Google+
Panel says it has reached a dead end in efforts to get 3 companies to change practices in Israel
Written by Leslie Scanlon, Outlook national reporter   
Friday, 17 February 2012 01:00

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The 2012 General Assembly is being asked to consider a controversial recommendation that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) divest its holdings in three companies doing business in Israel – companies that a church committee on socially responsible investing has determined are engaged in “non-peaceful” activities.Karl Travis

          The General Assembly Mission Council voted Feb. 17 to approve a recommendation to the General Assembly for divestiture.

          The denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) committee is recommending that the PC(USA) divest its holdings in three companies – Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola Solutions.

MRTI, which is responsible for implementing the denomination’s policy for socially responsible investing, says products made by those companies are used in nonpeaceful ways in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that efforts to convince those companies to change their practices have failed.

Brian Ellison, a pastor from Kansas City who is chair of the MRTI committee, emphasized that the PC(USA) continues to invest in other companies involved in Israel, and that MRTI is not calling for any kind of broader boycott.

“We are not recommending a boycott of Israel,” Ellison said. “We are not recommending divestment of all companies that do business in Israel,” but only of three companies whose practices do not meet the criteria the General Assembly set up.

          The PC(USA)’s policies regarding Israel and divestment continue to be both closely watched and controversial – with interest groups weighing in both in support of the MRTI recommendation and in opposition. The question of Presbyterian policy toward Israel is likely to receive much scrutiny again at the 2012 General Assembly in Pittsburgh, and already the proposal is generating heat.

          “I think what’s proposed is ineffective and counterproductive,” and actually goes against the interest of peacemaking, said council member Kears Pollock of Pennsylvania, a retired corporate executive. Some of the products made by the three companies may actually have saved lives, Pollock said.

The divestment proposal “accuses almost every businessman sitting in our pews across this nation, it accuses every family, every organization” that holds investments, he said. Instead of that kind of judgment, Pollock said, “I’ll be judged by God.”

Council member Teresa Bryce Bazemore of Pennsylvania cautioned that “this issue has been painted with too broad a brush . . . We are continuing to invest in many companies that are involved in peaceful pursuits in Israel and Palestine.”

The 2006 General Assembly determined that the denomination’s investments in the region should only be used for peaceful pursuits, and the assembly has instructed MRTI to follow a process of corporate engagement to assess whether firms doing business in Israel-Palestine are meeting that criterion.

          Council member Clark Cowden, executive presbyter of the Presbytery of San Diego, asked Ellison during a presentation Feb. 16 what the consequences of divestiture might be for the PC(USA).

          “The most important thing we can do is be very clear about what we are doing, and not allow that message to be misrepresented,” Ellison responded. “It’s not a statement against Israel or for Palestine, or vice-versa . . . We’ve never sided with one side or the other. The witness here is to peace and nonviolence on both sides.”

In recommending divestment in the three companies, MRTI has raised concerns about:

-         Caterpillar, which sells equipment that Ellison said has been used to demolish Palestinian homes, knock down olive trees and construct homes in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

-         Hewlett Packard, which makes biometric scanners used at Israeli military checkpoints and technology used by the Israeli defense forces.

-         Motorola Solutions, which sells communications equipment used by the Israeli military.

Ellison outlined the efforts MRTI has made to communicate with each of these firms – including letters, conference calls, e-mails, face-to-face meetings and shareholder resolutions.

The PC(USA) has not endorsed a wholesale boycott of companies doing business in Israel, Ellison said. It continues to hold stock in other companies selling goods in that country, he said, including Microsoft, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, American Express and more. “We are not calling for a broad divestment,” Ellison said – and there are other companies with which the PC(USA) has made progress through the process of engagement and are not currently being considered for divestiture.

“It is always the last step to recommend divestment,” one taken when efforts to negotiate with, communicate with, and pressure the companies through shareholder resolutions have hit a dead end, Ellison said.

With divestment, “it means you don’t get to have that dialogue anymore,” Ellison said. “When you’re no longer a shareholder, you no longer have a place at that table . . . We recognize the seriousness of this step. But at the same time the step is not an unusual or abnormal step,” but part of the process the General Assembly has instructed MRTI to follow.

“We really have tried” to make progress with the three companies, Ellison said. “We have tried to have dialogue with these three companies and do not see the likelihood of a productive outcome.”

Council member Jean Demmler of Colorado supports the divestment recommendation.

“I agree, it’s a risky thing to do,” Demmler said. “We may cause more dissension. I’m sorry about that. I want us to be in accord.”

