but a large portion of it. He refused. So what does Vern say, why he calls Israel intransigent. But he’s not biased.

Broyles also claims in his article that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the wall was illegal. He is taking after his hero Dan Rather on this one. The august International Court of Justice has ruled the wall was illegal (who would expect otherwise) but the Israeli Supreme court merely ruled that a portion of the wall was infringing on some land and needed to be re-routed. They in fact found the wall was legal. And Israel complied with the ruling and re-routed the wall in the area addressed by the court.

I must compliment Broyles on his consistency however; he is consistently liberal and consistently wrong.