As reported on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) website, the Presbyterian Church has approved divestment of holdings in corporations doing business in Israel:
RICHMOND, July 2 — The 216th General Assembly approved several measures opposing the Israeli occupation of Palestine Friday, including a call for the corporate witness office of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to begin gathering data to support a selective divestment of holdings in multinational corporations doing business in Israel/Palestine.Well, ain’t that just swell of our Presbyterian friends. Never mind about condemning Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any of the other countries that make a mockery of democracy, murdering their own citizens and threatening the United States. No, let’s bitch-slap the one country in the Middle East that shares our Western democratic values.
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.
The vote was 431 to 62 to have the church's Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) study the matter and make recommendations to the General Assembly Council (GAC).
When a handful of commissioners expressed reservations about the action, the Rev. Mitri Raheb, a Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem, an ecumenical guest at the Assembly, said divestment is important because it is a way for the churches to take direct action. For too long, he said, the churches have simply issued statements — and that is not enough.
“We have to send strong messages to such companies,” Raheb said, referring specifically to Caterpillar Inc., the American builder of the armored tractors and bulldozers the Israeli army uses to demolish Palestinian homes.
“Sisters and brothers, this is a moment of truth,” Raheb said.
The Rev. Victor Makari, the PC(USA)'s liaison to the Middle East, supported the divestment strategy, saying, “I think the issue of divestment is a very sensitive one with Israel. … If nothing else seems to have changed the policy of Israel toward Palestinians, we need to send a clear and strong message.”
The divestment action also calls for the United States to be an “honest, even-handed broker for peace” and calls for “more meaningful participation” in peace negotiations by Russia, German [sic], France and others. It also encourages the U.S., Israeli and Palestinian governments to “lay aside arrogant political posturing and get on with forging negotiated compromises that open a path to peace.”
In other actions related to Israel, the Assembly voted by large margins to condemn Israel's construction of a “security wall” across the West Bank; disavow Christian Zionism as a legitimate theological stance and direct the denomination's Middle East and Interfaith Relations offices to develop resources on differences between fundamental Zionism and Reformed theology; and study the feasibility of sponsoring economic-development projects in Palestine and putting an action plan in place by 2005.
The actions on Israel were forwarded to the Assembly by the Peacemaking Committee.
The policy of Israel toward the Palestinians has always been fair and reasonable: Until you stop trying to murder us at every opportunity, we reserve the right to defend ourselves. Such defense may include the unfortunate necessity of building a fence to keep your homicidal bombers out of our cities and villages. It may mean going into your towns to hunt down terrorists at great risk to our own soldiers (a risk that could be avoided just by blowing your towns to smithereens, but we don’t do that because we believe it’s wrong to intentionally target civilians).
Sure, the Palestinians have it hard. But they have brought so much of that hardship upon themselves through stupid, hateful decisions. In fact, up until 1948, there were no “Palestinians” as the term is used today. There were Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians - and a mixed lot of Jews and Arabs who lived in Palestine.
In 1948, Arabs living in what was to become the “Jewish Entity” left their homes in order to let the surrounding nations try (unsuccessfully) to drive the Jews into the sea. But strangely, after the war, none of the Arabs in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, or Lebanon wanted any of their displaced brethren. Presto: national identity.
In 1967 and again in 1973, Israel had to fight for its national survival as its neighbors waged wars of extermination, and the Palestinians again backed the wrong horse. Nevertheless, rather than simply annexing the land captured during these wars and booting the inhabitants out, Israel held on to the hope that they could exchange this land for peace. And they did just that with Egypt after the historic Camp David accords. In the history of the world, how rare is that? “You attacked us, we thrashed you, but we don’t want to keep most of what we won. You can have it back.” Can you imagine what the map of the world would look like if no country ever assimilated the land it captured in war? The United States would sure be a different place.
Fact is, Israel is not interested in growing itself at the expense of its neighbors. It just wants what Garbo famously wanted - to be left alone. In peace. And with defensible borders, since the countries surrounding it would be very happy to see it disappear.
Our Presbyterian friends are calling for the United States to be an “honest, even-handed broker for peace.” Guess that means murdering civilians is morally equivalent to defending oneself. They’d also like “more meaningful participation” in peace negotiations by Russia, Germany, France and others... all such great friends of the Jews. And they encourage the U.S., Israeli and Palestinian governments to “...get on with forging negotiated compromises that open a path to peace.”
Right. Last time such a compromise was offered to Yasser Arafat, he slapped it away, astonishing even the Saudis. Oh, but “compromise” means you don’t get 100% of what you want. In this case, it was 98%. Not good enough!
But why are we surprised? The Palestinian Arabs have consistently rejected all offers of a two-state solution because they cannot stand the idea of letting Jews live in what would otherwise be a land of Arab/Muslim hegemony. Sorry, guys - Jews have been living on that little piece of real estate for thousands of years and have maintained a continuous (although small in numbers) presence even in the period between the Roman conquest of Judea in 70 C.E. and the beginning of the first wave of Zionist immigration in the late 1800’s. Those Zionists didn’t just move in and grab, either. They bought the then-empty, barren and impoverished land from its absentee Arab owners - often at extortionate prices. And then they made the desert bloom. And that pissed the neighbors off. And guess what? Them pesky Yahoodis are not going to go away.
Is it the Palestinians or the Israelis who send suicide bombers to blow up gatherings of civilians? Is it the Palestinians or the Israelis who strapped a bomb to the body of a retarded teenager and sent him across the border? Is it the Palestinians or the Israelis who danced in the streets, waved flags, and threw candy on 9/11? To whom should we be sending a message? To the people who “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” that’s who.
Oh, wait. Presbyterians? This is the same religious organization that thinks it’s OK to target Jews for conversion. Not by honest, good old-fashioned evangelism, mind you (I don’t appreciate that either, but at least it’s an honest way of saying you don’t respect someone else’s religion). No, it’s by opening Messianic churches that look and sound just like synagogues... until you listen carefully to the message hidden behind all the fake Jewish ritual. That kind of proselytizing is dishonest and disgusting - and the PC has elected to continue funding it (see Item 06-09 in the Worldwide Ministries Report).
Thank you, thank you very much.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment