Commission On Interreligious Affairs
of Reform Judaism

Divestment Campaigns by Mainline Churches: Update  

Mark J. Pelavin

Director, Commission on Interreligious Affairs  

Report to the Union for Reform Judaism Executive Committee

September 12, 2005

1. Overview

Summertime is, I’ve come to learn, church meeting time. Over the summer months nearly every one of the major churches, including most of the mainline Protestant churches, hold their annual national meetings. The Unitarians gathered in Boston, the United Church of Christ in Atlanta, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Orlando, and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ in Portland, Oregon. (The church receiving the most attention in past divestment updates, the Presbyterian Church, however, did not meet this summer because it only holds a biennial general assembly.) Each church was under some pressure to consider divestment, both internally and from one another.

While it is easy to remain pessimistic about this situation in which so many churches are examining the option of sanctions against Israel, our efforts have begun to bear some fruit. Local dialogue must continue and we have to keep on reaching out to church leadership.

 2. Common Themes in Church Divestment

a. Reaching out to Church Leadership

The Jewish community has been successful in reaching out both to top church leaders and “mid-level” leaders since the calls for divestment have begun. Church leaders understand why the Jewish community reacted as it did to the Presbyterians’ divestment resolutions, and they are committed to not making the same mistake. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent they are concerned about having to deal with a difficult interreligious issue, and to what extent they think the Jewish argument has merit. There is, in general, little compassion for the “Israeli narrative” of the conflict; the churches view the situation almost entirely through the eyes of the Palestinians. However, while Israel has few friends among church leaders, it does have some. And it is important that we continue to cultivate them.

b. Criticism of the Security Barrier

Even among churches that rejected calls for divestment, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and the Disciples of Christ (DOC), their assemblies passed resolutions sharply critical of Israel’s security barrier. These criticisms range from very harsh – the United Church of Christ’s call to “tear down the wall” – to more moderate: the ELCA’s statement that was, carefully, critical of the path of the wall but not critical of Israel’s right to erect the wall.

c. Interest in “Constructive Investment”

There is tremendous interest in alternatives to divestment, or what many are calling “constructive investment.” This approach enables churches to use economic leverage but, rather than cutting off funds, find ways to use those funds to invest in Palestinian infrastructure or cooperative projects. This will present the Jewish community with a different type of challenge: a number of churches are looking for advice from Jewish leadership in moving forward along these lines.

d. The Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

There is a great deal of discussion in the American Jewish community about the role played by the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, which has been a major force promoting divestment among the Protestant churches. The group’s director, The Reverend Dr. Naim Stifan Ateek, has spoken across North America as a guest of Presbyterian and other Protestant churches as well as at conferences hosted by the Friends of Sabeel-North America. In his attacks, Ateek uses many traditional theological anti-Semitic themes. Despite his intense criticism of Israel, Ateek has said that he condemns the suicide bombings on the grounds of faith and the belief that God is with the oppressed. According to the ideology of the center, a single binational state is the ideal solution to the conflict. (For more information about Sabeel, see the outstanding report on its activities prepared by the Anti Defamation League).

e. Calls from the Christian Community to Stop Divestment

There have been some important voices from the mainline world calling for to end divestment. Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish Christian Relations has been very active, and the International Conference of Christians and Jews meeting this summer in Chicago also issued a positive statement. In addition – and this merits a longer consideration on its own – the Evangelical Christian community has been very critical of the divestment efforts. On a local level, there is also dialogue among Christians and Jews regarding the value of divestment and its appropriateness in this situation.

 f. Other Calls for Divestment

Last spring the divestment campaign also moved out of the churches and into universities and municipalities. So far, the resolutions – in the University of Wisconsin system and Somerville, MA – have been defeated, but countering similar efforts will have to be a major priority.

3. The Presbyterian Church

The PC-USA divestment process is moving forward. The MRTI (Mission Responsibility Through Investment) committee now has named four United States companies they see as supporting Israeli occupation. The church warned these companies that it will consider selling its investments in them unless they change their company policies. The companies that were issued this warning include Caterpillar, Motorola, ITT Industries, and United Technologies. They were singled out for supplying communication, military, and building equipment to Israel. A fifth company, Citigroup, was also noted for its connection to a bank accused of moving funds to Palestinian terrorist organizations. The companies have denied that such accusations by the Presbyterian Church are grounded in fact, and that they have acted wrongly. This process marches on, notwithstanding the disengagement from Gaza and other changes in the situation.   Despite hesitations after the MRTI decision, a meeting was held in Louisville, Kentucky, with leadership from the Jewish community and PC-USA. Together with my colleague from the Conservative Movement, I spent a full day at the PC-USA headquarters in Louisville. PC-USA is interested in having someone from the Jewish community speak before the MRTI committee. They are also interested in having someone speak to the committee, which will consider any divestment resolution at their next General Assembly in the summer of 2006. They are also going to continue to promote local dialogue through programs such as “Open Doors Open Minds”. Even with these advances, however, the PC-USA appears committed to moving ahead with its divestment process despite the very real changes on the ground. I am now convinced that there are a variety of factors at play: organizational culture, ideology, and the basic rules of organizational physics (that processes in motion tend to remain in motion until being acted upon by an equal and opposite force).  

