Council of Churches gives nod to Israeli divestment

[newyorican]

World Council of Churches gives nod to Israeli divestment proposal

The World Council of Churches (WCC) on February 21 urged its members to consider economic measures to oppose Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and praised the action of a U.S. denomination that has started a process of selective divestment from companies linked to the occupation.

"Multinational corporations have been involved in the demolition of Palestinian homes," the WCC's main governing body said in a statement adopted during a February 15-22 meeting in Geneva. They "are involved in the construction of settlements and settlement infrastructure on occupied territory, in building a dividing wall which is also largely inside occupied territory, and in other violations of international law."

<snip>

Churches with investment funds had "an opportunity to use those funds responsibly in support of peaceful solutions to conflict", the WCC central committee noted. "Economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied, is one such means of action."

Read more...

Can you say...sell Catapillar!

[jody]

1. I wonder how many churches will follow that recommendation?

The United Methodist Church is a member of WCC and President Bush is a member of the UMC. It appears Bush is out of step with his church regarding supporting Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and war.

The UMC saids in its Book of Discipline:
QUOTE
War and Peace

We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy, to be employed only as a last resort in the prevention of such evils as genocide, brutal suppression of human rights, and unprovoked international aggression. We insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them; that human values must outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned. Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
UNQUOTE

[Yosie]

2. To Battle SA Apartheid

and Employment Discrimination (against African Americans and Women) the Quaker University that I attended simply closed its University Placement Office to "target companies" thereby depriving the "target companies" of its graduates.

It was actually very effective.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Didn't see your post when I appended mine.

Let me guess - Penn, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr, Haverford?

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Close the Placement Office - Much More Effective Then Investment Games

As was pointed out previously on this site--- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=86289&mesg_id=86342&page=


If you object to a company's policies vis-a-vis the West Bank and Gaza, or Israel generally, or the environment, or employment policies (be it African-Americans, Gays/Lesbians/Trans-sexuals, handicappers) or defense contracting - don't work for them, and go that extra step - urge your friends not to work there.

I was brought up not to cross picket lines. So I don't. I boycotted non-union grapes.

Witholding your individuality, your creativity, your uniqueness, your "intellectual property" - your "YOU" - and taking it to a competitor -- is (if done by enough people) - power over them. Your going to a competitor could well be the "Profit/Loss" difference to the competitor.

Remember - we are not all really fungible and interchangeable.

That is exactly the point of protesting the "don't ask - don't tell" policies of the military by "closing the university placement office" even in the face of losing government funding. The military is prohibited from on campus recruiting at our best institutions.

That is exactly how our best academic institutions "enforced" the Civil Rights Act of 1964" -- they "closed their placement office."

"Closing The Placement Office" is just an incremental, logical extension of a strike. I put it on a par with the UFW or SEIU organizing drives.

Let me close on this point --- I would never seek employment with a defense contractor or with an employer who was anti Latino, anti Black, anti female, anti Semitic (Arab or Jewish - no difference from my Civil Rights viewpoint), anti Gay/Lesbian/Trans sexual, anti handicapper, and even when "things were bleak" and when I felt "unloved and underpaid by my stingy employer" - I never violated those core beliefs.

It doesn't need to be violent "closing of the university placement office" -- but check this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/nyregion/21recruit.html?ex=1109653200&en=b3420b62d4ac7a91&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

[newyorican]

5. Do churches have "placement offices"?

I don't think what academic institutions can do is relevant to what churches can do.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. No - but universities do.

And if your conscience demands -- don't work for defense contractors, or polluters, or companies that discriminate based on race, religion, creed, national origin, physical disability, sexual orientation, or that do business in Israel.

As I told you before - even when I felt grossly underpaid --- I never even considered working for defense contractors, or polluters, or companies that discriminate based on race, religion, creed, national origin, physical disability, or sexual orientation.

I think what non-profits do is relevant. Churches "disinvesting" is "feel good" - maybe moral suasion, but it has no effect on the bottom line. Universities closing their placement offices is real pressure -- where it hurts, on the bottom line for several years out.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Comparing "Selling Stock" to "Closing The Placement Office"

is like the story of the chicken and pig who decide to open a fast food restaurant. They have a disagreement over the profit share. The chicken wants a "50%-50%" split. The pig wants a lot more.

The chicken says. I am making a contribution of eggs. The pig says "For you a contribution of eggs is a hobby, a game; For me, a contribution of bacon and sausage is total commitment.

That is the difference between "Selling Stock" and "Closing The Placement Office" -- the difference between a small contribution --- and total commitment.

