Investment Activism

Global Actions to End the Israeli Occupation

elaine — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:39:30 -0700

Contact:
Susanne Hoder
Moderator, Interfaith Peace Initiative
(401) 595-9887
apassionforpeace@aol.com

World Actions to End Israel's Occupation Double After Flotilla Attack

A compelling new list of "Global Actions to End the Israeli Occupation" is available through the Interfaith Peace Initiative at http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/globalactions.pdf. It demonstrates clearly that the era of ignoring Israel's excesses and its abuse of human rights has ended. The world will no longer be silent. The tide has turned.

In 2009, the Interfaith Peace Initiative posted a 44-page list of actions by countries and organizations around the world designed to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. On May 31, 2010, Israel's military raid on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip generated widespread global anger and opposition. It was followed by marches, demonstrations, declarations and plans for new flotillas by many groups around the world. The list has been updated, and now fills 88 pages, including actions by businesses, governments, labor unions and religious and consumer organizations. Among these are many Jewish and Israeli groups. Readers may obtain more information about each action using links provided.

Throughout history, regimes built on oppression and apartheid have failed. If the determined and creative actions documented in the new list are sustained, Israel's oppression of Palestinians cannot last. The Interfaith Peace Initiative wishes to celebrate the courage and initiative shown by countless individuals and organizations who have finally said, "Enough!" Special thanks should go to the committee of Ann Arbor Quakers who first initiated the list (piag_@mac.com) in the hope it would inspire others to action. The massive global surge of resolve reflected in the new report will hasten an end to Israel's occupation so a just peace may finally prevail.

Desmond Tutu Backs Boycott

elaine — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:03:23 -0700

Haaretz

Published 21:53 28.07.10 -- Latest update 21:53 28.07.10
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/desmond-tutu-backs-u-s-food-co-op-boycott-of-israeli-products-1.304657

Desmond Tutu backs U.S. food co-op boycott of Israeli products

South African Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu issues statement of support for boycott announced by food co-op in Rachel Corrie's hometown of Olympia, Washington.
By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Israel news

South African Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said on Wednesday that he supports the Olympia Food Co-op's boycott of Israeli products.

The Olympia Food Co-op, located in Olympia, Washington, the hometown of the International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie who was killed seven years ago in Gaza, announced last week that no Israeli products would be sold at its two grocery stores in the city.

“I, Desmond Tutu, fully support and endorse the Olympia Food Co-op's boycott of Israeli products," Tutu said in a statement. "The Olympia Food Co-op has joined a growing worldwide movement on the part of citizens and the private sector to support by non-violent tangible acts the Palestinian struggle for justice and self-determination."

Tutu also encouraged other cooperatives, grocers and businesses to boycott Israeli goods.

More on this topic: Food co-op in Rachel Corrie's hometown boycotts Israeli goods

Methodist Church of Great Britain to Boycott Goods from Israeli Settlements

elaine — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:04:41 -0700

Methodist Church to boycott goods from illegal Israeli settlements

http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=opentogod.newsDetail&ne...

The Methodist Church has today voted to boycott all products from Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, and to encourage Methodists across Britain to do the same.

The decision is a response to a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a growing number of Jewish organisations, both inside Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches. A majority of governments recognise the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as illegitimate under international law.

Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships, said, “This decision has not been taken lightly, but after months of research, careful consideration and finally, today’s debate at the Conference. The goal of the boycott is to put an end to the existing injustice. It reflects the challenge that settlements present to a lasting peace in the region.

“We are passionate about dialogue across communities and with people of all faiths. We remain deeply committed to our relationships with our brothers and sisters of other faiths, and we look to engage in active listening so that we act as agents of hope together.”

In December, Defra introduced new advice on labelling, recommending that packaging of products imported from the West Bank should distinguish between Palestinian areas and Israeli settlements.

The Conference also adopted a statement calling for a full arms embargo against all sides in the conflict. “This conflict is further fuelled by partisan support by other countries. Violence from all parties in this conflict must be denounced, and a just peace sought for all peoples living in the region,” said Christine.

The move to boycott is just one among a number of measures agreed by the Conference, which also include a commitment to regular and informed prayer for the needs of those in region. Methodists across Great Britain are also encouraged to visit the region, write to their MPs and engage in respectful dialogue with Jews and Muslims on this issue.

United Methodists Vote to Divest

elaine — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:39:02 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

UNITED METHODISTS VOTE TO DIVEST FROM COMPANIES THAT BENEFIT FROM OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

CONTACT: CONNIE BAKER, 630-363-7713
End the Occupation, Northern Illinois Conference of the United Methodist Church

ST. CHARLES, ILL. June 15, 2010 – At its annual conference, the Northern Illinois Conference (NIC) of the United Methodist Church (UMC) voted to divest all holdings in three international corporations that profit from the occupation of Palestine. This action is in response to a plea by Palestinian Christians for action, not just words.

Divestment is a nonviolent form of economic protest long-used by churches and other shareholders to encourage companies to end unjust practices. By selling its investments in Caterpillar (CAT), General Electric (GE) and Terex (TEX), the NIC expresses its commitment to do no harm with its investments and affirms the call of the UMC Book of Discipline to "avoid investments that appear likely, directly or indirectly, to support violation of human rights” (Paragraph 716).

These three companies are among 20 targeted by many UMC conferences across the country because they (1) have a presence on occupied land, (2) are involved with the physical settlements, checkpoints and the separation wall, or (3) support activities of the Israeli military in the occupied territories.

Connie Baker from the End the Occupation Task Force of the Board of Church and Society which brought forth the resolution stated: “We are resolute in our support of peace for both Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land and the rights of each to co-exist according to the principles set forth in the Geneva Conventions. It is a small step, but an important one.”

The conference will also send a list of the 20 identified companies to the nearly 400 local churches in Northern Illinois and encourage them to consider divestment from any corporations on the list.

For the list of targeted corporations, which was compiled by the New England Conference (UMC) Divestment Task Force, please see: http://www.neumc.org/pages/detail/375.

The Nation Article on BDS Movement

elaine — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:32:07 -0700

Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)
________________________________________

The Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement

Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss | June 9, 2010

In April the student senate at the University of California, Berkeley, twice held all-night sessions to debate a proposal urging the school to divest from two US military companies "materially and militarily profiting" from the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Hundreds of people packed the hall, and statements in support of the measure were read aloud from leaders, including Noam Chomsky, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Naomi Klein and Alice Walker. In the end the divestment measure failed (the senate majority of 13 to 5 was not enough to overturn the student government president's veto), but the outcome was surely less significant than the furor over the issue. Following related battles last year at Hampshire College and the Toronto International Film Festival, the Berkeley measure was yet another signal that the divestment initiative, part of a broader movement popularly known as BDS, for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, has become a key battleground in the grassroots struggle over the future of Israel/Palestine.

"We're at a super-exciting moment, truly a turning point," says Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace, an activist organization that supports selective divestment from companies profiting from the occupation. "For the first time we're seeing a serious debate of divestment at a major public university." BDS supporters say the movement has the potential to transform international opinion in much the way that the divestment movement in the 1980s isolated the South African apartheid regime. Or as Tutu wrote to the Berkeley students:

The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel's 43 year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, nonviolent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses.

Opponents of BDS see just that threat—that Israel will be isolated. They say that BDS unfairly singles out Israel for conduct that other states are also guilty of and that it seeks to delegitimize the Jewish state in the eyes of the world, thereby threatening Israel's existence. Some argue that grassroots actions put the emphasis on the wrong target. As Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center said on Democracy Now! in March, "It's the United States government you've got to look to, not private industry or private commerce. So that's one really big difference simply at strategic and tactical levels."

When did the BDS movement begin, why is it growing and what does it want?

The campaign traces its origins to a July 2004 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (the World Court), which found Israel's separation wall in the West Bank to be "contrary to international law." The ICJ also recommended that the parts of the wall built inside the occupied territories be dismantled and that Palestinians affected by the wall be compensated. When a year passed with no sign that the opinion would be enforced, a wide-ranging coalition of more than 170 organizations representing Palestinian civil society issued a call for boycott, divestment and sanction of Israel "until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights." Compliance meant three things: ending the occupation, recognizing equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel and respecting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194 of 1948.

The "call" (which can be found at bdsmovement.net [1]) was notable for unifying the Palestinian grassroots and for the simplicity and coherence of its platform. BDS was seen as an "essential component" for shifting the playing field in the Palestinians' favor after the slow death of the peace process, the Israeli settlement expansion and the inability of the international community to hold Israel accountable.
Boycotts are not a new tactic for Palestinians. As far back as the 1936–39 revolt against the British Mandate, Palestinians incorporated general strikes and boycotts into their struggle. During the first intifada in the late 1980s, they boycotted Israeli goods, and the West Bank town of Beit Sahour led efforts to refuse to pay Israeli taxes that helped finance the occupation. And in 2001 an international boycott effort was launched after the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. It quickly met forceful pushback, notably in a 2002 charge by Harvard president Lawrence Summers that divestment was anti-Semitic "in effect, if not intent."

