Investment Activism

Danish Banks To Divest From Israeli Companies

elaine — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:39:19 -0800

by Saed Bannoura
IMEMC News & Agencies
January 27, 2010

The Danske and Pensioner Bank (PKA) have decided to withdraw all investments from two Israeli companies, Elbit and Magal Security Systems, for their role in constructing the annexation wall in the occupied West Bank.

The decision came after human rights groups and boycott campaigns declared the wall to be in violation of an advisory ruling made by the Hague International Court.  

The two Danish banks also decided to divest from Africa-Israel Company, owned by Jewish billionaire Lev Leviev, for its role in financing the construction of settlements and the wall.  

Elbit Systems provide Israel with surveillance equipment installed atop the annexation wall while Africa-Israel invests in settlement construction within the occupied West Bank.  

The Pensioners Bank also decided to withdraw investments from American Detection Systems for their role in the wall's construction.  

These decisions were made as Israel declared it's intent to begin new construction of the wall on Palestinian lands west of Ramallah. This new section will annex more Palestinian land in order to expand the illegal settlement of Illit.

International Middle East Media Center

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=57777

Kairos Palestine Document, a prayerful call of Palestinian Christians to End the Occupation

elaine — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:09:07 -0800

Kairos Palestine Document

A PALESTINIAN CHRISTIAN CALL TO END THE OCCUPATION

Media contact (Jerusalem) Ranjan Solomon
+972-54-733-7857

A group of Palestinian Christians representing a variety of churches and church-related organizations have issued an animated and prayerful call for an end to occupation of Palestine by Israel.

The call, issued at a 11 December meeting in Bethlehem, comes at a time when many Palestinians believe they have reached a dead end. It raises questions to the international community, political leaders in the region, and the churches worldwide about their contribution to the Palestinian people's pursuit of freedom. Even in the midst of "our catastrophe" the call is described as a word of faith, hope and love.

Referred to as "The Kairos Palestine Document" the call echoes a similar summons issued by South African churches in the mid-1980s at the height of repression under the apartheid regime. That call served to galvanize churches and the wider public in a concerted effort that eventually brought the end of apartheid.

The authors of the Kairos Palestine Document, among them Patriarch Emeritus Michel Sabbah from the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Lutheran Bishop of Jerusalem Munib Younan, and Archbishop Theodosios Atallah Hanna of Sebastia from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, have raised the challenge of the urgency for peace with justice to religious and political leaders in Palestinian and the Israeli society, international community, and to "our Christian brothers and sisters in the churches" around the world. They believe that current efforts in the Middle East are confined to managing the crisis rather than finding pertinent and long term solutions to the crisis.

Decrying empty promises

Expressing their pain, the signatories of the call decry the emptiness of the promises and pronouncements about peace in the region. They remind the world about the separation wall erected on Palestinian territory, the blockade of Gaza, how Israeli settlements ravage their land, the humiliation at military checkpoints, the restrictions of religious liberty and controlled access to holy places, the plight of refugees awaiting their right of return, prisoners languishing in Israeli prisons and Israel's blatant disregard of international law, as well as the paralysis of the international community in the face of this tragedy.

Rejecting Israeli justifications for their actions as being in self-defence, they unambiguously state that if there were no occupation, "there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity."

They argue: "God created us not to engage in strife and conflict but together build up the land in love and mutual respect. Our land has a universal mission, and the promise of the land has never been a political programme, but rather the prelude to complete universal salvation. Our connectedness to this land is a natural right. It is not an ideological or a theological question only." They reject any use of the Bible to legitimize or support political options and positions that are based upon injustice.

Declaring the occupation of Palestinian land as a sin against God and humanity, they steadfastly adhere to the signs of hope such as "local centres of theology" and "numerous meetings for inter-religious dialogue", recognizing that these signs provide hope to the resistance of the occupation. Through the logic of peaceful resistance, resistance is as much a right as it is a duty as it has the potential to hasten the time of reconciliation.

Asserting that this is a moment demanding repentance for past actions, either for using hatred as an instrument of resistance or the willingness to be indifferent and absorbed by faulty theological positions, the group calls on the international community and Palestinians for steadfastness in this time of trial. "Come and see [so we can make known to you] the truth of our reality", they appeal.

Poignantly, they conclude, "in the absence of all hope, we cry out our cry of hope. We believe in God, good and just. We believe that God's goodness will finally triumph over the evil of hate and of death that still persist in our land. We will see here 'a new land' and 'a new human being', capable of rising up in the spirit to love each one of his or her brothers and sisters."

The authors are:

● Patriarch Michel Sabbah
● Bishop Dr Munib Younan
● Archbishop Theodosios Atallah Hanna
● Rev. Dr Jamal Khader
● Rev. Dr Rafiq Khoury
● Rev. Dr Mitri Raheb
● Rev. Dr Naim Ateek
● Rev. Dr Yohana Katanacho
● Rev. Fr Fadi Diab
● Dr Jiries Khoury
● Ms Sider Daibes
● Ms Nora Kort
● Ms Lucy Thaljieh
● Mr Nidal Abu Zulof
● Mr Yusef Daher
● Mr Rifat Kassis - coordinator of the initiative

A list of signatories of the document can be found at:
http://kairospalestine.ps/?q=node/2

Media contact in Jerusalem: Ranjan Solomon +972-54-733-7857

Full text of the Kairos Palestine Document:

In English http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/other-ecumenical-bodies/kairos-palestine-document.html

In Arabic
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2009pdfs/Kairos%20Palestine_Ar.pdf
Palestine_Ar.pdf

Auf Deutsch
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2009pdfs/Kairos
Palestine_Ger.pdf

En français
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2009pdfs/Kairos
Palestine_Fr.pdf

Churches in the Middle East: solidarity and witness for peace:
http://www.oikoumene.org/?id=3113

The World Council of Churches promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. An ecumenical fellowship of churches founded in 1948, today the WCC brings together 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church. The WCC general secretary is Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, from the Methodist Church in Kenya. Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland.

