    Washington Report, January/February 2006, pages 60-61

    Christianity and the Middle East

    Sabeel Conference Considers Economic Leverage as Tool to Fight Israeli
    Occupation

    By Sister Elaine Kelley

    FOR DECADES North American and European churches have composed
    countless, careful statements on the conflict in Palestine/Israel. They
    prayed for peace, passed resolutions, established missions on the
    ground, invested in institution-building for Palestinian Christians and
    engaged the international community in dialogue, delegations and
    declarations. Finally, after 38 years of Israeli military occupation of
    Palestine, some Christian denominations have crossed the great divide
    from making statements condemning the occupation to taking action that
    could result in economic consequences for corporations profiting from
    it. And the movement is growing. One Haaretz headline called it the
    “divestment snowball.”

    It began in June 2004, when the 216th General Assembly of the
    Presbyterian Church USA adopted a resolution calling for “a process of
    phased selective divestment” from multinational corporations involved in
    Israel’s illegal occupation. The target, clearly stated in the
    Presbyterian resolution, is the occupation—not, as opponents claim, the
    state of Israel itself or all businesses operating in Israel. The
    Presbyterian Church Mission Responsibility Through Investing (MRTI)
    Committee’s strategy of phased, selective divestment named five such
    corporations: Caterpillar, well-known as the manufacturer of the armored
    D9 bulldozers Israel uses to demolish Palestinian homes; ITT Industries,
    which provides electrical equipment and communications to the Israel
    Defense Forces; United Technologies, which makes military equipment used
    by Israel; Motorola, which supplies wireless communications; and
    Citigroup, reported by the Wall Street Journal in April 2005 as having
    moved funds from charitable sources to “terrorist organizations.”

    Israel-Firsters React

    The reaction by Israel-firsters to the Presbyterian initiative was swift
    and brutal. In an August 2004 Los Angeles Times op-ed, Alan Dershowitz,
    author of The Case for Israel, wrote that “The Presbyterian Church (USA)
    has committed a grievous sin” and that the resolution “bursts with
    bigotry.” When the World Council of Churches, The United Church of
    Christ, the United Methodist Church, American Friends Service Committee,
    and The Episcopal Church USA passed resolutions on what is accurately
    called morally responsible investment (MRI), as opposed to divestment,
    critics quickly organized a negative media campaign through the Internet
    and in major newspapers around the world. One Jerusalem Post article
    called the MRI strategy a “cycle of demonization” in which “radical
    church leaders” channel charitable funds to “extremists such as Sabeel.”

    After a year of negative media about the growing church movement, the
    Jerusalem-based Palestinian Christian group Sabeel and its support
    organizations in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, proposed a gathering of
    key church representatives working on various economic strategies. A
    planning committee of Sabeel, the World Council of Churches, KAIROS (the
    Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives), and the United Methodist
    Church organized an international conference on “A Call for Morally
    Responsible Investment: A Nonviolent Response to the Israeli
    Occupation.” Held Oct. 26 to 29 in Toronto, it was aimed at
    representatives of churches actively pursuing economic leverage
    strategies, as well as those interested in learning more about it. The
    event was inspired by a document of the same name, published by Sabeel
    and available online at .

    Fifty-seven co-sponsors funded and promoted the event including, in
    addition to those on the planning committee: Brothers of the Christian
    Schools, Christian Brothers Conference U.S./Toronto (who operate
    Bethlehem University); Episcopal Peace Fellowship; Presbyterian Peace
    Fellowship; Pax Christi USA; Christian Peacemaker Teams; Jewish Voice
    for Peace; and the Muslim Canadian Congress.

    Sabeel’s Rev. Naim Ateek and Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee
    Against House Demolitions (Staff photo E. Kelley).

    Close to 200 church representatives from Canada, the U.S., the U.K., the
    Netherlands, Brazil, and South Africa participated in the event.
    Speakers included Rev. Naim Ateek of Sabeel in Jerusalem; South African
    theologian Farid Esack; Michael Mandel, professor at York University’s
    Osgoode Law School in Toronto; Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee
    Against House Demolitions; and Bishop Dom Luiz Prado of the Anglican
    Peace and Justice Network, from Sao Leopoldo, Brazil.

    A coalition of pro-Israel groups targeted the Toronto event, as well as
    three other October Sabeel conferences held in Chicago, Cedar Rapids and
    Denver. Headlines called Sabeel a “fraudulent peace group” and its
    series of conferences “a racist roadshow.” The Allied Jewish Federation
    of Colorado sent a two-page letter to 40 of the 78 co-sponsors of the
    Denver conference urging them to withdraw their support, citing Sabeel’s
    “disturbing and often extreme views,” and the one-sidedness of the
    conference program. Similar attempts were made in Chicago and Cedar
    Rapids. Not a single co-sponsor withdrew, however.

    “The reaction to what the Presbyterian Church did was far stronger and
    more coordinated than anything anyone could possibly have imagined,”
    said Rev. William Somplatsky-Jarman, a member of the Presbyterian
    Church’s MRTI Committee.

    E. Kim Byham of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church USA, and
    its liaison to the Committee on Social Responsibility in Investments,
    was a member of the church’s April 2005 delegation to Israel-Palestine,
    which made the recommendation that resulted in the resolution
    unanimously passed in October. Contrary to media reporting, Byham noted,
    the Episcopal Church is putting into action an MRI strategy similar to
    the Presbyterians. While the Episcopal Church has not yet named
    corporations to engage on the issues, both churches hope to change the
    behavior of corporations—a process that begins with positive engagement.
    “The issue was brought home to me how difficult it is for a church to
    craft a careful response,” Byham added. “The United Church of Christ had
    bent over backward with a document that was balanced, emphasizing the
    sins of both sides. I couldn’t imagine anything more balanced, yet
    representatives of the Jewish community said the UCC reports were as bad
    as the Presbyterians’.”

    Nathan Wright of the United Church of Christ, Global Ministries, shared
    a play-by-play of the UCC process which resulted in the passage of a
    resolution supporting the use of economic leverage. After several UCC
    conferences had passed resolutions, Nathan, then living in Beit Sahour,
    asked the YMCA in Jerusalem to send a letter to Global Ministries
    supporting a church divestment initiative. “Sabeel went one step
    further,” Wright said, “sending a personal letter to every single
    conference,” including a copy of the Sabeel document on morally
    responsible investment. Prior to the convening of the summer General
    Synod—the gathering of the UCC’s 39 conferences—the Massachusetts
    conference came out with a substitute resolution encouraging economic
    support for both Palestinians and Israelis. Describing the move as “an
    obvious attempt to derail us,” Wright, although not at the Synod,
    reported that there was hot debate in the midst of intense media attacks
    by Jewish organizations.

    According to David Wildman of the United Methodist Church General Board
    of Global Ministries and the U.S. Campaign Against Israeli Occupation, a
    sense of urgency has moved activists toward divestment. The strategy has
    created much resistance, he said, because “It shifts the locus of
    decision-making from the government to the much wider circle of
    churches, universities, trade unions, and pension funds.” Calling it “an
    exciting process,” Wildman noted, however, that some are nervous about
    it.

    Salpy Eskidjian Weiderud, former special consultant to the Geneva-based
    World Council of Churches General Secretary on Palestine and Israel,
    described the WCC as an elaborate structure of clergy and laity, of
    alliances and networks that can forge a global movement with immense
    potential to effect change. This past February, the WCC commended the
    action of the Presbyterian Church and urged its member churches
    worldwide to consider economic measures to end Israel’s occupation.
    Explaining the international legal definitions of sanctions, boycotts,
    divestment, and morally responsible investment, she noted that it only
    made sense for the WCC governing body, which has made clear and bold
    statements since 1948 on its Israel/Palestine policy, to support
    divestment as a way to ensure “that it is not in any way contributing
    financially to what it says is illegal or immoral.”

    One lesson from the conference was to beware of what one reads in the
    papers. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), for example,
    was reported to have defeated a divestment proposal. The Lutherans are
    not completely out of the mix, however. Lutheran Pastor Rev. Mitri Raheb
    from Bethlehem, who works in partnership with the ELCA, was a guest
    speaker at the June 2004 Presbyterian Assembly which passed the
    divestment resolution. There he stated, “Divestment is important because
    it is a way for the churches to take direct action. For too long, the
    churches have simply issued statements—and that is not enough.”

    Apparently, the ELCA has taken his advice to heart. In its 2005
    Churchwide Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine, the Church
    adopted a resolution condemning the Israeli annexation wall and left the
    door open on investments. As it stated in the section on Stewarding
    Economic Resources, “The ELCA will seek to expend God-given economic
    resources in ways that support the quest for a just peace in the Holy
    Land” which may include “managing collective or personal investments
    with concern for their impact on the lives of all Holy Land peoples who
    suffer from the ongoing conflict.”

    The Sabeel conference was a first step in alliance-building and
    networking among denominations working on economic strategies. As
    Wildman pointed out to the audience, “Nonviolent strategists are the
    greatest threat” to oppression, and are demonized precisely because they
    proceed from a moral basis.

    Meanwhile, the movement grows. Jewish individuals and organizations have
    stepped forward to support what the churches are doing. A year ago
    Israeli human rights lawyer and refusnik Shamai Leibovitz wrote, “I
    believe that selective economic pressure is the most effective way to
    end the brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and bring peace and
    security to Israelis and Palestinians.”

    Speaking at the Toronto conference, Liat Weingart of Jewish Voice for
    Peace said that JVP was the first U.S. Jewish organization to come out
    in support of the Presbyterian decision. Stav Adivi of Courage to
    Refuse, Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun, Jeff Halper of the Israeli
    Committee Against House Demolitions, and others have expressed support
    for the churches’ actions. And in September, at its annual plenary
    session in London, European Jews for a Just Peace passed a declaration
    expressing support for the call of over 170 Palestinian NGOs for
    boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it complies with
    international law.

    With a renewed sense of urgency the churches have acknowledged that the
    situation in the Holy Land will not change without determined action
    involving risk and criticism—from the media and, indeed, from their own
    congregations. The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends published this
    question in its online newsletter: “Israel’s Occupation: Is It Time For
    Divestment?”

    According to many attending the Sabeel conference in Toronto, that time
    is long overdue.

    Sister Elaine Kelley is administrative director of the Portland,
    OR-based Friends of Sabeel-North America ().