Today the BDS movement is loosely coordinated by a body called the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC), which is made up of nongovernmental organizations representing Palestinian civil society. The BNC is not affiliated with any political party (though it has been endorsed by some) and does not take positions on issues that fall outside the specific principles of the "call." Thus it does not endorse either a one-state or two-state solution to the conflict.

Israel's 2008–09 attack on Gaza spurred the campaign in the United States and around the world. "The most important thing for the Palestinian movement is the rise of the solidarity movement worldwide after the war crimes in Gaza," Palestinian activist and former Palestinian Authority presidential candidate Mustafa Barghouthi said earlier this year at a demonstration in the West Bank. "Boycott is the best way of changing the balance of forces. Military force will not work, because of the imbalance of forces, but also because it is not right. I don't think Israel will change its policy unless it hurts, and BDS will hurt it."

Most recently, Israel's raid on the Free Gaza flotilla, which killed at least nine activists, has added fuel to the campaign. The attack on a humanitarian ship seemed to reignite much of the international furor from the Gaza invasion of the year before, as it highlighted Israel's inhumane policy of collective punishment in the besieged territory. And with this latest outrage came even louder calls for accountability.
BDS represents three strategies: boycotts are commonly carried out by individuals, divestment by institutions and sanctions by governments. For example, organizers have called on people to avoid buying products made in Israeli settlements; on churches to sell stocks of companies such as Caterpillar, which makes the infamous D9 bulldozer used to demolish Palestinian homes and fields; and on politicians to make conditional or end US aid to Israel. BDS's proponents argue that unless Israel experiences material, political and moral pressure, it will maintain the status quo. Nobel laureates Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Maguire (Corrigan), Rigoberta Menchu Tum and Jody Williams made this point in a letter supporting the Berkeley divestment bill:

We stand united in our belief that divesting from companies that provide significant support for the Israeli military provides moral and strategic stewardship of tuition and taxpayer-funded public education money. We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians.
The movement has won adherents by saying that it will accept any gesture of boycott or divestment that Westerners are willing to make. "If you only want to boycott an egg, we want you to boycott an egg," said Omar Barghouti, a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), which is part of the BNC, during a tour of America last year to drum up support.

Even the Palestinian Authority—never celebrated for its connection to the grassroots—has made a nod toward the movement, with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad vowing to empty Palestinian homes of goods made in the settlements. But BDS's biggest victories have come in the West and have involved divestments from businesses profiting from investment in the West Bank, where 2.5 million Palestinians live under an occupation whose hundreds of armed checkpoints and separate roadways for Jewish colonists have led some South Africans to declare that the system is worse than apartheid. French multinational Veolia Transport was targeted for its role in building a light-rail system that will connect West Jerusalem to settlements in the occupied territories. Veolia dropped out of the project following an escalating international campaign against the firm, during which the Dutch ASN Bank severed ties to Veolia. Israeli diamond merchant Lev Leviev was also targeted because of his funding of settlements. Last year the US investment firm BlackRock divested itself of stock in Leviev's Africa-Israel company, and Britain canceled plans to move its Tel Aviv embassy into a Leviev-owned building. Similarly, the Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank recently divested its shares in the Israeli military contractor Elbit Systems, which supplies components for the separation wall. Wiltrud Rösch-Metzler, vice president of Pax Christi Germany, who helped lead the campaign, called it "a huge success.... [Deutsche Bank] went out of their way to list numerous standards and international ethical commitments to which the bank is party, highlighting how Elbit investments would violate them all."

The immediate aftermath of the flotilla attack saw a surge in BDS activity across Europe. Most notably, Britain's largest union, UNITE, passed a motion to "vigorously promote a policy of divestment from Israeli companies," along with a boycott of Israeli goods and services. At the same time, the Swedish Port Workers Union announced it would refuse to load or unload any ships coming to or from Israel for nine days, to protest the flotilla raid.

In the United States, BDS has been percolating among activist groups, churches and campuses for several years. Since 2005 the Presbyterian Church (USA) has undertaken what it calls a "phased, selective divestment" process aimed at five companies benefiting from the occupation [see Hasdai Westbrook, "The Israel Divestment Debate," May 8, 2006]. Again, the West Bank is the focus. Adalah-NY, a New York–based justice group, regularly leads pickets of Leviev's Madison Avenue jewelry store and pressured UNICEF and the humanitarian organization Oxfam to distance themselves from Leviev. The peace group Code Pink has led a campaign called "Stolen Beauty" that targets Ahava, a cosmetics company based in a West Bank settlement that uses ingredients from the Dead Sea.
"What we've seen in the past two years is a rapidly growing, diverse movement dedicated to universal human rights and international law," says David Hosey, a spokesman for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a national coalition of grassroots organizations that supports BDS. "On campuses and in communities across the United States, people are sending a clear message that if the US government won't hold Israel accountable for violations of Palestinian human rights, then civil society will step up and do the job."
Two of the biggest divestment fights in the past year in some ways could not have been more different—Hampshire College in Massachusetts and the Toronto International Film Festival. One year ago Hampshire students ignited a firestorm with a campus divestment campaign that drew national attention, including calls from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to student organizers on their cellphones. The Hampshire board of directors voted to divest from six military companies involved in the occupation and to adopt a "social responsibility" screen for Hampshire's investments. Though the administration denied that the divestiture was specifically aimed at the Israeli occupation, the headlines helped catalyze the national student BDS movement. In November the college hosted a divestment organizing conference of student leaders from more than forty campuses, including Berkeley; UC, San Diego; the University of Arizona; and Carleton University in Ottawa—whose campaigns all made news this past spring. The movement won a notable victory in June when the student body of Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington—Rachel Corrie's alma mater—voted to call on the college to divest from companies profiting from the occupation and to ban the use of Caterpillar equipment on campus. The resolution passed with nearly 80 percent of the vote. Evergreen junior Anna Simonton explained that the issue resonated across the student body because of the US role in the conflict. "This issue is something we're all complicit in," she said. "It's our money and our taxes."

At the Toronto International Film Festival last fall, movie premieres were overshadowed by the controversy over a "city to city" promotion by the festival that paired Toronto with Tel Aviv. In a "Toronto Declaration," critics said the showcase had been pushed by the Israeli consulate as part of its efforts to "rebrand" Israel after the horrific public relations fallout from the Gaza war months earlier [see Horowitz and Weiss, "American Jews Rethink Israel," November 2, 2009].

The response from Israel's supporters was immediate and forceful. Big-name stars, including Sacha Baron Cohen and Jerry Seinfeld, came out against the declaration, and so did filmmakers David Cronenberg and Ivan Reitman. Dan Adler, a former executive at the Creative Artists Agency, worked with the Los Angeles Jewish Federation and United Jewish Appeal of Toronto to push the claim that the declaration was a boycott of the festival and a blacklist of Israeli artists. The declaration was neither, but the response was a sign of where the battle was headed, with many Israel supporters describing BDS as a Trojan horse aimed at delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state.

In January the Reut Institute, a Tel Aviv think tank, issued a report describing BDS as part of a campaign "to demonize Israel." The movement has had limited "practical success," the Reut study said, but it has been "highly successful in generating publicity and in mobilizing anti-Israel activism, in effect uniting anti-Zionists with critics of specific Israeli policies." The risk, Reut went on, was to Israel's image: "that such campaigns will create an equivalency between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa that penetrates the mainstream of public and political consciousness."

This fear was echoed by Asher Fredman, a commentator on the website of the Israeli paper Yediot Ahronot, who described the BDS movement as a "soft war" against Israel. "The point that must be internalized is that the soft war constitutes not simply a nuisance or even an economic threat," Fredman warned. "It is a process that could play a major role in shaping the future status quo between Israel and the Palestinians."

Many American Jewish community groups have taken action against the movement on a similar basis. The delegitimization worry has generated some surprising alliances between liberal Zionist groups and right-wing hawks. BDS supporters counter that it is Israel's actions, not the protest, that are delegitimizing Israel in the eyes of the public. Ali Abunimah, author, activist and co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website, said at the Hampshire BDS conference, "Israel's self-image as a liberal Jewish and democratic state is impossible to maintain against the reality of a militarized, ultranationalist, sectarian Jewish settler colony that has to carry out regular massacres of indigenous civilians in order to maintain its control. Zionism simply cannot bomb, kidnap, assassinate, expel, demolish, settle and lie its way to legitimacy and acceptance."

