Churches Considering Divestment Of Assets Of Companies Profiting From Occupation

[NATO AIR]

good for them

this is not anti-semetic, this is about fairness, justice and peace.

the unjust land grab of wacko israelis in the gaza strip and the west bank has been tolerated for too long. its about time folks started forcing the israelis to play a good game about justice, not just talk up one.

http://csmonitor.com/2004/1206/p11s02-lire.html?s=t5

From churches, a challenge to Israeli policies

Some may wield an old financial tool - divestment - to register concern about peace prospects.

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

A vote by the Presbyterian Church (USA) to use economic sanctions against certain companies doing business with Israel - namely those that profit from the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza - has set off a quiet firestorm within the American religious community.
The Presbyterians' decision to consider divesting such businesses from its $8 billion portfolio, coupled with the prospect that the Episcopal Church and other churches might do the same, is adding to tensions that have risen over recent years between mainline Protestant churches and the American Jewish community over their differing views of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

It is also stirring Jewish groups to try to head off divestment - and to rebuild a rapport with these churches, with whom they have long worked to further civil rights and social justice.

"To call for divestment played into all the language of boycott, from earlier periods in Jewish history to the Arab boycott of Israel. It caused an explosion in the Jewish community," says David Elcott, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

In some ways, last summer's divestment vote has forced a conversation about the Middle East conflict. It also raises the stakes for those who, earlier this year, launched a bid to renew the old coalition. Christian and Jewish leaders have met twice, hosted by AJC and the National Council of Churches. From discussions on the "theology of land" to the divestment issue, the religious leaders "spoke from their pain" and asked tough questions of one another, says the Rev. Shanta Premawardhana, NCC interfaith secretary.

Tensions rose when a Presbyterian delegation traveling in the Middle East in October met with members of Hizbullah, the Lebanese group on the US terrorist list. The church's national leadership disavowed the action. Then in November, the church received a letter threatening arson against Presbyterian churches unless it halted the divestment process. Jewish groups condemned the threat.

Last week, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs asked Protestants to reject divestment in favor of joint efforts to end the conflict. Elaborating on Jewish concerns, it said the divestment process is discriminatory, will provoke intransigence on both sides, and "is dangerously ill-matched to our passionately shared vision of a peaceful resolution to the conflict."

Mainline churches have supported Israel since 1948 and reject terrorism; they also have longstanding ties to churches in the Holy Land and are critical of Israeli military practices in the territories. Illegal expansion of Israeli settlements and a new security wall that encroaches on Palestinian land are making a viable Palestinian state less feasible, Presbyterians and others say. With the US government taking little action to help matters, they add, unusual measures are required.

"The decision to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment ... was not taken lightly," the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a Presbyterian leader, wrote to members of the US Congress. "It was born out of the frustration that many of our members, as well as members of other denominations, feel with the current policies of Israel and those of our own government."

The Presbyterians say their aims are to influence the practices of companies and use their resources - an $8 billion portfolio - in morally responsible ways. "We have to be principled; we respect human rights and the legitimacy of international law, and when Israelis or Palestinians breech either we'll take a hard look at our investments," says the Rev. Marthame Sanders, who was in ministry in the West Bank.

The church's committee on socially responsible investment will identify firms that provide services or equipment to support the military occupation or Jewish settlements; finance or assist in building the wall; or provide help to Israeli or Palestinian groups that commit violence against innocent civilians.

It will seek meetings with corporate leaders, and possibly file shareholder resolutions, using divestment a last resort. Divestment decisions require approval by the church general assembly in 2006.

Some US Jewish peace groups support the initiative, Mr. Sanders says, including Jewish Voice for Peace. JVP has filed its own shareholder initiative asking Caterpillar Inc. to investigate whether Israeli use of its bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes violates the firm's code of conduct. Other liberal Jewish groups, however, oppose it.

The Jewish community has countered other divestment efforts. Campaigns on colleges have made little headway. A proposal to make Somerville, Mass., the first American city to divest from Israel is likely to be turned back this week.

It is making some inroads with the churches, too. Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago, which has close ties to a neighboring synagogue, is asking the denomination to slow the process and engage the Jewish community. It proposes that, if divestment occurs, money from stock sales be reinvested in Israel in companies not tied to the occupation.

