Winnipeg Free Press' Faith Page Considers Divesting Israel.
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Public Message Forum ]
Posted by Judith on 14:35:17 2005/10/16
Should churches pressure Israel?
Sat Oct 15 2005
JOHN LONGHURST
WHILE everyone has been watching to see what the Anglican Church would do
about blessing same-sex unions, few noticed that the church dealt with another
controversial issue this summer: whether or not to boycott companies that do
business in Israel. In June a council of the wo rldwide Anglican Communion voted
unanimously to urge its 38 member churches, including the Anglican Church of
Canada, to put pressure on companies linked to Israel's occupation of Palestinian
territories. This may include calling on Anglican churches to divest their money
from such businesses.
The Anglicans are the most recent mainline Protestant group to endorse a boycott
of companies as a way to end the conflict in the region. The United Church of
Christ also took similar action in June, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) did so
last year. Meanwhile, the United Methodists, the Episcopal Church and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are studying the issue.
One of the main inspirations for this divestment call is Palestinian theologian Naim
Ateek, founder of Sabeel, an ecumenical liberation theology centre for Palestinian
Christians. Ateek, who was inspired by the economic boycotts that helped end
apartheid in South Africa, says such an approach is necessary because statements
calling on various governments to pressure Israel to end the occupation have
yielded no results. "Nothing has ever happened," he says. "No government is
willing to put pressure on Israel." As a result, he says, churches will have to do it
themselves. "We are going to take a stand. If the governments are not going to act,
we are going to act."
The organization has produced a 15-page statement titled A Non-violent
Response to the Occupation: A Call for Morally Responsible Investment, that calls
on churches to "exert pressure on companies and corporations to divest from
business activities" that fund the settlements and the separation wall, maintain the
occupation, or support violence against civilians through products, services, or
facilities. If that has no effect, then the statement says that churches themselves
must divest their own funds from these companies.
Of all the groups calling for divestment, the Presbyterians are perhaps the most
influential -- the denomination has over $8 billion US in its portfolio. In August it
began to flex its economic muscles when it released a list of the first corporations
it intends to pressure. The companies include ITT Industries and United
Technologies, which supply communication equipment and helicopters to the
Israeli military; Caterpillar, whose equipment is used in Palestinian home
demolition and the building of settlements; and Motorola, which provides military
wireless communications and invests in Israeli cellphone firms, which are alleged
to be sidestepping licence requirements and undermining Palestinian businesses.
Opposition to divestment comes from a variety of sources, including within the
various churches themselves. Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological
Seminary, opposes the comparison of the call for divestment from Israel to that
against apartheid South Africa. The latter country, she says, was "deeply implicated
in evil," but the same cannot be said of "democratic Israel." Divestment, she says,
"is not a moral fit for this situation." Many members of the Jewish community are
also opposed to the divestment campaign. "The use of economic leverage doesn't
bring Israelis or Palestinians one bit closer to peace, and only poisons the well for
interfaith relations here," warns Ethan Felson, assistant executive director of the
U.S.-based Jewish Council for Public Affairs, adding that "if the occupation ends
under the present conditions, it's a suicide pact, as many terrorists want no Israel.
There must be commitment to stop the incitements, stop teaching children the
norms of violent hate."
For Rabbi Alan Green of Winnipeg's Shaarey Zedek synagogue, the call for
divestment brings to mind the spectre of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism,
along with the terrible memory of when the Nazis called for a boycott of Jewish
stores and businesses in Germany in the 1930s.
"With the Holocaust now a dim or non-existent memory for most of the world, it
has once again become socially and politically acceptable for the liberal Protestant
Church to revert to its centuries-old anti-Semitic form," he says. "Once again, it is
becoming fashionable to abandon the Jews to their enemies. In accordance with
contemporary reality, the code words have changed slightly. Now, instead of the
word 'Jew,' the churches substitute the word 'Israel.' But the message of hatred is
the same message of hatred."
But Vernon S. Broyles, associate for corporate witness for the Presbyterian Church,
says that his church's divestment decision "is not about the Jewish people. It is not
about the right of the state of Israel to a secure existence. It is not about ignoring
unconscionable acts of violence against innocent Israelis... Divestment is a specific
strategy to address specific, persistent behaviours by an occupying power against
a weaker population. It's about getting the attention of enough people on the
issues so that these behaviours will change."
Is divestment the right strategy? Or is it a serious misunderstanding of the issues
facing the state of Israel? One thing is certain: When it comes to getting attention,
nothing works better than adding money -- or the threat of withholding it -- to
the mix.
........
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Public Message Forum ]