LOS ANGELES—The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) took a surprisingly cautious approach to the Israel-Palestine dilemma at its fall meeting near Los Angeles. Meeting November 9 at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Culver City, MRTI first questioned the accuracy of publicity for an investment trip to Israel and then took no action toward co-sponsoring the junket. The committee delivered a message of integrity and caution.
The General Assembly in 2006 overturned a divestment bandwagon that had been on a roll since the General Assembly in 2004 passed a harsh and poorly considered anti-Israel resolution. However, concern for both Israelis and Palestinians was carefully written into the replacement 2006 resolution, which sought positive investment in peaceful endeavors, rather than economic divestment from Israel per se. But given the present chaotic social, political, and economic situation in the Palestinian territories, which MRTI heard explained at a previous meeting, opportunities for meaningful investment in Palestine appear to be practically nil.
This situation left MRTI on the horns of a dilemma: It had been instructed to try to encourage positive investment, but it had found little hope for discovering appropriate opportunities to recommend. Commendably, MRTI understood this situation to be a genuine dilemma and chose not to charge ahead willy-nilly to recommend investment anyhow.
A Politicized Israel-Palestine Mission Network
Think of the term “mission network.” What does the phrase connote to you? A zealous Christian group seeking to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ? A compassionate Christian group planning ways to deliver aid? A broad Christian group joining many voices to work together for the common good?
| The sign in front of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Culver City, CA, referred to the sermon given on Sunday, not to the debate of sponsoring an investment trip to Palestine by the Israel-Palestine Mission Network. |
Think again. None of these connotations could be said to accurately describe the Israel-Palestine Mission Network (I-PMN). Picture a dedicated and narrow group of political activists out to demonize all things Israeli and lionize all things Palestinian. Think of a group that purports to represent the Presbyterian denomination but simply will not allow within itself any voice contrary to its dogmatically pro-Palestinian imbalance. Consider a group with no intent to evangelize religiously and every intent to organize politically. Visualize a group with greater affinity to the opinions of radical activists than ordinary church members.
You would now be envisioning the group that goes by the misnomer of the Israel-Palestine Mission Network, a one-sided, single-issue, politicized cadre out to hamstring Israel and promote Palestinian causes. This I-PMN is the group heading up a proposed investigatory trip to Israel in April for potential investors.
It is this network that has chosen the voices to be heard, the sites to be seen, the issues to be raised, and the rhetorical slant to be imparted on the Palestine Investment Conference. This non-representative group will inevitably shape the experience of those who travel to Israel, providing for them the narrative it wants the potential investors to hear. This narrative likely will be long on Palestinian suffering and short on Palestinian responsibility, harsh about Israeli motivations and inattentive to Israeli security concerns. Such has been the pattern of activism by the I-PMN, which has thoroughly resisted the fair and evenhanded approach to the Middle East so generously chosen by the General Assembly in 2006.
Such a propagandistic narrative will most likely be hard for a reasonable investor to buy. And on a Friday in Los Angeles, MRTI was not exactly buying it either.
Truth in Advertising
MRTI members had received a brochure about the Palestine Investment Conference in their meeting packet. In introducing the agenda item, chair Carol Hylkema pointed the members to the brochure and informed them that “we’re co-sponsors.”
That assertion was not exactly correct. MRTI Coordinator Bill Somplatsky-Jarman gently recalled that the committee had tabled the matter at the last meeting. It was being brought up at this point to seek the MRTI’s co-sponsorship and to encourage people to participate. MRTI member Gary Skinner asked what kinds of participants were being sought for the trip. “Individuals who can make investments or influence investments [in Palestine]” Somplatsky-Jarman replied. He mentioned that three or four were expected from Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago, for instance.
The MRTI members, however, chose to focus on some perplexing aspects of the proposed trip. There was a problem of truth in advertising, for instance. “I think it is misleading to be recruiting people for an event where the materials being used talk about ways to invest in private equities,” Skinner asserted. Referring to the complex investment difficulties fellow MRTI member Bill Saint had pointed out at an earlier meeting, Skinner contended that “I just think that’s not accurate.”
What’s more, Skinner asked, “Has MRTI or the General Assembly Council or anybody basically endorsed this activity?”
| The PCUSA Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) met November 8-10 in Los Angeles. Counterclockwise from far side of the table on the right: Ron Kernaghan, Michelle Crozier (visiting Time Warner executive), Carol Hylkema (chair), Bill Somplatsky-Jarman (Associate for MRTI), Brian Ellison, and with backs to the camera from the left, Shelly Wood, Adelle Langworthy, and Jerri Rodewald. |
“No,” Bill Somplatsky-Jarman had to concede. The Palestine Investment Conference “has been developed by people within the Israel-Palestine Mission Network.” He explained that the I-PMN was “offering it as one facet of the effort to demonstrate solidarity [with the Palestinian Christians] and help change the conditions of the people.”
But Gary Skinner persisted. “I have no problem with Israel-Palestine Mission Network being involved with this, but when [the brochure] says ‘and the Presbyterian Church (USA)’—this may come back to us in ways that could hurt us.” Skinner hit again on the larger question of simple factuality. “There appears to be endorsement of the trip by the PCUSA,” he continued, “but to my knowledge, that hasn’t happened. I’m not prepared to go and defend something we haven’t put our stamp of approval on.”
At this point, chair Carol Hylkema tried to refocus the matter: “The question before us is, ‘Are we prepared to endorse it?’” Not yet, apparently.
“I echo Gary’s concern,” inserted MRTI member Brian Ellison. He had the brochure in front of him. “If this is already in the public domain, this [reference to sponsorship by the denomination] is not accurate.”
“The church didn’t really sponsor it,” interjected MRTI vice-chair Bernice McIntyre. “It should have the endorsement taken off.” She also contended that MRTI should not endorse the trip without “more process.”
General Assembly Council member Jacquie Lyman, at her first MRTI meeting, agreed. “This is still a part of a communication process that we’re struggling with,” Lyman suggested. “And I resent having to vote on something or endorse something without a whole lot of information.” She would feel uncomfortable with the endorsement, “even if [investment] is something that came out of the 2006 General Assembly.”
Gary Skinner then leapt into action. “I move that MRTI forward a letter to [conference coordinator] Peg Griffiths,” he offered, “indicating our thanks for organizing this event.” Skinner continued with his motion that Griffiths needs to make it clear in publicity that the conference is being sponsored by the Israel-Palestine Mission Network—an affiliate of the PCUSA—and not by the PCUSA, itself.
But then Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, seemingly wanting to save the wider endorsement, observed that denominational offices can make such endorsements, and perhaps the Middle East Office had done so. He was not sure about that possible endorsement.
“But it says ‘sponsored by,’” countered Bernice McIntyre. “If the result of the trip comes back negative, it will come back to haunt the whole church!”
And with that warning, the vote was taken on the Skinner motion about truth in advertising. The motion passed unanimously. MRTI will be requesting the Israel-Palestine Mission Network to take the alleged co-sponsorship by the whole Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) off its brochure.
MRTI’s Cognitive Dissonance on Palestine Investment
Concurrent with the truth-in-advertising debate was a second stream of perplexity over the fact that MRTI does not think investment is feasible at this time, due to political and social realities, and yet the I-PMN is purporting to recruit potential investors to go find investment opportunities. The rhetoric did not match the acknowledged reality.
Brian Ellison first broached the skepticism with a question: “How do we reconcile this trip after the presentation from Bill Saint? He presented a pretty bleak picture about prospects for investment in Palestine.”
Carol Hylkema was apparently having the same problem. After the last MRTI meeting, she had sent copies of the Presbyterian Action report on Bill Saint’s presentation to some leaders of the I-PMN leadership and suggested that the church’s message should not be just “Invest! Invest! Invest!” She got a reply back, she said. The I-PMN leaders confirmed that Saint’s conclusions were “a new slant” for them. They then added, “But we have to have some hope and have something to be helpful with.” Investment was the I-PMN answer.
“This trip is advertised as an opportunity for investment,” Bernice McIntyre persisted, “but the concept should be to get together to see if we can help change the context. Whoever is going needs to be clear on the intended outcome.” McIntyre was advocating to change the purpose of the travel from finding investment opportunities to trying to remove some of the roadblocks to commerce. “If you can’t travel and get from one place to another,” she offered, “it’s hard to have commerce. The people going need to really know what their mission is, such as what can be done.”