World Council of Churches - News Release
Contact: +41 22 791 6153 +41 79 507 6363 media@wcc-coe.org For immediate release - 11/12/2009

Britain’s Unions Commit to Mass Boycott

elaine — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:11:32 -0700

Britain’s unions commit to a mass boycott movement of Israeli goods
Posted by RORCoalition on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 13:40

17 September 2009 [Palestine Solidarity Campaign] In a landmark decision, Britain’s trade unions have voted overwhelmingly to commit to build a mass boycott movement, disinvestment and sanctions on Israel for a negotiated settlement based on justice for Palestinians.

The motion was passed at the 2009 TUC Annual Congress in Liverpool today (17 September), by unions representing 6.5 million workers across the UK.

Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: ‘This motion is the culmination of a wave of motions passed at union conferences this year, following outrage at Israel’s brutal war on Gaza, and reflects the massive growth in support for Palestinian rights. We will be working with the TUC to develop a mass campaign to boycott Israeli goods, especially agricultural products that have been produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.’

The motion additionally called for the TUC General Council to put pressure on the British government to end all arms trading with Israel and support moves to suspend the EU-Israel trade agreement. Unions are also encouraged to disinvest from companies which profit from Israel’s illegal 42-year occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

The motion was tabled by the Fire Brigades Union. The biggest unions in the UK, including Unite, the public sector union, and UNISON, which represents health service workers, voted in favour of the motion.

The motion also condemned the Israeli trade union Histadrut’s statement supporting Israel’s war on Gaza, which killed 1,450 Palestinians in three weeks, and called for a review of the TUC’s relationship with Histadrut.

Britain’s trade unions join those of South Africa and Ireland in voting to use a mass boycott campaign as a tool to bring Israel into line with international law, and pressure it to comply with UN resolutions that encourage justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

Source: http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/555

Global Actions to End Israel's Occupation

elaine — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:06:43 -0700

Global Actions to End Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Land is an exciting new report of bold initiatives around the world to end the Israeli occupation. It contains hundreds of actions taken by governments, businesses, labor unions, NGO's, academic and religious organizations, and other groups. The report has just been published and will be an important tool for your local work for justice and peace.

As Israel defies the will of the international community to halt its settlement expansion, the momentum for divestment, boycotts and sanctions, and other principled actions is growing.

This is a project of the Interfaith Peace Initiative: http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/

Two ways to view the report:

1) Download pdf file attached below;
2) Go to Interfaith Peace Initiative web page: www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/globalactions.pdf

Neve Gordon: "Boycott Israel"

elaine — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:21:58 -0700

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gordon20-2009aug20,0,1126906.story

latimes.com
Opinion

Boycott Israel: An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the only way to save his country

By Neve Gordon
August 20, 2009

Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv, and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokesperson, a British actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis -- even peaceniks -- aren't signing on. A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.

It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.

I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.

The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.

The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbors do not grow up in an apartheid regime.

There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.

The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a bi-national democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.

The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem, and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest can return to the new Palestinian state.

Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the ground," the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality.

Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.

For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.

So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?

I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right.

It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.

I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.

In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organizations from all over the world formulated the 10-point Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity." For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel in order to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.

Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians -- my two boys included -- does not grow up in an apartheid regime.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Palestine Urges Withdrawal of Rail Contract

elaine — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:44:51 -0700

Abbas Al Lawati | Gulf News

31 May 2009

Dubai: Palestinian officials have intensified diplomatic efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia to withdraw a multibillion dollar rail contract awarded to a firm alleged to be complicit in Israel’s expansion in Occupied East Jerusalem, Gulf News has learnt.

Palestinian National Authority officials have said that they are in talks with the Saudis to find ways to block the Occupied Jerusalem light rail project.

The light rail project will link Occupied West Jerusalem to Occupied East Jerusalem and Jewish colonies in the Occupied West Bank when completed.

It has been described by Israeli leaders as the fulfillment of the Zionist dream and will be partly built by the French firm Alstom.

Alstom is part of a consortium awarded a $1.8 billion (Dh6.6 billion) civil works contract in March for the Makkah-Madinah railway, the Haramain Express.

“Back-channel talks with the Saudis are ongoing.” said a high ranking official at the Palestinian foreign ministry, speaking to Gulf News on condition of anonymity. He refused to divulge further details.

However, while Palestinian officials fear that Alstom’s Makkah contract will undermine their efforts to block the Occupied Jerusalem tramway, they also see it as an opportunity to put pressure on the company through Saudi Arabia.

They say that although the Occupied Jerusalem project is expected to be completed next year, Saudi Arabia could use its influence to derail its further expansion as well as its 30-year maintenance plan.

Palestinian efforts to fight the project started following a 2006 Arab League ministerial decision in Khartoum calling on states and international organisations to “stop the Occupied Jerusalem tram project and refrain from assisting in its execution”.

Since 2007 the Palestinian foreign ministry has been pressing Arab states to use their political and economic weight to pressure France into taking action against the companies that are involved in the Occupied Jerusalem project, but apparently has not had much success.

The foreign ministry requested Saudi Arabia to intervene in the matter in a letter dated December 2007.

“We received a reply from the ministry in early 2008 stating that Saudi officials intend to speak to the French on the matter,” said the Palestinian official.

Since the letter the Saudi government has awarded two contracts to Alstom. The company won a $2.6 billion contract to build a power plant in the kingdom last year.

This was followed by the Haramain Express contract earlier this year by the Saudi Railway Organisation (SRO).

The consortium is now bidding for two more contracts to supply the trains and maintain the stations. The SRO did not respond to Gulf News’ questions.

Alstom, Alstom Transport and Veolia are also facing a lawsuit in France for their involvement in the Occupied Jerusalem project, brought by French advocacy group Association France-Palestine Solidarité, which is working closely with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) representative office in Paris.

Ambassador Hind Khoury, PLO representative and former minister of Occupied Jerusalem affairs, called the case a ‘breakthrough’. She said she often reminded Arab counterparts of their obligations as per the Arab League decision.

“I have a new mandate from the [Palestinian National Authority] president [Mahmoud Abbas] to pursue this case,” she said.

In an effort to avoid embarrassment, the French government reportedly distanced itself from the project when pressed by the Palestinian National Authority to intervene in 2005. It said it had nothing to do with projects private companies were involved in.

However, Alain Gresh, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, said that the Occupied Jerusalem contract was signed in the office of the then French ambassador to Israel, Gerard Araud. “They can’t ignore that,” he said.

Such contracts are often politicised, with high level delegations often including heads of governments, being sent to the region to lobby on behalf of the bidding companies.

Palestinian officials have said that their discussions with Saudi Arabia will be based on the 2006 Arab League decision.

Eric Lenoir, communications manager at Alstom Transport said Gulf officials had not cited the Occupied Jerusalem project as a concern.

“Our job is to be compliant with specifications defined by local railway authorities. We don’t make politics,” he added.

Lenoir said that the Gulf region was an attractive market for Alstom due to congestion problems in its cities and a realisation by its governments that rail transport was a viable solution as the countries develop.

The company is currently eyeing projects in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and the planned GCC railway.

The credible case against Alstom

Dubai: Critics of French-based Alstom have accused it of violating international law for what they see as the company’s complicity in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

The company faces a lawsuit in France brought by French advocacy group Association France-Palestine Solidarité and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for its involvement in the Occupied Jerusalem light rail project which connects Occupied West Jerusalem to Occupied East Jerusalem and Jewish colonies in the West Bank.

Alstom and Veolia have repeatedly come under fire by advocacy groups in Europe for the project.

The Dutch ASN Bank decided in 2006 to exclude Veolia from its investment portfolios, and the Swedish national pension fund AP7 has blacklisted Alstom from its $15 billion (Dh55 billion) portfolio, according to media reports.

While the lawyers for the parties taking Alstom to court have avoided speaking to the media, Dubai based international humanitarian law expert Urs Stirnimann assumed that the Geneva Conventions are the principle basis in taking the company to court in France.

He said Israel’s practice of settling its population on occupied territory is widely considered to be a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which, in accordance with article 147 is a grave violation of international humanitarian law.

“In other words, [it is] a war crime. Article 146 clearly stipulates that it is the responsibility of each country to act against grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” he said.

Alain Gresh, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, said that while it is unlikely that the French court would force the two companies to withdraw from the project, it sets a precedent which will prevent firms from operating in occupied territories for fear of a backlash. Alstom and Veolia have won contracts worth billions in all six Gulf Cooperation Council states.

Adri Nieuwhof, a human rights advocate who has written extensively about the Occupied Jerusalem tramway, says that the project is part of an Israeli “master plan” for Occupied Jerusalem, which includes the confiscation of privately owned Palestinian land.

She said the tramway would consolidate Israel’s hold on occupied Palestinian territory.

“For colonists living in the Occupied West Bank, travel to Occupied Jerusalem can become faster and more efficient with the light rail, so the colonies can become more attractive for colonists to live in, besides being cheap.”

Source: http://palsolidarity.org/2009/05/6913

Putting Words of Support into Boycott Action

elaine — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:54:20 -0700

Adri Nieuwhof and Omar Barghouti, The Electronic Intifada
5 May 2009

The Derail Veolia and Alstom Campaign, operating in full coordination with the leadership of the Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), is in full swing. After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized Israel in Geneva, the BNC called on Iran to cut its business ties with Veolia Environment and Alstom. The French transportation giants are involved in the Israeli light rail project in occupied Jerusalem, linking the city with the illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Veolia and Alstom are playing a key role in Israel's attempt to make its annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem irreversible. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remarked on the construction of the light rail in August 2005, "I believe that this should be done, and in any event, anything that can be done to strengthen Jerusalem, construct it, expand it and sustain it for eternity as the capital of the Jewish people and the united capital of the State of Israel, should be done."

The BNC is the major voice of Palestinian civil society, unifying a broad spectrum of more than 170 Palestinian non-governmental organizations, political parties and trade unions that have endorsed the July 2005 Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). Iran could give substance to its criticism of Israel's practices towards Palestinians by acting upon the call of the Palestinian BNC to "take the necessary steps to ban Veolia and Alstom and their subsidiaries from any contracts and operations in the country." According to the Tehran Times, the Tehran Municipality and Veolia agreed to collaborate on the implementation of some projects concerning the environment and the development of the urban transport system. Alstom has a headquarters in Tehran and received a number of large contracts, including a 192 million euro contract with Iran's state railways in 1999 and a larger 375 million euro contract to supply 50 turbo compressors to Iran in 2002.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, has consistently expressed its opposition to the Israeli Jerusalem light rail project. In a fact sheet on the subject in March 2007, the PLO Negotiation Support Unit repeated its objections to the colonial project, stating that the light rail violates international law and is not catering to the needs of Palestinian civilians. In addition, in October 2007, the PLO joined Association France Palestine Solidarity (AFPS) in the complaint against Veolia Transport and Alstom, challenging the legality under French law of Veolia and Alstom's contracts concerning the light rail project. The legal action undertaken by AFPS and the PLO is seeking the cancellation of the contracts for the construction and running of the light rail in occupied Jerusalem between Alstom, Veolia and the Israeli government, and is also aimed to prohibit the companies from executing the contract.

The tribunal of Nanterre ruled on 15 April 2009 that the complaint of AFPS falls within its jurisdiction. Veolia and Alstom's claim that there was no ground for a ruling by a French court turned out to be unfounded. On technical grounds the request by the PLO to be a co-plaintiff was rejected. The court can now start to look into the substance of the complaint, unless Alstom and Veolia exercise their right to appeal within one month. On 8 June 2009, the court will convene a meeting to decide when the hearings of the trial against companies will start.

