COMMENTARY: The Death of Divestment

c. 2006 Religion News Service (UNDATED) Two years ago, the Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted a resolution instructing its investments committee “to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” That resolution blindsided many Presbyterians, and set off a firestorm of bitter criticism that culminated at the church’s recent General Assembly […]

c. 2006 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Two years ago, the Presbyterian Church (USA) adopted a resolution instructing its investments committee “to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” That resolution blindsided many Presbyterians, and set off a firestorm of bitter criticism that culminated at the church’s recent General Assembly meeting in Birmingham, Ala.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who attends a Presbyterian church outside Washington, warned delegates that divestment placed their church “clearly on the side of theocratic, totalitarian, anti-Semitic, genocidal beliefs.”


The divestment scheme angered many Jews as well. Because the resolution singled out only one country by name _ Israel _ it was perceived as a one-sided attempt at financial coercion. The 2004 resolution also accused the Jewish state of being at the “root of the evil acts” carried out by both Israelis and Palestinians.

If divestment actually took place, the Presbyterians would have deservedly forfeited any authentic peacemaking role in the Middle East.

For the past two years, I remained confident the proverbial men and women in the pews would not be bullied by the small group of Presbyterians who, in the name of peace, desired to use divestment and their church for the deplorable goal of punishing Israel.

I have been waiting for news that the church was also considering a divestment process involving two truly dangerous Middle East nations: Iran and Syria. That never happened; only Israel was specifically targeted for divestment.

Many rabbis and pastors who are colleagues and neighbors joined with like-minded church leaders and Jewish organizations in a broad-based effort to replace the odious divestment resolution.

This year, Woolsey and others were successful when the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted 483-28 to replace the call for divestment. The new language urges the church to “invest in only peaceful pursuits … (reflecting) the fundamental principles of justice and peace common to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.”

The Rev. James Young of Virginia Beach, Va., declared: “Divestment has been stopped … the probability that they (supporters of divestment) will recommend any sort of divestment is extremely remote.”


The new resolution also has a repentant tone: “We acknowledge the (2004) actions 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.”

An unsuccessful amendment attempted to shift blame for the controversy from the church’s “actions” to the “reportage” surrounding divestment. It’s an old nasty trick to scapegoat the media for one’s own problems. Fortunately, the amendment was defeated.

The adopted resolution also recognized that Presbyterians cannot “tell a sovereign nation whether it can protect its borders or handle matters of national defense.” It urged that the Israeli “security wall” be “dismantled and relocated” if it is constructed in areas not part of Israel prior to the 1967 Six Day War. And the resolution called for two states, one Israeli and the other Palestinian, “both of which have a right to exist.”

During the past 40 years, Presbyterians have suffered a 45 precent decline in membership; it now numbers about 2.3 million members, down from 4.2 million in 1965. Surely, those Presbyterians who supported divestment have more important things to do than causing “hurt and misunderstanding” among Jews, engaging in a “flawed” process and creating “pain” for so many people.

But make no mistake, the wounds within the American Jewish community and the “Presbyterian communion” are deep. By admitting its errors, the church has commenced a necessary process, but it cannot afford another resolution that polarizes its membership and antagonizes the Jewish community.

Now that the divisive divestment plan has been replaced, hopefully the Presbyterians will indeed begin what they say they want: a “new season of mutual understanding and dialogue.”


KRE/JL END RUDIN

(Rabbi Rudin, the American Jewish Committee’s senior interreligious adviser, is the author of the recently published book “The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right’s Plans for the Rest of Us.”)

Editors: To obtain a photo of Rabbi Rudin, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug. If searching by subject, designate “exact phrase” for best results.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!