[WCUSP] Apartheid as our frame? Dems Repudiate Carter Book

[Tura Campanella Cook]

Dear Nancy Wrenn and all,
	There was so much negative and obfuscating press that it was easy to 
believe that the Presbyterians did back down.  But they did not and 
remain in a serious campaign toward divestment from US companies which 
profit from the Occupation.  Read below the actual statement and a 
report by Friends of Sabeel.  You might also inquire of the US Campaign 
to End the Israeli Occupation for more action on divestment, in 
particular Noura Erakat at legal at endtheoccupation.org .

In peace,
Tura


>     The actual report by the Peacemaking and International Issues 
> Committee No. 11 of the PCUSA 2006 General Assembly is herein given.
> You will note that although it involves a change in language, it is 
> not a change in basic policy which might, in the end, lead to 
> divestment from some US firms profiting from the Occupation of the 
> West Bank.  The Stated Clerk of the PCUSA has said that this action 
> does not in any way reverse the sense of the prior 2004 General 
> Assembly actions. See, also, the last line of the Committee's report 
> -- that ALL 26 overtures for rescinding the divestment decisions are 
> to be considered as answered by this action.  See the GA vote, 
> 438/28/1 .
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  PCUSA Decisions follows:
>  
>  
> Summary
> Item:  11-01
> Title
> Header:
> Content:  On Rescinding and Modifying Certain Actions of the 216th 
> General Assembly (2004) Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
> Footer:
> From: Presbytery of Mississippi
> Creation Date: 3/16/2006 1:33:59 PM
> AssemblyYear: 2006
> Type:  For Plenary Action
> Committee: Peacemaking and International Issues (11)
> Concurrences: 5
> Comments:  4
> Item URL: http://les-pcusa.org/Item.aspx?IID=90&
> Assembly Action
> Assembly Action The Assembly rejected two attempts to amend the 
> recommendation and then adopted the Committee’s recommendation to 
> answer this item with the following alternate resolution and with 
> comment (by a vote of 483/28/1).
> Committee Recommendation
> On Item 11-01, the Peacemaking and International Issues Committee 
> voted as follows:     Motion was carried by a Counted vote.
>         - Affirmative:53
>         - Negative:6
>         - Abstention:3
>
> The committee hereby recommends in response to this recommendation, 
> that the 217th General Assembly (2006) approve the following alternate 
> resolution and comment:
> Comment
>
> After careful consideration of the overtures brought before the 
> Assembly Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues of the 
> 217th General Assembly (2006), we offer the following recommendations.
>
> 1. We acknowledge that the actions of the 216th General Assembly 
> (2004) caused hurt and misunderstanding among many members of the 
> Jewish community and within our Presbyterian communion. We are grieved 
> by the pain that this has caused, accept responsibility for the flaws 
> in our process, and ask for a new season of mutual understanding and 
> dialogue.
>
> To these ends, we replace the instructions expressed in Item 12-01 
> (Minutes, 2004 Part I, pp. 64–66) Recommendation 7, which reads
>
> “7. Refers to Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee 
> (MRTI) with instructions to initiate a process of phased selective 
> divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in 
> accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make 
> appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for 
> action.”
>
> with the following:
>
> “7. To urge that financial investments of the Presbyterian Church 
> (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the 
> West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the 
> customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission 
> Responsibility Through Investments of our denomination is the proper 
> vehicle for achieving this goal.”
>
> 2. Direct Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) to ensure 
> that its strategies for engaging corporations with regard to Israeli 
> and Palestinian territories
>
> a. Reflect the application of fundamental principles of justice and 
> peace common to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that are appropriate 
> to the practical realities of Israeli and Palestinian societies.
>
> b. Reflect commitment to positive outcomes.
>
> c. Reflect awareness of potential impact upon the stability, future 
> viability, and prosperity of both the Israeli and Palestinian 
> economies.
>
> d. Identify affirmative investment opportunities as they pertain to 
> Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
>
> 3. We call upon the church:
>
> a. To work through peaceful means with American and Israeli Jewish, 
> American and Palestinian Muslim, and Palestinian Christian communities 
> and their affiliated organizations for an end to all violence and 
> terror against Palestinian and Israeli civilians.
>
> b. To work through peaceful means with American and Israeli Jewish, 
> American and Palestinian Muslim, and Palestinian Christian communities 
> and their affiliated organizations to end the occupation.
>
> c. To work through peaceful means with American and Israeli Jewish, 
> American and Palestinian Muslim, and Palestinian Christian communities 
> and their affiliated organizations towards the creation of a socially, 
> economically, geographically, and politically viable and secure 
> Palestinian state, alongside an equally viable and secure Israeli 
> state, both of which have a right to exist.
>
> d. To encourage and celebrate efforts by individual Presbyterians, 
> congregations, and judicatories of our church to communicate directly 
> and regularly with Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities, sponsor 
> programs likely to improve relations among Christians, Jews, and 
> Muslims, and engage in peacemaking in the Middle East.
>
> 4. The 217th General Assembly (2006) does not believe that the 
> Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) should tell a sovereign nation whether it 
> can protect its borders or handle matters of national defense. The 
> problem with the security wall, in 2004 and presently, is its 
> location. The 217th General Assembly (2006) supports fair criticism of 
> the security wall insofar as it illegally encroaches into the 
> Palestinian territory and fails to follow the legally recognized 
> borders of Israel since 1967 demarcated by the Green Line. To the 
> extent that the security barrier violates Palestinian land that was 
> not part of Israel prior to the 1967 war, the barrier should be 
> dismantled and relocated.
>
> 5. Recognizing that the situation on the ground in the 
> Israel-Palestine area is rapidly changing, the General Assembly 
> Council (GAC) is directed to carefully monitor ongoing developments of 
> the situation in the Middle East and to examine the polices of the 
> PC(USA) related to the Middle East, in order to make a comprehensive 
> report to the 218th General Assembly (2008).
>
> 6. Instructs the Stated Clerk to communicate Recommendations 1. 
> through 5. above to the United States’ president, vice president, 
> secretary of state, and members of Congress; to Israeli and 
> Palestinian leaders in the Middle East; to the membership of the 
> Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); to leadership of Christian, Jewish, and 
> Muslim faith bodies and denominations in the United States and the 
> Middle East with whom we are in communication.
>
> Comment: The Assembly received twenty-six overtures pertaining to the 
> Middle East. The recommendation is the result of the General 
> Assembly’s honest and sincere effort to address the issues and 
> concerns that appeared in the overtures in a comprehensive and concise 
> document.
> __.
Friends of  Sabeel—North America
Voice of the Palestinian Christians
 