Some liberal Jewish organizations and individuals have adopted a now-is-not-the-time policy. Naomi Paiss of the New Israel Fund says she respects colleagues who do not buy goods made in the territories, but she believes an "official" boycott of companies in the territories would be impossible to implement, given that major Israeli companies and the Israeli government itself are involved. "We think it's a delegitimizing tactic, inflammatory, won't end the occupation and isn't productive," she e-mailed. Cora Weiss, a longtime liberal leader who championed Hampshire's South Africa divestment initiative in the 1970s, when she was on the board, says BDS is too broad-brush. "César Chávez led a focused boycott—grapes—and for several years no one ate grapes," she recalls. "That had an impact."
Americans for Peace Now has also criticized BDS as being counterproductive and even anti-Semitic. The longtime peace group said in a recent statement that the campaign creates a "circle the wagons" reaction in the Jewish community:
Such a response is understandable, since much of the pressure for such campaigns comes from historically virulently anti-Israel sources that are often not interested in Israeli security concerns or Palestinian behavior. This in turn creates very real and understandable worries about global anti-Semitism and the perception that the campaigns are not truly (or only) about Israeli policies but rather reflect a deep-seated hatred for and rejection of Israel.
Parts of this ad hoc coalition went into action during the Berkeley divestment debate. J Street, the new alternative Israel lobby, joined forces with such right-wing groups as the Anti-Defamation League, the David Project and StandWithUs\SF to decry the original Berkeley senate bill. The issue is "complex," the coalition warned, and that "complexity should be reflected in the dialogue on campus rather than singling out one side or another for condemnation and punishment."

According to the Jewish Daily Forward, Berkeley Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, "coordinated a comprehensive national lobbying campaign consisting of a teach-in, face-to-face meetings with student senators and an intervention by a Nobel laureate [Elie Wiesel], all aimed at robbing the divestment supporters of three senate votes." Adam Naftalin-Kelman, Berkeley Hillel's newly installed executive director, said the strategy was devised at a roundtable convened by Hillel and attended by representatives of local branches of J Street, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Jewish Community Relations Council, as well as local rabbis and Israel's consul general in San Francisco. This strategy included circulating antidivestment talking points that urged students to reframe the debate as an attack on the Jewish community and to avoid talking about the particulars of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

But Jewish organizations face insurgent generational forces over the issue. Some students in J Street's college organizations quietly support BDS as a nonviolent means of doing something to end the oppression of Palestinians. This tension was even on display at J Street's organizing conference in October. During a student workshop called "Reckoning With the Radical Left on Campus: Alternatives to Boycotts and Divestments," there was reportedly considerable interest in divestment campaigns targeting the occupation. At the same time, "J Street U," the student branch of J Street, is officially opposed to divestment and has begun an "Invest, Don't Divest" campaign, which encourages students to "Invest $2 for 2 States" as an alternative to BDS activities on campus.

By opposing direct action, the older generation is arguing that government must take the lead through a peace process that so far has resulted in little more than further Israeli colonization. "I find boycotts kind of distasteful. It's a little bit like collective punishment," says Ralph Seliger, long associated with Meretz USA, a left Zionist organization. "That probably wouldn't be very emotionally satisfying to someone who was upset about the issue. But I think it's part of growing up to understand that the world is not here to give you emotional satisfaction, and in this issue there is both complexity and perplexity, and you need to learn as much as you can, and be receptive to all sides, and be discerning."

Portions of the BDS call have been unsettling even to longtime advocates for Middle East peace. Its support for the refugees' right of return is a deal breaker for many liberal Zionists, who believe Israel needs to maintain a Jewish majority. Other activists have said BDS should focus primarily on the US role in the conflict. Israeli writer and activist Joseph Dana says that while the campaign has informed people around the world about the issue, almost all US military aid to Israel winds up in the United States with military manufacturers, so "it would be more productive for the BDS campaigns to focus on these companies," especially if American citizens are doing the pressuring.

Perhaps the most controversial part of the BDS movement, even for some supporters, has been the call for a cultural and academic boycott. Organizers of the boycott explain that it is directed at institutions, not individuals, meaning that people are encouraged to boycott academic conferences, events or products (i.e., films, talks or performances) sponsored by the Israeli government or Israeli universities but not individual academics based on their politics. MIT scientist Nancy Kanwisher recently circulated anonymous letters of support for an academic boycott from two colleagues. One colleague said that while refusing to support Israeli academic research, "I will continue to collaborate with, and host, Israeli scientific colleagues on an individual basis."

Alisa Solomon, a noted critic of Israel's actions and editor, with Tony Kushner, of Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, says she supports BDS but draws the line at academic boycott. "I believe in and support a lot of [the BDS movement]; I just see a lot of different strains and approaches and am enthusiastic about some (economic boycotts against settlement products, companies participating in and profiting from occupation, plus think we should cut military aid, etc.), generally supportive of others ("don't play Sun City" efforts), and have qualms about academic/cultural in this direction both for the free expression reasons and because it requires declaring some people kosher and some not," she wrote in an e-mail. "I prefer direct to symbolic action, so taking money away from occupation seems to me a far better effort than denouncing, say, a choreographer."
For their part, supporters of the academic boycott say that Israeli universities are implicated in the occupation because they are intimately connected with the Israeli government in ways that outstrip even American university contributions to the Vietnam War effort a generation ago. The argument was lent support last year when Rivka Carmi, president of Ben-Gurion University, attacked faculty member (and frequent Nation contributor) Neve Gordon for advocating BDS in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. Gordon had crossed "the boundaries of academic freedom," Carmi said, and she questioned his ability to work at the school: "After his...extreme description of Israel as an 'apartheid' state, how can he, in good faith, create the collaborative atmosphere necessary for true academic research and teaching?"

The controversy came to Tel Aviv University this spring when novelists Margaret Atwood and Amitav Ghosh were named as recipients of a $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation, which is headquartered at the university. Boycott activists, including students from the besieged Gaza Strip, implored Atwood and Ghosh to refuse the award because of its relationship to the university. In the end, the writers accepted the prize and criticized the activists in their joint acceptance speech: "the all-or-nothings want to bully us into being their wholly owned puppets." They also quoted Anthony Appiah, president of PEN American Center, who said, "We have to stand, as we have stood from the very beginning, against the very idea of a cultural boycott. We have to continue to say: Only connect." After she got home, Atwood wrote a piece for Ha'aretz saying that Israel's greatest threat was now internal: "The concept of Israel as a humane and democratic state is in serious trouble."
Another prominent focus of the BDS campaign has been on musicians. In recent months Leonard Cohen played Tel Aviv despite an appeal to him to cancel, while Gil Scott-Heron and Elvis Costello pulled out of their Israeli appearances. Costello explained on his website that his decision was "a matter of instinct and conscience" and that "there are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act that resonates more than anything that might be sung." The Forward recently quoted an anonymous music industry insider who said more than fifteen performers have recently refused to play in Israel, and in the week after the flotilla attack three more popular groups—the Klaxons, Gorillaz and the Pixies—canceled upcoming performances to protest the raid.
In the end many in Israel, and its supporters in the United States, return to the fear that BDS is advancing the likelihood of the dissolution of the Jewish state—the delegitimization issue. "The BDS movement seems dominated by those whose endgame is one state, not two," Meretz USA executive director Ron Skolnik wrote in Israel Horizons, a liberal Zionist publication. The movement "apparently wishes to build on legitimate international opposition to the 1967 occupation in order to undermine Israel's independent existence."

Rebecca Vilkomerson says that is not the case. Her group, Jewish Voice for Peace, does not take a position on the two-state versus one-state solution. Many Jewish students who spoke out against the Berkeley measure, she said, objected in highly subjective terms, saying, "We feel marginalized, we feel scared, we feel intimidated, we feel alienated" by the legislation. According to Vilkomerson, the best response to this came from Tom Pessah, an Israeli PhD student at Berkeley and co-author of the bill, who said that it was "OK" to have such feelings. He says he also felt uncomfortable when he first learned how much of his freedom in Israel was based on Palestinian dispossession—and so he feared what justice would entail.

