Current controversies regarding the Presbyterian Church (USA)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The General Advisory Council of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopted a policy of divestment from certain corporations operating in Israel beginning in 2002, as a means of influencing the government of Israel. In many ways this has been a result of the church's stance against the current state of Israel. This policy has been rather controversial both within and outside of the denomination, even resulting in charges of anti-Semitism. The policy was revised in 2006 in response to criticism.

1 Early communications with Israel
2 2004 General Assembly resolution
3 Criticism of resolution
4 General Advisory Council response to criticism
5 Change to policy in 2006
6 Reaction to change in policies
7 References

[edit] Early communications with Israel

In March 2002, General Assembly Clerk Clifton Kilpatrick sent a letter to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon stating in part, "While we do not condone the acts of violence by certain Palestinian extremists, we are appalled that Israel, in response, has continued to punish the entire Palestinian population and its leaders who have been your government's partners in the peace process." ^[1]

[edit] 2004 General Assembly resolution

In June of 2004, the PC USA General Assembly met in Richmond, Virginia and adopted by a vote of 431-62 a resolution that called on the church's committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment "to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." The resolution also said "the occupation . . . has proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict." ^[2] The church statement at the time noted that "divestment is one of the strategies that U.S. churches used in the 1970s and 80s in a successful campaign to end apartheid in South Africa." A second resolution passed "Calling for an End to the Construction of a Wall by the State of Israel." ^[3] The resolution opposed to the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, regardless of its location, and opposed the United States government making monetary contribution to the construction. The General Assembly also adopted policies rejecting Christian Zionism and allowing the continued funding of conversionary activities aimed at Jews.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Criticism of resolution

Together, the resolutions caused dissent within the church and some friction with the Jewish community. Leaders of several American Jewish groups communicated to the church their concerns about the use of economic leverages that apply specifically to companies operating in Israel. ^[4] A handful of critics of the divestment policy accused church leaders of anti-Semitism. ^[5]^[6] ^[7]

[edit] General Advisory Council response to criticism

In response, the PCUSA General Advisory Council claimed that the PCUSA has "approved numerous resolutions on Israel and Palestine, repeatedly affirming, clearly and unequivocally, Israelis right to exist within permanent, recognized, and 'secure' borders."^[3] However, prior to 1974, the church had only called for peace in the region that secured the rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The first recognition of Israel's right to exist occurred in 1974. Of concern to many was support by PCUSA officials who, together with other members of the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches, became increasingly vocal supporters of a Palestinian "right of return," something pro-Israel advocates deem incompatible with a viable Jewish state. ^[8] ^[9] ^[10]and overtures endorsing a Palestinian right of return passed the PCUSA General Advisory Council in 2003 and 2004. ^[11]^[12] A former Moderator of the General Assembly, Fahed Abu-Akel has long endorsed a Palestinian "right of return."^[13]

[edit] Change to policy in 2006

In June 2006, The Presbyterian Church (USA) 217th General Assembly overwhelmingly (483-28) replaced language adopted in 2004 that focused the "phased, selective divestment" specifically on companies working in Israel. Under the 2006 policy, church holdings in the region (now defined to include Palestinian territories and not just Israel) are subject to the church's customary corporate engagement practices. Although those practices do not rule out the sale of stock, the new resolution requires the consideration of "practical realities," a "commitment to positive outcomes" and an awareness of the potential impact of strategies on "both the Israeli and Palestinian economies." The 2006 policy also recognized Israel’s right to defend its pre-1967 boundaries with a security barrier and lamented the pain caused by the 2004 actions, which it called flawed. ^[14]^[15]

It was uncertain whether the use of the term 'customary practices' rendered moot the 2004 guidelines developed by the PCUSA's Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) committee to identify which companies in its portfolio would be placed on the path to divestment.^[16] The 2004 guidelines added an item, not found in the 2004 overture, related to violence against Israelis. The guidelines, however, were significantly more focused than the church's 'customary' practice. Business with franchises in Jerusalem's old city could theoretically come under the MRTI process because the church considers the old city to be occupied territory and said any company with facilities in the occupied territories are potential targets. Similarly, companies working on Israel's security barrier, even where it falls along the 1967 Green Line could subject a company to the 2004 MRTI process, ostensibly mooted by the 2006 resolution. ^[17]

[edit] Reaction to change in policies

After the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly in Birmingham, both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups praised the resolution. Pro-Israel groups, who had written General Assembly commissioners to express their concerns about a corporate engagement/divestment strategy focused on Israel, ^[18] praised the new resolution, saying that it reflected the church stepping back from a policy that singled out companies working in Israel. ^[19] Pro-Palestinian groups said that the church maintained the opportunity to engage and potentially divest from companies that support the Israeli occupation, because such support would be considered inappropriate according to the customary MRTI process.