"I've tried to interpret to my Jewish friends that this is not an anti-Israel nor anti-Jewish decision, but an attempt by a church to speak a word of hope and justice for [Palestinians] for whom those words are pretty elusive," says the Rev. John Buchanan, church pastor. But "I'm not convinced divestment is a wise thing."

The US Episcopal Church, meanwhile, said in November it will begin to study how it should respond to companies that contribute to the occupation's infrastructure or to violence against civilians. It will include Jewish groups, Palestinians, and the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem.

"For us, the term is not 'divestment,' " says Bishop Christopher Epting, deputy for interfaith relations. "We'd be voting certain shareholder resolutions expressing concern to companies in which we own stock." Jewish leaders are more approving of this approach.

Other mainline Protestants are also talking about the issue.

"The notion that a two-state solution might no longer be realistic is very unsettling to many people, both Jewish and Christian," says Jim Winkler of the United Methodist Church's public policy board.

Jewish and mainline Christian leaders say they will travel together to the region to talk with Israelis and Palestinians, and will urge the US government to become more engaged in the peace process. "The Presbyterian decision was a flash point," says Bishop Epting, "but in a strange way, it may well reenergize the relationship."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The occupation is justifiable considering the barbarity of the terrorists.

 

[NATO AIR]

The occupation is justifiable considering the barbarity of the terrorists.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. The occupation is wrong and only causes both sides much, much needless headache and hurt.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll have to respectfully disagree. The occupation is wrong and only causes both sides much, much needless headache and hurt.

It is the only logical response to a population taught nothing but hatred and destruction of israel.

 

[NATO AIR]

It is the only logical response to a population taught nothing but hatred and destruction of israel.

By giving that said brainwashed population real reasons to hate and fight israel?

I won't deny that many palestinians have been brainwashed into hating israel and jews. that's a real fact. what isn't a fact is that taking on the role of oppressor and stealing land, bulldozing houses (not just suicide bombers houses but any house not built w/o the proper permit, when the permit format changes everyday to prevent palestinians from having one), ruining lives, keeping people in sickening squelor, etc etc, that this somehow makes you safer and more powerful.

it doesn't. you see now sharon trying to undo all this, and the nutjob settlers willing to tear israel apart to keep him from doing it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

By giving that said brainwashed population real reasons to hate and fight israel?

They already have enough reasons without gaza. Pulling out will not foster any positive will. It's just appeasement of terrorists.

I won't deny that many palestinians have been brainwashed into hating israel and jews. that's a real fact. what isn't a fact is that taking on the role of oppressor and stealing land, bulldozing houses (not just suicide bombers houses but any house not built w/o the proper permit, when the permit format changes everyday to prevent palestinians from having one), ruining lives, keeping people in sickening squelor, etc etc, that this somehow makes you safer and more powerful.

it doesn't. you see now sharon trying to undo all this, and the nutjob settlers willing to tear israel apart to keep him from doing it.

They do this to SURVIVE. I know you think you need to be fair and accept SOME lib crap to be balanced. That's not what balance is.

 

[NATO AIR]

They already have enough reasons without gaza. Pulling out will not foster any positive will. It's just appeasement of terrorists.


They do this to SURVIVE. I know you think you need to be fair and accept SOME lib crap to be balanced. That's not what balance is.

Pulling out will not foster any positive will but it will make it easier, eventually, for a strong leader to lead the Palestinians away from hatred and violence and towards peace with Israel. It has to happen, eventually.

They do this to get a better defensive position and also to further the cause of peace. yea, its survival, but its going to save israeli and palestinian lives in the long run, rather than the old way of survival (stealing land to punish them and strengthen israel's hand).

this isn't lib crap, this is about doing the right thing. that's something most liberals are not doing these days. bush is doing the right thing, encouraging the palestinians to be free and give up terrorism, as well as encouraging the israelis to give up this old way of thinking and embrace this new one (sharon's new view) and become stronger and more secure.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Pulling out will not foster any positive will but it will make it easier, eventually, for a strong leader to lead the Palestinians away from hatred and violence and towards peace with Israel. It has to happen, eventually.

I don't see the connection.

They do this to get a better defensive position and also to further the cause of peace. yea, its survival, but its going to save israeli and palestinian lives in the long run, rather than the old way of survival (stealing land to punish them and strengthen israel's hand).