In the interest of clarifying what actually happened on the divestment 
issue at the Presbyterian Assembly last week in Birmingham, we are 
sending you the following to counter inaccurate media reports that the 
Presbyterian Church reversed its selective divestment resolution of 
2004.  In fact, the church’s vote “affirmed its willingness to use its 
investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine.” The vote 
came two years after its overwhelmingly support of a phased, selective 
divestment”   from corporations profiting from  Israel’s military 
occupation.  The only thing that changed is some language in the 
resolution, language which does not change the process of corporate 
engagement on the issue of  Israel’s military occupation.  See more 
below.
 
The actual language of the decision is at the following link: 
http://les-pcusa.org/Item.aspx?IID=90&

GA06072  From the Presbyterian Church USA website:  
http://www.pcusa.org/ga217/newsandphotos/ga06072.htm
Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues
2004 GA's Israel/Palestine language replaced
 
By Toya Richards Hill
 
BIRMINGHAM, June 18 — By a vote of 53-6, the Committee on Peacemaking 
and International Issues sent a recommendation to the General Assembly 
that language approved by the 2004 General Assembly calling for phased, 
selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in  Israel 
be replaced.
 
The new language urges that "financial investments of the Presbyterian 
Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and 
the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that 
the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission 
Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) of our denomination is the 
proper vehicle for achieving this goal."
 
