Special
 The
Arab American National Museum
Immigrants in NJ
Freezing Charity
Survey:
Arab and Jewish Americans
Human Rights in
the US
|
No decision to divest
Thursday, October 20, 2005
By JESSICA GAITAN
of The Montclair
Times
Christians, Jews and Muslims met at Central Presbyterian Church in Montclair on
Sunday for an educational presentation on the past and present state of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The presentation was the second installment of a three-part series planned by
the Presbytery of Newark to help Presbyterians and others in the community
further their understanding of Middle-East issues, and of a process being
undertaken by the Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A (PCUSA).
The organization, which represents 11,100 Presbyterian congregations in the
United States, is investigating the possibility of divesting, or selling stocks,
of five companies, some of which are currently doing business with the State of
Israel. The church hopes this move will promote peace between Israelis and
Palestinians.
According to the PCUSA’s Web site, the 2004 General Assembly adopted a
resolution, called the “Resolution on Israel and Palestine: Initiating
Divestment and Ending Occupation.”
The resolution affirmed the church’s long-standing position against the Israeli
occupation of Palestinian lands, called for an end to violence on both sides and
called for the establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the
disputed territory.
The resolution instructed the church’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment
Committee (MRTI) to initiate a seven-step process of phased selective divestment
“of multinational corporations that profit from Israel’s occupation of the West
Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, or from violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians
against innocent civilians,” according to the PCUSA Web site.
This past August, MRTI released a list of five companies — Motorola, Citigroup,
Caterpillar, United Technologies, and ITT Industries — it has selected for
“progressive engagement.” This process includes contacting the companies,
identifying concerns, and trying to come to an agreement, according to documents
provided by the church.
“No decision has yet been made to divest from corporations in Israel,” said the
Rev. Laurie A. McNeill, pastor of Central Presbyterian Church. The only decision
made was to investigate the possibility, she said. McNeill characterized the
process as careful and deliberate, taking many months, even years, to complete,
with the decision to divest being a last resort.
The Sunday afternoon event began with what McNeill described as a kind of
“Rorschach” test: a survey of audience reactions to symbols associated with the
United States, Israel, Palestinians, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The
approximately 30 people attending were asked to write down their immediate
responses to an American flag, Israeli flag, Palestinian flag, Christian cross,
a copy of the Torah and a Muslim prayer rug.
Words and phrases written down in response to the American flag included
“pride,” “freedom,” “patriotism,” “my country, greatest to ever exist” to
“empire.”
“Bravery,” “strength,” “determination,” “security,” “oppression,” “conflict,”
and “refuge for Jews who have been persecuted” were some of the concepts
associated with the flag of the state of Israel.
Audience members used phrases like “revolution,” “conflict,” “a struggling
people,” “refugees” and “oppressed” reacting to the Palestinian flag.
The three religious symbols inspired similar associations of reverence, hope,
wisdom and devotion.
McNeill pointed out the diversity of thought and feelings displayed by people’s
answers, encouraged everyone to keep an open mind and be respectful of each
other, and then gave the floor over to the panelists.
The six speakers for the presentation represented a cross section of Jewish,
Muslim, Christian and secular academics and activists working in New Jersey and
with origins in both the Middle East and the United States.
While all the speakers expressed a desire for peace in the Middle East, there
was a wide disparity of views as to the sources of the conflict, possible
solutions and the actions being considered by the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
Lori Price Abrams, director of the Community Relations Committee of the United
Jewish Communities of MetroWest N.J., said the Jewish community had been taken
by surprise by the decision to consider divestment. However, Abrams said,
“What’s good about this is it brought us all into conversation” about issues
that weren’t being discussed before.
Abrams suggested that trying to find positive investing opportunities, rather
than divestment, would be a better approach for PCUSA. She said that the Israeli
political center “feels embattled” by the fact that divestment is being
considered only for companies with investments in Israel. Abrams also talked
about a perceived increase in anti-Semitism in the world being “part of the
picture of what Jews and Israelis see.”
“Israel looks like the stronger party [in the Middle-Eastern conflict], but if
we widen the lens, we see that Israel is a small state, and is the only Jewish
state” and is in a predominantly Arab region, Abrams said.
And if peace is the goal, she said, “why not divest from all forms of military?”
