Divestment overtures range from ‘yes’ to ‘no’
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, March 14, 2006
The resolution adopted by the 216th General Assembly in 2004 that set off a conflict within the Presbyterian Church (USA) and internationally will be up for final approval when the commissioners to the 217th General Assembly meet in Birmingham June 15-22.
This time, there will be plenty of options to choose from – most of them opposing the “phased selective divestment” of Presbyterian holdings in corporations that do business with Israel.
Presbyteries have submitted 12 overtures – ranging from the San Francisco Presbytery’s endorsement of the 2004 resolution to calls to rescind key elements of the resolution. Additionally, several overtures address Presbyterian policy in the Middle East without reference to divestment. Here’s a capsule of what some of the 2006 overtures say about divestment:
Strongly or moderately
in favor of 2004 resolutionStrongly or moderately
opposed to 2004 resolutionSan Francisco
- “Reaffirm the 216th General Assembly decision to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment of multinational corporations that contribute to the construction of the separation barrier, profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, or Palestinian violence.”
- “Direct the MRTI [PCUSA’s Mission Responsibility through Investments Committee] to recommend opportunities for investment in joint Palestinian-Israeli ventures, including those provided by organizations such as Oikocredit, which benefit both peoples.
Chicago
- Require that investments of the PCUSA, as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary General Assembly Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investments process of our denomination – in conjunction with appropriate reinvestment of funds where necessary – is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal.”
- “The human mission to repair the world articulated in Jewish scriptures is also of a piece with the theological views of other faiths, including our own Christian faith, regarding humankind’s responsibilities for justice and peace.”
New York City
- “Actively foster peace, reconciliation, and community development between Israelis and Palestinians. This should involve the intentional use of the funds of the church in two ways to support social, economic, and cultural integration of their communities: first, to explore ways to partner with non-governmental organizations, and to support church-related mission efforts, that seek to promote the peaceful and productive living together of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Israelis and Palestinians; and, second, to explore ways to invest in for-profit enterprises that actively engender peaceful cooperation by Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East through such enterprises’ own hiring practices, specific projects, and specific investments.”
Transylvania
- “Ensure that whenever such a divestment occurs, then whatever proceeds are realized from the sale of those holdings be reinvested in corporations whose business in Israel is positive, helpful, and peaceful. … Some Jewish leaders and organizations believe that the resolutions of the 216th General Assembly reflect an attitude of anti-semitism” but “comments by Presbyterian Church leaders indicate that anti-semitism or bias against the nation of Israel and the Jewish people was not the intent of any resolution at the 216th General Assembly, and has no place within the life of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
Mississippi
- Delete key paragraphs in the 2004 resolution, including the call for divestment, because ” (a) the language is unnecessarily harsh and accusatory; (b) the tone and prescriptions are arrogant and condescending towards the parties involved; (c) the viewpoint expressed suggests bias in favor of the Palestinian cause and prejudice against Israel; and (d) advocacy of phased selective divestment is punitive rather than redemptive-particularly in light of the rapidly changing circumstances on the ground.”
- “In the future, it would be better for the church to engage in discussion and dialogue before votes on significant theological or social positions are taken. The damage done to Presbyterian-Jewish relations could have been minimized had the church been encouraged to debate and discuss the overtures that, in their cumulative effect, have been construed as anti-Israel. Many churches first learned of these actions from Jewish friends. This is not good process and does not further the peace, unity, or purity of the church.”
Great Rivers
- Remove Caterpillar from divestment list. (Presbytery’s headquarters is in Peoria, Ill., the world headquarters of Caterpillar.)
- “The action supporting divestment talks was perceived by many as an attempt to damage corporate reputations. The action has, instead, damaged the reputation of the PCUSA.”
- “Recognize Caterpillar for its responsible actions as a global corporate citizen.”
James
- “Repeal, rescind and declare null and void” the divestment clause.
- “The underlying purpose of divestment is to inflict economic hardship and harm on companies doing business in Israel or areas under the Palestinian Authority. There are some cases where such economic sanctions can be justified. In the present situation, however, where there is justice and injustice on both sides, it is unjustified and inappropriate.”
- “Had this peacemaking initiative been distributed before the 216th General Assembly (2004), Presbyterians could have discussed the issues among ourselves and with our ecumenical partners and Jewish friends in an atmosphere of trust and inquiry rather than after-the-fact in a defensive and highly charged atmosphere of suspicion and broken trust.”
Florida
- “Be fair, evenhanded, and just in the language and actions in decisions regarding divestment and investment. … We believe the perception within the church and in the world is that the actions of the 216th General Assembly were biased against Israel. … The situation in the Middle East is fluid and changing daily and efforts toward peace are being made by both Palestinians and the government of Israel.”
New Covenant
- Cease consideration of divestment “to focus … on Palestinian and Israeli reinvestment for a positive, helpful, and peaceful future rather than punitive acts of divestment; and to consider criteria for future investments weighted toward those companies that are planning and/or carrying out economic benefits in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories through such items as [1] increasing job opportunities, [2] increasing social and health-care infrastructures, and/or [3] involving collaborative and cooperative ventures between currently or previously conflicted peoples.”
Shepard and Lapsley
- “Move from the divestment strategy of the 216th General Assembly to a strategy of investment in businesses, not-for-profit programs, NGO’s, and diplomatic efforts that are likely to promote peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. In that regard, to the extent that the 216th General Assembly authorized the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI), or any other PCUSA body, to implement a strategy of divestment from Israel, that authority is hereby rescinded.”
East Virginia
- “Direct that, pending adoption of a new policy statement on the Middle East, the “process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations doing business in Israel” initiated by the 216th General Assembly (2004) be suspended.”
- Appoint a task force to report on “the theological basis for Christian engagement in the Middle East; the state of partner churches in the region; the challenges to Christian evangelism in word and deed there; violations of religious freedom and other human rights; the fomenting of hatred and discrimination against minority ethnic and religious groups; poverty and its causes in the region; lack of education and health care; the rights of women and children and other vulnerable persons; military occupations and other impositions of government without the consent of the governed; nuclear proliferation and other threats by states to destroy their neighbors; terrorist acts against non-combatants and the states and organizations that sponsor such attacks; threats of environmental degradation; visions for how conflicts within and between nations in the region might be reconciled and a greater measure of justice and peace might be achieved; examples of how the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its mission partners might make steps in those directions.”
Seattle
- “Suspend for two (2) years the ‘phased, selective divestment process’ … in order to build up a relationship with groups among Palestinians and Israelis who are actively working for peace; reaffirm the PCUSA support for a two-state solution to the present conflict, believing that Palestinians have a right to freedom, security, and self-governance within their own state and, further, that such a state must be established within safe and secure borders and be economically viable; reaffirm the PCUSA’s commitment to the vitality and well-being of the state of Israel, and maintain Israel’s right to exist as a state and Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism and acts of violence that threaten its security.”
Sierra Blanca
- Cease the process of divestment.
- Explore “investment opportunities in both Israel and Palestine which might lead to a helpful and constructive contribution which supports the peace process and the promotion of social righteousness.”Affirm the “expressed desire of previous years’ Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assemblies for peace and security for both Israeli and Palestinian people, and for a just resolution of conflict in the Middle East in ways that exhibit the kingdom of Heaven to the world.”