That's just a claim of yours. I don't see the causal connection. THEY must cease killing civilians before any withdraw should occur. Israelis only respond. I agree they respond with great force, but that is all these people understand apparently.

this isn't lib crap, this is about doing the right thing. that's something most liberals are not doing these days. bush is doing the right thing, encouraging the palestinians to be free and give up terrorism, as well as encouraging the israelis to give up this old way of thinking and embrace this new one (sharon's new view) and become stronger and more secure.

I believe there should be a pullout only when the two state solutions is achieved and the boundaries are drawn.

 

[NATO AIR]

I don't see the connection.

That's just a claim of yours. I don't see the causal connection. THEY must cease killing civilians before any withdraw should occur. Israelis only respond. I agree they respond with great force, but that is all these people understand apparently.


I believe there should be a pullout only when the two state solutions is achieved and the boundaries are drawn.

The connection is that it will be easier for the leader to negotiate with Israel with Israeli settlers stealing less and less Palestinian land. It becomes less of an emotional, pressing issue.

With fewer Israelis in the danger zones, fewer will die. Haven't you noticed how fewer Israelis are dying from suicide bombings? (the wall is working) This number will continue to decrease. I suspect many Palestinians will die in the likely civil war (or at least serious violence between factions next year) next year but that is something bound to happen sadly.

Your view on the pullout is your own. I can see merit in it but I also understand Sharon's viewpoint and agree with his more.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The connection is that it will be easier for the leader to negotiate with Israel with Israeli settlers stealing less and less Palestinian land. It becomes less of an emotional, pressing issue.

I doubt it.

With fewer Israelis in the danger zones, fewer will die. Haven't you noticed how fewer Israelis are dying from suicide bombings? (the wall is working) This number will continue to decrease. I suspect many Palestinians will die in the likely civil war (or at least serious violence between factions next year) next year but that is something bound to happen sadly.

Your view on the pullout is your own. I can see merit in it but I also understand Sharon's viewpoint and agree with his more.

It's shared by others as well. Well he's being politically correct. This is war.

 

[NATO AIR]

I doubt it.


It's shared by others as well. Well he's being politically correct. This is war.

It is. We'll see what happens. I don't see Israel weakened or hurt by this at all,I see them stronger and more secure. Now its on the Palestinians to figure their side out. Its gonna be messy, it may not be what we want. But finally, they're gonna figure it out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is. We'll see what happens. I don't see Israel weakened or hurt by this at all,I see them stronger and more secure. Now its on the Palestinians to figure their side out. Its gonna be messy, it may not be what we want. But finally, they're gonna figure it out.

Do you have a good link on sharon's plan? I actually think you may be more well informed on this than me!

 

[NATO AIR]

Do you have a good link on sharon's plan? I actually think you may be more well informed on this than me!

I have to muster in 10 minutes in the hangar bay. Our section leader's an unorganized jackass, so it'll be a good half hour. When I return, I will sniff around for as much info as I can find about what Sharon's up to. Please be patient in this regard. :cof:

 

[NATO AIR]

here are some various links rwa, i will look for more if i can find anything worthwhile, the haaretz is the best, while that commentary from mideastweb.org about nails it for what this is for israel....

http://www.mideastweb.org/disengagement.htm

This "strategic retreat" would allow Israel to conserve resources being wasted on the settlements, reduce friction with Palestinians, and reduce pressure on Israel to negotiate a settlement on unfavorable terms. This surprise move by the right-wing "father" of Israeli settlement activity may also have been aimed at ending the Oslo Peace Process, and giving Israel a free hand to operate against terrorists in Gaza.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

(the whole plan is here)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3462461.stm
(The reasoning and the consequences for the US, good map as well, and suprisiningly fair reporting about the issue from the usually pro-palestinian BBC)

 

[ajwps]

good for them

this is not anti-semetic, this is about fairness, justice and peace.

the unjust land grab of wacko israelis in the gaza strip and the west bank has been tolerated for too long. its about time folks started forcing the israelis to play a good game about justice, not just talk up one.

What is this occupation of which you speak?

How does a country occupy its own land?

What right do those claim they are occuppied have any basis for this statement?

The Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" do so in order to persuade a misinformed world that they are a distinct nationality and that "Palestine" is their ancestral homeland. But, of course, they are no distinct nationality at all. They are entirely the same in language, custom, and tribal and family ties as the Arabs of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait and beyond. There is no more difference between the "Palestinians" and the other Arabs of those countries than there is between, say, the citizens of Minnesota and of Wisconsin.

