Presbyterian Council's "Advice" Leaves Israel Divestment Plans Unaltered

LOUISVILLE, KY—The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Council (GAC) approved a four-page document offering its "comment and advice" to the 2006 General Assembly on the sensitive issue of divestment from Israel. If the 2006 Assembly follows the advice adopted here on April 28, it would leave intact the controversial 2004 Assembly decision to pursue "a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations doing business in Israel."

The denomination's Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI) Committee would remain free to recommend divestment from specific corporations in 2008 or beyond. (MRTI has indicated that it will make no divestment recommendations this year.) PCUSA policy toward the Middle East would stay in the hands of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), which had a strong hand in shaping the 2004 anti-Israel divestment action. The more than 20 overtures to rescind or modify that action would all be referred to MRTI, which would almost certainly consign them to a quick burial.

The only new action mandated in the GAC advice would be the creation of a seven-member working group to do the following:

Listen intentionally to Presbyterians and our Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends in the United States;

Develop guidance that honors each of their concerns as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) considers how to move forward on these sensitive issues;

Report its findings to the 218th General Assembly (2008), in conjunction with the General Assembly Council." Members of the working group would be appointed by Rick Ufford-Chase, moderator of the 2004 Assembly, and whoever is elected to the position at the 2006 Assembly. All members would be "Presbyterians who are committed both to our continuing accompaniment of Palestinian Christians who seek the end of the [Israeli] occupation [of the West Bank] and to the deepening of our historic and ever-living relationship with our Jewish and Muslim sisters and brothers" (emphasis in original).

"These issues [surrounding divestment] are quite complex, and we believe MRTI is doing good work," said Rick Ufford Chase, Moderator of the 2004 General Assembly of the PCUSA. The document did not describe what sort of "guidance" the working group might give. In any case, this "guidance" would not change denominational policies (such as divestment) because "the working group is not tasked with developing policy." Therefore, "any recommendations or comments the members may wish to make regarding policy should be referred to the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy." The GAC "advice" showed equal deference toward MRTI, which has been implementing a strategy of "progressive engagement" with five corporations directed toward possible eventual divestment. "The important work of the MRTI committee is proceeding deliberately," the GAC affirmed. It also described MRTI's work as "sensitive and careful." The council urged that any overture "that may affect the investment policy of the PC(USA) or that calls for boycott or divestment in s specific company, country or region" should be referred to MRTI.

Neither MRTI nor ACSWP can be regarded as a neutral party in the divestment debate. The former, obviously, has a direct interest as the body pursuing divestment. ACSWP is the author of the 2004 "advice and consent" memo that became the divestment action adopted by the General Assembly that year. Even earlier, ACSWP had been the source of a long series of resolutions that exhibited a consistent anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian tilt. In October 2004 ACSWP sponsored a sharply slanted study trip to the Middle East. The highlight of that trip was a friendly meeting with the terrorist group Hezbollah in South Lebanon, which stirred such an uproar that the ACSWP coordinator was fired.

A Compromise? The informal group that had drafted the GAC "advice" sought to portray it as a compromise opening up a middle ground on the divestment issue. Convened at an invitation from moderator Ufford-Chase at the council's February meeting, the self-volunteered group eventually included about a dozen GAC members. Several were persons affiliated with MRTI and ACSWP or otherwise on the record as strongly favoring divestment. A few, such as former General Assembly moderator Susan Andrews, had expressed conflicted feelings about divestment. But it did not appear that there were any strong, vocal opponents of divestment among Ufford-Chase's group.

Introducing a first draft of the "comment and advice" on April 26, Ufford-Chase told the council about an intense and respectful conversation held at a camp bringing together Christian, Jewish, and Muslim youth from the Middle East. The lesson that he drew from this experience was: "The closer we get to the deepest issues that divide us, the more we should lower our voices and draw closer together." He compared his proposal to the PUP Task Force as an attempt to take that approach emphasizing relationships above issues. "These issues are quite complex," the moderator acknowledged, "and we believe MRTI is doing good work and should coordinate" any actions related to divestment.