In the same month, Veolia received another blow at its home front. The BDS group in Bordeaux announced that the company had lost a $1 billion contract on the management of the biggest French urban network in the city.

The implication of Veolia in the light rail project in Jerusalem provoked intense debates. The Greater Bordeaux local government stated its decision was based on commercial factors. However, according to European Law, local governments have the power to exclude an economic operator from bidding for a contract or to reject any such bid where it is found that the individual or organization has committed an act of "grave misconduct" in the course of its business of profession. Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts is explicit about this. Attorney Daniel Machover argued in a letter to a local London council in the UK that Veolia's involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project involves grave misconduct, because it assists Israel in its violation of international law.

In the UK, several local campaigns are sprouting to derail Veolia from a number of large public works contracts. From Hampshire County to Liverpool to Camden to South Yorkshire, local authorities are facing mounting political, and sometimes legal, pressure from Palestine solidarity groups, mainly associated with PSC, to exclude Veolia from bidding for public projects. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council decided not to consider further Veolia's bid for the "Waste Improvement Plan" contract in March 2009.

Activists in Ireland are approaching city councils with the request not to enter or renew contracts with Veolia. In response, Galway City Council adopted on 20 April 2009 a motion calling on the city manager not to renew the city's water services contract with Veolia with a majority of 12 out of 14 votes. Councillors were inundated with hundreds of emails from all over the world urging support for the motion. In February 2009, a similar motion was adopted by the Sligo County Council. Galway councillor for Labor, Billy Cameron, remarked in an interview that he believed Veolia has serious questions to answer with regard to its involvement in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Cameron noted that the international Derail Veolia Campaign has had serious effects already. "Veolia did not win contracts in Stockholm, West Midlands (UK) and Bordeaux amounting to $7.5 billion." Cameron firmly believes that the movement to blacklist Veolia is only beginning and the message must go out to companies that international law and human rights take precedent over profit.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate. Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights activist and commentator.

Source: http://bdsmovement.net/?q=node/397

Hampshire College First in U.S. to Divest from Israel

elaine — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:03:30 -0800

Hampshire College first in US to divest from Israel

Press Release
12 February 2009
Students for Justice in Palestine (Hampshire College)

Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, has become the first of any college or university in the US to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

This landmark move is a direct result of a two-year intensive campaign by the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The group pressured Hampshire College's Board of Trustees to divest from six specific companies due to human rights concerns in occupied Palestine. More than 800 students, professors and alumni have signed SJP's "institutional statement" calling for the divestment.

The proposal put forth by SJP was approved on Saturday, 7 February 2009 by the Board. By divesting from these companies, SJP believes that Hampshire has distanced itself from complicity in the illegal occupation and war crimes of Israel.

Meeting minutes from a committee of Hampshire's Board of Trustees confirm that "President Hexter acknowledged that it was the good work of SJP that brought this issue to the attention of the committee." This groundbreaking decision follows in Hampshire's history of being the first college in the country to divest from apartheid South Africa 32 years ago, a decision based on similar human rights concerns. This divestment was also a direct result of student pressure.

The divestment has so far been endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Rashid Khalidi, Vice President of the EU Parliament Luisa Morganitini, Cynthia McKinney, former member of the African National Congress Ronnie Kasrils, Mustafa Barghouti, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, John Berger, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, among others.

The six corporations, all of which provide the Israeli military with equipment and services in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are: Caterpillar, United Technologies, General Electric, ITT Corporation, Motorola and Terex. Furthermore, our policy prevents the reinvestment in any company involved in the illegal occupation.

SJP is responding to a call from Palestinian civil society for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a way of bringing nonviolent pressure to bear on the state of Israel to end its violations of international law. SJP is following in the footsteps of many noted groups and institutions such as the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in the UK, the Israeli group Gush Shalom, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the American Friends Service Committee.

As well as voicing our opposition to the illegal occupation and the consistent human rights violations of the Palestinian people, we as members of an institute of higher education see it as our moral responsibility to express our solidarity with Palestinian students whose access to education is severely inhibited by the Israeli occupation.

SJP has proven that student groups can organize, rally and pressure their schools to divest from the illegal occupation. The group hopes that this decision will pave the way for other institutions of higher learning in the US to take similar stands.

Source: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10304.shtml

Church of England divests from Caterpillar

elaine — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:11:20 -0800

Church of England divests from U.S. bulldozer biz

CAIRO (Marwa Awad)

The Church of England announced Monday it had withdrawn its investments in a controversial company over the weekend following a threat by a group of vicars to publish a letter denouncing the Church's investment, but denied there were any political or ethical consideration in what it called an economically informed decision.

The Church of England said Monday that it withdrew 2.2 million [pounds] ($3.3 million) from Caterpillar Inc. in late December 2008 because of economic considerations. Israel used bulldozers bought from the U.S.-based manufacturer of construction and mining equipment to demolish Palestinian homes.

News of the church’s divestment came late Saturday just in time to prevent the planned publication of a letter in the Guardian signed by 23 theologians accusing the Church of England of not acting on its policy to promote morally and ethically responsible investments.

"We believe that given the events in Gaza as well as the continued illegal occupation of whole swathes of Palestinian land and the illegal land grabs by settlers, supported by the Israeli Government, that the Church of England must make good on its policy of disinvestment and withdraw its investments from those who profit form the misery of millions of Palestinians immediately," the unpublished letter stated.

But the church denied it had withdrawn investment for political or ethical reasons and said the timing of the announcement was coincidental.

"The holding status was made public when (the Church was) asked," church spokesperson Steve Jenkins told AlArabiya.net. "The Church of England withdrew shares it held in Caterpillar for purely investment reasons."

He added that the Church sold its shares in Caterpillar late December “on investment grounds," explaining that the church’s investment bodies is charged with making investment decisions and takes into account the recommendations of the ethical advisory group.

Activists say otherwise

Activists, however, believed the church's last minute announcement proved it had given into growing pressure for an embargo.