Such anxieties would seem to accompany any transformative social movement, and BDS supporters are beginning to acknowledge them. Palestinian leader Mustafa Barghouthi addressed the issue in his appeal to the Berkeley students on grounds they might best understand. He has lived his life under occupation, he wrote; he and his community seek freedom: "Do not stand in the way like those angry Alabama students 50 years ago blocking integration. You have, I trust, nothing in common with those students but misplaced fear."
The Berkeley bill failed, but the all-night debates only seemed to give the movement confidence that the next vote will go differently. We might not have to wait long to find out: six more American university student bodies are said to be taking up the call in the near future.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement

Links: [1] http://www.bdsmovement.net

UMC-New England Task Force Updates Divestment Recommendations

elaine — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:44:49 -0700

Media Contacts:
Alexx Wood, Communications Director
New England Conference of The United Methodist Church
978-682-8055 ext. 150 (office) or 617-838-2828 (mobile), communicate@neumc.org
William Aldrich, Divestment Task Force Chairperson
401-785-1596, wpaldrich@cox.net

New England Task Force Updates Divestment Recommendations
Nine companies added to divestment report and recommendations

LAWRENCE, Massachusetts—This week marks 43 years of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, which the United Methodist Church has long opposed. The New England Conference of the United Methodist Church has issued an update to its Divestment Task Force report, which outlines divestment recommendations for companies supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Nine companies have been added to the report published by the New England Conference in June 2007. The research of the task force has shown that each company supports the occupation in a significant way.

In addition to the 20 companies in the task force's initial report, the 2010 updated recommendations include Cellcom Israel, Cemex, Elbit Systems Ltd., Formula Systems Ltd., Hewlett-Packard, ICx Technologies, Ingersoll Rand, On Track Innovations, and Valero Energy Corporation.

The latest report and the full record of company correspondence are available at www.neumc.org/divest. Additional supporting documentation, including statements from Jewish organizations that support divestment, is also included.

The names of these companies were released after careful study and after giving each company a chance to respond to task force concerns. All companies included in the report met at least one of the following criteria:

• Providing support for the occupation's infrastructure (settlements, roads, checkpoints, or portions of the separation wall built on occupied land),
• Having a physical presence such as a factory or store on occupied land, or
• Providing the Israeli military with offensive weapons or items used to enforce the occupation of Palestinian land.

These recommendations are specific and selective and do not call for divestment from Israel, from Israeli companies, or from companies that do business in Israel. "Rather," stated Task Force Chairman William Aldrich, "we focus only on companies sustaining an occupation that damages Palestinian lives, Israeli lives, and the prospects for a just peace."

The New England Conference is one of at least ten United Methodist Annual Conferences that from 2005 to 2009 have adopted resolutions addressing some kind of divestment process consistent with the denomination's long-standing opposition of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. The work of the New England task force provides information and resources on companies supporting the occupation in a significant way.

"The United Methodist church has called for an end to the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and we must continue to pray for and seek an end to violence and true steps toward peace with justice," said Bishop Peter D. Weaver of the New England Conference. "The task force information will be helpful for those that voluntarily choose to divest from companies involved in activities the denomination opposes."

About the New England Conference
The New England Conference (www.neumc.org) includes more than 500 United Methodist and federated congregations in Eastern Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. In July 2010, Vermont churches will also become part of the New England Conference.

Evergreen State College Students Vote for Divestment

elaine — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:56:28 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE STUDENTS VOTE FOR DIVESTMENT FROM ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE

On June 2, 2010, students at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, made history by passing two resolutions supporting human rights, upholding international law, and promoting a just peace in the Palestine/Israel conflict.

1. The first resolution calls for The Evergreen State College Foundation to divest from companies that profit from Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, as part of instituting a socially responsible investment policy.

2. The second resolution calls on the College to ban the use of Caterpillar, Inc. equipment from campus.

While other US colleges have passed similar divestment resolutions, these are the first of such resolutions passed by direct vote by an entire student body. Additionally, the student government unanimously passed its own resolution strongly supportive of the measures.

Divestment has been a popular tool employed at college campuses nationwide to protest South African apartheid and other human rights abuses around the world. It was only natural that divestment would be used to work toward an end to the oldest existing military occupation, Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine—and to target the corporations that profit from the illegal occupation.

The second resolution targets the Caterpillar Corporation, which is responsible for knowingly selling equipment for war crimes and military use against a civilian population, despite calls to cease sales by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organizations. Israeli military officials have acknowledged that Caterpillar is a “key weapon” in its continuing occupation of Palestine. Activists worldwide have waged a campaign for several years to hold Caterpillar accountable.

Evergreen senior Rachel Corrie was killed in 2003 by a weaponized Caterpillar bulldozer as she attempted to prevent the demolition of a civilian Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip. Israel continues to claim that Corrie was not run over by the armored bulldozer, contradicting every eyewitness testimony.

The resolutions have received broad support outside of the campus, including an endorsement by Jewish Voice for Peace. Organizers also received a touching letter of support by students in the Gaza Strip, who wrote, “We strongly believe that through steadfast campaigns and grassroots efforts, those dissident voices—people of conscience and bravery—will be victorious.” (Letter available at tescdivest.org)

The resolutions passed overwhelmingly, with 79.5% of participating students voting for the divestment resolution and 71.8% voting for the Caterpillar resolution. This election marked the largest student voter turnout since the creation of Evergreen’s student union.

“In passing these resolutions, students at Evergreen are sending a clear message to the administration that we want a socially responsible investment policy with an unwavering commitment to human rights,” said student organizer Noor Salah.

The resolutions were inspired by similar initiatives by students at UC Berkeley, Hampshire College, and University of Michigan–Dearborn, and following a letter of encouragement from Desmond Tutu. These steps are part of a greater international movement that seeks to find nonviolent solutions to ending the Palestine/Israel conflict.

For more information, and for the complete text of the resolutions, please visit www.tescdivest.org.

Contact:
Andrew Meyer
(360) 628-3087
andrew.m@rachelcorriefoundation.org

Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice
203 4th Ave E, Suite 307
Olympia, WA 98501
(360) 754-3998
http://www.rachelcorriefoundation.org

Episcopal Peace Fellowship Supports Economic Sanctions

elaine — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:59:19 -0700

Peace fellowship supports economic sanctions for Middle East peace
Divestment strategy 'dangerously unhelpful,' Washington bishop says

By Matthew Davies, May 12, 2010

[Episcopal News Service] The National Executive Council of Episcopal Peace Fellowship has issued a statement in support of economic sanctions and divestment strategies that it believes "can inspire a more useful dialog and negotiation towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

But Bishop John Bryson Chane of Washington, a member of EPF since 1969, told ENS May 12 that such a strategy is "flawed and dangerously unhelpful at this particular time in history" and would "further hurt the critical development of the economy of Palestine and increase the marginalization of the Palestinian people."

As an independent association of Episcopalians committed to nonviolence, EPF's position does not represent the official policy of the Episcopal Church, which supports "corporate engagement" and "positive investment" practices when dealing with companies in which it owns assets and shares.

The Social Responsibility in Investments Committee of the Episcopal Church, in a 2005 report on the subject, wrote, "Companies can and should operate in Israel proper." The report was commended by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council.

Chane told ENS that it is important for people to understand that EPF "does not speak for the Episcopal Church, Executive Council, General Convention, or reflect the position of our presiding bishop."

Linda Gaither, EPF chair, who voted in favor of the statement, explained in a commentary that the council recognizes the existing policy of the Episcopal Church "is the result of long and serious engagement with the issues raised by the Kairos document and the occupation itself."

The EPF statement, Gaither said, is a "faithful response" to a request from the Rev. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian Christian who is director of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem, for the peace fellowship to "read and study the Kairos document; share it in our church and peace group; respond with prayer and advocacy."

The Kairos Palestine Document, released in December 2009 and signed by several Palestinian Christian leaders, accused Israel of "disregard of international law and international resolutions" and called for an end to occupation of Palestinian territory.

"Palestinian civil organizations, as well as international organizations, NGOs and certain religious institutions call on individuals, companies and states to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation," the Kairos document says. "We understand this to integrate the logic of peaceful resistance."

The EPF statement supports the principles of the Kairos document and endorses the "application of divestment and an economic and commercial boycott of products linked to oppression of Palestinian people and occupation of their land." The council membership voted eight for and two against the statement, with one abstention.

Although Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem Suheil Dawani is not one of the signatories to the Kairos document, he is a member of the Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem who wrote in a December 2009 statement: "We hear the cry of hope that our children have launched in these difficult times."

Meanwhile, Dawani has said that it is imperative that Christian churches support the movement toward peace through the diplomatic process which is emerging through the negotiations currently underway between Israel and Palestine with the assistance of the U.S. government.

Chane told ENS that a divestment strategy would compromise the work of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem and make ongoing negotiations between the U.S., Israel and Palestine far more difficult than they already are.

He also acknowledged that development in Palestine "depends a great deal on an open relationship with Israel and ongoing investment in both economies."

The Social Responsibility in Investments Committee noted in its 2005 report that it was not recommending divestment because "the goal is for selected companies to change behavior resulting in a more hopeful climate for peace. If the church simply divests, nothing positive has happened."

That report, Gaither said, while recommending "positive investment," also acknowledged that "the opportunity for a viable Palestinian state is rapidly diminishing" and "the occupation is devastating to Palestinians and harmful to Israelis and comes at an enormous cost to both sides of the conflict." In 2010, Gaither said, "the crisis has intensified. The Kairos document is a cry from the heart of the suffering with its 'enormous cost to both sides.'"