If the side of sanctions is correct (and I do not agree with it - especially since Peace Negotiations appear to be moving forward) why the fear of total commitment by "Closing The Placement Office". It worked against apartheid.

[EastWind]

7. A sign of backwardness

Now that the peace process has a chance of getting off the ground, the great WCC decides to throw in a wrench. Israel has halted demolitions and is withdrawing from Palestinian cities. Is this the right signal to send?

Rather a dumb move, considering the current situation.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. I consider their Good Faith - and who their "Audience" is.

[EastWind]

10. Meaning that...?

It's only a political statement at the incorrect time. If they wanted to be useful, they might consider the current climate. The timing is off. That's showing themselves to be a giant bureaucracy and mostly irrelevant to the situation they want to influence. Better to have done nothing.

No point in applying last year's solution to tomorrow's problems.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I live near Berkeley and go to Beyt Tikkun

and that is a common ailment among Berkeley Neo-Libs.

[Colorado Blue]

29. Can you tell us more about these Berkeley neo-libs? Are

their views widespread?

Thank you.

[dameocrat]

13. They're only getting out of Gaza

They are annexing the West Bank settlements, and have stated publically that they are trying to put formaldehyde on a Palestinian state. Also they have only stopped punitive demolishins. They haven't stopped demolishing houses that don't have proper permits, and houses that get in the way. The vast majority of houses were destroyed under those pretences. They only did it under threat from the Europeans and Presbyterians. The making things easy on Israel approach clearly doesn't work.

[Yosie]

14. The terrorists haven't stopped

homicide bombing either.

[dameocrat]

15. The bulldozings and settlements and

incarcerations and shootings of protesters, and segregated roads preceded the homicide bombings by a long shot. BTW, Gandhi and MLK don't happen in societies that persecute protesters.

If Israel had dismantled the settlements in the 90s when there was peace intifada 2 wouldn't have started. Better yet they shouldn't have put them there at all. They aren't a bargaining chip and they never enhanced Israel's security. My view is that the Israeli settlers have George Bush and the powerful religious right, not to mention 90% of America's politicians and the media on there side. If nobody takes the side of the ordinary Palestinians there will be no Palestinian state and Israel will annex the settlements, which would be an absolute tragedy. It is like the South under Jim Crow. I side with the blacks.

[eyl]

16. There was peace in the 90s?

That's news to me*. And Israel hasn't taken any steps to annex the West Bank settlements.

*Note I think the continuing expansion of settlements during the 90's was a stupid thing to do. But saying they preceded terrorism (some people seem to belive there was no Palestinian terrorism before the advent of suicide bombings) or that there was rosy peace during the 90's is ignoring history.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Agree

There was terror before the 1990's -- my grad school house mate was in a hijacked plane that sat in the Jordanian desert in the 1960's.

Then there was the hijacked TWA jet - and Navy Seal Bob Stethem. Before the 1990's.

[dameocrat]

24. The terror cooled down in the 1990s although the settlers

started committing terror, but the settlements expanded so it was in no way rewarding for Palestinians to stop terror, concequently it started again in the 2000.

[martymar64]

75. And the USS Liberty

and Irgun and the Stern Gang and the King David Hotel bombing

[dameocrat]

21. There was much less terrorism and that terrorism that existed

was also done by settlers. Goldstien and Emir come to mind. As for ignoring history, Sharon has said repeatedly and just in the past few days that he intends to hang on to the major settlement blocks. That was what his agreement with Bush was all about, and that is what Dov Weinlass said. If they don't intend to annex them they shouldn't say so and so long as they say so, the boycotts should grow. Also the settlements started in 60s.

[eyl]

27. Oh?

Let's look at Palestinian terrorism in the 3 years before and after Oslo:

year|killed|injured|Total casualties
1990 |11 |63 |74
1991 |12 |27 |39
1992 |10 |23 |33
1993a|8 |21 |29
1993b|21 |12 |33
1993t|29 |33 |62
1994 |84 |197 |281
1995 |50 |252 |302
1996 |76 |199 |275

(1993a refers to the period before the signing of the Oslo agreements - January-August; 1993b is September-December 1993; 1993t is the total for 1993. Source)

I think it's pretty obvious from these figures that Palestinian terrorism rose greatly after Oslo.