The divestment strategy in place “doesn’t lead to peace, or to the opportunity
for peace” because it is one-sided, Abrams said. “There needs to be an
evenhanded approach to these things.”
Siham Alfred, chair of the Mathematics Department of Raritan Valley Community
College, and a Roman Catholic born in Jaffa, Palestine, which is now part of the
state of Israel, said, “As a Palestinian, as an American, as a human being,” she
is troubled by violence committed by any party involved in the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Alfred spoke of other options available to people who are oppressed, such as
going to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, but noted
that many Palestinians feel frustrated by what they see as little in the way of
results from such actions.
She mentioned 32 U.N. Security Council resolutions from 1972 to 2002 condemning
Israeli actions that were vetoed by the U.S.
During the 30-year period ending in 2002, 100 resolutions regarding Israeli
actions against Palestinians or Arabs were brought before the Security Council,
and the majority of the resolutions were approved by the council, according to
Donald Neff, former Time Magazine Israel Bureau Chief, in his book, “Fifty Years
of Israel.” The U.S. vetoed 32 of them, even though the resolutions had a
majority of support from the council members, according to U.N. records, and
data compiled by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and the Council for
the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.
The United States, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council,
has veto power over any Council resolution, regardless of the supporting
majority. France, Russia, China and Great Britain are the other permanent
members.
After discussing the vetoed U.N. resolutions, Alfred told of how the
International Court of Justice, in a July 2004 advisory opinion, found that the
construction by Israel of the wall in Palestinian territory was illegal
according to international law. The International Court of Justice is the
judicial organ of the United Nations, according to its Web site.
Alfred expressed amazement that so many resolutions and decisions against
Israel’s actions or in favor of Palestinian rights were blocked or seemingly
ignored.
But she seemed to find hope in the actions of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. “I
want to compliment the Presbyterian Church for what it has done” with the
decision to explore divestment, Alfred said.
Alfred, who is Catholic, said she wished her own church would be more vocal
about Palestinian issues. “The Roman Catholic Church has done nothing at all.
I’m ashamed of the Roman Catholic Church,” Alfred said.
The 216th General Assembly’s resolution is “the most amazing thing,” Alfred
said. “End the occupation, end the occupation, end the occupation — it’s like a
song no one wants to hear,” she said, referring to how often the phrase appears
in the resolution.
Orli Dudaie, the executive shlicha, or emissary from Israel, for the Israel
Program Center of the United Jewish Communities of MetroWest, said that she had
planned to tell the audience that, as of early Sunday morning, 1,061 Israelis
had been killed since 2000 by acts of terrorism. But just that afternoon, she
said, three more Israelis had been killed in a drive-by shooting.
She then told a story of her 6-year-old son asking her a heart-wrenching
question when he saw a photograph of someone in the newspaper. “How did he die?”
he asked, pointing to the picture. Dudaie said she explained to him that the man
pictured had not died, he just had his picture in the paper because he was an
important man. But it was clear, Dudaie said, that her son had come to associate
being pictured in the newspaper with having been killed. “We think that kids
don’t understand. They do,” she said.
Aref Assaf, a Muslim born in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and
president of the American Arab Forum, a nonprofit news and resource
organization, characterized the church’s decision to explore divestment as “a
most courageous step.” “I admire you ... I’m sure you have been called
‘Arab-lovers’ and similar things,” Assaf said.
“Divestment in Israel will work,” he said, citing the success of shareholder
resolutions to end apartheid in South Africa. Assaf said that he sees parallels
between South African apartheid and Israeli occupation, but noted, “It’s not 100
percent similar.”
He spoke about the occupation provoking terrorist attacks, what he described as
Israel’s policy of “trying to dehumanize the Palestinians,” and the right of
Americans to ask questions of Israel because “we’re handing them money,”
referring to aid and subsidies annually provided to Israel by the U.S.
government.
Assaf also echoed a sentiment expressed earlier by Abrams, saying that he wanted
to encourage investing in companies that promote peace between Israel and
Palestine.
Assaf then reiterated his support of the resolution’s goal of ending occupation,
because, he said, “if you end occupation, terrorism will end.”
E. Noach Shapiro, rabbi of Shomrei Emunah in Montclair, warned against what he
called “victim culture” in his remarks at the event. “We have created, or
discovered, a power in being a victim” in our society, Shapiro said. “Everyone
is trying to outdo each other … It does untold damage to operate in a state of
needing to be the center” of every discussion, or of everyone’s sympathies.
