Post by Paddy by Grace on Sept 8, 2008 1:11:40 GMT -7
Presbyterian compromise appears to please Israel divestment
www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=16731&intcategoryid=4
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., June 19 (JTA) — Two years after it angered Jews by passing a resolution calling for divestment from Israel, the Presbyterian Church USA is trying to undo the damage.
At this year’s General Assembly in Birmingham, a church committee agreed Saturday night to ask the full assembly to replace its 2004 resolution calling for “phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel” with a policy of “corporate engagement” that would restrict investments in Israel, the Gaza Strip and West Bank to peaceful pursuits. The full assembly was to vote on the resolution Wednesday.
The committee overwhelmingly agreed to the motion after days of deliberation in which it held open hearings and heard dozens of proposals.
Although the resolution does not formally rescind divestment, most took it to mean that the drive toward divestment had been stopped, and that the call for “corporate engagement” shows a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many Jews and some Presbyterians felt blindsided by the divestment resolution two years ago. Lay and clergy all seemed to have an opinion on the efficacy and justice of the matter.
Even Jewish officials have had the chance to air their views this year, beginning with a panel discussion June 15 followed by open hearings last Friday. Anti-divestment testimony was delivered by James Woolsey, a former CIA director, and Judea Pearl, the father of slain Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl.
More arguments against divestment were aired Saturday in speeches by backers of some 26 proposed resolutions before the church’s peacemaking and international issues committee.
The resolution approved by the church’s peacemaking and international issues committee:
• calls on the church to restrict its investments that relate to Israel, Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank to peaceful pursuits;
• urges peaceful cooperation among Israelis, Americans and Palestinians, and Jews, Muslims and Christians;
• calls for dismantling Israel’s West Bank security barrier where it ventures beyond the pre-1967 boundary; and
• aims to submit these proposals to U.S., Israeli and Palestinian politicians and religious leaders.
Anti-divestment activists were pleased with the new language.
“Divestment has been stopped,” said the Rev. James Young, an anti-divestment proponent from Virginia Beach, Va. Previously, divestment was a mandate, he said. Now, the “probability that they will recommend any sort of divestment is extremely remote.”
But not everyone felt totally vindicated.
Committee member Adam Fischer was one of six who voted against the motion. While he called it a “step in the right direction,” he noted that it doesn’t rescind the process that could lead to divestment.
After the divestment resolution in 2004, the Presbyterian committee expanded its investigation to include companies that profit from violence against either Israelis or Palestinians. Initially, five companies were selected — Caterpillar, Citigroup, Motorola, ITT Industries and United Technologies.
Although companies with both Israeli and Palestinian clients are being targeted, Fischer says the company most talked about has been Caterpillar, which supplies bulldozers to Israel’s military.
Fischer fears Israel’s detractors will abuse the new resolution for anti-Israel ends. Fischer was among a group of Presbyterians who recently visited Israel on a mission sponsored by the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.
Several mission participants, along with other Presbyterians in town for the conference, shared their support for Israel and the Jewish community by attending services and Shabbat dinner at Birmingham’s Temple Emanu-El last Friday night.
Some 20 Presbyterians were invited to the dais, where several offered blessings to the congregation. Later, they shared the slide show of their Israel visit and expressed their convictions against divestment.
Divestment is a “battle for the soul of the Presbyterian church,” the Rev. William Harter, from Chambersburg, Pa., told JTA.
Harter explained to the congregation the deep historical ties — some 150 years of missionary work in the region — that bind much of the Presbyterian leadership to the Palestinian cause.
The Rev. William Evertsberg, of Greenwich, Conn. reflected a general sense of relief at the committee’s move.
“We’re going to be able to go back to our Jewish friends feeling pretty good about this, and I think we did justice to our Palestinian friends, too,” he said.
Throughout the conference, sentiments on both sides of the issue could be seen. Some anti-divestment attendees wore buttons and T-shirts featuring a red strike through the word “divestment.”
A global marketplace in the basement of the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex, where the General Assembly is held, housed a booth of anti-divestment activists along with a booth for Friends of Sabeel — North America. It’s an affiliate of the Jerusalem-based Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center — Sabeel, which advocates divestment and is a vehement critic of the Jewish state.
Fliers posted at the conference center memorialize the life of Rachel Corrie, the pro-Palestinian activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to disrupt an Israeli anti-terrorist operation. Corrie’s cousin testified in favor of divestment.
But most seem to be genuinely struggling to make an impact for peace in the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many want desperately to help Palestinian Christians, whom they believe are oppressed by Israel.
The 2004 resolution was a “great gift to the Palestinian people,” said peacemaking committee member Nabeel Saoud of West Hills, Calif., in response to a suggestion to eliminate the word “occupation” from Saturday night’s compromise resolution.
Saoud said the committee should not pull “rug from underneath” the Palestinians, he said.
In the end, the word “occupation” was left in.
One thing at this conference is clear: The overwhelming sense among Presbyterians is that they must change course from the 2004 resolution.
“Watching 60 members of the peacemaking committee discuss this issue was eye-opening because there was something between consensus and unanimity that a serious misstep occurred in 2004,” said Ethan Felson, assistant executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “The focus of their debate” was the placement of Israel’s separation barrier, rather than completely denouncing it, as they did two years ago.
“Changing the divestment policy seemed a given in their deliberations” — a result, he said, of two years of conversations between Jews and Presbyterians and among Presbyterians themselves.