4. Conclusion

Although the campaigns are far from over – the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, and some of the International organizations are still debating divestment – we are making headway in our conversations with the various denominations. The crucial arena for us is, and remains, between congregations and their neighboring churches.

Divestment and Mainline Protestant Churches – Update April 26, 2005

1. Overview
2. New Developments
3. What is/should be the Jewish community's response?
4. Talking points

1. Overview

Almost a year after the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s resolutions to start a process of divesting from Israel and to condemn the separation barrier made headlines, we are now facing a new wave of divestment proposals in the Mainline Protestant community.

The United Church of Christ (UCC), the United Methodist Church (UMC), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are all considering calls for divestment and the public condemnation of certain Israeli policies. Their deliberations are at different points in their own processes, and they are by no means identical on the substance. The actions are detailed below.

It is important to emphasize that these proposals are all in preliminary stages, and that we now have an opportunity to reach out that we did not have with the Presbyterian Church (where the first we knew of their proposed resolution was from press reports after it was adopted).

2. New Developments
1. UCC

The 2005 General Synod of the United Church of Christ will meet from July 1-5 in Atlanta, Georgia. The resolutions the Synod will consider are available on-line at http://www.ucc.org/synod/resolutions/index.html#RES. Three resolutions concern the Middle East, and in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two of those resolutions have to do with the church's economic leverage and have been submitted from two local UCC churches:

Calling for a Study of Divestment of Church Funds from Companies that Profit from the Perpetuation of Violence and Injustice in Israel and Palestine
http://www.ucc.org/synod/resolutions/gs25-3.pdf

Selective Divestment from Companies Involved with Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Building of the "Security Fence," and the Israeli Settlements Within the Palestinian Territory
http://www.ucc.org/synod/resolutions/gs25-15.pdf

These two resolutions will be assigned to a committee of the Synod for a discussion and then a recommendation to the plenary.

Additionally, the board of Wider Church Ministries (which, together with the Disciples' Division of Overseas Ministries, forms Common Global Ministries) has submitted a resolution on the separation barrier, called "Tear Down the Wall" (http://www.ucc.org/synod/resolutions/gs25-16.pdf). This is the same resolution adopted in November by this organization’s board.

2. UMC

April 13-17, 2005 the United Methodist General Board of Church & Society held its Spring meeting. Their Peace with Justice/United Nations and International Affairs Work Area committee "agreed to begin studying the issue of divestiture of holdings of companies whose products and services help support the Israeli occupation of Palestine."

The committee intends to dialogue with a wide variety of organizations and individuals both inside and outside the United Methodist Church, including the Reform Jewish Movement, over the coming year, and it has not made a predetermined decision.

3. ELCA

The ECLA has taken a different, more constructive approach. During their biennial meeting April 9-11, 2005 in Chicago, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) affirmed a strategy for ELCA engagement in Israel and Palestine and acknowledged an "urgent" call from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land (ELCJHL) for action regarding the construction of an Israeli separation wall on Palestinian territories.

The council asked members, congregations and synods of the ELCA and its related agencies and institutions to implement actions outlined in The Churchwide Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine with a "sense of urgency, recognizing the window of opportunity for peace with justice" in the Middle East. The council conveyed the strategy as a report to the 2005 Churchwide Assembly and recommended the assembly adopt a resolution that calls on all expressions of the church to participate in an emerging campaign for peace in Israel and Palestine. The resolution also asks the 10,657 congregations of the ELCA to become part of a "chain of action" to link the assembly with the church's 65 synod assemblies in 2006 through use of communion ware made in Bethlehem.

The Strategy for ELCA Engagement in Israel and Palestine provides a history and lists assets the ELCA brings to peacebuilding efforts in the Middle East, current ELCA policy and practice, sets of desired outcomes and action steps to achieve those outcomes. Outcomes include achieving coexistence for Israelis and Palestinians in justice and peace, a reduction in poverty and unemployment among Palestinians, and a negotiated, final status agreement that includes a "shared Jerusalem." Action steps to achieve those outcomes include an ELCA churchwide campaign that involves building awareness and advocacy.