"The Church seems very reluctant to promote the implementation of their own policy, and yes they snuck the news out, under the cover of darkness, with little in the way of a fanfare!" Niall Sookoo, media spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which issued Monday a press release lauding the church's long awaited divestment, told AlArabiya.net.

"The Church must be proud of taking such a stance in the name of human rights, not use financial investment considerations as a fig leaf to hide its decision to finally enact the resolution for morally responsible investments," he added.

Reverend Garth Hewit chair of Interfaith Group for Morally Responsible Investment (IMRI) expressed concern over the Church of England's claim that it had divested for economic reasons and not at the Synod's instigation.

"I think it is a little bit sad that they quietly removed their holdings presumably to avoid any fuss," he said, adding that members of the General Synod had no news of divestment.

"We only heard about this by accident as it was not publicized. It appears to have been done secretly and leaked, then later announced as divestment but not at [our] instigation," he said.

Controversial investments

The Church of England voted in February 2006 at the General Synod—the legislative body of the Church—to disinvest in companies operating in the Palestinian Occupied Territories that profit from the suppression of human rights, and to uphold "morally responsible investment."

The decision came after the Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) issued a report detailing the involvement of Caterpillar's equipment in illegal activity under the Geneva Convention.

The U.S.-based manufacturer of construction and mining equipment has been criticized for several years by heavy weight human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as the United Nations for supplying weaponized bulldozers to Israel's military which has used them to raze more than 7,000 homes and fields that form Palestinians' livelihood since 1967.

Caterpillar has become the central target for growing threats of divestment for supporting the Israeli Defense Forces, especially following the death of Rachel Corrie, a 24-year-old American activist bulldozed to death in 2003 by an IDF-operated Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer in Gaza.

Initial press release

Amid growing public protests in Britain since the Gaza offensive, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has promoted the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, a worldwide civil movement founded in 2005 following a ruling by the International Court of Justice that called Israel’s construction of a partition wall illegal

In a press release issued over the weekend prior to the Church's announcement Monday, Betty Hunter, General Secretary of Palestine Solidarity Campaign criticized the Church's inaction on divesting from Caterpillar.

"The General Synod of the Church of England took a morally courageous decision 3 years ago to disinvest from companies that profited from supplying goods and services in the Palestinian occupied territories," she said.

"Sadly three years on and the Church of England retains investments of £2.2 million in a company, Caterpillar, whose bulldozers and heavy machinery is used to extract the legitimate residents of Palestine to be replaced by illegal settlers."

"I have personally seen the damage, the destruction of homes, the building of the Wall in which Caterpillar had been involved. And I know that large number of the Church members felt [Caterpillar] was morally indefensible," he told AlArabiya.net.

"Our interest now is to go to Veolia, a company supporting war crimes by helping to build a rail way to Jewish settlements," he said, adding that the Stockholm Council in Sweden already turned down their contract.

Source: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/09/66055.html

Investment Survey Update

elaine — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:46:45 -0700

CAMPAIGNS FOR ETHICAL INVESTMENT
ADOPTED BY FAITH-BASED GROUPS WORLDWIDE
ON BEHALF OF PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
AND A JUST AND VIABLE PEACE IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE

Updated October 2008

Understanding United Methodist Divestment

FranciscoG — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:15:23 -0700

General Conference Actions On Proposals Regarding Israel/Palestine And Divestment

Full Report

Lake Oswego Methodist Leader Says Issue May Return

FranciscoG — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:11:04 -0700

By Paul Haist
Jewish Review

While Jewish leaders across America were hailing the recent rejection of Israel divestiture proposals at the quadrennial General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a Portland-area Methodist leader cautioned that the Israel divestiture issue was not consigned forever to church history.

Survey: Approaches to Economic Engagement Toward a Just and Viable Peace in Israel and Palestine

FranciscoG — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:34:32 -0700

Survey: Approaches to Economic Engagement Toward a Just and Viable Peace in Israel and Palestine

A GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR ETHICAL INVESTMENT ON BEHALF OF PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS AND A JUST AND VIABLE PEACE IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE

Jewish Voice - A Moral Choice: Divesting from the Israeli Occupation

FranciscoG — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:56:43 -0700

Jewish Voice for Peace

A Moral Choice:
Divesting from the Israeli Occupation

Download Booklet in PDF format

Methodists concerned with Israeli occupation N.E. Conference pushes to divest

FranciscoG — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:22:45 -0700

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff

Ratcheting up the simmering debate over how Protestant denominations should express their concern about Israel, the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church is advising congregations and individuals to divest their holdings from a wide variety of American corporations that the United Methodists believe support the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

Mennonite Peace & Justice Network-Open Letter to Congregations

elaine — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:16:14 -0700

An Open Letter to Mennonite Church USA Congregations

Becoming Peacemakers in Israel/Palestine

June 2007

(A beginning list of Follow-up resources follows)

For more than 60 years, Mennonites have witnessed to the good news of Jesus Christ in Israel and Palestine. In recent decades the human rights situation for Palestinians has deteriorated dramatically. Today, a power imbalance of Israelis over Palestinians distorts the lives of everyone living in the region and fails to provide the longed for security. A system of forced segregation and oppression imposed by the Israeli government, which some have called apartheid, and the resulting spiral of violence calls for urgent collaborative action by all Mennonites including the agencies currently working in the region.

Click here to continue reading the letter.

Rev. John H. Thomas, Synod policy on Israel-Palestine 'remains today what it was before'

administrator — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:17:50 -0700

Written by J. Bennett Guess

Printer-friendly version

Expressing outrage at how some outside groups are distorting a recent action on the Middle East by the United Church of Christ General Synod, the Rev. John H. Thomas is calling on the Institute on Religion and Democracy and other groups to correct misleading statements about a proposal considered by the church's national gathering earlier this week.

The misleading statements, he said, have led some within and beyond the UCC to get the false impression that the General Synod has somehow changed its policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "This is not accurate," said Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president.