But Demmler said MRTI has followed a “good process,” and she’s convinced that the PC(USA) – a denomination committed to peacemaking – should not profit from the use being made of the products sold by these three firms.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments  

 
#5 Jo Lucas 2012-03-12 14:20
We recently returned from two weeks in Bethlehem. Christians in Palestine have called Christians around the world, in Kairos Palestine, to stand with them in peaceful resistance to the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Divesting from those companies involved in non-peaceful work in Israel and Palestine is one vehicle open to us. I am grateful for the thorough process that the MRTI uses to see that the money invested reflects the statements we make as a gathered body. Thank you for this article. Thank you MRTI for your work, and for taking these steps that can move the PCUSA toward a place where our words and our actions more closely match.
Quote
 
 
#4 John Morgan 2012-03-12 14:11
Thank you MRTI for doing the right thing. Thank you for your thoughtful and long deliberated work on this. You worked for eight years on this before approving. I know of nobody involved with this who is against the state of Israel existing. I don't think I know anyone who is against the state of Israel. I DO know many people who are against the policies of the modern state of Israel, that has been in existence for only 60+ years and was created and built through the process of ethnically cleansing a million people from the land of Palestine, hundreds of thousands of them Christians whose families had been there since the time of Jesus, a Palestinian Jew.

When I went there and met the Palestinian Christians there, my life was forever changed. Their numbers are declining rapidly and it isn't because of Muslims -- it IS because Israel's unethical and illegal occupation of the land that the Palestinian Christian's families have lived in for thousands of years, long before 1948.

Mr. Gregory, there is no place for mentioning the anti-s word here. It weakens the world's stance against those who really are in that category and it is extremely unfair to throw that word around. I know that you really came up just short of truly labeling MRTI and others with that, but you mentioned it, and it is dangerous, hurtful, and very wrongly invoked in your argument.

I know of many people are deeply committed to the plight of a just peace in Israel and Palestine. I know of many people who want a just peace where both Israeli's and Palestinians can live in secure borders that don't violate international law.

Thank you MRTI! Thank you PCUSA! I am proud to be a Presbyterian!!!
Quote
 
 
#3 p.w. gregory 2012-02-22 08:35
Down the years I have always wondered at times if the PCUSA is an anti-semitic organization. In the classical definition, discrimination against Jews for the fact of being Jewish, either as a religion or ethnic group. A very serious charge with serious implications. If one does make it, they better have their facts straight. Once said, you do not walk away.

I have no emperical to make such a claim. But one thing can be said about the PCUSA is that it does have a corporate or institutional "bias" against the political enity called Israel. To what extent such a stance makes one anti-semitic, is for others to debate. But in choosing Israel as nation/state to focus its ire, or companies that do business with them. While at the same time not targeting the German company Seimens who suppplies all the computer needs of the Palestinian authority on the West bank as well as Gaza. Or Nokia, who has the telcom contract with Fatah, or the Russian Lukoil who supplies most of the oil to the territories under other dummy names is a bit one-sided and biased. All listed on the NYSE, all in index mutual funds, all in the BOP investment portfolio, is again a bit of the craziness of the PCUSA.

But I had many people connected to the PCUSA make personal statements that could be taken to extreem. At Pittsburgh Seminary I had more than one professor in ethics say they wished Israel did not exist, or Jews should resettle in say, Alabama. The liberal intellegencia, both secular and religious, has always had a natural predisposition against the Jewish state, and on that score, we can see the outcomes of that on global policy of the PCUSA. The PCUSA has a long and well documented history on that score.

We could well be only weeks from an Israel strike against Iran, which would cause the entire region to go up like a stack of dry wood. And make the whole issue with the Palestinians child's play. What does the GA/PCUSA has to say, nothing. But I wonder just how many in Louisville in their hearts may wish to see Israel to put in its 'place' once and for all.
Quote
 
 
#2 James Babcock 2012-02-21 17:16
As a veteran of two wars I have witnessed war and it's devastation on all souls. I too long for peace, however one thing I have learned from those experiences is that vigilance and world awareness are vital to the delicate, precarious balance between peace and war for those of us who long for the elusive quality of peace.

Thus, a head in the sand approach will in no way guarantee freedom from a nuclear incinerator and those who hate us..... therefor, long story short, MARTI's actions are naive and frankly an insignificant means of endeavoring to register an effective appeal or influence a peaceful resolution to events in the tinder box Middle East. Perhaps a brief reflection on the tragic outcome of 9/11 is a practical reminder of the need for constant awareness and support of and for trustful allies..... Jim Babcock, Elder
Quote
 
 
#1 John Erthein 2012-02-18 18:40
I am disappointed but not surprised by this decision of the General Assembly Mission Council. There is, to my mind, an obsession (at the official levels of our denomination) with condemning Israel that can be very intimidating for those of us who disagree. I've heard Presbytery leaders and seminary professors, for example, bring up Israel to angrily complain about that state, even in unrelated conversations. Few people would speak up for the other perspective. For that reason I salute Kears Pollock for speaking up. From this article, he sounded like a lonely voice. But I think many of us in the denomination serving as Pastors and Ruling Elders support what he said.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh