That document began with an apology to Jews for the hurtful action of two years ago, called it flawed, and substituted language that calls for responsible investment in entities that foster peace, conspicuously deleting the word “divestment.” Could that theoretically be used down the road to pull funds from a company they believed was hurting the peace process? Sure. But why jump through all the hoops if nothing was meant to change? Clearly, the delegates who voted for this measure (94%!) saw this as a change they could live with.It seems very clear that this is a compromise measure and that the sort of Presbyterians who travel to the Middle East to meet with Hizbullah retain considerable influence. Imagine a resolution passed by a major Jewish organization calling for investments in Presbyterian-owned business to be limited to "patriotic pursuits." It isn't just a question of what such a resolution can be used for, but of what it implies and the act of singling out involved in making it. Who says that the peacefulness of Israeli pursuits are in question?
The efforts of more reasonable-minded Presbyterians are laudable, but they have failed. Why do they still belong to an organization in which such people as Gretchen Graf and Clifton Kirkpatrick have a say?
And remember, the next time you are in the market for a tractor, consider a Caterpillar.
No comments:
Post a Comment