"Press releases from the Institute on Religion and Democracy, Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East, the Anti-Defamation League and others reveal an ignorance of General Synod parliamentary process as well as a distorted understanding the long history of engagement by our church related to the conflict in the Middle East," Thomas told United Church News. "General Synod policy related to Israel and Palestine remains today what it was before our Synod convened."

At its June 22-26 meeting in Hartford, Conn., the General Synod voted to "refer to the Executive Council for implementation" a resolution calling for "balanced study, commentary, and critique related to the conflict in the region."

The resolution further condemned "media programs, publications, advertising campaigns, textbooks and groups that perpetuate violence instead of promoting peace," and directed the Executive Council "to establish a Task Force to engage in ongoing and balanced study on the causes, history, and context of the conflict, including appropriate responses to the situation that may or may not lead to further support of economic leverage and removal of the security barrier."

The to-be-named Task Force is to report to the next General Synod in 2009.

"While the proponents of the resolution clearly believe that current UCC understandings of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are too one-sided and need to be broadened," Thomas acknowledged, "the Executive Council, which made the recommendation to the plenary of the Synod, read the 'be it resolved' statements, which are the only binding parts of any Synod resolution, and deemed them to be consistent with existing General Synod policy."

According to General Synod Standing Rules, when a proposed resolution is judged to reaffirm existing policy, it is referred to an implementing body in the church rather than to a committee of the General Synod for debate, amendment, and recommendation to the plenary for action.

"That the Synod referred this resolution to the Executive Council for implementation underscores the fact that the Synod was not reconsidering or rejecting its current policy or the way in which that policy is implemented by agencies or officers of the church," Thomas said.

Thomas said UCC policy in the Middle East has been based on a set of principles that have been consistent over the period since the time of the 1967 war: support for two politically and economically viable states living side by side in peace and security with internationally recognized borders; condemnation of the use of violence whether by Palestinians or Israelis; access by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to their holy sites; and an arrangement whereby Jerusalem would be shared by both Israel and Palestine.

"These positions are informed by our long mission relationships with Christian sisters and brothers in the Middle East, including Palestinian Christians," said the Rev. Cally Rogers-Witte, executive minister for the UCC's Wider Church Ministries. "Just as we are in partnership relationship with Christians throughout the world, so are we in the birthplace of our faith, where the Christian community continues to offer a witness of hope and peace."

Thomas said that the proposed Task Force "will continue to use these basic principles as criteria for determining specific actions and initiatives in the future."

“I am disturbed that none of the authors of these press releases bothered to call our press office or any of our officers to ask for a statement or to seek understanding of our Synod process,” Thomas said. “Whether these stories merely reflect sloppy journalism or are ideologically driven misrepresentations, they do damage to the church and confuse our partners here and in the Middle East. While people of goodwill may disagree about the complex and deadly forces at work in the region, we should expect a shared commitment to journalistic integrity by all who care for peace with justice in the Middle East.”

Source: www.ucc.org/news/thomas-synod-policy-on.html

217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA on the issue of divestment

administrator — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:40:02 -0700

The following articles counter inaccurate media reports that the Presbyterian Church reversed its selective divestment resolution of 2004. In fact, the church’s vote “affirmed its willingness to use its investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine.” The vote came two years after its overwhelmingly support of a phased, selective divestment” from corporations profiting from Israel’s military occupation. The only thing that changed is some language in the resolution, language which does not change the process of corporate engagement on the issue of Israel’s military occupation. See more below.

The actual language of the decision is at the following link: http://les-pcusa.org/Item.aspx?IID=90&

GA06072 From the Presbyterian Church USA website: http://www.pcusa.org/ga217/newsandphotos/ga06072.htm
Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues

2004 GA's Israel/Palestine language replaced

By Toya Richards Hill

BIRMINGHAM, June 18 — By a vote of 53-6, the Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues sent a recommendation to the General Assembly that language approved by the 2004 General Assembly calling for phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel be replaced.

The new language urges that "financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal."

"We have affirmed the Presbyterian church’s historic commitment to corporate engagement," the Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator of the committee, said after business was completed. "Our intent is to engage corporations, not to divest."

MRTI monitors socially responsible investing for the denomination. As part of its normal procedure, MRTI uses correspondence, direct talks, proxy voting, shareholder resolutions and — as a last resort — divestment in order to persuade corporations to change their business practices.

MRTI was instructed by the 216th General Assembly (2004) to begin the process of phased, selective divestment from corporations doing business in Israel that contributes to violence, and is now engaging five multinational corporations as part of that process.

Some committee members expressed pleasure at how unified the group had been in doing its work. "This report brings the kind of unity that is good for the whole church," said the Rev. Jan Armstrong from Santa Barbara Presbytery.

There was some disagreement, however, on the impact of the proposal.

"This document, were it to be adopted, allows MRTI to continue its process of corporate engagement" with regard to Israel/Palestine, said the Rev. Mark Davidson of New Hope Presbytery. He was a member of the writing group that drafted the recommendation.

"It doesn't prevent that from happening," Davidson said. "We all understand that [ ] there could be a recommendation of divestment."

Others on the committee, however, felt the recommendation in fact stopped the process MRTI was charged with by the 216th GA.

Committee member Nabeel Saoud of San Fernando Presbytery countered.

"My understanding is that it did stop it," he said, referring to the phased, selective divestment process. "No action related to divestment will be done by this process."

The peacemaking and international issues committee also approved a recommendation that the GA give MRTI additional funds so it can add an additional meeting to its schedule in order to address its corporate engagement work related to Israel/Palestine.

Largest Presbyterian Church Votes to Invest in Mid East Peace

Will Youmans and Noura Erakat
June 24, 2006

America’s largest Presbyterian church voted to continue policies of economic engagement in the Middle East. It affirmed its willingness to use its investment policies to press for peace in Israel-Palestine. The vote came two years after it’s overwhelmingly support of a phased, selective divestment from Israel.

