| June
23, 2006
Understanding the Presbyterian
Vote
Divestment, Corporate
Engagement and Israel
By WILL
YOUMANS and NORA ERAKAT
America’s
largest Presbyterian church voted to continue policies of economic
engagement in the Middle East. It affirmed its willingness to use
its investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine.
The vote came two years after it’s overwhelmingly support
of a phased, selective divestment from Israel.
During
its 217th General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted
to substitute the language of “divestment” for the precise
concept of “corporate engagement.” Both concepts refer
to the same process of moral responsible investment. They just refer
to different stages. Corporate engagement is when the Church researches
the companies, determines their compliance with its standards, and
then pressures them to change. Divestment refers to the ultimate
termination of investments from the targeted corporations if engagement
fails to produce positive change.
Nothing
in the amended resolution prevents the PC(USA) General Assembly
from deciding to decide to divest. Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator
of the General Assembly said “this new statement clarifies
the engagement process, which has not yet led to any recommendation
for divestment,” she told the General Assembly. She specified
that divestment could still occur in 2008.
The
substitution of divestment language for more procedural terms comes
after two years of steady pressure from pro-Israeli lobby groups
and a relative absence of support from pro-Palestinian groups outside
of the church. The new resolution addresses tensions with the pro-Israeli
Jewish community. Many argued divestment is anti-Semitic and harms
Jewish-Christian relations.
The
previous assembly’s language called for “phased, selective
divestment from corporations that profit from the illegal occupation
of Palestine.” The new resolution does not actually contradict
this. The language is merely softer.
However,
a barrage of headlines and sound-bites suggest the Presbyterians
have abandoned divestment totally. Pro-Israeli activists claim this
is a victory for them and a defeat for the divestment movement –
mainstream media are readily accepting this as fact.
Manya
Brachear’s story in the Chicago Tribune is titled, “Presbyterians
won't divest over firms' ties to Israel” (6/22/06). Peter
Smith wrote that “The Presbyterian Church (USA) yesterday
rescinded its controversial policy of considering divestment”
in the article, “Presbyterians shift investment focus off
Israel.” That was in the Louisville Courier-Journal (6/22/06).
Charles A. Radin's piece, “Presbyterians reverse stance on
Israeli divestment” ran in the Boston Globe.
“Presbyterians
end a previous policy that had singled out Israel,” by Richard
Ostling, was featured in the Houston Chronicle.
Since
2004, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee of
the Presbyterian Church (USA) has engaged five multinational corporations
as part of the process — Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup, ITT
Industries, Motorola and United Technologies. During a press conference
following the vote, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, said the Assembly’s
action does not overturn the actions of the 216th General Assembly
(2004), indicating that the MRTI’s mission will continue.
Rev.
Graf said the MRTI committee could still recommend “divestment
only as a last resort.” Given that the target companies are
unlikely to start caring about the Palestinians, the last resort
is probably not too far away.
The
2.5 million-member Presbyterian Church U.S.A. has a long history
of presence in Palestine and the Levant. Many within its own ranks
witnessed first-hand the oppressive nature of Israel’s policies
towards the Palestinians.
Palestinian
Presbyterians and Christians played a role in defending the Church’s
2004 vote. Pro-Peace Jewish and interfaith groups, including Jewish
Voice for Peace, the American Friends Service Committee, Tikkun,
the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and the Israel/Palestine
Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), became active
on this in just the past few months. The New York City-based Jews
Against the Occupation wrote in a letter to the PCUSA that divestment
was “an important step forward for peace and justice in Israel
and Palestine.”
This
support paled in comparison to the backlash from pro-Israel groups
such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.
At one point, the Chicago City Council was going to deny the Church
a building permit based on its divestment call. Churches were inundated
with letters and phone calls against it. Pro-Israeli activists set
up meetings and events, and helped prop up a Presbyterian anti-divestment
group.
Now,
they consider the removal of the term “divestment” a
victory. “We are thrilled,” said David Elcott, director
of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. He
said the compromise was “courageous. ... This is a win-win
situation not only for Jews and Christians. Even more, it is a victory
for Israelis and Palestinians and those committed to end the suffering.”
Rabbi
Jonathan Miller said “I am grateful to all people who stuck
with us to make right this mistake.”
Their
statements are pure spin on the outcome of the General Assembly’s
amended resolution. The impact of the resolution, to explore divestment
as a form of non-violent resistance to Israel’s Occupation
of Palestinian Territories remains fully intact. They conflict with
the statements made by top PCUSA officials at the press conference.
Casey
Currie, a member of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) did not think the simple change of language
was the stunning victory Israel’s apologists claim it is.
The PCUSA reaffirmed its commitment to morally responsible investing
and engaging corporations that profit from oppression. As Currie
said, “if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s
a duck.”
There
is no basis for claiming the Presbyterians surrendered their right
to divest from companies profiting off of Israel’s military
occupation. This vote did not let Israel and the companies helping
it off the hook. Yet, the media have largely adapted the twisted
version of events. It seems they all wish divestment would just
go away.
Noura Erakat is a legal and grassroots organizer
with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. She can be reached
at legal@endtheoccupation.org.
Will
Youmans is the Washington, DC-based writer for the Arab-American
News. He blogs at www.kabobfest.com.
|