"We have affirmed the Presbyterian church’s historic commitment to 
corporate engagement," the Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator of the 
committee, said after business was completed. "Our intent is to engage 
corporations, not to divest."
 
MRTI monitors socially responsible investing for the denomination. As 
part of its normal procedure, MRTI uses correspondence, direct talks, 
proxy voting, shareholder resolutions and — as a last resort — 
divestment in order to persuade corporations to change their business 
practices.
 
MRTI was instructed by the 216th General Assembly (2004) to begin the 
process of phased, selective divestment from corporations doing 
business in  Israel that contributes to violence, and is now engaging 
five multinational corporations as part of that process.
 
Some committee members expressed pleasure at how unified the group had 
been in doing its work. "This report brings the kind of unity that is 
good for the whole church," said the Rev. Jan Armstrong from Santa 
Barbara Presbytery.
 
There was some disagreement, however, on the impact of the proposal.
 
"This document, were it to be adopted, allows MRTI to continue its 
process of corporate engagement" with regard to Israel/Palestine, said 
the Rev. Mark Davidson of New Hope Presbytery. He was a member of the 
writing group that drafted the recommendation.
 
"It doesn't prevent that from happening," Davidson said. "We all 
understand that [   ] there could be a recommendation of divestment."
 
Others on the committee, however, felt the recommendation in fact 
stopped the process MRTI was charged with by the 216th GA.
 
Committee member Nabeel Saoud of San Fernando Presbytery countered.
 
"My understanding is that it did stop it," he said, referring to the 
phased, selective divestment process. "No action related to divestment 
will be done by this process."
 
The peacemaking and international issues committee also approved a 
recommendation that the GA give MRTI additional funds so it can add an 
additional meeting to its schedule in order to address its corporate 
engagement work related to Israel/Palestine.
 
 
Largest Presbyterian Church Votes to Invest in Mid East Peace
 
Will Youmans and Noura Erakat
June 24, 2006
 
America’s largest Presbyterian church voted to continue policies of 
economic engagement in the Middle East.  It affirmed its willingness to 
use its investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine.  
The vote came two years after it’s overwhelmingly support of a phased, 
selective divestment from  Israel.
 
During its 217th General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted 
to substitute the language of “divestment” for the precise concept of 
“corporate engagement.” Both concepts refer to the same process of 
moral responsible investment. They just refer to different stages.  
Corporate engagement is when the Church researches the companies, 
determines their compliance with its standards, and then pressures them 
to change.  Divestment refers to the ultimate termination of 
investments from the targeted corporations if engagement fails to 
produce positive change.
 
Nothing in the amended resolution prevents the PC(USA) General Assembly 
from deciding to decide to divest. Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator of the 
General Assembly said “this new statement clarifies the engagement 
process, which has not yet led to any recommendation for divestment,” 
she told the General Assembly. She specified that divestment could 
still occur in 2008.
 
The substitution of divestment language for more procedural terms comes 
after two years of steady pressure from pro-Israeli lobby groups and a 
relative absence of support from pro-Palestinian groups outside of the 
church. The new resolution addresses tensions with the pro-Israeli 
Jewish community.  Many argued divestment is anti-Semitic and harms 
Jewish-Christian relations. 
 
The previous assembly’s language called for “phased, selective 
divestment from corporations that profit from the illegal occupation of 
Palestine.” The new resolution does not actually contradict this.  The 
language is merely softer.
 
However, a barrage of headlines and sound-bites suggest the 
Presbyterians have abandoned divestment totally.  Pro-Israeli activists 
claim this is a victory for them and a defeat for the divestment 
movement – mainstream media are readily accepting this as fact.
 
Manya  Brachear’s story in the Chicago Tribune is titled, 
“Presbyterians won't divest over firms' ties to  Israel” (6/22/06).  
Peter Smith wrote that “The Presbyterian Church (USA) yesterday 
rescinded its controversial policy of considering divestment” in the 
article, “Presbyterians shift investment focus off  Israel.” That was 
in the Louisville Courier-Journal  (6/22/06).  Charles A. Radin's 
piece, “Presbyterians reverse stance on Israeli divestment” ran in the 
Boston Globe.
“Presbyterians end a previous policy that had singled out  Israel,” by 
Richard Ostling, was featured in the Houston Chronicle.
 