MRTI member Ron Kernaghan, a liaison from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), proposed a plan: “Would it be appropriate for MRTI to ask for a formal report about what investment opportunities were found and what investments were made? And then we could follow up after two years to see what happens with those investments.” He also indicated that ACSWP shared some of these same concerns about the viability of investments in the Palestinian territories.
Chair Carol Hylkema assured Kernaghan that such reporting “would not be a problem.” But unfortunately, Kernaghan’s suggestion got lost after this point and never actually made its way into a motion that was voted on or approved.
Liz Letzler, another MRTI member, was looking at a larger context. “For financial leadership within the church,” she argued, “one needs to go and spend some time in the area to get to know it…. There are things to develop, but you need a political outcome first.” Perhaps immediate investment would not be a good idea. “We need to understand that fixing the Palestinian economy isn’t just a matter of throwing money at it,” Letzler stated. “Maybe the church needs to learn in a hands-on way that there are other issues that need to be dealt with first.”
Letzler had been rather caustic about Israel’s intentions and actions in a previous meeting. Now, perhaps, she was starting to move a little beyond that hostility, spreading some of the blame and responsibility. She suggested that the I-PMN could “take people used to thinking entrepreneurially and get the Palestinian people thinking beyond ‘getting over what Israel has done to us.’’’ She proposed that the visitors should “challenge them about thinking on their own status quo, their own roadblocks” to greater financial prosperity.
“It’s not going to hurt to have a group of people go over there and find out what is going on,” offered Bernice McIntyre. What she did not seem to consider, however, is what kind of input and experiences the I-PMN would engineer within the travel context. If true to form, the I-PMN would not likely offer a balanced set of speakers and experiences to give the visitors a full range of information. More likely the travelers would find out what one group thinks is going on. “I would only support the trip if they pose questions,” McIntyre concluded.
At another point in the discussion, Brian Ellison asked a discerning question: “I had the distinct impression that Bill Saint would be involved [with the investment conference set-up]. Was he? It seems that Bill and the organizers had a different take on the situation.”
“Bill Saint focused on the macro scale,” explained Bill Somplasky-Jarman, “and this [trip] is on the micro level.”
The discussion included other arguments, such as again from Brian Ellison, hammering home a basic problem: “This is a trip for people to go and learn about investment opportunities, but the last I knew, MRTI heard that there are little or no opportunities apart from a political solution. Peace would be a necessary precursor to talk about investment.” How true! But Ellison was also eager to be congenial. “Not that I think this [trip] is a bad event,” he added.
Bernice McIntyre regularly voiced down-to-earth wisdom. “Our fundamental mission is to deal with those companies that have investments,” she reminded her colleagues, “and I am not sure how this is directly related to the 2006 [General Assembly] document or how it relates to our basic responsibility.”
“The 2006 Assembly added to the mandate to provide positive investment opportunities,” was Carol Hylkema’s response. “This trip is one vehicle to try to figure out what to do as positive investment opportunities.” Then she offered an explanation for the disconnect between what Bill Saint reported and the I-PMN’s trip expectations: “We heard Bill several months ago. We were frustrated or depressed. His conclusion was that it doesn’t look good. Maybe having a group go to do this type of trip can help them learn for themselves if this is possible.”
“I just feel very, very cautious,” spoke MRTI member Shelly Wood in a low, very serious tone.
“As member of the General Assembly Council, I’m real concerned about public relations,” echoed Jacquie Lyman. “I am glad to see this committee being cautious.” Lyman added that she realizes many people have been involved in setting up the trip. But she also remembered people in her congregation in Hemet, California, with strong feelings about divestment. She did not seem to want to stir that negative emotion again.
In a striking moment of candor, Carol Hylkema proffered her opinion that “impatient people are planning this [trip].” Hylkema apparently understands the I-PMN!
Soon after MRTI voted formally on the first motion about truth in advertising concerning the trip sponsorship, Hylkema led the members to the second question at hand. “Are we willing to be co-sponsors of the event?” she asked. “It takes a motion.” There was silence. No motion; no vote.
Following a spirited, insightful discussion, MRTI had extended this outbreak of good sense. MRTI was not willing to co-sponsor the Palestine Investment Conference with the fractious Israel-Palestine Mission Network.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply