How Will Presbyterians Vote on Anti-Israel Divestment?

The Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly in Detroit likely will vote this Friday on anti-Israel divestment aimed at three companies. Yesterday, its Middle East Issues legislative committee there voted 45-20 in favor of divestment, after what I’m told was a confusing legislative process, compounded by the “ceaseless intervention” of denominational staff and “outside speakers urging them to divest.”

By comparison, the committee at General Assembly 2012 in Pittsburgh voted by 36-11 for divestment. That year the final General Assembly vote was AGAINST divestment but by just two votes. Undoubtedly, the General Assembly vote this year will also be much closer than what happened in committee, where clearly anti-Israel activists flocked. I’m also told that there were some earlier votes in yesterday’s committee, one by 29-30, indicating a much closer division before the final vote, by which time everybody was exhausted.

Another friend there tells me that this year in committee, anti-divestment commissioners “were better in making their case than was the case in 2012; however, the PC(USA) staff and resource people made little if any effort to ensure a balanced approach and had prepared their case better than ever before.” He noted there were about 40 designated resource people with a “unified pro-divestment message,” and the “only two who seemed truly objective were the ones with fiduciary responsibility over the actual investment of funds held by the PC(USA).”

This friend reports that the pro-divestment “activism by the ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’ was over the top with their emotional stories, but it seemed effective with this audience, especially for those who seemed to me to express a very naive understanding of the issues.” He assessed that the “bottom line is that the committee this year was a bit stronger in support of Israel that was the case two years ago.”

If true, hopefully the final vote in General Assembly will not only reject divestment but by a margin greater than the hair raising 2 votes of 2012. But one friend warns that divestment proponents “still have many institutional advantages and are probably favored to win.”

I witnessed the divestment debate at the 2012 General Assembly, which lasted for hours, and I was impressed by logical and measured arguments by many commissioners against divestment. They were disciplined and on message, overcoming, if just barely, the institutional forces arrayed against them. Let’s pray they muster similar fortitude this time.