Since 2004, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee of 
the Presbyterian Church (USA) has engaged five multinational 
corporations as part of the process — Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup, ITT 
Industries, Motorola and United Technologies. During a press conference 
following the vote, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, said the 
Assembly’s action does not overturn the actions of the 216th General 
Assembly (2004), indicating that the MRTI’s mission will continue. 
 
Rev. Graf said the MRTI committee could still recommend “divestment 
only as a last resort.”  Given that the target companies are unlikely 
to start caring about the Palestinians, the last resort is probably not 
too far away.
 
The 2.5 million-member Presbyterian Church  U.S.A. has a long history 
of presence in  Palestine and the  Levant. Many within its own ranks 
witnessed first-hand the oppressive nature of  Israel’s policies 
towards the Palestinians.  
 
Palestinian Presbyterians and Christians played a role in defending the 
Church’s 2004 vote.  Pro-Peace Jewish and interfaith groups, including 
Jewish Voice for Peace, the American Friends Service Committee, Tikkun, 
the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and the Israel/Palestine 
Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), became active on this 
in just the past few months.  The New York City-based Jews Against the 
Occupation wrote in a letter to the PCUSA that divestment was “an 
important step forward for peace and justice in Israel and  Palestine.”
 
This support paled in comparison to the backlash from pro-Israel groups 
such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.   
At one point, the Chicago City Council was going to deny the Church a 
building permit based on its divestment call.  Churches were inundated 
with letters and phone calls against it.  Pro-Israeli activists set up 
meetings and events, and helped prop up a Presbyterian anti-divestment 
group. 
 
Now, they consider the removal of the term “divestment” a victory.   
“We are thrilled,” said David Elcott, director of inter-religious 
affairs for the American Jewish Committee. He said the compromise was 
“courageous. ... This is a win-win situation not only for Jews and 
Christians. Even more, it is a victory for Israelis and Palestinians 
and those committed to end the suffering.”
Rabbi Jonathan Miller said “I am grateful to all people who stuck with 
us to make right this mistake.”
 
Their statements are pure spin on the outcome of the General Assembly’s 
amended resolution. The impact of the resolution, to explore divestment 
as a form of non-violent resistance to  Israel’s Occupation of 
Palestinian Territories remains fully intact.  They conflict with the 
statements made by top PCUSA officials at the press conference.
 
Casey Currie, a member of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the 
Presbyterian Church (USA) did not think the simple change of language 
was the stunning victory  Israel’s apologists claim it is.   The PCUSA 
reaffirmed its commitment to morally responsible investing and engaging 
corporations that profit from oppression.  As Currie said, “if it 
quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
 
There is no basis for claiming the Presbyterians surrendered their 
right to divest from companies profiting off of Israel’s military 
occupation.  This vote did not let Israel and the companies helping it 
off the hook.   Yet, the media have largely adapted the twisted version 
of events.  It seems they all wish divestment would just go away.
 
Noura Erakat is a legal and grassroots organizer with the US Campaign 
to End the Israeli Occupation.  She can be reached at 
legal at endtheoccupation.org.   Will Youmans is the Washington, DC-based 
writer for the Arab-American News. He blogs at www.kabobfest.com.
 

On Oct 26, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Ncwrenn at aol.com wrote:

>
> Does anyone know whether there is a serious disinvestment campaign 
> going on anywhere in the U.S.?  I understand the Presbyterians pulled 
> out.
> Nancy Wrenn, Boston 
> WILPF_______________________________________________
> Wcusp mailing list
> Wcusp at wilpf.org
> http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/wcusp_wilpf.org
> To post a message to all the list members, send email to 
> Wcusp at wilpf.org.
> To unsubscribe send a message to Wcusp-leave at wilpf.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 24104 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20061027/bde237f1/attachment-0001.bin