In Close Vote, Presbyterian Church Rejects Divesting in Firms That Aid Israeli Occupation

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A deeply divided Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Thursday became the latest American church to shy away from divesting in companies that supply equipment to Israel to enforce its control in the occupied territories, after a passionate debate that stretched late into the evening and a vote that was nearly a tie.

The decision not to divest, the culmination of an eight-year process, was watched intensely by Christians, Jews and Palestinians in the United States and in the Middle East. It is likely to bring a sigh of relief to Jewish groups in Israel and the United States that lobbied Presbyterians against divestment, and to dismay the international movement known as B.D.S. — Boycott, Divest and Sanctions — which advocates using economic leverage to pressure Israel to return occupied land to the Palestinians.

By a vote of 333 to 331, with two abstentions, the church’s General Assembly voted at its biennial meeting in Pittsburgh to toss out the divestment measure and replace it with a resolution to encourage “positive investment” in the occupied territories. The results were so close that, when posted electronically in front of the convention, they evoked a collective gasp. After two and a half hours of passionate debate, the replacement resolution to invest in the territories passed more easily, 369 to 290, with eight abstentions.

Presbyterians in favor of divestment said that their church could not in good conscience hold stock in companies that they said perpetuate an unjust occupation and undermine the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But opponents said that divestment would unfairly vilify Israel, and accomplish little but further polarization."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/us/presbyterian-church-wont-divest-in-firms-aiding-occupation.html

[oberliner]

1. Why do you think it went down?

What is the next move for the movement?

[Ken Burch]

3. fear of being falsely accused of antisemitism, most likely.

There was never any excuse for Caterpillar to keep selling its equipment to the Israeli government once it became clear that that equipment was being used to destroy Palestinian homes(a tactic that is not only immoral, but totally ineffective at stopping "terrorism&quot .

Now that the Presbyterian Church has voted not to divest, it has stripped itself of any ability to call for peace and justice and any ability or right to work against the Occupation. You have no moral authority to call for the end of Occupation as long as you continue to invest in companies that profit from it.

[oberliner]

5. They were accused of that already for taking up the motion

If that fear was their concern, why bring up the issue in the first place?

I don't think that theory holds water.

[Ken Burch]

6. it got brought up in the first place because the Presbyterian Church is a democratic denomination

(in fact, their system of governance-from-below is my personal model for a socialist society, if we were ever to set one up).

It was brought up because there was a large group of people of conscience within the church that sincerely wanted it brought up(the same reason that acceptance of openly LGBT people within the church has been brought up for debate even when it wasn't sure that the votes to approve that were there).

Fear of being called bigots narrowly carried the day.

You'd have to admit, I think, that there's no way that that denomination can still speak out against the Occupation will maintaining investments in corporations that profit from it. Investment always equates to endorsement.

[oberliner]

17. That speaks very poorly to the organization

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

If "fear of being called bigots" is enough for a person, and indeed an entire organization, to go against one's truly held beliefs then that is pretty darn cowardly. If you really believe in something, and it means something to you, it does not seem like being called a bigot ought to be enough of a deterrent. The commitment to this idea could not then have been particularly strong in the first place if this is indeed the reason for the result of the final vote.

[King_David]

9. Yea that theory is completely without merit nt

[shira]

2. Shameless rightwing BDS hatemongering idiots....

Not giving a rat's ass about supporting Palestinians. Just protesting against the Joooz.

Reminds me of another recent BDS fail:

Asking around revealed not one “pro-Palestinian” supporter in the demonstration who had supported the Palestinian Ashtar company by watching Richard II -- but they turned out to express hatred for Habima and Israel.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1260/desperate_anti_israel_boycotters_at_it_again_in_the_uk_remind_yo#comment-541913940

[Ken Burch]

4. Bullshit.

It's never been about "protesting against 'the Joooz''(and nobody among pro-Palestinian people or even pro-peace and justice people thinks of Israel as "the Joooz", or SPELLS the word "Jews" that way even in their minds so please stop repeating that bad-spelling-as-smear tactic, ok?).

Stop making false accusations of bigotry against people you know damn well aren't bigots. Wanting the Occupation to end does not equate to antisemitism. The Occupation doesn't protect Jewish people from anything, and it isn't good for Israel. It does nothing for security and needlessly antagonizes rank-and-file Palestinians, driving them towards violent groups when there is a real need to make a case that those rank-and-file Palestinians would actually have something to gain by choosing another path.

After ten years of unrelenting collective punishment, shira, isn't it time to admit that stick-but-no-carrot is a failed policy in the West Bank?

[holdencaufield]

8. Why Bullshite?

There are more than two dozen armed conflicts currently happening in the world -- in terms of human casualties, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the least of them. There are dozens military / civilian occupations around the world -- many involving China -- impacting populations and land areas many times that of the West Bank.

However, when the BDS/Presbyterian Church decided to single out an "injustice" for them to address economically, did they pick the one disaffecting a huge indigenous population -- like Tibet -- or the conflict with high numbers of civilian deaths like the massacres of Pygmy peoples in the Congo? Did they choose ongoing actual genocides like Dafur or the persecution of Falun Gong followers in China?

No, for reasons on which we can only speculate, they chose the only conflict in the world involving Jews and they chose only to fault the Jews in the conflict for its continuation. You can say it's bullshite if you want, but what other explanation is there for these groups to fixate ONLY on Jews to the exclusion of all else?

