Overture 08

On Divestment In Multinational Companies Doing Business in Israel—From the Presbytery of the James.

The Presbytery of the James respectfully overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve the following:

1. The 217th General Assembly (2006) reaffirms the 216th General Assembly (2004) for its concern for “a just resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,” its support of inspired initiatives that could advance the prospects of peace in the Middle East, and for moving the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to think deeply and speak publicly about what makes for peace. While the desire for peace is reaffirmed, some of the means for achieving peace advocated by the 216th General Assembly (2004) were not appropriate and, in light of changing circumstances, should not be implemented. They should be rescinded or, in some cases, significantly modified to advance more effectively and fairly the cause of peace.

2. The 217th General Assembly (2006) believes that Recommendation 7 of the alternate resolution that was approved in response to Item 12-01 by the 216th General Assembly (2004) (see Minutes, 2004, Part I, pp. 64-66) undermines the cause of peace because advocacy of phased selective divestment is punitive rather than redemptive, particularly in light of the rapidly changing circumstances in Israel. Accordingly, Recommendation 7 of the alternate resolution approved in response to Item 12-01 is hereby repealed, rescinded, and declared null and void.

3. The 217th General Assembly (2006) (a) acknowledges the enormous historical and political complexity and challenges of peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians; (b) recognizes and celebrates the fact that great strides towards peace have been made by the elected leaders of Israel and of the Palestinian Authority; (c) wishes to encourage all sides in this conflict to work together for peace and justice; and (d) seeks to nurture and support the peace process in a way that expresses confidence and concern for Israeli interests as well as Palestinian interests. Accordingly, the 217th General Assembly seeks to avoid advocating particular and specific solutions and instead advocates the rebuilding of trust and confidence on both sides.

4. The 217th General Assembly (2006) urges governing bodies, congregations, and other groups of Presbyterians to follow the example of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity and other groups that, in the face of difficult issues, have engaged in processes of intensive discernment through worship, community-building, study, and collaborative work.

Rationale

The Presbytery of the James subscribes to the goal of peacemaking reflected in the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004), but cannot accept or support the means advocated by Recommendation 7 of the alternate resolution that was approved in response to Item 12-01. We call on the great church of Jesus Christ to obey St. Paul’s exhortation “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). The plan of phased selective divestment fails to make for peace and mutual upbuilding. It fails to grapple fairly with historical complexity, is overbroad, produces pernicious side effects and unintended consequences, and functions more punitively than redemptively. While the goal of peace for Israel and Palestinian Authority is laudable, the means as exhibited by Recommendation 7 are one-sided, simplistic, and punitive.

As a matter of conscience, some of the congregations comprising the Presbytery of the James cannot support divestment as an economic sanction against American companies legally doing business in Israel and/or areas under the Palestinian Authority. The underlying purpose of divestment is to inflict economic hardship and harm on companies doing business in Israel or areas under the Palestinian Authority. There are some cases where such economic sanctions can be justified. In the present situation, however, where there is justice and injustice on both sides, it is unjustified and inappropriate.
The price of phased selective divestment falls disproportionately on one party to this conflict, namely Israel. Such remedies do not make for peace. The use of economic sanctions as a weapon in peacemaking puts the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in the position of a judge passing judgment and imposing a sentence rather than a partner for peace. To some rank and file members of the church, it appears arrogant, condescending, and punitive. Such actions, however well intentioned, do not make for peace.

Finally, the Presbytery of the James deeply regrets the fact that Recommendation 7 of the alternate resolution to Item 12-01, which was approved by the 216th General Assembly (2004), was not widely circulated or discussed in the larger church in advance of its approval. The issue of divestment of companies engaged in commerce in Israel was not widely discussed prior to the 216th General Assembly (2004) and caught many congregants off guard after they first read about it in The Wall Street Journal. It is the belief of some of the congregations within the Presbytery of the James that peacemaking resolutions presented at General Assemblies should “speak to” the church, not “speak on behalf” of the church, and certainly not to “take action on behalf” of the church without first building consensus. Had this peacemaking initiative been distributed before the 216th General Assembly (2004), Presbyterians could have discussed the issues among ourselves and with our ecumenical partners and Jewish friends in an atmosphere of trust and inquiry rather than after-the-fact in a defensive and highly charged atmosphere of suspicion and broken trust. The consequence of approving the divestment action without building consensus has been to seriously damage trust in the decision-making process and the connectional nature of the Presbyterian system of governance.