Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are my own and
are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the
Constitution or any other person or entity.
Number 3: Israel, Palestine, and Divestment
It is the perfect storm for controversy: religion,
politics, money, and power. The issue of selective divestment from
companies profiting from "non-peaceful pursuits" in Israeli-occupied
Palestine is an explosive mixture of all four.
At the center of the controversy is a report from the
Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI) Committee of the General
Assembly Mission Council. This is a report of work-in-progress on
directives made by the 216th General Assembly (2004) to undertake a process of
corporate engagement to support the church's response to reported military and
civilian injustices by Israel in Palestinian territories. The injustices
are long-standing and well-documented actions of Israel engaging in military
occupation, destruction of Palestinian communities, expanded seizure and
Israeli civilian settlement of Palestinian territory, and various forms of
control, harassment, and oppression of Palestinians within their own territory.
The MRTI report carefully documents its engagement through dialogue,
shareholder resolutions, and formal communications with several American
manufacturers it believes have been engaged in profiting from such non-peaceful
pursuits. The directives do not distinguish between non-peaceful pursuits
on behalf of Israel or Palestine.
The report to this Assembly recommends divesting from three
companies following a determination that the corporate engagement process has
been unsuccessful in changing corporate policy. Those companies are
Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard, and Motorola Solutions. It also reports on
progress with other corporations which have ceased the offending practices or
fall under another category of consideration. It should be noted that
"divestment" is the last step of a long process of investigation,
communication, and evaluation of corporate responsiveness, activity, and
progress. It typically is a phased process of liquidating and
redirecting church-held corporate securities. The General Assembly has
some invested funds which are obligated to follow the directives of the
Assembly. Much larger holdings of the Presbyterian Foundation and the
Board of Pensions are merely advised by the Assembly, but generally adhere to
MRTI directives with some allowances.
Like an ocean liner coming into harbor, the MRTI report is
accompanied by a flurry of presbytery-initiated overtures endorsing, amending,
or opposing the report. One of these calls for a determination that
Israel is engaging in "apartheid" -- a term I was surprised to learn
has an international standard of application. Others, principally from
presbyteries that have ongoing interfaith engagement with Jewish faith communities,
call for more moderate measures, or for abandoning the MRTI process altogether.
Taken collectively, the Presbyterian portfolios can
constitute significant holdings in some companies. (One anti-corporate
shareholder resolution endorsed by the PCUSA and the United Methodist Church
represented almost 10% of shareholder proxies.) However, the impact of
this report goes beyond Wall Street. The very powerful pro-Israel lobbies
are already mounting public relations campaigns to discredit the PCUSA and its
reports. I was first introduced to the power of these lobbies in 2004
when the original directives were adopted, and members of my own extended
family wanted to know why Presbyterians "were anti-Semitic."
The position of these lobbies is that any criticism of the state of
Israel or of the theology of Zionism constitutes Antisemitism, a racist
ideology against Jews. There is also a huge concern about the application
of the "apartheid" label against Israel as this could not only change
geo-political sentiments (as was the case with South Africa) but could also
trigger a snowball effect of economic divestment and actually enforcing the
international sanctions against Israel that already exist.
Opponents of the divestment process sometimes accuse the
PCUSA of being duped by Palestinian public relations, and for discounting the
security risks posed to Israel by Palestine and its allies in the Middle East.
The MRTI report does not deal with the military or security issues; it is
merely reporting on progress made on directives by an earlier Assembly.
Persons wanting to debate those issues most likely will find the Assembly
committee resistant to moving into business not on the agenda.
If previous Assemblies are any indication, any actions that
might emerge that are supportive of divestment or critical of the state of
Israel will make national news. Apparently, there are still some people
who care about the public influence of the PCUSA.
Next: Missional Affinity and "Porous"
Presbyteries?
"The position of these lobbies is that any criticism of the state of Israel or of the theology of Zionism constitutes Antisemitism, a racist ideology against Jews."
ReplyDeleteI think you'll find that is inaccurate. Some do believe that, but for many the concerns about anti-Israel bias and antisemitic themes within the PC(USA) are a reaction to actual biased statements and actions of various PC(USA) groups.
Divestment is NOT the problem - it runs far deeper. You are, no doubt, right that divestment would get a negative reaction because it will ally the PC(USA) with a global BDS movement, but the three issues are quite distinct. (Criticism of Israel is one thing - one can't justly fault that. Bias is another - it draws the credibility of some criticism into serious question. The use of antisemitic themes is a third - and that one is not excusable under any circumstances.)
Will,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. In retrospect, my comment was an unfair generalization, and I stand corrected. I realize there are many thoughtful people who have substantive disagreements with the MRTI recommendations. And there has certainly been a lack of discipline and rigor in the work of the IPMN as I have commented on Viola Larson's blog in the past. However, the virulence and distortion in the coordinated media campaigns against the PCUSA in response to the expression of reasonable concerns is jarring, and only reinforces perceptions that the sponsoring organizations are rejecting their critics out of an ideological reflex.