[King_David]

11. Yes ,I agree, nt

[Ken Burch]

12. They faulted the Israeli government, not "The Jews"

The Israeli government is not, and has never been, synonymous with "The Jews" and does not represent every Jewish person in the world. They'd have said the same thing if it were a government of Texas Baptists or English athiests, if that government was treating Palestinians as this government has.

And larger and larger numbers of Jewish people and groups in the Diaspora and even in Israel have questioned the hardline, so it's arrogant for you to imply that no one but gentiles raise these issues, and that those gentiles who do so do not do so out of malicious or bigoted intent. Nothing that anyone internationally questions in Israeli security policy is truly necessary for Israel's survival OR security, and little of what is questioned is actually effective.

And it's simply not true to say that nobody has spoken out on any other conflict. There is a massive Tibet solidarity community(many of whom also support Palestinian self-determination). There are people all over the world who have spoken out on the issues you mentioned AND the I/P dispute.

Rather than constantly repeating what you know perfectly well are false accusations of antisemitism, why don't you join those who are calling for an end to the Occupation and the illegal settlement project(or, at least, for an end to the Israeli insistence on deliberately immiserating innocent Palestinian civilians-and yes, there are MANY such people-through restriction of access to water and through the destruction of alternative energy facilities that international NGO's have tried to construct for Palestinians). Why don't call for the Israeli government to give the people of Palestine some actual breathing space?

You know that collective punishment hasn't achieved anything...you know that deliberately keeping conditions difficult for Palestinians hasn't achieved anything...why not admit that and call for all of that to end? If any of those tactics could ever have stopped "terrorism" you know perfectly well that they'd have done so BY NOW-that it isn't a question of just keeping the pressure on for a little bit longer and then they'll break.

[shaayecanaan]

16. So the decision to divest from South Africa in 1977 means that they hate white people?

After all, a lot more people have died in the Congo than were killed by the apartheid regime in South Africa.

About 7,000 people were killed by the apartheid regime, which is less than the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Israel or Jewish militias since 1948.

[shira]

13. APN to Presbyterian Church (USA): Don't support Israel-related divestment

Washington, DC - Americans for Peace Now (APN) urges the plenary of the Presbyterian Church (USA) not to adopt the resolution approved yesterday by its Middle East and Peacemaking Issues Committee (Committee 15) to divest from companies, over Israel's use of their products in ways that allegedly violate Palestinian human rights.

more...
http://peacenow.org/entries/press_release_apn_to_presbyterian_church_usa_dont_support_israel-related_divestment#.T_0Pde1As20

Looks like APN is against the Presyterian Church's attempt at collective punishment vs. Israel.

Are you?

==========

And this divestment campaign by the church is antisemitic to the core.

They place ALL the blame on Israel, as though the Palestinians are passive victims, no terror attacks, what Israel does is not self-defense at all.



It's the same, centuries old church hatred of Jews. Here's a recent hateful, anti-Jewish article from a similar church...
http://eappi.org/en/news/ea-reports/r.html?tx_ttnews%5Bswords%5D=talmud&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=11369&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=4837&cHash=00c76ed78f643261c1219f0f600554fe

Similar to Sabeel as well. Those ass hats are still blaming the Jews for killing Jesus.

[King_David]

10. I agree nt

[Ken Burch]

7. "positive investment" is a meaningless concept

It's just as morally insulting as the term "constructive engagement" that was used by those who wanted the U.S. to maintain continued investment in apartheid South Africa.

There's no way to invest at this point in a way that helps Palestinians at all-especially since the Israeli government is still using immiseration(including the completely unjustified destruction of harmless alternative energy facilities and the interruption of the water supply to Palestinian communities)as a tactic of war.

[shira]

14. You should join the one-staters for full RoR in the BDS movement, Ken. The BDS'ers also say...

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 02:17 AM - Edit history (1)

...Israel is a racist apartheid state.

[Ken Burch]

15. No I shouldn't.

Divesting from companies that profit from the Occupation does NOT equate to supporting a single-state solution.

[shira]

18. Americans for Peace Now and J-Street disagree with you, as they think this latest divestment push...

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2012, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

....amounts to bigotry:

“We believe that divestment campaigns such as this are misguided and counterproductive," said APN President and CEO Debra DeLee. “By targeting Israel rather than the occupation, this divestment campaign creates the impression that PC (USA) is making common cause with historically virulently anti-Israel organizations and individuals, who are often not interested in Israeli security concerns or Palestinian behavior but in Israel’s destruction. Divestment campaigns such as this therefore raise 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."

J Street President Jeremy Ben Ami called the possible divestment an "unproductive path."

"I would say to the Church’s leaders as they again consider joining forces with the BDS Movement, that the Movement’s rhetoric and tactics are not only a distraction, but a genuine threat to conflict resolution. Even the limited divestment approach under consideration by PCUSA falls under the rubric of larger BDS efforts to place blame entirely on one side of the conflict. Such an approach encourages not reconciliation, but polarization. Further, too many in and around the BDS movement refuse to acknowledge either the legitimacy of Israel or the right of the Jewish people as well as the Palestinian people to a state," he said.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/03/3099841/presbyterian-committee-approves-israel-divestment

So APN and J-Street are calling shenanigans on this BDS vote by the PC that you're all in favor of.