Every discussion “revolves around who is the more ‘genuine’ victim,” Shapiro
said, instead of the actual issues.
Shapiro expressed his views on the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.’s resolution. “The
resolution, though I’m sure it was sincerely intended, is a step in the wrong
direction,” he said. “There are parts [of the resolution], especially in the
beginning, that are wonderful … We have to be wary of saying ‘if this would
happen then it will all be fine,’ be-cause that’s not the way it is.”
Nabil Marshood, professor of sociology at Hudson County Community College, is a
Palestinian born in Israel. He asked, “What makes the Palestinian issue so hard
for Americans to understand?
“One thing about American ideals, do these sentiments apply to Americans only?
Do not Palestinians have the right to fight oppression, to fight for freedom?”
Marshood asked. He spoke about some of his and his family’s experiences as
Palestinians living in Israel, including a time when his family’s home was
almost confiscated by Israeli soldiers.
But, Marshood said, he was not telling these stories to gain sympathy.
“Palestinians are not asking for sympathy. They are asking for understanding.”
During the 30-minute question-and-answer period that followed the presentation,
Gretchen McBride, of Montclair, asked whether the disengagement and withdrawal
from Gaza and parts of the West Bank was as effective as it could be, given that
the wall erected by Israel was still up. McBride said she had heard of women
dying in childbirth because they were on the Palestinian side of the wall,
unable to get to medical help in time.
Dudaie answered that the wall was meant as a temporary stopgap to prevent
terrorist attacks, to increase security and safety on a day-to-day basis.
But if safety was the only issue, asked Alfred, why did Israel take Palestinian
land to build some of the wall?
Kevin Buckley, of Montclair, brought the topic back to the divestment
resolution.
“If, in a few months, we divest, then the Anglican Church will follow, and
Caterpillar [one of the companies chosen by MRTI for engagement] will
capitulate” and will likely move its business elsewhere, causing economic
conse-quences, Buckley said. Besides, he said, companies such as Caterpillar
can’t control what people do with its equipment.
The overall effect of the divestment, he said, would be to make Israel less
secure. “Why focus on Israel? It’s the only democracy in the Middle East,”
Buckley asked. “Why are we not divesting in other countries?”
McNeill answered that any congregation is empowered to send a statement to their
presbytery [see sidebar], which will then review the statement, called an
“overture,” and decide whether to send it on to the General Assembly.
She said this particular resolution had its origin in a church in Florida. That
church’s overture went to its presbytery and then made it to the 216th General
Assembly, where it was reviewed, amended, voted on and passed.
Dave Arndt, a member of the session, or elected governing body, of Central
Presbyterian Church, announced at the event that an overture had been sent
recently to the Presbytery of Newark requesting that the phased divestment
strategy be discontinued.
The overture suggests the current resolution be replaced with a “strategy of
investment in businesses, not-for-profit programs, non-governmental
organizations, and diplomatic efforts likely to promote peace and reconciliation
between Israelis and Palestinians,” according to a copy of the statement.
“It’s noteworthy that we’ve decided to send an overture to the Presbytery of
Newark. It’s also noteworthy that other local churches have done or will do the
same,” Arndt, of North Caldwell, formerly of Montclair, said. “I’m against
divestment, as are many other Presbyterians,” he said.
“Can anyone explain how divestment will solve this problem [in the Middle
East]?” Arndt asked. “And if you can’t easily do that, then maybe there’s a
problem … and that’s why we’re discussing this a year later,” he said.
The panel members and the audience seemed ready to carry the discussion into the
night. Even after the event officially concluded, small clusters of people
continued the lively and often passionate debate.
The Rev. Charles W. Rawlings, of South Orange, for example, discussed the
history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with Michael Brendzel of Millburn,
right up until, and a little after, the room was needed for the next event.
Contact information was exchanged, along with a promise to continue the friendly
conversation through e-mail.
This article is part of a series about the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.’s
consideration to divest stock in five U.S. companies to promulgate peace between
Israel and Palestine, and its impact on local congregations..
|
|
The autumn/winter edition of
Banipal Magazine is dedicated to the
memory of Palestinian poet Mahmoud
Darwish.
Click here for more... 
