Attempt to blame media for uproar over PCUSA divestment policy stifled
John H. Adams, The Layman Online , June 23, 2006
217th General Assembly
Birmingham, Ala. BIRMINGHAM – The 217th General Assembly scuttled a blame-the-media amendment and another amendment to recognize the “chronic pain” of the Palestinian people before approving a resolution calling for a balanced treatment of Israel and Palestine.
The resolution, which was drafted and recommended by the assembly’s Peacemaking and International Issues Committee, was a sharp departure from a statement that was adopted by the 216th General Assembly (2004) and drew a firestorm of criticism against the Presbyterian Church (USA).
There remained a few – but very few – commissioners who were dissatisfied that the General Assembly failed to support the 2004 statement, which called for phased selective divestment of PCUSA holdings in multinational corporations that do business in Israel. The 2004 General Assembly did not propose similar economic sanctions against Palestine.
The Peacemaking Committee approved the new resolution by a vote of 53-6, but five members of the committee who voted against the proposal later signed an affidavit saying they changed their minds. The full General Assembly voted 483-28 for the new resolution.
The resolution blames the 216th General Assembly for creating the bitter and widespread denunciation of the PCUSA and tarnishing the denomination’s long-standing favorable relationship with American Jews.
The resolution begins with an apology for causing the backlash: “We acknowledge that the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004) caused hurt and misunderstanding among many members of the Jewish community and within our Presbyterian communion. We are grieved by the pain that this has caused, accept responsibility for the flaws in our process, and ask for a new season of mutual understanding and dialogue.”
But Oscar McCloud of the New York City Presbytery wanted the General Assembly to blame the media, and not the commissioners who voted for divestment. McCloud made a motion to delete the apology and instead say, “We regret any reporting that has caused any misunderstanding of the PCUSA’s commitment to peace and justice in Palestine and Israel.”
McCloud added, “I don’t believe we have a tradition of apologizing when what we do pains Presbyterians.”
Others also wanted to blame the media. “They reported things that were not true,” declared Barbara McLaughlan of Elizabeth Presbytery.
Jay Rock, the denomination’s interfaith coordinator, also took a shot at the press. Although serving the General Assembly as a resource person – and not as an advocate – Rock said he saw “value in the substitute proposal” because “it does lift up the role in the reporting in causing that hurt.”
Media coverage of the 2004 resolution did include bitter commentary, particularly from Jews and conservative Christians. But one of the denomination’s agencies, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, help feed the attacks on the PCUSA.
ACSWP sponsored a Presbyterian delegation’s trip to the Mideast. During that trip, two ACSWP leaders met with the Southern Lebanon leader of Hezbollah, a terrorist group. They complimented Hezbollah in interviews that were broadcast by Muslim media linked to the terrorist organization. The incident was widely reported in the Mideast and the U.S. After the delegation returned to the U.S., John Detterick, the retiring executive director of the General Assembly Council, fired his deputy director and the ASCWP executive.
The floor debate on the new resolution was brief, with advocates stressing the bipartisanship of the resolution and the near-unanimous support.
The opponents wanted the statement to show greater sympathy for the Palestinians. “The oppression of the Palestinian people is unimaginable,” said Sandy Irving of Transylvania Presbytery. “A pregnant woman has go through different checkpoints to get to a hospital to have a baby. Babies and mothers are dying. Ending the occupation through divestment is pro-life. We cannot lose our prophetic voice to make everyone happy.”
Other arguments such as Irving’s were made on behalf of the “chronic pain” amendment, but they failed as the advocates of the final statement argued that their resolution was painstakingly fair.
Adam Fischer of Louisville, a theological student advisory delegate, emphasized the committee’s fairness. “We heard the witness of people, both Palestinian and the other side. It was my understanding that the 2004 decision grieved people on both sides. There is a great theological thing that happens when one recognizes that one is wrong.”
The new resolution does not mention the word divestment – nor does it call for monetary penalties against Israel alone. It calls for the denomination “to have those financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (USA), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment of our denomination – in conjunction with appropriate reinvestment of funds where necessary – is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal.” Furthermore, the policy contains a rider directing that MRTI apply “fundamental principles of justice and peace common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism that are appropriate to the practical realities of Israeli and Palestinian societies;” “should reflect commitment to positive outcomes;” and “should reflect awareness of potential impact upon the stability, future viability, and prosperity of both the Israeli and Palestinian economies.”