What's more, many of the "Palestinians", or their immediate ancestors, came to the area attracted by the prosperity created by the Jews, in what previously had been pretty much of a wasteland.

The nationhood of the "Palestinians" is a myth.

The "West Bank"
Again, this is a concept that did not exist until 1948, when the army of the Kingdom of Transjordan, together with five other Arab armies, invaded the Jewish state of Israel, on the very day of its creation.

Israel no more occupies a country called palestine than New York occupies Manhattan.

If the Arabs were ever to attempt to create a sovereign nation they would all perish. History has shown that before the British made a Jordan or any other Arab country, these Arabs were happily roaming tribal groups fighting and klling themselves.

There is no evidence that the Arab psyche has changed.

 

[NATO AIR]

merry christmas aj

 

[José]

I agree completely, palestinian arabs are indeed just arabs.

but remember

arab = semite, which is more than we can say about an ashkhenazi "jew" like yourself.

Ashkhenazis are just a bunch of eastern europeans BEHAVING like ethnic jews did 2 millenia ago.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree completely, palestinian arabs are indeed just arabs.

but remember

arab = semite, which is more than we can say about an ashkhenazi "jew" like yourself.

Ashkhenazis are just a bunch of eastern europeans BEHAVING like ethnic jews did 2 millenia ago.

I support them anyway, as an ally against barbaric, murderous, backward, muslims. I don't really care about "who has the right".

 

[José]

Originally posted by RWA
I support them anyway, as an ally against barbaric, murderous, backward, muslims. I don't really care about "who has the right".

Let’s try to find some common ground here, avenger.

I still remember a dialogue you had with WJ.

William had started one of his typical threads:

“I choose the whites...

I choose white chicks...

I choose my people... etc etc etc”

Then you posted something along these lines:

“I choose us too, William... but I still believe in a pan-ethnic society.”

Hell, if you do believe in pan-ethnic societies, I wonder whether there is still something left for us to disagree !!!

A pan-ethnic society is all I’d like to see in Palestine, Avenger.

When you say the jewish supremacist state is an ally against muslim fundamentalists, you couldn’t be more wrong.

A pan-ethnic Palestine would help isolate the wahabists from the arab people.

As a mono-ethnic state for jews, Israel is nothing but a major cause of anti-americanism in the Middle East and, consequently, a major source of recruitment for wahabists.

 

[ajwps]

I agree completely, palestinian arabs are indeed just arabs.

but remember

arab = semite, which is more than we can say about an ashkhenazi "jew" like yourself.

Ashkhenazis are just a bunch of eastern europeans BEHAVING like ethnic jews did 2 millenia ago.

Unfortunately Jose, the Arabs living in Israel also claim that they are decendents of the Canaanites and Philistines who were definitely NOT SEMITES. These two groups were Bronze age peoples who migrated to this land. It may be said in general that the theories about the origins of the Philistines have not fundamentally changed in the course of time. The idea that the Philistines settled themselves during the mass migration of the 13th and 12th centuries B.C. and that they belonged to the 'Sea Peoples', as the invaders were named in Egyptian texts, is both found in recent and older literature.

The Old Testament also offers a clue as to the origins of the Philistines. In Jeremiah 47:4 they are named 'the remnant from the coasts of Caphtor', and Amos compares the exodus of Israel from Egypt with that of the Philistines 'from Caphtor'(Am.9:7)

The question remains what exactly is meant by 'Caphtor'? Usually it is identified with Kephtiu, which is known from Egyptian records, as well as from Ugarit and Mari.

Caphtor is generally taken as synonymous with Crete, but also with Cyprus and the southwest of Asia Minor. The Septuagint and other ancient translations of the Bible identify Caphtor with Cappadocia. There is extensive literature on the subject.

The oldest literature about the Philistines points to Crete as their original home. This idea is strengthened by the ancient name of the Philistine city of Gaza: Minoah; the same name was given to several trade stations started from Crete. It is furthermore known from the Odyssee that the island was inhabited around 1200 B.C.

Modern day Arabs are not semites. The bastard son of Abraham, Ishmael is now the modern day Saudi Arabian people. Does this change the fact that Israel was taken from the decendents of these ancient non-semites mean that the Jewish people have no sovereign country in this land promised to the Jews (not semites) of the entire world?

And you Jose are you just another decendant of modern day Cretins?