The Episcopal Church, based on resolutions passed at its previous General Conventions regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, remains committed to a just peace that ends the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, guarantees Israel's security and Palestinian aspirations for a viable sovereign state with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both Israel and Palestine.

Alexander D. Baumgarten, director of government relations for the Episcopal Church, told ENS: "The present political moment offers much hope to those working for a two-state solution that safeguards the security of Israel and creates a free, viable, and secure state for the Palestinian people. The Episcopal Church's own advocacy witness in this discussion is enhanced and sanctified by interfaith relationships with both Jewish and Muslim partners."

The Episcopal Church is committed to dialogue with the Jewish community through the National Council of Churches Interfaith Relations Commission, as well as the Christian-Jewish Roundtable, which includes other ecumenical partners.

Furthermore, General Convention 2009, through its passing of Resolution A074, endorsed a Theological Statement on Interreligious Relations, which represents the Episcopal Church's official policy on the topic. "We believe that religions must stand together in solidarity with all who are suffering and witness to the dignity of every human being," the statement says. "In these ways, presence in mission becomes a courageous mode of peace-making in a violent world."

The statement notes that, in contemporary local and global contexts, the Episcopal Church "faces crucial opportunities and challenges for developing new creative relationships with people of other religious heritages. Throughout the world, people of different religions can be seen searching for compatible if not common ways toward justice, peace and sustainable life."

Baumgarten told ENS that "the most important thing we can do at the moment is to create broad-based, interfaith political support for the [U.S.] president's leadership in bringing parties to the table for negotiation and holding each responsible for its obligations. Creating peace in the land called holy by Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the responsibility of all of the children of Abraham, and the Episcopal Church is committed to building a two-state solution that honors and respects the connection to the land rightfully held by the people of each great Abrahamic faith tradition."

The EPF council, in its statement, has asked its Israel/Palestine Action Group "to offer resources to our membership and the wider church on effective strategies for boycott, divestment, and sanction, including links to partner groups and educational resources on the history of the cycle of violence and obstacles to peace in Israel/Palestine. We are all the children of Abraham, let us no longer profit at the expense of the safety and security of one another. Instead let us end the violent cycle and build a circle of peace."

Gaither said that EPF's council had considered the concerns of Jewish leaders that a "call for divestment, boycott and economic sanctions are anti-Jewish, extending the arc of the long tradition of Christian anti-Semitism," but that it had decided to "join our voices with those of a growing American Jewish public at large who are expressing opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and questioning unconditional support for Israeli government policy."

Gaither expressed appreciation for a General Convention 1991 resolution (D122) that deplores "all expressions of anti-Jewish prejudice."

-- Matthew Davies is editor and international correspondent of the Episcopal News Service.

Source: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_122182_ENG_HTM.htm

Women Nobel Laureates Support UC Divestment

elaine — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:04:07 -0700

Nobel Laureates:
'We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure
can motivate Israel to change'

by Adam Horowitz on April 28, 2010

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/nobel-laureates-we-are-all-peace-makers-an...

Support for divestment continues to grow. Here is the latest amazing statement urging the University of California to divest:

To the ASUC Senate,

We the undersigned Nobel Women Peace Laureates support your courage and call on you to reaffirm the ASUC Bill in Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes. We stand united in our belief that divesting from companies that provide significant support for the Israeli military provides moral and strategic stewardship of tuition and taxpayer-funded public education money. We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians. Last year's nearly 400 women and children casualties in Gaza, and thousands more injured and killed, were all victims of a well armed military machine allowed to operate unchecked. A delegation of us went to Gaza and saw firsthand the evidence of wholesale killing and destruction. Our hearts grieve for Gaza and we demand that there be no more Gazas. We urge the UC system to take the lead in this direction as has been its tradition, and commend the students who are working to achieve this goal. We reject the portrayals of this action as anti-Semitic, and maintain that it does not make a choice between Palestinians and Israelis, but between universal freedom and oppression.

Signed,

Shirin Ebadi, Iran, 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate
Mairead Maguire (Corrigan), Ireland, 1976 Nobel Peace Laureate
Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Guatemala, 1992 Nobel Peace Laureate
Jody Williams, USA, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate

Tutu: "Divesting is the right thing to do."

elaine — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:11:44 -0700

Archbishop Desmond Tutu to UC Berkeley: Divesting is the Right Thing To Do
Salem-News.com

Sent from Emily Schaeffer, human right lawyer in Israel/Palestine, who asked Archbishop Tutu to write the letter.

Desmond Tutu
Tutu is an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel. Courtesy: writespirit.net

(CAPE TOWN) - Dear Student Leaders at the University of California – Berkeley

It was with great joy that I learned of your recent 16-4 vote in support of divesting your university’s money from companies that enable and profit from the injustice of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and violation of Palestinian human rights. Principled stands like this, supported by a fast growing number of US civil society organizations and people of conscience, including prominent Jewish groups, are essential for a better world in the making, and it is always an inspiration when young people lead the way and speak truth to power.

I am writing to tell you that, despite what detractors may allege, you are doing the right thing. You are doing the moral thing. You are doing that which is incumbent on you as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings. I have been to the Ocupied Palestinian Territory, and I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under the racist system of Apartheid. I have witnessed the humiliation of Palestinian men, women, and children made to wait hours at Israeli military checkpoints routinely when trying to make the most basic of trips to visit relatives or attend school or college, and this humiliation is familiar to me and the many black South Africans who were corralled and regularly insulted by the security forces of the Apartheid government.

In South Africa, we could not have achieved our freedom and just peace without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the Apartheid regime. Students played a leading role in that struggle, and I write this letter with a special indebtedness to your school, Berkeley, for its pioneering role in advocating equality in South Africa and promoting corporate ethical and social responsibility to end complicity in Apartheid. I visited your campus in the 1980’s and was touched to find students sitting out in the baking sunshine to demonstrate for the University’s disvestment in companies supporting the South African regime.

The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel’s 43 year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, non-violent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses.

To those who wrongly accuse you of unfairness or harm done to them by this call for divestment, I suggest, with humility, that the harm suffered from being confronted with opinions that challenge one’s own pales in comparison to the harm done by living a life under occupation and daily denial of basic rights and dignity. It is not with rancor that we criticize the Israeli government, but with hope, a hope that a better future can be made for both Israelis and Palestinians, a future in which both the violence of the occupier and the resulting violent resistance of the occupied come to an end, and where one people need not rule over another, engendering suffering, humiliation, and retaliation. True peace must be anchored in justice and an unwavering commitment to universal rights for all humans, regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin or any other identity attribute. You, students, are helping to pave that path to a just peace. I heartily endorse your divestment vote and encourage you to stand firm on the side of what is right.

God bless you richly,

Desmond Tutu. Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town.

Danish Banks To Divest From Israeli Companies

elaine — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:39:19 -0800

by Saed Bannoura
IMEMC News & Agencies
January 27, 2010

The Danske and Pensioner Bank (PKA) have decided to withdraw all investments from two Israeli companies, Elbit and Magal Security Systems, for their role in constructing the annexation wall in the occupied West Bank.

The decision came after human rights groups and boycott campaigns declared the wall to be in violation of an advisory ruling made by the Hague International Court.  

The two Danish banks also decided to divest from Africa-Israel Company, owned by Jewish billionaire Lev Leviev, for its role in financing the construction of settlements and the wall.  

Elbit Systems provide Israel with surveillance equipment installed atop the annexation wall while Africa-Israel invests in settlement construction within the occupied West Bank.  

The Pensioners Bank also decided to withdraw investments from American Detection Systems for their role in the wall's construction.  

These decisions were made as Israel declared it's intent to begin new construction of the wall on Palestinian lands west of Ramallah. This new section will annex more Palestinian land in order to expand the illegal settlement of Illit.

International Middle East Media Center

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=57777

Kairos Palestine Document, a prayerful call of Palestinian Christians to End the Occupation

elaine — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:09:07 -0800

Introducing the Kairos Palestine Document

An ecumenical group of Palestinian Christians issued Kairos Palestine, “A Moment of Truth,” on Dec. 11, 2009, in Bethlehem. The statement’s formal title is “A Moment of Truth – A word of faith and hope from the heart of Palestinian suffering.”

What is Kairos?
The Greek word Kairos refers to a moment in time, a moment when God is present in opportunity, when the world’s axis is the Word of God. The moment to speak truth is now!

Remember South Africa
The Kairos Palestine document recalls a powerful effort from South African Christians in the apartheid era. They speak to all who are directly or indirectly involved in the ongoing conflict in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Christians in North America: “We call out to our Christian brothers and sisters in the Churches around the world.”

