Peace group commends committee’s statement on Israel and Palestine
John H. Adams, The Layman Online , June 20, 2006
217th General Assembly
Birmingham, Ala. BIRMINGHAM — A group called Presbyterians for Peace, which was organized in opposition to the divestment resolution adopted by the 216th General Assembly (2004), issued a press release Monday commending the 217th General Assembly’s Peacemaking and International Issues Committee for its proposed resolution to the stormy issue.
Presbyterians for Peace played a major role in lining up speakers who opposed the 2004 resolution that called for “phased selective divestment” of Presbyterian holdings in corporations that do business in Israel. The resolution was viewed as an effort to blame and punish Israel alone for causing the ongoing confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians.
The Peacemaking Committee voted last week to ask the General Assembly to acknowledge that the 2004 resolution “caused hurt and misunderstanding among many members of the Jewish community and within our Presbyterian communion.” It crafted a statement that painstakingly attempted to avoid partisanship and recognized that both Israel and Palestine have a right to defend themselves. Unlike the 2004 resolution, the committee’s statement did not condemn Israel’s construction of a wall to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from blowing up themselves and Israeli civilians.
After the committee’s vote, one member announced that there would be a minority report. But behind-the-scene negotiations led to a decision not to file that report and support coalesced around the committee’s recommendation.
The Peacemaking Committee’s report is scheduled to be on the General Assembly docket Wednesday afternoon. With widespread support now, the committee’s recommendation may no longer cause a bitter floor fight.
“The report is a carefully crafted and even-handed document that is fair both to Israelis and Palestinians,” Presbyterians for Peace said.
“Committee members put aside their personal preferences and passions for one side or the other in the conflict and did what was best for the unity of the church,” the press release said. “They also hoped to create a viable role for the Presbyterian Church as a genuine peacemaker in the region. Both sides recognized that divestment as a stated policy was inappropriate and counterproductive on both fronts.”
The committee’s report intentionally shunned the use of the word “divestment.” It did refer, however, to “corporate engagement” and recognized that the denomination’s Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee had the right to review investments in corporations that do not follow the General Assembly’s social policies.
“This significant achievement did not transpire in a vacuum,” Presbyterians for Peace said. “Their accomplishment was a direct response to an overwhelming and unprecedented outpouring of grassroots concern from presbyteries around the United States that submitted a total of 24 overtures lifting up one common theme: We don’t want divestment and its negativity directed against Israel; we want a balanced approach that recognizes the faults and merits on both sides and we want affirmatively to invest in bridge-building measures that support a peace process for both sides.”