“This church shouldn’t be judged by the actions of two years ago.”
www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=16731&intcategoryid=4
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., June 19 (JTA) — Two years after it angered Jews by passing a resolution calling for divestment from Israel, the Presbyterian Church USA is trying to undo the damage.
At this year’s General Assembly in Birmingham, a church committee agreed Saturday night to ask the full assembly to replace its 2004 resolution calling for “phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel” with a policy of “corporate engagement” that would restrict investments in Israel, the Gaza Strip and West Bank to peaceful pursuits. The full assembly was to vote on the resolution Wednesday.
The committee overwhelmingly agreed to the motion after days of deliberation in which it held open hearings and heard dozens of proposals.
Although the resolution does not formally rescind divestment, most took it to mean that the drive toward divestment had been stopped, and that the call for “corporate engagement” shows a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many Jews and some Presbyterians felt blindsided by the divestment resolution two years ago. Lay and clergy all seemed to have an opinion on the efficacy and justice of the matter.
Even Jewish officials have had the chance to air their views this year, beginning with a panel discussion June 15 followed by open hearings last Friday. Anti-divestment testimony was delivered by James Woolsey, a former CIA director, and Judea Pearl, the father of slain Jewish journalist Daniel Pearl.
More arguments against divestment were aired Saturday in speeches by backers of some 26 proposed resolutions before the church’s peacemaking and international issues committee.
The resolution approved by the church’s peacemaking and international issues committee:
• calls on the church to restrict its investments that relate to Israel, Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank to peaceful pursuits;
• urges peaceful cooperation among Israelis, Americans and Palestinians, and Jews, Muslims and Christians;
• calls for dismantling Israel’s West Bank security barrier where it ventures beyond the pre-1967 boundary; and
• aims to submit these proposals to U.S., Israeli and Palestinian politicians and religious leaders.
Anti-divestment activists were pleased with the new language.
“Divestment has been stopped,” said the Rev. James Young, an anti-divestment proponent from Virginia Beach, Va. Previously, divestment was a mandate, he said. Now, the “probability that they will recommend any sort of divestment is extremely remote.”
But not everyone felt totally vindicated.
Committee member Adam Fischer was one of six who voted against the motion. While he called it a “step in the right direction,” he noted that it doesn’t rescind the process that could lead to divestment.
After the divestment resolution in 2004, the Presbyterian committee expanded its investigation to include companies that profit from violence against either Israelis or Palestinians. Initially, five companies were selected — Caterpillar, Citigroup, Motorola, ITT Industries and United Technologies.
Although companies with both Israeli and Palestinian clients are being targeted, Fischer says the company most talked about has been Caterpillar, which supplies bulldozers to Israel’s military.
Fischer fears Israel’s detractors will abuse the new resolution for anti-Israel ends. Fischer was among a group of Presbyterians who recently visited Israel on a mission sponsored by the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel.
Several mission participants, along with other Presbyterians in town for the conference, shared their support for Israel and the Jewish community by attending services and Shabbat dinner at Birmingham’s Temple Emanu-El last Friday night.
Some 20 Presbyterians were invited to the dais, where several offered blessings to the congregation. Later, they shared the slide show of their Israel visit and expressed their convictions against divestment.
Divestment is a “battle for the soul of the Presbyterian church,” the Rev. William Harter, from Chambersburg, Pa., told JTA.
Harter explained to the congregation the deep historical ties — some 150 years of missionary work in the region — that bind much of the Presbyterian leadership to the Palestinian cause.
The Rev. William Evertsberg, of Greenwich, Conn. reflected a general sense of relief at the committee’s move.
“We’re going to be able to go back to our Jewish friends feeling pretty good about this, and I think we did justice to our Palestinian friends, too,” he said.
Throughout the conference, sentiments on both sides of the issue could be seen. Some anti-divestment attendees wore buttons and T-shirts featuring a red strike through the word “divestment.”
A global marketplace in the basement of the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex, where the General Assembly is held, housed a booth of anti-divestment activists along with a booth for Friends of Sabeel — North America. It’s an affiliate of the Jerusalem-based Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center — Sabeel, which advocates divestment and is a vehement critic of the Jewish state.
Fliers posted at the conference center memorialize the life of Rachel Corrie, the pro-Palestinian activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to disrupt an Israeli anti-terrorist operation. Corrie’s cousin testified in favor of divestment.
But most seem to be genuinely struggling to make an impact for peace in the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many want desperately to help Palestinian Christians, whom they believe are oppressed by Israel.
The 2004 resolution was a “great gift to the Palestinian people,” said peacemaking committee member Nabeel Saoud of West Hills, Calif., in response to a suggestion to eliminate the word “occupation” from Saturday night’s compromise resolution.
Saoud said the committee should not pull “rug from underneath” the Palestinians, he said.
In the end, the word “occupation” was left in.
One thing at this conference is clear: The overwhelming sense among Presbyterians is that they must change course from the 2004 resolution.
“Watching 60 members of the peacemaking committee discuss this issue was eye-opening because there was something between consensus and unanimity that a serious misstep occurred in 2004,” said Ethan Felson, assistant executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “The focus of their debate” was the placement of Israel’s separation barrier, rather than completely denouncing it, as they did two years ago.
“Changing the divestment policy seemed a given in their deliberations” — a result, he said, of two years of conversations between Jews and Presbyterians and among Presbyterians themselves.
“This church shouldn’t be judged by the actions of two years ago.”