MINNEAPOLIS—On April 18, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI) was like a college student still writing a term paper that regrettably was due in February. What’s more, not only was the report two months late, it was also subtly flawed by lapses of logic and missing facts. The report turned out to be cleverly penned, however, and General Assembly commissioners will be the final graders in June in San Jose.
The April 17 and 18 MRTI meeting in Minneapolis was the final meeting for about half of the voting members. Besides conferring with corporate executives from Best Buy, General Mills, and Target, MRTI gave considerable attention to its message to General Assembly, which is looking to MRTI to report on the volatile issue of investment and possible divestment in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
A Draft with Bias
The General Assembly Council will routinely report its work to General Assembly in June, and part of that report will recount MRTI efforts concerning engagement of multinational corporations doing business in Israel. MRTI’s draft of this section will need approval by the General Assembly Council at its April 23–25 meeting in Louisville. In general, MRTI suggests that it “is not prepared to make a final recommendation at this time regarding the corporations” singled out for engagement. “MRTI believes that the engagement process is on track and ought to be continued and completed in accordance with regular General Assembly policies . . . .”
| Is MRTI “More Equal” than the Other Entities? In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the motto was “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than the others.” Perhaps the Stated Clerk’s office operates like Animal Farm. Presbyteries have a drop-dead deadline for submitting overtures as business to General Assembly—120, 60, or 45 days before the convening of the General Assembly, depending on the subject matter of the overture. If a presbytery cannot meet to approve an overture until after the deadline, tough luck. “Overtures not received within the designated time limits shall not be considered, but shall be returned to the originating governing body for reconsideration” declares the Manual of the General Assembly (A.3.c.(4)). Denominational entities have a similar rule: “All reports from entities, commissions, and committees of the General Assembly shall be delivered to the Stated Clerk on or before 120 days prior to the convening of the General Assembly” (Manual of the General Assembly, A.2.a). Notice the strict “shall” language. The 120-day deadline came on February 22 this year. Yet on April 18, MRTI was still working away on a report for General Assembly, a report that would not be final until adopted by General Assembly Council yet a week later, around April 25. One would definitely say that 63 days late on a 120-day deadline would be considered a missed deadline! So how does MRTI get away with this delay? I asked Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, MRTI coordinator. He explained that MRTI had submitted a “placeholder” by the deadline and would now substitute this revised report more than two months later. A placeholder? How was that possible? According to Somplatsky-Jarman, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick gave the committee permission, since this item was still brewing and the committee would be meeting again in April. A placeholder. It makes one wonder about both the legitimacy of the MRTI report and the integrity or at least the consistency of the stated clerk’s office. Should not fair for one be fair for all? What applies to presbytery overtures ought to apply equally as strictly to entity reports. Why the favoritism of bent rules and a wink—but only for an entity such as MRTI? —James D. Berkley |
However, the MRTI draft report doesn’t leave the issue with this “hold your horses” response to those seeking divestment now. It also describes several “obstacles to a just peace in Israel and Palestine” and concludes with further recommendations.
Note the way the “obstacles” are described. You may want to keep score concerning who is blamed, Israelis or Palestinians.
These [obstacles to a just peace in Israel and Palestine] included:
- the ongoing violence perpetrated by Israelis and Palestinians against innocent people;
- the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and United Nations resolutions;
- the presence of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories;
- the construction of the separation barrier; and
- the need for a viable Palestinian economy to enhance the possibility of a successful Palestinian state. [enumeration added]
By the MRTI reckoning, Israel is responsible for all five of the obstacles—three of them solely (2, 3, and 4), one of them equally and jointly (1), and one of them by further inference (5). Palestinian responsibility is confined to a joint point (1) and perhaps barely to point #5, if one knows more than what MRTI writes.
On point #1, there ought to be no equivalence between a cold-blooded act of terrorism purposefully directed at random innocent bystanders—suicide bombings or rockets fired solely to hit civilian centers—and defensive military strikes against an enemy that uses civilians for cover. In the first case, civilians are the intended target. In the latter, civilians may tragically become the unintended victims. To lump the two activities together as “ongoing violence perpetrated against innocent people” is extremely irresponsible.
In addition, so much is left out of this analysis of obstacles. Why is nothing said about the tremendous corruption and kleptocracy of the Palestinian Fatah government, a massive failing that drove many Palestinians into the radical arms of Hamas? Where is any discussion of the founding and continuing purpose of Hamas: to destroy Israel and kill Jews, driving them into the sea? Why is the precarious political situation of Israel not mentioned, with hostile states all around Israel’s small land mass, states that have repeatedly attacked Israel and never failed to threaten it? Why no mention of the internal battles within Palestinian leadership—Hamas-Fatah disputes that have turned fratricidal, including people being tossed off high-rises? Why nothing about routine terrorist bombings and other murders that have caused the need for the security barrier, checkpoints, and Israel-only roads, without which everyday Israelis would be killed randomly? Why the silence about the callousness with which fellow Arabs have used and abused Palestinian refugees for decades, preferring to showcase them in squalid refugee camps for publicity purposes, rather than welcome and integrate them into neighboring societies?
The MRTI list of obstacles is little more than weakly disguised Palestinian propaganda, clearly lacking the marks of fair play and evenhanded diplomacy.
Wrongful Actions Advised
MRTI’s draft report asks for more, however. Echoing the highly troublesome language from 2004 that led to the Israel-divestment furor, the report calls on General Assembly in 2008 to take a similar approach singling out Israel for special condemnation. It wants General Assembly to lend its weight of authority to:
Call upon all corporations doing business in the region to confine their business activity solely to peaceful pursuits, and refrain from allowing their products or services to support or facilitate violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians, construction and maintenance of settlements or Israeli-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 ‘Green Line’ into Palestinian territories.