Last year the council asked the ELCA Division for Global Mission and Division for Church in Society to develop a strategy that would enable the ELCA, in relationship with its "ecumenical and interfaith partners," to contribute to the wider movement for peace with justice in the Middle East. The strategy highlights a campaign, "Peace not Walls: Stand for Justice in the Holy Land," designed to energize members of the church to build relationships with companions in the Middle East -- particularly with the ELCJHL -- and help the ELCA live out is commitment and call to be a "public church."

In another action the council encouraged the ELCA's five million members to become aware of the threat to the future of the ELCJHL and hope for peace in the Middle East posed by the construction of an Israeli separation wall on Palestinian territories. The council called for an immediate cessation of the construction and removal of all existing portions of the separation wall, requested that the Division for Church in Society intensify its advocacy efforts in accordance with the Churchwide Strategy for ELCA Engagement in Israel and Palestine, and directed appropriate staff of the churchwide organization to provide information about the separation wall for use in congregations and synods of the ELCA.

It should be noted, however, that the ELCA’s Consultative Panel on Lutheran-Jewish Relations (in the Department for Ecumenical Affairs) released a statement in April 2005 entitled "Divestment or Constructive Investment? Alternative Responses to the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." It states, in short:

We view divestment as an extreme tactic with a powerful negative symbolism and with potential society-wide impact. We particularly question its appropriateness at the present time in light of the responsiveness of the Israeli government to positive developments in Palestinian leadership and politics, particularly since the death of Yasser Arafat.

In view of these factors, and striving in concert with our Palestinian sisters and brothers in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land to pursue peace with justice, we recommend, instead of divestment, a strategy of positive investment, i.e., of providing support to partners in the region who share similar goals.

…

Hope for the future of the Holy Land rests in the constructive work being done in Israel as well as Palestine in the fields of interreligious encounter, human rights advocacy, and intellectual creativity. As a church committed to accompanying all the people of the Holy Land, the ELCA can choose, rather than divesting from Israel, to invest its advocacy, volunteer work, and financial resources in those who share in the quest for peace with justice. As we seek to offer encouragement in this time of hope, our focus and our efforts are best directed to supporting those who are demonstrably making a positive difference on the ground.

Useful links for ELCA policy on the Middle East:

Read the full text of the statement by the Panel on Lutheran-Jewish relations.
4-18 04 Church Council resolution on Roadmap
4-18 04 Church Council resolution on separation wall

3. What is/should be the Jewish community’s response?
1. Joint letter to Mainline Protestant churches

In response to these recent actions toward divestment, leaders of major Jewish organizations sent a joint letter to the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church. The text of the letter follows:

April 22, 2005

Dear Partners in Interfaith Dialogue,

The Jewish community remains committed to working in partnership with the mainline Protestant churches in our shared goal of a lasting peace in the Middle East that will allow both Israelis and Palestinians to fulfill their hopes and aspirations in security. We seek a balanced conversation in which those suffering on all sides are heard, a conversation that centers on assuring the religious, political and economic rights of Christians, Muslims and Jews.

The partnership between Presbyterian Church (USA) and the organized Jewish community was seriously strained by the divisive decision of the Presbyterian Church (USA) at its General Assembly to begin a process which includes the possibility of divestment from companies doing business in Israel. In the subsequent months, we have witnessed credible progress on the ground in the Middle East. The adherence to the path towards divestment by the General Assembly Council has disappointed us. The reliance upon opinions of the extreme fringe of the Jewish community to support these misguided efforts has confounded us. The resulting fracture in the relationship between the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Jewish community has distressed us.

The Jewish community is committed to engage in dialogue, even with those with whom we disagree - that is the very nature of dialogue. Yet, any Protestant denomination that would consider the weapon of economic sanctions to be unilaterally and prejudicially used against the State of Israel, or those who would hold the State of Israel to a standard different from any other sovereign state, creates an environment which makes constructive dialogue almost impossible. We value debate and in no way seek to suppress healthy discussion. Religious communities deserve the freedom, in their own unique ways, to consider how best to live out their calling as a community of faith. We, of course, seek the same right to speak out on issues which face our community. We will reach out to ministers and congregants, to religious and civic leaders, in our effort to focus us on peace rather than internecine conflict. Our goal is to mobilize Christians and Jews as allies for peace, not partisans who would discriminate against Israel.

At this fragile time in Middle East peace negotiations, all who seek peace should be focused on continued economic and political engagement, and what can be done to support efforts for peace and confidence building. We call on our Christian colleagues to reject all negative economic and political sanctions, for they undermine peace, foster prejudice and give hope to extremists on every side.

Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, Anti-Defamation League
Betty Ehrenberg, Orthodox Union
Dr. David Elcott, American Jewish Committee
Ethan Felson, Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Rabbi Eugene Korn, American Jewish Congress
Mark Pelavin, Union for Reform Judaism
Mark Waldman, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism

More information about the above letter is available here: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4704_62.htm.

2. What can rabbis and community leaders do?

In order to avoid being blindsided as we were with the PCUSA divestment resolution, we need to be proactive – while respectful – in responding to similar initiatives in the UCC, UMC, and ELCA.

Rabbis are encouraged to meet with their local UCC, UMC, and ELCA clergy to make sure they are aware of the process toward divestment that is going on within their churches. Such meetings should take the form of educational dialogues, not heated confrontation; the talking points below (as well as the ELCA statement) may help guide the specific divestment piece of the conversation.

It is also a good idea to coordinate such outreach and dialogue efforts with the local CRC and, if applicable, local chapters of the ADL, AJC, board of rabbis, and other connected groups. Approaching this with a united voice and avoiding a confrontational tone will demonstrate that the majority of the Jewish community speaks as one on this issue.

4. Talking Points

• Israel is preparing to take a great risk for peace by withdrawing from the Gaza strip and parts of the West Bank. Israel is, for the first time in the absence of a peace agreement, uprooting literally hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to roll back the occupation and take another step toward peace. As such, the Israeli government is facing steep political obstacles as large sections of its people are angry and threatening to use violence to thwart this withdrawal. As the Israeli government is fighting these tough political battles at home, convincing its people that it must end its presence in Gaza, and coordinating the logistics of disengagement, it makes no sense to punish (financially or otherwise) the Israeli government as the only party to blame for the violence in the region. Those who want peace should work to support the Israeli government’s efforts to implement this historic territorial withdrawal.
• Disengagement from the Gaza strip and relocation of the settler communities will cost the Israeli government millions of dollars. The last thing those who want peace should do is withhold funds from Israel and punish Israel financially as it tries to coordinate and pay for this historic step toward ending the occupation.
• Divestment from companies doing business in Israel will further depress Israel's struggling economy; economic stability is a key to sustaining popular support for the peace process.
• Israel already feels isolated and hated by the international community. A movement for divestment would foster that feeling of alienation and could lead to Israel's complete retreat from international involvement with the peace process.
• The divestment movement is misguided. Since 1993, and reaffirmed during the Camp David/Taba talks, Israeli governments -- backed by strong public opinion among both Israelis and American Jews -- have been ready to accept a Palestinian state.

• Calls for divestment from Israel, even when they condemn Palestinian suicide bombings, nonetheless target only Israel and not the Palestinians for economic and political sanctions.
• There is no effort among the Mainline Protestant churches considering divestment to urge the Palestinian leadership to crack down and disarm militant and terrorist groups who openly deny and attempt to derail the current cease-fire through shooting at Israeli soldiers and civilians.
• Israel is singled out for sanction, not only before the Palestinians, but before nations, such as Iran, North Korea, or China, widely known for committing gross human rights violations far greater than any found even in accusations made against Israel.
• Israel is the only democracy in the region. Not withstanding her faults and missteps as she wrestles to deal with legitimate security concerns, Israel has been and remains a far more open, tolerant, and democratic nation than any other in the Middle East.
• True friends of the Palestinian people should support reform efforts rather than taking actions, like the divestment initiative, that reinforce the illusion among Palestinians that Israel can be pressured into making far reaching concessions without the promise of true peace.

• An Israeli economy weakened by divestment, if shaped to include military contractors, could weaken Israel's ability to defend against terrorism.

• We believe that legitimate criticism of Israeli policies comes from a love for the Jewish state and a deep concern for her peace and security. One-sided initiatives that threaten Israel's very existence – such as divestment – discredit what may be important and well-considered criticisms of specific Israeli actions.
• The Reform Jewish Movement and our progressive Jewish allies have not refrained from being critical of Israel when specific policies and circumstances merit it.

Ignoring other avenues for supporting peace

• Rather than divest from companies doing business in Israel, why not invest in organizations doing coexistence and reconciliation work between Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East? These groups are laying the groundwork for peace by building bridges between divided peoples and by developing economic opportunities; and they are desperately in need of increased funding.

• The safety and security of Israel is an essential concern for the American-Jewish community. The repercussions of divestment could damage long-established ties between Jewish synagogues and Mainline Protestant churches and could weaken important alliances between national Jewish and Presbyterian organizations. We must continue to engage with each other on these issues – and others – earnestly and respectfully.

Union for Reform Judaism	North American Federation of Temple Brotherhoods	Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion	Central Conference of American Rabbis	Women of Reform Judaism