Representatives affiliated with MRTI and ACSWP were quick to endorse Ufford-Chase's proposal. An official "advice and counsel" memo from ACSWP stated: "The Committee [ACSWP] also appreciates the respect shown for the policy development process of the General Assembly [under ACSWP's control], and pledges its utmost effort to ensure wisdom, expertise and faithfulness in the study and analysis of Middle East issues. Thus we will welcome the contributions and insights of the Moderator's group to the broader Church and to the Committee's study and policy work."

ACSWP vice chair Sue Dickson stressed, "The Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy would be doing the actual policymaking. This task force [envisioned in the GAC advice] would be doing something different." She did not elaborate on what this "something different" might be or why it might make any difference.

Doubts Submerged There were a few murmurs of concern occasioned by the proposed "advice." GAC member Steven Benz, from East Tennessee Presbytery, questioned the prominent role assigned to ACSWP. Noting gently that ACSWP "is on the record on these issues," Benz told fellow National Ministries Division committee members that he wondered whether it was not a situation "like the fox guarding the henhouse." He hoped that ways might be found to include opponents of divestment in the new working group. "This proposal is not going to satisfy those folks if they feel they have not been invited to the table," Benz warned.

In the plenary session, GAC member Betty Jones from New York City Presbytery raised her concern about "the emotional impact that the word 'divestment' has" on Jewish friends. GAC member John Davison from Webster, NY, worried that the new working group might prolong the divestment dispute. "I don't like spending another two years arguing over this," Davison said.

But the council's final voice vote to adopt the "comment and advice" was unanimous. Benz, apparently satisfied after some minor amendments to the document, hailed it as "a work of the Holy Spirit."

Trying to Avoid a Debate The "comment" section of the GAC document portrayed the divestment issue as a matter of strained and conflicting relationships. On the one hand, it said, "Many Presbyterians are fully committed to the ongoing support of our Christian partners in the Middle East." Those partners "ask Presbyterians to hear and act on their grave concerns about the injustice of the [Israeli] occupation." On the other hand, "Many Presbyterians are extremely concerned about the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004)—especially regarding the specific language of 'divestment'-and its unintended meaning and consequence for our Jewish sisters and brothers."

The GAC comment warned that "most people—including many of our own members—who care deeply about these matters find it difficult, perhaps even impossible, to articulate the concerns and desires of one of our partners in this entrenched conflict without denying the validity of the concerns of the other." It urged the General Assembly "to keep in careful balance all the tensions we have noted" and avoid "an 'us vs. them' debate" on divestment. This desire for balance and conflict avoidance appeared to be basis for the requirement that working group members should be committed both to "the end of the occupation" and to "the deepening of our historic and ever-living relationship with our Jewish and Muslim sisters and brothers."

Yet this last statement betrayed a remarkably asymmetrical conception of the divestment issue. On one side it placed a very specific political demand—"the end of the occupation"—directed at a specific political actor, the state of Israel. On the other side it placed an ill-defined "relationship" with two very diverse and disproportionate groups of people spread all around the globe: 15 million Jews and 1.5 billion Muslims.

An Injustice to One Side This unbalanced view of the issue did notable injustice to the anti-divestment side of the argument. Opponents of divestment are motivated by more than a desire to preserve relationships with Jewish friends. They, too, have a specific policy agenda that they believe would better serve the cause of peace and justice.

Anti-divestment Presbyterians would like their denomination to stop treating Israel as a pariah state, as if it were the worst human rights violator and the principal threat to peace in the Middle East. They would like to see the PCUSA speak up about human rights violations suffered by Christians and others in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the region. They would ask the church to speak and act on its claimed commitment to Israel's security—with the same intensity that it evinces when expressing its commitment to Palestinian self-determination.

The GAC comment made only one brief allusion to the anti-divestment policy agenda—a mention of "the citizens of Israel who live under the constant threat of attack against civilians." This phrase did not identify who was mounting these attacks against Israeli civilians. The document did not hold Hamas and the Palestinian Authority responsible for the terrorism—as it clearly held Israel responsible for its occupation of the West Bank.

Indeed, "the state of Israel" was the only government named by the GAC. In several passages, moreover, it spoke as if "Israel and Palestine" were synonymous with "the Middle East." The focus on ten million Israelis and Palestinians was so narrow that the other 400 million persons in the region almost disappeared from sight.

Embracing a Non-Starter Approach The GAC's description of the assignment for the seven-member working group sounded as if it would mainly be concerned with assessing relationships with Jews, Muslims, and Palestinian Christians. There was no sense that the group would be asked to address the central questions raised in the divestment debate: Is Israel truly the worst human rights violator in the Middle East? Is it the principal threat to peace in the region? How would divestment affect the behavior of Israel and other political actors? These would seem to be policy judgments. And policy would remain in the hands of ACSWP, which has already implicitly formed its judgments on these questions.

In seeking to side-step the divestment debate, the GAC embraced a popular but impractical idea that has appeared in several overtures this year. The council "encourage[d] the Board of Pensions, the Presbyterian Foundation, and the MRTI committee to explore new or existing alternative investment possibilities that promote peace and strengthen the economies both in Israel and the occupied territories." It recognized, however, "the serious fiduciary responsibility" of the Board of Pensions and Foundation to earn the best returns to support Presbyterian retirees and mission programs, respectively.

These two church entities have been reluctant to accept directives that would compel them to risk their funds in order to advance a political agenda. It seems unlikely that they would choose to sink large sums of money into the volatile Middle East.

Rejecting an Alternative From a conversation in the National Ministries Division meeting, it appears that Ufford-Chase's informal group did discuss another possible compromise on the divestment issue. That was Overture 57, from the Presbytery of Eastern Virginia. That overture, too, would form a task force. But that's the point at which the similarities to the GAC advice end.

The differences are numerous: Overture 57's task force would study the entire Middle East, rather than just Israel and the Palestinians. It would address human rights abuses and threats to peace from all governments in the region—not just Israel. The task force would be comprised of representatives designated by all the presbyteries that had passed related overtures, rather than individuals appointed by two moderators. The task force would propose a new denominational policy, rather than leaving policy in the hands of ACSWP. And, most importantly, while the task force was developing that policy, MRTI's divestment process would be suspended.

It might seem that fair-minded GAC members seeking middle ground would welcome such a proposal. But the members of Ufford-Chase's group on the National Ministries Division Committee poured scorn on Overture 57. One of them alleged that it would create an excessively large task force that would be very expensive, because of the large number of presbyteries that would be eligible to send representatives. Yet if this were the main objection to the overture, it could easily be overcome with a small amendment providing that only a randomly selected portion of the presbyteries would send representatives.

The National Ministries member went on to weightier criticisms. He charged that the Overture 57 task force would be a collection of people with opposing views and little expertise. (He did not explain why people from presbyteries could be presumed to lack expertise while people appointed by moderators should be regarded as experts.) The National Ministries member saw little likelihood that such a group could reach any conclusion. Therefore he rejected the task force as "an unproductive exercise." Others in the meeting indicated their agreement with this critical analysis.

In other words, the objection was that Overture 57 would create a diverse, representative grassroots task force that could not be pre-programmed to reach a particular conclusion. This was a defect, in the view of the National Ministries members involved in crafting the GAC "comment and advice." Apparently, they were confident that their proposal did not suffer from the same defect.

PCUSA leadership is doing all they can to perpetuate their attack against Israel. Faced with mounting criticism from the membership for being so anti-semitic, the leadership now hopes to derail the membership opposition by creating a biased task force to harass Israel for another two years.

>>Who would want to have captive investment from people not wishing to have it? Good riddance, and let them find investment opportunities more to their liking.<<

I read this as applying to investment in U.S. companies that do business with Israel (which would make the effect significan, especially if copied by others) maybe I read it wrong.