During its 217th General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to substitute the language of “divestment” for the precise concept of “corporate engagement.” Both concepts refer to the same process of moral responsible investment. They just refer to different stages. Corporate engagement is when the Church researches the companies, determines their compliance with its standards, and then pressures them to change. Divestment refers to the ultimate termination of investments from the targeted corporations if engagement fails to produce positive change.

Nothing in the amended resolution prevents the PC(USA) General Assembly from deciding to decide to divest. Rev. Gretchen Graf, moderator of the General Assembly said “this new statement clarifies the engagement process, which has not yet led to any recommendation for divestment,” she told the General Assembly. She specified that divestment could still occur in 2008.

The substitution of divestment language for more procedural terms comes after two years of steady pressure from pro-Israeli lobby groups and a relative absence of support from pro-Palestinian groups outside of the church. The new resolution addresses tensions with the pro-Israeli Jewish community. Many argued divestment is anti-Semitic and harms Jewish-Christian relations.

The previous assembly’s language called for “phased, selective divestment from corporations that profit from the illegal occupation of Palestine.” The new resolution does not actually contradict this. The language is merely softer.

However, a barrage of headlines and sound-bites suggest the Presbyterians have abandoned divestment totally. Pro-Israeli activists claim this is a victory for them and a defeat for the divestment movement – mainstream media are readily accepting this as fact.

Manya Brachear’s story in the Chicago Tribune is titled, “Presbyterians won't divest over firms' ties to Israel” (6/22/06). Peter Smith wrote that “The Presbyterian Church (USA) yesterday rescinded its controversial policy of considering divestment” in the article, “Presbyterians shift investment focus off Israel.” That was in the Louisville Courier-Journal (6/22/06). Charles A. Radin's piece, “Presbyterians reverse stance on Israeli divestment” ran in the Boston Globe.
“Presbyterians end a previous policy that had singled out Israel,” by Richard Ostling, was featured in the Houston Chronicle.

Since 2004, the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has engaged five multinational corporations as part of the process — Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup, ITT Industries, Motorola and United Technologies. During a press conference following the vote, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, said the Assembly’s action does not overturn the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004), indicating that the MRTI’s mission will continue.

Rev. Graf said the MRTI committee could still recommend “divestment only as a last resort.” Given that the target companies are unlikely to start caring about the Palestinians, the last resort is probably not too far away.

The 2.5 million-member Presbyterian Church U.S.A. has a long history of presence in Palestine and the Levant. Many within its own ranks witnessed first-hand the oppressive nature of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.

Palestinian Presbyterians and Christians played a role in defending the Church’s 2004 vote. Pro-Peace Jewish and interfaith groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, the American Friends Service Committee, Tikkun, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), became active on this in just the past few months. The New York City-based Jews Against the Occupation wrote in a letter to the PCUSA that divestment was “an important step forward for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine.”

This support paled in comparison to the backlash from pro-Israel groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee. At one point, the Chicago City Council was going to deny the Church a building permit based on its divestment call. Churches were inundated with letters and phone calls against it. Pro-Israeli activists set up meetings and events, and helped prop up a Presbyterian anti-divestment group.

Now, they consider the removal of the term “divestment” a victory. “We are thrilled,” said David Elcott, director of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. He said the compromise was “courageous. ... This is a win-win situation not only for Jews and Christians. Even more, it is a victory for Israelis and Palestinians and those committed to end the suffering.”
Rabbi Jonathan Miller said “I am grateful to all people who stuck with us to make right this mistake.”

Their statements are pure spin on the outcome of the General Assembly’s amended resolution. The impact of the resolution, to explore divestment as a form of non-violent resistance to Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian Territories remains fully intact. They conflict with the statements made by top PCUSA officials at the press conference.

Casey Currie, a member of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA) did not think the simple change of language was the stunning victory Israel’s apologists claim it is. The PCUSA reaffirmed its commitment to morally responsible investing and engaging corporations that profit from oppression. As Currie said, “if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.”

There is no basis for claiming the Presbyterians surrendered their right to divest from companies profiting off of Israel’s military occupation. This vote did not let Israel and the companies helping it off the hook. Yet, the media have largely adapted the twisted version of events. It seems they all wish divestment would just go away.

Noura Erakat is a legal and grassroots organizer with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. She can be reached at legal@endtheoccupation.org. Will Youmans is the Washington, DC-based writer for the Arab-American News. He blogs at www.kabobfest.com.

Printer-friendly version

Media Distortions! Presbyterians continue to stand firm against occupation

administrator — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:21:41 -0700

by Cecilie Surasky and Mitchell Plitnick, Jewish Voice for Peace

We here at Jewish Voice for Peace headquarters have been absolutely stunned by the Orwellian headlines and poor reporting about this week's Presbyterian General Assembly vote to use economic pressure to end the occupation. It’s an almost exact replay of the 2004 General Assembly when most media outlets got the Presbyterian decision wrong, falsely proclaiming that the church had voted to divest from Israel. In a sense, this misrepresentation builds on the earlier one.

In 2004 the Presbyterians voted to begin a process of phased corporate engagement, including investigating selective divestment, from companies that profit from the occupation. Yesterday they reaffirmed that vote. They did not rescind it, as has been reported. Nor was the 2004 vote a decision to embark on a divestment program, as was reported back then. It was a decision to investigate the various ways the PCUSA could use economic pressure to help bring about a just peace in Israel-Palestine.

At JVP, the folks most upset about the poor reporting are people like Judith Kolokoff from our Seattle chapter, who along with Mo Shooer of the Bay Area, represented JVP at the General Assembly in Birmingham, AL.

Judith told us, “I have great respect for PCUSA because they did not back down from their traditionally principled positions in spite of the horrendous attacks against them organized by the 12 powerful Jewish mainline organizations who totally misrepresented their actions in the 2004 assembly. I know that the alternative voice of the American Jewish community (our voice) as well the voices of our allies from Israel and the Palestine were hard….and ultimately the loud voices of justice were able to prevail."