The General Assembly resolution in 2006 intended to put an end to the concept of divestment targeted solely at Israel. That 2006 statement bent over backwards to be positive and evenhanded. It sought to return MRTI work back to what was previously the norm, namely that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) would not invest in corporations whose main business was supplying material for war. If divestment would ever be recommended for the Middle East, it would be because of the military aspect of the corporation, not because the corporation happens to do business in Israel. The intent was to stop singling out and isolating Israel, but this 2008 suggested resolution would return to a ham-fisted, “hurt Israel” policy.
In addition, the draft resolution does not make clear what a “violent act by Israelis . . . against innocent civilians” would be. Would that be firing back in self-defense, when deadly fire is raining in from terrorists who have purposefully set up operations among civilians? Would such wording be used to justify harassing Motorola Corporation because it supplies radios used by the Israeli police and army, radios that could be used to protect innocent civilians through effective command and control, radios that could direct help to the injured? Should Israel’s police and army be denied the ability to communicate? Should commanders be rendered unable to call off accidentally misdirected fire? Doesn’t such mindless language again equate indiscriminate terrorist acts with targeted responses? There is also a world of difference between a military response that may be judged overly harsh and a terrorist attack with the direct intent to kill innocents randomly.
|
A Brief Feint Toward Secrecy I have at times run into difficulty observing supposedly open meetings of Presbyterian entities. I have been locked out of meeting rooms, told to go away, denied papers, coldly ostracized, and even publicly upbraided. I’ve experienced more openness in recent months, however, and MRTI was being most hospitable throughout most of its April meeting. Staff coordinator Bill Somplatsky-Jarman had agreeably made papers and meeting information available, and the meeting had an affable air. However, the temperature cooled several degrees when the MRTI draft report to General Assembly was first introduced as business on the meeting’s second day. All the MRTI members had copies in hand, while none had been given to me, as had the other papers. When I asked for a copy, staff member Mindy Marchal at first said she didn’t think enough copies had been made. When I pressed for my right to obtain a copy, she said I would need to get permission from Bill Somplatsky-Jarman. The storm passed quickly, however. An MRTI member intervened, assuring Marchal that indeed observers were supposed to receive the papers being discussed. I was given the draft to read and to reference during the discussion. I was cautioned to refer to it as just a draft, however, and not treat it as a final report. Well, obviously! The right of church members to observe the work done and the decisions made by church entities is so easily imperiled. It should not be the case that an institutional bent toward secrecy so often requires an observer to insist on a right that ought to be simply accorded. MRTI commendably did choose to remain in the sunshine, with only a brief flirtation with proprietary secrecy. —James D. Berkley |
What’s more, “maintenance of settlements” as a cause for engagement has been used by MRTI to militate against reasonable means to protect sleeping civilians from slaughter in their beds at night. One of the companies fingered for possible divestment produces passive electronic surveillance equipment that serves as a sort of “trip wire” to alert settlements that raiders are coming to kill them in their sleep because they live in the wrong place. The existence of the settlements is an arguable point, but the safety of noncombatant women, children, and men in their beds at night ought to be a given. Should they be denied an alarm system because the company producing it is deemed not sufficiently peaceful?
Are “Israeli-only roads” just a privilege of power, a whim? Why are such roads needed? MRTI doesn’t bother to tell you. The roads are in place because if you are Jewish or an Israeli, you will be killed if you take other roads. People will shoot you dead as you drive along. With only half a narrative, how are General Assembly commissioners supposed to make a sound decision?
And there is more that’s unclear. What does the use of the term “military occupation of Palestinian land” mean? For Hamas, all of Israel is situated on “occupied” land, and Israel must be destroyed, driven into the sea. “Occupation” is an undefined, volatile term that can be used against the existence of even one square inch of Israel.
Or take “the construction of the separation barrier.” Why was it built, just on an evil whim? One would think so, to read what MRTI wrote. MRTI neglected to say that it serves as a “security barrier” with the intent and the result of saving lives. If someone is intent on killing you, wouldn’t you like to keep him or her out of your home? Do you have a sturdy front door and keep it locked? Wouldn’t you be doubly sure to do so if there were repeated home invasions on your block, with neighbors getting killed? The security barrier is a passive restraint. It’s nonviolent. It even spares the lives of frustrated suicide bombers! The fact that it is a horrible scar, an eyesore, and, worse, an incredible inconvenience and a barrier to friendships and commerce does not negate the fact that it simply works. Many lives have been saved. That aspect is left totally untouched in the MRTI report.
The MRTI draft report is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is a political narrative that conveniently glosses over or completely ignores aspects of the story that would not help the Israel-is-the-villain narrative that seems to have a stranglehold on any official Presbyterian pronouncement these days.
Some MRTI revisions of its first draft added some clarification and expanded explanations that were quite well worded. MRTI worked in great union to make these changes to its report. Upon finishing this bit of committee business that would make MRTI better understood and appreciated at General Assembly, chair Carol Hylkema exclaimed, “Well that feels darn good!”
Maybe so, but that good work was not sufficient to rescue the MRTI report from the clutches of a persistent anti-Israel bias. The somewhat-improved draft General Assembly Council will consider remains fatally flawed by maintaining prejudice and ignoring the whole truth. That puts the opportunity for a just report into GAC hands. GAC now has the opportunity to repair a deficient draft in order to tell the whole story to General Assembly, a story infused with blame and praise and hope for all the parties presently caught in a tragic conflict.
No comments yet
Leave a Reply