WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
Posted on 07/05/2005 6:47:30 PM PDT by hipaatwo
Jewish and Christian activists were fuming on Tuesday after the United Church of Christ voted to adopt a resolution urging divestment from Israel, during its biennial general synod in Atlanta.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Dexter Van Zile, a vocal anti-divestment activist within the UCC, decried the fact that the language of the resolution was changed after a compromise had been struck to eschew divestment; and that, despite the ambiguous language involved, the resolution could be construed as a one-sided attack on Israel.
According to Peter Makari, the UCC's executive for the Middle East and Europe, the resolution includes language that condemns violence on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and includes options for both selective divestment and selective investment.
It "condemns violence in all its forms, including but not limited to the violence perpetuated in the Israel-Palestinian conflict; and acts of suicide bombings by Palestinians; and the use of force by Israelis in perpetuating occupation of Palestinian lands," Makari told The Jerusalem Post, reading from the unofficial text.
Further, the resolution calls upon UCC-affiliated ministries, and bodies to "use economic leverage including, but not limited to, advocating the reallocation of US foreign aid so that the militarization of the Middle East is constrained; making positive contributions to groups and partners committed to the nonviolent resolution of the conflict; challenging the practices of corporations that gain from the continuation of the conflict; and divesting from those companies that refuse to change their practices of gain from the perpetuation of violence, including the occupation."
Finally, he said, all 1.3 million UCC members "are urged to remain committed to interreligious dialogue and to participation with Jewish, Christian and Muslim partners to work for peace in Israel-Palestine."
Both Cooper and Van Zile said that a compromise had been reached on Tuesday morning in the meeting of the committee tasked with reviewing the resolution, whereby no mention of divestment would be made.
Dr. David Elcott of the American Jewish Committee was among those who addressed that committee, conveying the message that urging divestment from Israel would alienate US Jews and fail to contribute to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict.
Van Zile said it was Makari himself who reintroduced the language of divestment during discussions in the synod, specifically divestment targeting "only the occupation." "This morning, we had a victory," he said. "Now we've got a stalemate." "The UCC has effectively voted to punish American companies doing business with Israel," said Cooper.
"This is a script delivered in Durban, where the key goal was to... start the label[ing] of Israel as an apartheid state, with all the implications [and] to really marginalize and minimize anti-Semitism as an international concern," he continued.
"At their last synod [two years ago], the UCC was the only major Christian group that came out with a very powerful condemnation of anti-Semitism on both sides of the Atlantic. The passing of this resolution makes a mockery of the last one. While it may not be a conscious act of anti-Semitism, functionally, that's what it is."
Elcott, however, was less disappointed with the outcome. "We're not thrilled, but we're not unhappy," he said. "This is not a divestment resolution or an anti-Israel resolution by any stretch of the imagination."
Instead, Elcott, the AJC's US director of interreligious affairs, called the resolution "naive" and said that the use of "economic leverage" is threatening language, but isn't an attack on Israel.
"It's a naive stance, but it's not an illegitimate stance," he said. "Look, there are Israelis who would agree with them. Nothing in this resolution hasn't already been said by a good chunk of Israelis."
While the synod was expected to vote later Monday night on a resolution calling for Israel's security barrier in the West Bank to be torn down, and the congress's main concern was a vote in support of gay marriage, Van Zile urged against underestimating the importance of the divestment vote.
"Are they divesting from Sudan, which is engaged in genocide?" he asked. "No. Are they divesting from Saudi Arabia, which engages in religious and political oppression of its citizens? No. Are they divesting from Egypt, which mistreats its Coptic Christians? No. Only Israel.
"This is all part of a campaign to isolate Israel," Van Zile continued. "This is a religious document that is going to be used for political purposes. That's what this is about. All of the mitigating language is going to get lost in the shuffle. The Palestinians will now use this to portray Israel as the worst human rights abuser in the Middle East."
Makari insisted that the resolution "is a recognition that both sides are involved in [violence]." Furthermore, he said, the general synod of the UCC "has affirmed its relationship with the Jewish community in condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms and affirmed that God's covenant with the Jewish community remains inviolate."
Ping
They also voted to support gay marriage. This is no longer a Christian church. It is a liberal social club.
WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
|
|
|
|
At least the Evangelical community in America has them outnumbered by, oh, about 33 million, give or take a million.
A Stab In The Heart [Video]
IsraelNationalNews - A Video on Gush Katif [Video]
The Nature Of Bruce ~
Watching this divestment business with interest. This issue will be voted on in the 2006 Presbyterian (USA) General Assembly.
..........................................
Generally these sorts of Christians tend to be leftists, I am led to believe. Of course we Jews have our leftists too, and they would just as soon see Israel wiped off the map.
Ping.
An insignificant number of insignificant people.
I know. Doesn't it just want to make you puke?!
"We'th taken care of Isthrael tso now it ith time to party!"
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.