What the 2006 General Assembly vote did NOT change

Clearly, the Church has no intention of backing down from making a powerful moral judgment about the occupation. Despite overwhelming pressure to rescind their vote, the Presbyterian GA reaffirmed their policy of using economic pressure to help bring an end to Israel's occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a policy that JVP has long supported both in other groups and with our own shareholder activism with Caterpillar. The PCUSA voted overwhelmingly to continue the same process of corporate engagement they started in 2004. This means, as in 2004, the process could still end in a vote for divestment in 2008, and, just like in 2004, that is a measure of last resort. They also reaffirmed their opposition to the portions of the wall being built on pre-1967 territory, and their commitment to ending the occupation not only in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in East Jerusalem. It's difficult to imagine why many organizations that work overtime to block critics of the occupation are crowing about this as a success. But perhaps the truth just hurts too much.

What changed

One of the most striking changes was the inclusion of an admission that the decision in 2004 had “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.”

Relating to divestment, the most significant change was in language used to describe the longstanding Presbyterian process used to pressure companies linked to human rights abuses in various countries.The 2004 language was this:

“7. Refers to Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) with instructions to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for action.”

As of yesterday, The new language is this:

“7. To urge that financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investments of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal.”

As you can see, the vote was an affirmation that the "customary corporate engagement process", which opens the door to divestment, "is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal." It should also be noted that the GA voted this year to use this very same corporate engagement process in the context of Sudan.

To be sure, this is a softening of the divestment language, and it means the push to get the PCUSA to apply firm economic pressure to end the occupation needs to intensify. But it is also a far cry from revoking the 2004 decision, as the media and some pro-occupation groups are portraying it.

Jewish Voice for Peace applauds the Presbyterians for standing fast to their principles while also showing that they are willing to go the extra mile to maintain positive relationships with Jews across the spectrum of our community. The vote this week means that the issue of economic pressure will almost certainly come up again in 2008. We are urging all of our members and supporters to engage with their local Presbyterian churches and with friends, colleagues and associates who are Presbyterian. Tell them that an end to occupation that leaves Palestinians viable territory and a real chance to build their own future is in the best interests of Israelis, Palestinians, and Jews and Arabs the world over. Urge them to support even-handed and fair-minded methods of economic pressure to bring about an end to this awful conflict that has wasted so many lives.

Source: http://72.54.6.218/Business/Business.aspx?iid=90

Printer-friendly version

Israeli Professor: UK boycott justified

FranciscoG — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:34:40 -0700

Professor Rachel Giora of the University of Tel Aviv backs boycott on her colleagues with different views; 'I support every form of open criticism against the current policies of the Israeli government,' she says

In a special interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, Professor Rachel Giora of Tel Aviv University gives her reasons for supporting the British boycott on Israeli academic institutions.

You support the campaign of the British lecturers' organization for an academic boycott on Israel. Why? "A boycott of this type is a civil, non-violent act. It is a straight and clear expression of reservation by the boycotters."

But why an academic boycott? "I support every form of open criticism against the current policies of the Israeli government in the occupied territories, whether it is an economic boycott other forms of resistance. A lack of such stances allows Israelis to assume that the world is not against them. But the world, or large parts of it, are against them. And rightly so."

Isn't it better to act through academic cooperation? "It's hard to express revulsion and shake off criminal acts through cooperation with those who we oppose. Cooperation in the case is mistaken and blurs all of the evil."

What is your response to the claim that the struggle against the occupation should be limited to Israel, and 'the dirty laundry shouldn't be taken outside?' "How many other sacred stances will we draw here to silence resisting voices? Women who are beaten and raped were also demanded to keep silent 'for the peace of the home.'"

There are those that claim that calls to boycott Israel are an expression of a known and ancient European anti-Semitism. "Israel is not the victim here, but the aggressor, and the criticism against it are not a form of anti-Semitism. Those who criticize it assume that it is possible to demand that it be moral – to take real responsibility for peace in the region, to stop the killing and the starvation, and to get out of the territories. On the part of Israelis criticizing their country, they are doing it out of deep worry for the society in which they live."

There are many countries that are thought of as imperfect in terms of human rights – China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even the United States, and they do not face sanctions. "I have expectations that Israel will not be catalogued together with Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and even the United States. It's difficult for me to think that a 'democratic' state is not different from military dictatorships. Unfortunately, in its essence Israel is not different, but it is appropriate that it should be."

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3257291,00.html

Printer-friendly version

Investment Activism

Danish Banks To Divest From Israeli Companies

Kairos Palestine Document, a prayerful call of Palestinian Christians to End the Occupation

Britain’s Unions Commit to Mass Boycott

Global Actions to End Israel's Occupation

Neve Gordon: "Boycott Israel"

Palestine Urges Withdrawal of Rail Contract

Putting Words of Support into Boycott Action

Hampshire College First in U.S. to Divest from Israel

Church of England divests from Caterpillar

Investment Survey Update

Understanding United Methodist Divestment

Lake Oswego Methodist Leader Says Issue May Return

Survey: Approaches to Economic Engagement Toward a Just and Viable Peace in Israel and Palestine

Jewish Voice - A Moral Choice: Divesting from the Israeli Occupation

Methodists concerned with Israeli occupation N.E. Conference pushes to divest

Mennonite Peace & Justice Network-Open Letter to Congregations

Rev. John H. Thomas, Synod policy on Israel-Palestine 'remains today what it was before'

217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA on the issue of divestment

GA06072 From the Presbyterian Church USA website: http://www.pcusa.org/ga217/newsandphotos/ga06072.htmCommittee on Peacemaking and International Issues

2004 GA's Israel/Palestine language replaced

Largest Presbyterian Church Votes to Invest in Mid East Peace

Media Distortions! Presbyterians continue to stand firm against occupation

Israeli Professor: UK boycott justified

GA06072 From the Presbyterian Church USA website: http://www.pcusa.org/ga217/newsandphotos/ga06072.htm
Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues