In the past few days there have been two articles from the Presbyterian News Service regarding the PC (USA)’s stance and involvement in the Israel/Palestine debate. So the question is what, if any, is the correct move for the PC (USA) to make?
I highly recommend reading both PC (USA) News Service Articles: Resolution urges PC(USA) to invest in economic development in Palestine and MRTI won’t have any recommendations for GA on Israel/Palestine divestment issue
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm not opposed to divestment per se as a tool for institutions to register protest and try to effect change. However I'm also not convinced that, given the particular historical/political/religious factors at play in this situation, that this approach is helpful.
There are at least 2 overtures (one from my presbytery New Covenant) that ask GA to abandon the divestment approach in favor of a strategy of investing in companies that are engaged in activities that promote economic development and understanding in the region. It seems to me that is a much better approach and I hope one of these overtures passes.
I'm troubled by those who are seeking to slow down the divestment process. It just means that the PCUSA needs to work harder to help our Jewish brothers and sisters realize that this type of move is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC. If we're going to let that stop us from doing anything about the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, fear of reactions from the Jewish population - we will be held back from helping our Palestinian brothers and sisters; something that must be done.
Our presbytery has developed what I think someone at session said is one of about 20 overtures seeking to implemenent an investment rather than a divestment approach.
I teach in an Orthodox Jewish school which is Zionist in philosophy. (There are other Orthodox schools with a completely different take on Zionism, by the way.)
I have heard from many, many Jewish friends and colleagues, across the spectrum of Judaism from Reconstructionist to Orthodox, that in the Jewish community the divestment overture has set back Jewish-Christian relationships by decades.
I've been in my present job for five years and it is really only in the last one that I have even begun to understand the relationship of the Jewish people to the land and state of Israel.
I think that if we want to convery a Christian message of hope and peace, an attack on state sovereignty is probably not the way to go.
The fact that MRTI does not have a recommendation to make is, for me, evidence of the integrity of their process in engaging the selected corporations.
If our church's dialog with those corporations had led to clear information supporting a next step to divest, I'm sure they would be making that recommendation. In any event, the case for divesting has not been made to the people charged with making the recommendation.
If MRTI feels they need to continue to study the matter, I'd support that.
I agree with Quotidian Grace.
However, I would note, that had the Israeli's used Komatsu, I doubt that our good Presbyterian folks would've been at Komatsu headquarters or seeking to divest Komatsu stock.
It's not the bulldozer, it's the people using the bulldozer.
And Cat is there helping to rebuild New Orleans, Biloxi, Miss, and Alabama.
I, for one, won't support this issue.
Post a Comment