The following articles counter inaccurate media reports that the Presbyterian Church reversed its selective divestment resolution of 2004. In fact, the church’s vote “affirmed its willingness to use its investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine.” The vote came two years after its overwhelmingly support of a phased, selective divestment” from corporations profiting from Israel’s military occupation. The only thing that changed is some language in the resolution, language which does not change the process of corporate engagement on the issue of Israel’s military occupation. See more below.
The actual language of the decision is at the following link: http://les-pcusa.org/Item.aspx?IID=90&
By Toya Richards Hill
BIRMINGHAM, June 18 — By a vote of 53-6, the Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues sent a recommendation to the General Assembly that language approved by the 2004 General Assembly calling for phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel be replaced.
The new language urges that "financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal."
"We have affirmed the Presbyterian church’s historic commitment to corporate engagement," the Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator of the committee, said after business was completed. "Our intent is to engage corporations, not to divest."
MRTI monitors socially responsible investing for the denomination. As part of its normal procedure, MRTI uses correspondence, direct talks, proxy voting, shareholder resolutions and — as a last resort — divestment in order to persuade corporations to change their business practices.
MRTI was instructed by the 216th General Assembly (2004) to begin the process of phased, selective divestment from corporations doing business in Israel that contributes to violence, and is now engaging five multinational corporations as part of that process.
Some committee members expressed pleasure at how unified the group had been in doing its work. "This report brings the kind of unity that is good for the whole church," said the Rev. Jan Armstrong from Santa Barbara Presbytery.
There was some disagreement, however, on the impact of the proposal.
"This document, were it to be adopted, allows MRTI to continue its process of corporate engagement" with regard to Israel/Palestine, said the Rev. Mark Davidson of New Hope Presbytery. He was a member of the writing group that drafted the recommendation.
"It doesn't prevent that from happening," Davidson said. "We all understand that [ ] there could be a recommendation of divestment."
Others on the committee, however, felt the recommendation in fact stopped the process MRTI was charged with by the 216th GA.
Committee member Nabeel Saoud of San Fernando Presbytery countered.
"My understanding is that it did stop it," he said, referring to the phased, selective divestment process. "No action related to divestment will be done by this process."
The peacemaking and international issues committee also approved a recommendation that the GA give MRTI additional funds so it can add an additional meeting to its schedule in order to address its corporate engagement work related to Israel/Palestine.
Will Youmans and Noura Erakat
June 24, 2006
America’s largest Presbyterian church voted to continue policies of economic engagement in the Middle East. It affirmed its willingness to use its investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine. The vote came two years after it’s overwhelmingly support of a phased, selective divestment from Israel.
During its 217th General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to substitute the language of “divestment” for the precise concept of “corporate engagement.” Both concepts refer to the same process of moral responsible investment. They just refer to different stages. Corporate engagement is when the Church researches the companies, determines their compliance with its standards, and then pressures them to change. Divestment refers to the ultimate termination of investments from the targeted corporations if engagement fails to produce positive change.
Nothing in the amended resolution prevents the PC(USA) General Assembly from deciding to decide to divest. Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator of the General Assembly said “this new statement clarifies the engagement process, which has not yet led to any recommendation for divestment,” she told the General Assembly. She specified that divestment could still occur in 2008.
The substitution of divestment language for more procedural terms comes after two years of steady pressure from pro-Israeli lobby groups and a relative absence of support from pro-Palestinian groups outside of the church. The new resolution addresses tensions with the pro-Israeli Jewish community. Many argued divestment is anti-Semitic and harms Jewish-Christian relations.
The previous assembly’s language called for “phased, selective divestment from corporations that profit from the illegal occupation of Palestine.” The new resolution does not actually contradict this. The language is merely softer.
However, a barrage of headlines and sound-bites suggest the Presbyterians have abandoned divestment totally. Pro-Israeli activists claim this is a victory for them and a defeat for the divestment movement – mainstream media are readily accepting this as fact.
Manya Brachear’s story in the Chicago Tribune is titled, “Presbyterians won't divest over firms' ties to Israel” (6/22/06). Peter Smith wrote that “The Presbyterian Church (USA) yesterday rescinded its controversial policy of considering divestment” in the article, “Presbyterians shift investment focus off Israel.” That was in the Louisville Courier-Journal (6/22/06). Charles A. Radin's piece, “Presbyterians reverse stance on Israeli divestment” ran in the Boston Globe.
“Presbyterians end a previous policy that had singled out Israel,” by Richard Ostling, was featured in the Houston Chronicle.
Since 2004, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has engaged five multinational corporations as part of the process — Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup, ITT Industries, Motorola and United Technologies. During a press conference following the vote, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, said the Assembly’s action does not overturn the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004), indicating that the MRTI’s mission will continue.
Rev. Graf said the MRTI committee could still recommend “divestment only as a last resort.” Given that the target companies are unlikely to start caring about the Palestinians, the last resort is probably not too far away.
The 2.5 million-member Presbyterian Church U.S.A. has a long history of presence in Palestine and the Levant. Many within its own ranks witnessed first-hand the oppressive nature of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.
Palestinian Presbyterians and Christians played a role in defending the Church’s 2004 vote. Pro-Peace Jewish and interfaith groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, the American Friends Service Committee, Tikkun, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), became active on this in just the past few months. The New York City-based Jews Against the Occupation wrote in a letter to the PCUSA that divestment was “an important step forward for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine.”
This support paled in comparison to the backlash from pro-Israel groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. At one point, the Chicago City Council was going to deny the Church a building permit based on its divestment call. Churches were inundated with letters and phone calls against it. Pro-Israeli activists set up meetings and events, and helped prop up a Presbyterian anti-divestment group.
Now, they consider the removal of the term “divestment” a victory. “We are thrilled,” said David Elcott, director of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. He said the compromise was “courageous. ... This is a win-win situation not only for Jews and Christians. Even more, it is a victory for Israelis and Palestinians and those committed to end the suffering.”
Rabbi Jonathan Miller said “I am grateful to all people who stuck with us to make right this mistake.”
Their statements are pure spin on the outcome of the General Assembly’s amended resolution. The impact of the resolution, to explore divestment as a form of non-violent resistance to Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian Territories remains fully intact. They conflict with the statements made by top PCUSA officials at the press conference.
Casey Currie, a member of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA) did not think the simple change of language was the stunning victory Israel’s apologists claim it is. The PCUSA reaffirmed its commitment to morally responsible investing and engaging corporations that profit from oppression. As Currie said, “if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
There is no basis for claiming the Presbyterians surrendered their right to divest from companies profiting off of Israel’s military occupation. This vote did not let Israel and the companies helping it off the hook. Yet, the media have largely adapted the twisted version of events. It seems they all wish divestment would just go away.
Noura Erakat is a legal and grassroots organizer with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. She can be reached at legal@endtheoccupation.org. Will Youmans is the Washington, DC-based writer for the Arab-American News. He blogs at www.kabobfest.com.