Jerusalem comes first
Jerusalem is highlighted in the document: “Jerusalem is the foundation of our vision and our entire life.” The document calls for a political resolution to the struggle for Jerusalem, based on the prophetic vision of peace. “The city is inhabited by two peoples of three religions.” Kairos Palestine is very clear: “This is the first issue that should be negotiated.”

Occupation is sin
The message calls Israeli occupation of Palestinian land “a sin against God and humanity.” The theological context of this declaration is God’s desire for life with love and dignity for all people. This is not a political position. The occupation deprives Palestinians of dignity and basic human rights. The sin of the occupation is that it keeps both Israelis and Palestinians from seeing God in each others’ faces.
Kairos Palestine does not argue with Israel’s right to exist, but it calls for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. It argues for religious liberty in the face of those who insist upon Israel as a Jewish state as well as those who would attempt to make the future Palestine an Islamic state.

Economic measures and BDS
Kairos Palestine affirms economic measures as a means of nonviolent resistance, including divestment, boycott and economic sanctions (sometimes called “BDS” in activist circles). These efforts “must be carried out with courage,” the message says, to resist injustice in an attitude of love and put an end to evil.

Hope and love
The Christian leaders who wrote Kairos Palestine long for us to hear a word of faith in “one God, a good and just God,” who has spoken to us in Jesus, born in their land and brought close to all people by the Holy Spirit. It is a word of hope and a word of love, that is, “seeing the face of God in every human being” as one’s brother or sister.

Kairos Palestine is “the Christian Palestinians’ word to the world about what is happening in Palestine.“ It was developed after more than a year, in prayer and discussion, guided by faith in God and love for God’s people. The authors accepted advice from many friends: Palestinians, Arabs and those from the wider international community.” (From the Kairos Palestine website – www.kairospalestine.ps )

The message has three parts:
“Our word to the Churches of the world is firstly a word of gratitude for the solidarity you have shown toward us in word, deed and presence among us.”

They extend an invitation: “In order to understand our reality, we say to the Churches: Come and see.”

Then, understanding “the facts and the people of this land, Palestinians and Israelis alike,” they call on us to tell the truth publicly for the sake of justice, peace, and reconciliation.

While Kairos Palestine is a message to Christians worldwide, note that it reaches out to a wide range of others in the Palestinian community: Muslims, people who are not religious, and people loyal to various political parties.

North American Christians must read carefully: Kairos Palestine has a specific geopolitical context. We are invited to receive its “word of faith and hope from the heart of Palestinian suffering,” to accept its challenges even when we may not fully understand or agree.

Nonviolence always
Kairos Palestine is grounded in hope in a time of discouragement and frustration. It calls for resistance to injustice and violence. Nonviolent resistance is based on hope and love that “puts an end to evil by walking in the ways of justice.”

Kairos Palestine is not a comprehensive analysis of the Middle East or the complex history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It does point to the expulsion of Palestinians from the land of their history and the desire of the West to “make amends” for the suffering of the Jews of Europe, criticizing contemporary western Christian motivations concerning the State of Israel.

The land
The document emphasizes the connection of Palestinians to the Holy Land, acknowledging that the entire Holy Land belongs to God and is inhabited by two peoples. The clear message to Jews is, “Even though we have fought one another in the recent past and still struggle today, we are able to love and live together.”

Read, share and act
Kairos Palestine should be shared widely and studied in North American churches with a mind to increasing understanding and advocacy efforts. Bring it into your church. Show it to your pastor. Ask for an opportunity to lead a study group in your church. Discuss it with various groups in your church (be sure to include youth and young adults), ecumenical and interfaith groups. Write an op-ed for your church newsletter or a denominational publication or local newspaper. Pull out several main ideas to use as talking points when you contact elected political leaders. Add your signature and encourage others to sign Kairos Palestine at kairospalestine.ps.

- Read and study
- Share in your church and peace group
Respond with prayer and advocacy

Check these denominational websites for more resources:
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America http://www.elca.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Justice/Peace-Not-Walls/Palestin...
Presbyterian Church USA - http://presbyterian.typepad.com/peacemaking/2010/02/palestinian-christia...
United Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ - http://www.eif-pcusa.org/InterfaithRelations/InterfaithRelationsandtheMi...

The authors are:

● Patriarch Michel Sabbah
● Bishop Dr Munib Younan
● Archbishop Theodosios Atallah Hanna
● Rev. Dr Jamal Khader
● Rev. Dr Rafiq Khoury
● Rev. Dr Mitri Raheb
● Rev. Dr Naim Ateek
● Rev. Dr Yohana Katanacho
● Rev. Fr Fadi Diab
● Dr Jiries Khoury
● Ms Sider Daibes
● Ms Nora Kort
● Ms Lucy Thaljieh
● Mr Nidal Abu Zulof
● Mr Yusef Daher
● Mr Rifat Kassis - coordinator of the initiative

A list of signatories of the document can be found at:
http://kairospalestine.ps/?q=node/2

Media contact in Jerusalem: Ranjan Solomon +972-54-733-7857

FULL ENGLISH TEXT OF THE KAIROS PALESTINE DOCUMENT ONLINE

See also:

In Arabic
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2009pdfs/Kairos%20Palestine_Ar.pdf
Palestine_Ar.pdf

Auf Deutsch
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2009pdfs/Kairos
Palestine_Ger.pdf

En français
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2009pdfs/Kairos
Palestine_Fr.pdf

Churches in the Middle East: solidarity and witness for peace:
http://www.oikoumene.org/?id=3113

Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum

The World Council of Churches promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. An ecumenical fellowship of churches founded in 1948, today the WCC brings together 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church. The WCC general secretary is Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, from the Methodist Church in Kenya. Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland.

World Council of Churches - News Release
Contact: +41 22 791 6153 +41 79 507 6363 media@wcc-coe.org For immediate release - 11/12/2009

Britain’s Unions Commit to Mass Boycott

elaine — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:11:32 -0700

Britain’s unions commit to a mass boycott movement of Israeli goods
Posted by RORCoalition on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 13:40

17 September 2009 [Palestine Solidarity Campaign] In a landmark decision, Britain’s trade unions have voted overwhelmingly to commit to build a mass boycott movement, disinvestment and sanctions on Israel for a negotiated settlement based on justice for Palestinians.

The motion was passed at the 2009 TUC Annual Congress in Liverpool today (17 September), by unions representing 6.5 million workers across the UK.

Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: ‘This motion is the culmination of a wave of motions passed at union conferences this year, following outrage at Israel’s brutal war on Gaza, and reflects the massive growth in support for Palestinian rights. We will be working with the TUC to develop a mass campaign to boycott Israeli goods, especially agricultural products that have been produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.’

The motion additionally called for the TUC General Council to put pressure on the British government to end all arms trading with Israel and support moves to suspend the EU-Israel trade agreement. Unions are also encouraged to disinvest from companies which profit from Israel’s illegal 42-year occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

The motion was tabled by the Fire Brigades Union. The biggest unions in the UK, including Unite, the public sector union, and UNISON, which represents health service workers, voted in favour of the motion.

The motion also condemned the Israeli trade union Histadrut’s statement supporting Israel’s war on Gaza, which killed 1,450 Palestinians in three weeks, and called for a review of the TUC’s relationship with Histadrut.

Britain’s trade unions join those of South Africa and Ireland in voting to use a mass boycott campaign as a tool to bring Israel into line with international law, and pressure it to comply with UN resolutions that encourage justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

Source: http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/555

Global Actions to End Israel's Occupation

elaine — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:06:43 -0700

Global Actions to End Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Land is an exciting new report of bold initiatives around the world to end the Israeli occupation. It contains hundreds of actions taken by governments, businesses, labor unions, NGO's, academic and religious organizations, and other groups. The report has just been published and will be an important tool for your local work for justice and peace.

As Israel defies the will of the international community to halt its settlement expansion, the momentum for divestment, boycotts and sanctions, and other principled actions is growing.

This is a project of the Interfaith Peace Initiative: http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/

Two ways to view the report:

1) Download pdf file attached below;
2) Go to Interfaith Peace Initiative web page: www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/globalactions.pdf

Neve Gordon: "Boycott Israel"

elaine — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:21:58 -0700

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gordon20-2009aug20,0,1126906.story

latimes.com
Opinion

Boycott Israel: An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the only way to save his country

By Neve Gordon
August 20, 2009

Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis -- even peaceniks -- aren't signing on. A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.

It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.

I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.

The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.

The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime.

There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.

The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a bi-national democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.

The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new Palestinian state.

Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the ground," the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality.

Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.

For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.

So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?

I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right.

It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.

I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.

In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organizations from all over the world formulated the 10-point Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity." For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel in order to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.

Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Palestine Urges Withdrawal of Rail Contract

elaine — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:44:51 -0700

Abbas Al Lawati | Gulf News

31 May 2009

Dubai: Palestinian officials have intensified diplomatic efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia to withdraw a multibillion dollar rail contract awarded to a firm alleged to be complicit in Israel’s expansion in Occupied East Jerusalem, Gulf News has learnt.

Palestinian National Authority officials have said that they are in talks with the Saudis to find ways to block the Occupied Jerusalem light rail project.

The light rail project will link Occupied West Jerusalem to Occupied East Jerusalem and Jewish colonies in the Occupied West Bank when completed.

It has been described by Israeli leaders as the fulfillment of the Zionist dream and will be partly built by the French firm Alstom.

Alstom is part of a consortium awarded a $1.8 billion (Dh6.6 billion) civil works contract in March for the Makkah-Madinah railway, the Haramain Express.

“Back-channel talks with the Saudis are ongoing.” said a high ranking official at the Palestinian foreign ministry, speaking to Gulf News on condition of anonymity. He refused to divulge further details.

However, while Palestinian officials fear that Alstom’s Makkah contract will undermine their efforts to block the Occupied Jerusalem tramway, they also see it as an opportunity to put pressure on the company through Saudi Arabia.

They say that although the Occupied Jerusalem project is expected to be completed next year, Saudi Arabia could use its influence to derail its further expansion as well as its 30-year maintenance plan.

Palestinian efforts to fight the project started following a 2006 Arab League ministerial decision in Khartoum calling on states and international organisations to “stop the Occupied Jerusalem tram project and refrain from assisting in its execution”.

Since 2007 the Palestinian foreign ministry has been pressing Arab states to use their political and economic weight to pressure France into taking action against the companies that are involved in the Occupied Jerusalem project, but apparently has not had much success.

The foreign ministry requested Saudi Arabia to intervene in the matter in a letter dated December 2007.

“We received a reply from the ministry in early 2008 stating that Saudi officials intend to speak to the French on the matter,” said the Palestinian official.

Since the letter the Saudi government has awarded two contracts to Alstom. The company won a $2.6 billion contract to build a power plant in the kingdom last year.

This was followed by the Haramain Express contract earlier this year by the Saudi Railway Organisation (SRO).

The consortium is now bidding for two more contracts to supply the trains and maintain the stations. The SRO did not respond to Gulf News’ questions.

Alstom, Alstom Transport and Veolia are also facing a lawsuit in France for their involvement in the Occupied Jerusalem project, brought by French advocacy group Association France-Palestine Solidarité, which is working closely with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) representative office in Paris.

Ambassador Hind Khoury, PLO representative and former minister of Occupied Jerusalem affairs, called the case a ‘breakthrough’. She said she often reminded Arab counterparts of their obligations as per the Arab League decision.

“I have a new mandate from the [Palestinian National Authority] president [Mahmoud Abbas] to pursue this case,” she said.

In an effort to avoid embarrassment, the French government reportedly distanced itself from the project when pressed by the Palestinian National Authority to intervene in 2005. It said it had nothing to do with projects private companies were involved in.

However, Alain Gresh, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, said that the Occupied Jerusalem contract was signed in the office of the then French ambassador to Israel, Gerard Araud. “They can’t ignore that,” he said.

Such contracts are often politicised, with high level delegations often including heads of governments, being sent to the region to lobby on behalf of the bidding companies.

Palestinian officials have said that their discussions with Saudi Arabia will be based on the 2006 Arab League decision.

Eric Lenoir, communications manager at Alstom Transport said Gulf officials had not cited the Occupied Jerusalem project as a concern.

“Our job is to be compliant with specifications defined by local railway authorities. We don’t make politics,” he added.

Lenoir said that the Gulf region was an attractive market for Alstom due to congestion problems in its cities and a realisation by its governments that rail transport was a viable solution as the countries develop.

The company is currently eyeing projects in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and the planned GCC railway.

The credible case against Alstom

Dubai: Critics of French-based Alstom have accused it of violating international law for what they see as the company’s complicity in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

The company faces a lawsuit in France brought by French advocacy group Association France-Palestine Solidarité and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for its involvement in the Occupied Jerusalem light rail project which connects Occupied West Jerusalem to Occupied East Jerusalem and Jewish colonies in the West Bank.

Alstom and Veolia have repeatedly come under fire by advocacy groups in Europe for the project.

The Dutch ASN Bank decided in 2006 to exclude Veolia from its investment portfolios, and the Swedish national pension fund AP7 has blacklisted Alstom from its $15 billion (Dh55 billion) portfolio, according to media reports.

While the lawyers for the parties taking Alstom to court have avoided speaking to the media, Dubai based international humanitarian law expert Urs Stirnimann assumed that the Geneva Conventions are the principle basis in taking the company to court in France.

He said Israel’s practice of settling its population on occupied territory is widely considered to be a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which, in accordance with article 147 is a grave violation of international humanitarian law.

“In other words, [it is] a war crime. Article 146 clearly stipulates that it is the responsibility of each country to act against grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” he said.

Alain Gresh, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, said that while it is unlikely that the French court would force the two companies to withdraw from the project, it sets a precedent which will prevent firms from operating in occupied territories for fear of a backlash. Alstom and Veolia have won contracts worth billions in all six Gulf Cooperation Council states.

Adri Nieuwhof, a human rights advocate who has written extensively about the Occupied Jerusalem tramway, says that the project is part of an Israeli “master plan” for Occupied Jerusalem, which includes the confiscation of privately owned Palestinian land.

She said the tramway would consolidate Israel’s hold on occupied Palestinian territory.

“For colonists living in the Occupied West Bank, travel to Occupied Jerusalem can become faster and more efficient with the light rail, so the colonies can become more attractive for colonists to live in, besides being cheap.”

Source: http://palsolidarity.org/2009/05/6913

Putting Words of Support into Boycott Action

elaine — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:54:20 -0700

Adri Nieuwhof and Omar Barghouti, The Electronic Intifada
5 May 2009

The Derail Veolia and Alstom Campaign, operating in full coordination with the leadership of the Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), is in full swing. After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized Israel in Geneva, the BNC called on Iran to cut its business ties with Veolia Environment and Alstom. The French transportation giants are involved in the Israeli light rail project in occupied Jerusalem, linking the city with the illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Veolia and Alstom are playing a key role in Israel's attempt to make its annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem irreversible. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remarked on the construction of the light rail in August 2005, "I believe that this should be done, and in any event, anything that can be done to strengthen Jerusalem, construct it, expand it and sustain it for eternity as the capital of the Jewish people and the united capital of the State of Israel, should be done."

The BNC is the major voice of Palestinian civil society, unifying a broad spectrum of more than 170 Palestinian non-governmental organizations, political parties and trade unions that have endorsed the July 2005 Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). Iran could give substance to its criticism of Israel's practices towards Palestinians by acting upon the call of the Palestinian BNC to "take the necessary steps to ban Veolia and Alstom and their subsidiaries from any contracts and operations in the country." According to the Tehran Times, the Tehran Municipality and Veolia agreed to collaborate on the implementation of some projects concerning the environment and the development of the urban transport system. Alstom has a headquarters in Tehran and received a number of large contracts, including a 192 million euro contract with Iran's state railways in 1999 and a larger 375 million euro contract to supply 50 turbo compressors to Iran in 2002.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, has consistently expressed its opposition to the Israeli Jerusalem light rail project. In a fact sheet on the subject in March 2007, the PLO Negotiation Support Unit repeated its objections to the colonial project, stating that the light rail violates international law and is not catering to the needs of Palestinian civilians. In addition, in October 2007, the PLO joined Association France Palestine Solidarity (AFPS) in the complaint against Veolia Transport and Alstom, challenging the legality under French law of Veolia and Alstom's contracts concerning the light rail project. The legal action undertaken by AFPS and the PLO is seeking the cancellation of the contracts for the construction and running of the light rail in occupied Jerusalem between Alstom, Veolia and the Israeli government, and is also aimed to prohibit the companies from executing the contract.

The tribunal of Nanterre ruled on 15 April 2009 that the complaint of AFPS falls within its jurisdiction. Veolia and Alstom's claim that there was no ground for a ruling by a French court turned out to be unfounded. On technical grounds the request by the PLO to be a co-plaintiff was rejected. The court can now start to look into the substance of the complaint, unless Alstom and Veolia exercise their right to appeal within one month. On 8 June 2009, the court will convene a meeting to decide when the hearings of the trial against companies will start.

In the same month, Veolia received another blow at its home front. The BDS group in Bordeaux announced that the company had lost a $1 billion contract on the management of the biggest French urban network in the city.