Does not matter where the companies are located. There used to be "forced investments" in early USSR, where everyone had to [i.e. would better do] subscribe to state debt instruments, or else. Stalin's USSR is not a company one would wish to find oneself in, I'd say, and that's why - let them take their money and find other investment opportunities more to their liking. Investing [and hence dis-investing] practices ought to be free.

"This must make some Presbyterians wonder what they're doing, giving money to a stinking liberal activist organization. No offence. :^)"

No offense taken. Our church totally stopped sending money to the denomination, but getting other churches to realize that stopping the money flow would put a stop to the leftist antics of the salaried staff is a seemingly herculean effort.

>>Does not matter where the companies are located. There used to be "forced investments" in early USSR, where everyone had to [i.e. would better do] subscribe to state debt instruments, or else. Stalin's USSR is not a company one would wish to find oneself in, I'd say, and that's why - let them take their money and find other investment opportunities more to their liking. Investing [and hence dis-investing] practices ought to be free.<<

We can find a way to be critical of black lists without Stalin-like policies. This blacklist may already be illegal under current law without further action on our part.

>>Under U.S. antiboycott legislation enacted in 1978, U.S. firms are prohibited from responding to any request for information that is designed to determine compliance with the boycott, and are required to report receipt of any such request to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Antiboycott Compliance. U.S. antiboycott laws also prohibit U.S. firms from taking certain other actions, including refusal to do business with a blacklisted company.<<

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/1995/1995_National_Trade_Estimate/1995_National_Trade_Estimate_Report-Arab_League_(Boycott_of_Israel).html

The divestment by the PCUSA is more rhetorical than financial. The PCUSA's portfolio of stocks is but a pittance compared to the market valuations of these companies. This divestment action is their way of engaging in verbal war against Israel.

I don't know where an institution that has lost over 1/2 of it's members, and 75% of the trust funds given to them should be making policy for anyone. An Ex Presbyterian Elder.At the rate the Presbyterian church is losing members they will be able to hold their Annual Meetings, in a coat closet/ They have lost over 50 of their members in the last 5 years.

As long as it is their money, they ought to be able to do with it whatever they wish. Neither mine nor your advice is asked or needed, any more than I was accepting any outside input in my decision years ago to disinvest my funds from American Century Ultra and invest instead in Vanguard Index 500.

"Did the presbies ever divest from companies doing business with Saddam? Why not?"

Of course not. The leftists in the Presbyterian Church USA leadership would be scared to death to criticize a true human rights violator like Saddam. He would have handed them their heads on a platter.

So who do the Presbyterian leaders criticize? First, they are critical of the USA. Next, in line for criticism is Israel. Both countries are democracies allowing people to be critical without the fear of being put to death.

Our congregation sent a strongly worded letter to 'headquarters' requesting the divesture plan be recinded. I think that is the feeling of the majority of local congregations, unfortunately, the national leadership is populated by lefties from the 60s, similar to the Lutherans, Methodists, and other former main stream protestant groups.

>>As long as it is their money, they ought to be able to do with it whatever they wish. Neither mine nor your advice is asked or needed, any more than I was accepting any outside input in my decision years ago to disinvest my funds from American Century Ultra and invest instead in Vanguard Index 500.<<

I can't help but feel there is an element of anti-semitism in singling out Israel for a blacklist based on human rights. I have concerns about human rights in the occupied territories - but they don't let girls burn alive for not being dressed right like in Saudi Arabia or set off bombs trying to kill as many civilians as possible like the Palestinians and groups funded by Iran.

Israel has freedom of religion, unlike China and nearly all Islamic countries and is the only real democracy in the region ,so frankly I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for the boycott.

I don't favor new legislation but I would not mind seeing the administration speak negatively about the Presbyterian action as previous administrations have spoken negatively about previous boycotts of Israel. And if there is existing law that applies it should be enforced.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.