The implication of Veolia in the light rail project in Jerusalem provoked intense debates. The Greater Bordeaux local government stated its decision was based on commercial factors. However, according to European Law, local governments have the power to exclude an economic operator from bidding for a contract or to reject any such bid where it is found that the individual or organization has committed an act of "grave misconduct" in the course of its business of profession. Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts is explicit about this. Attorney Daniel Machover argued in a letter to a local London council in the UK that Veolia's involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project involves grave misconduct, because it assists Israel in its violation of international law.

In the UK, several local campaigns are sprouting to derail Veolia from a number of large public works contracts. From Hampshire County to Liverpool to Camden to South Yorkshire, local authorities are facing mounting political, and sometimes legal, pressure from Palestine solidarity groups, mainly associated with PSC, to exclude Veolia from bidding for public projects. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council decided not to consider further Veolia's bid for the "Waste Improvement Plan" contract in March 2009.

Activists in Ireland are approaching city councils with the request not to enter or renew contracts with Veolia. In response, Galway City Council adopted on 20 April 2009 a motion calling on the city manager not to renew the city's water services contract with Veolia with a majority of 12 out of 14 votes. Councillors were inundated with hundreds of emails from all over the world urging support for the motion. In February 2009, a similar motion was adopted by the Sligo County Council. Galway councillor for Labor, Billy Cameron, remarked in an interview that he believed Veolia has serious questions to answer with regard to its involvement in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Cameron noted that the international Derail Veolia Campaign has had serious effects already. "Veolia did not win contracts in Stockholm, West Midlands (UK) and Bordeaux amounting to $7.5 billion." Cameron firmly believes that the movement to blacklist Veolia is only beginning and the message must go out to companies that international law and human rights take precedent over profit.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate. Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights activist and commentator.

Source: http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/397

Hampshire College First in U.S. to Divest from Israel

elaine — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:03:30 -0800

Hampshire College first in US to divest from Israel

Press Release
12 February 2009
Students for Justice in Palestine (Hampshire College)

Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, has become the first of any college or university in the US to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

This landmark move is a direct result of a two-year intensive campaign by the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The group pressured Hampshire College's Board of Trustees to divest from six specific companies due to human rights concerns in occupied Palestine. More than 800 students, professors and alumni have signed SJP's "institutional statement" calling for the divestment.

The proposal put forth by SJP was approved on Saturday, 7 February 2009 by the Board. By divesting from these companies, SJP believes that Hampshire has distanced itself from complicity in the illegal occupation and war crimes of Israel.

Meeting minutes from a committee of Hampshire's Board of Trustees confirm that "President Hexter acknowledged that it was the good work of SJP that brought this issue to the attention of the committee." This groundbreaking decision follows in Hampshire's history of being the first college in the country to divest from apartheid South Africa 32 years ago, a decision based on similar human rights concerns. This divestment was also a direct result of student pressure.

The divestment has so far been endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Rashid Khalidi, Vice President of the EU Parliament Luisa Morganitini, Cynthia McKinney, former member of the African National Congress Ronnie Kasrils, Mustafa Barghouti, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, John Berger, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, among others.

The six corporations, all of which provide the Israeli military with equipment and services in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are: Caterpillar, United Technologies, General Electric, ITT Corporation, Motorola and Terex. Furthermore, our policy prevents the reinvestment in any company involved in the illegal occupation.

SJP is responding to a call from Palestinian civil society for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a way of bringing nonviolent pressure to bear on the state of Israel to end its violations of international law. SJP is following in the footsteps of many noted groups and institutions such as the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in the UK, the Israeli group Gush Shalom, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the American Friends Service Committee.

As well as voicing our opposition to the illegal occupation and the consistent human rights violations of the Palestinian people, we as members of an institute of higher education see it as our moral responsibility to express our solidarity with Palestinian students whose access to education is severely inhibited by the Israeli occupation.

SJP has proven that student groups can organize, rally and pressure their schools to divest from the illegal occupation. The group hopes that this decision will pave the way for other institutions of higher learning in the US to take similar stands.

Source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10304.shtml

Church of England divests from Caterpillar

elaine — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:11:20 -0800

Church of England divests from U.S. bulldozer biz

CAIRO (Marwa Awad)

The Church of England announced Monday it had withdrawn its investments in a controversial company over the weekend following a threat by a group of vicars to publish a letter denouncing the Church's investment, but denied there were any political or ethical consideration in what it called an economically informed decision.

The Church of England said Monday that it withdrew 2.2 million [pounds] ($3.3 million) from Caterpillar Inc. in late December 2008 because of economic considerations. Israel used bulldozers bought from the U.S.-based manufacturer of construction and mining equipment to demolish Palestinian homes.

News of the church’s divestment came late Saturday just in time to prevent the planned publication of a letter in the Guardian signed by 23 theologians accusing the Church of England of not acting on its policy to promote morally and ethically responsible investments.

"We believe that given the events in Gaza as well as the continued illegal occupation of whole swathes of Palestinian land and the illegal land grabs by settlers, supported by the Israeli Government, that the Church of England must make good on its policy of disinvestment and withdraw its investments from those who profit form the misery of millions of Palestinians immediately," the unpublished letter stated.

But the church denied it had withdrawn investment for political or ethical reasons and said the timing of the announcement was coincidental.

"The holding status was made public when (the Church was) asked," church spokesperson Steve Jenkins told AlArabiya.net. "The Church of England withdrew shares it held in Caterpillar for purely investment reasons."

He added that the Church sold its shares in Caterpillar late December “on investment grounds," explaining that the church’s investment bodies is charged with making investment decisions and takes into account the recommendations of the ethical advisory group.

Activists say otherwise

Activists, however, believed the church's last minute announcement proved it had given into growing pressure for an embargo.

"The Church seems very reluctant to promote the implementation of their own policy, and yes they snuck the news out, under the cover of darkness, with little in the way of a fanfare!" Niall Sookoo, media spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which issued Monday a press release lauding the church's long awaited divestment, told AlArabiya.net.

"The Church must be proud of taking such a stance in the name of human rights, not use financial investment considerations as a fig leaf to hide its decision to finally enact the resolution for morally responsible investments," he added.

Reverend Garth Hewit chair of Interfaith Group for Morally Responsible Investment (IMRI) expressed concern over the Church of England's claim that it had divested for economic reasons and not at the Synod's instigation.

"I think it is a little bit sad that they quietly removed their holdings presumably to avoid any fuss," he said, adding that members of the General Synod had no news of divestment.

"We only heard about this by accident as it was not publicized. It appears to have been done secretly and leaked, then later announced as divestment but not at [our] instigation," he said.

Controversial investments

The Church of England voted in February 2006 at the General Synod—the legislative body of the Church—to disinvest in companies operating in the Palestinian Occupied Territories that profit from the suppression of human rights, and to uphold "morally responsible investment."

The decision came after the Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) issued a report detailing the involvement of Caterpillar's equipment in illegal activity under the Geneva Convention.

The U.S.-based manufacturer of construction and mining equipment has been criticized for several years by heavy weight human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as the United Nations for supplying weaponized bulldozers to Israel's military which has used them to raze more than 7,000 homes and fields that form Palestinians' livelihood since 1967.

Caterpillar has become the central target for growing threats of divestment for supporting the Israeli Defense Forces, especially following the death of Rachel Corrie, a 24-year-old American activist bulldozed to death in 2003 by an IDF-operated Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer in Gaza.

Initial press release

Amid growing public protests in Britain since the Gaza offensive, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has promoted the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, a worldwide civil movement founded in 2005 following a ruling by the International Court of Justice that called Israel’s construction of a partition wall illegal

In a press release issued over the weekend prior to the Church's announcement Monday, Betty Hunter, General Secretary of Palestine Solidarity Campaign criticized the Church's inaction on divesting from Caterpillar.

"The General Synod of the Church of England took a morally courageous decision 3 years ago to disinvest from companies that profited from supplying goods and services in the Palestinian occupied territories," she said.

"Sadly three years on and the Church of England retains investments of £2.2 million in a company, Caterpillar, whose bulldozers and heavy machinery is used to extract the legitimate residents of Palestine to be replaced by illegal settlers."

"I have personally seen the damage, the destruction of homes, the building of the Wall in which Caterpillar had been involved. And I know that large number of the Church members felt [Caterpillar] was morally indefensible," he told AlArabiya.net.

"Our interest now is to go to Veolia, a company supporting war crimes by helping to build a rail way to Jewish settlements," he said, adding that the Stockholm Council in Sweden already turned down their contract.

Source: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/09/66055.html

Investment Survey Update

elaine — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:46:45 -0700

CAMPAIGNS FOR ETHICAL INVESTMENT
ADOPTED BY FAITH-BASED GROUPS WORLDWIDE
ON BEHALF OF PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
AND A JUST AND VIABLE PEACE IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE

Updated October 2008