As for Jewish terrorism until the beginning of the intifada:

year|killed|injured|perpetrator
1991 |1 |0 |*
1993a|0 |1 |*
1994 |39 |250 |Baruch Goldstein
1995 |1 |0 |Yigal Amir
1997 |0 |6 |Noam Friedman
1998 |0 |4 |Unknown
1999 |1 |0 |Unknown

(*Couldn't find any details on these attacks, so I only have the bare numbers)

Except for 1998-1999, all of these are single incidents (1998 saw a rash of stabbings of Arabs in West Jerusalem; judging by the descriptions it appears most of these were done by the same perpetrator or group; I may be undercounting the number of incidents since there were apaprently other stabbing in that time frame classified as "normal" criminal events).

IOW, in the same time frame as for Palestinian terrorism above, you had 2 incidents pre-Oslo and 2 post-Oslo, only one of which had a high casualty count and one of the others was carried out against a Jew (BTW, Yigal Amir wasn't a settler AFAIK).

And while it's true settlement activity began in the (late, obviously) 60s, Palestinian terrorism well predated that time.

[dameocrat]

31. Since you don't have a source you are probably making the

second statistic up, based on famous events, I mentioned. I have also heard of incidents where settlers have attempted to blow up stadiums, shot olive picker, and beat school children. Many from your first source didn't result in fatalities so they maynot even have been murder. You realize Israel considered rock throwers terrorists. It also classifies attacks on IDF as terrorists. Let's not forget state terror which is not in anyway non fatal.

Also your first statistic which was sourced still proves the terrorism was drastically reduced.

As for it preceding that time. There were alot of people still alive who had been displaced from the founding of the original state. I think attacks on the Israeli state were inevitable because it required displacement of Palestinians. They do it because they are homeless and continuing to make them homeless won't help matters. It just makes them more hopeless and gives them less of an ability to move on. They aren't Nazis. They are also victims of the Holocaust, since there was no justification for what happened to them without it.

[eyl]

32. Let's try this again

"Since you don't have a source you are probably making the second statistic up, based on famous events, I mentioned"

The source for the second table is the same as the first one, as you could have seen if you followed the link. The famous events you mentioned were Goldstein and Amir, both of which I listed.

"I have also heard of incidents where settlers have attempted to blow up stadiums, shot olive picker, and beat school children."

So? There are also a lot of cases of Palestinian terrorism stopped by the IDF in those years before causing casualties (hence, for example, the drop in no. of incidents starting in 1995); those aren't counted either.

All the incidents listed are those where people were killed and/or injured.

"Also your first statistic which was sourced still proves the terrorism was drastically reduced."

Lets look at the first table again:

1990: 74 casualties (8 incidents)
1991: 39 casualties (11 incidents)
1992: 22 casualties (10 incidents)
1993 (pre-Oslo): 29 casualties (9 incidents)
1993 (post-Oslo): 33 casualties (17 incidents)
1994: 281 casualties (41 incidents)
1995: 302 casualties (13 incidents)
1996: 275 casualties (14 incidents)

In total: In the three years pre-Oslo, there were 38 incidents, which caused 164 casualties. Post-Oslo there were 85 incidents, causing 891 casualties. 891>164, AFAIK.

Note also that the four months of 1993 following Oslo had almost twice the number of incidents and more casualties than the 8 months which preceded the signing of the agreements.

"As for it preceding that time. There were alot of people still alive who had been displaced from the founding of the original state. I think attacks on the Israeli state were inevitable because it required displacement of Palestinians. They do it because they are homeless and continuing to make them homeless won't help matters. It just makes them more hopeless and gives them less of an ability to move on. They aren't Nazis. They are also victims of the Holocaust, since there was no justification for what happened to them without it."

So you do agree terrorism preceded the settlements?

[dameocrat]

35. Yeah I agree it preceded settlements, but

I don't think terror is an injustice that wipes out theft and bigotry. I aslo know that stats can be manipulated and I doubt the ones you provided. I would bet you that Israel and the people who did the article have different standards for terror from one group to the next. I remember an incident where a boy was ball batted in the head by a settler and the settler was not tried terrorism, but simple murder. What do want to bet a Palestinian doing that to an Israeli would have been tried as a terrorist? Also Olive picker shooters would be tried for terrorists if the situation were reversed as well. The attack on school children in Hebron created broken ribs for the Christian Peace Maker Teams, so those are injuries. The perps were wanted for assault not terrorism.

[eyl]

37. You doubt my figures

you're welcome to provide some of your own. without them, though, you have no basis for saying terrorism went "way down".

[dameocrat]

39. Neither do you

since you have shown the figure since the intafada started in 2001. I think it is a silly argument anyway. I have a memory as do most people. The suicide bombing got bad after the collaps of Camp David 2000.

[Nadav]

45. Intifada II

The October riots preceded the Intifada. There were a couple of attacks in late 2000, but 2001 is when the rash of suicide bombings took place, mostly in March-April 2001.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dameocrat]

53. Yes, those were in responce to Sharon's visit

to the Temple mount.

[eyl]

48. Where did I

show the figures after 2001?!?! The latest year I showed was 1998! (and that was only for Jewish terrorism). Are you reading the table?

[dameocrat]

52. You haven't shown figures since 2001

That is the point.

[eyl]

54. From your post #37

"Neither do you since you have shown the figure since the intafada started in 2001"

IOW you're saying I did show figures from 2001.

My contention was that a comparison of the years pre- and post-Oslo show a distinct rise in terrorism against Israelis after the signing of the Agreements, even before the beginning of the second intifada (IOW, during the period you claimed there was peace - posts #14 and #16). I've shown you the figures to prove this; the figures from the intifada are irrelevent to the question since you specified the 90s.

[dameocrat]

56. Well it was obviously typo then

Show us the figures since 2001.

[eyl]

61. Explain first

how that's relevent to your contention that terrorism went down after Oslo.

[dameocrat]

62. I said that terror went down in the 90s

and it did. Would you mind showing the states since 2001 relative to the 90s.

[eyl]

70. NO IT DID NOT!!

Would you please explain to me (since I'm obviously a mathematical ignoramus) how 164>891?!?!?

Or in other words, how can a 123% increase in (successful) incidents and a 443% increase in casualties be conceivably seen as a reduction in terrorism?

[dameocrat]

73. Are you saying there was more terrorism in the 90s than

after the year 2001. Come on.

[eyl]

77. I am saying there was more terrorism

after the signing of Oslo (which was in 1993) and the creation of the PA than after.

WTH do you keep bringing up 2001? Your claim, which I discussed here, was that there was terrorism went down in the 90s. Now if it went down, that means it was higher before, and now (now being the period in question, i.e. the 90's) it's lower than it was earlier. What happened after is completely irrelevent.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. They didn't say that at all...

I noticed you say 'but saying they preceded terrorism...', so I gullibly thought on first reading that the poster you were replying to must have actually said that. What they actually said was 'incarcerations and shootings of protesters, and segregated roads preceded the homicide bombings by a long shot.' Which makes sense, as the poster they in turn was replying to was talking about 'homicide bombings'. The poster also didn't say there was a 'rosy peace' during the Olso era - all they said was there was a peace, which in its own way was true....


Also, Israel has made it very clear time and time again that it intends to annexe parts of the West Bank that contains some settlements. Or have I got that part of it wrong and Israel intends to remove every last settlement from the West Bank?

Violet...

[eyl]

78. The implication he made

(or at least I got) was an inexplicably common one; that suicide bombings are the start-all and end-all fo terrorism. He certainly implied there wasn't terrorism prior to the settlements.

As for this

"The poster also didn't say there was a 'rosy peace' during the Olso era - all they said was there was a peace, which in its own way was true...."

Read the rest of the exchange. The poster has repeatedly claimed that terrorism went down during the 90s. I've shown that that wasn't the case (the opposite, in fact)

[Violet_Crumble]

79. He didn't imply that at all...

The post he(?) was replying to specifically referred to suicide-bombings. Which is why the response also referred to suicide-bombings. I can't see how if I were to start talking about suicide-bombings that would mean I am implying there has never been any other forms of attacks on civilians prior to those happening. I guess I'll have to stick a disclaimer in any future posts. I'd like to think most people who take a genuine interest in this conflict would realise that attacks on civilians isn't something new, nor is it the exclusive domain of only one 'side'...

It may be my crappy ISP, but I got a 404 error message when I clicked on yr link. Not that it matters - considering the attempts by extremists on both sides to derail Oslo, I'd expect that the number of attacks on civilians would have risen during that time compared to say the 1980's...

Violet...

[eyl]

80. You'd be surprised

how many online discussions I've seen with "terrorism only started with suicide bombings". Maybe that's made me see oversensitive, I don't know.

"It may be my crappy ISP, but I got a 404 error message when I clicked on yr link. Not that it matters - considering the attempts by extremists on both sides to derail Oslo, I'd expect that the number of attacks on civilians would have risen during that time compared to say the 1980's..."

The site seems to be down at the moment. I assume it will be fixed soon.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Say again

Gandhi and MLK don't happen in societies that persecute protesters.

Didn't you ever hear of MLK's "Letter from the Birmingham jail" or my night in a Louisiana jail?

MLK sure as hades happened in a society that persecuted protesters. Been there - done that - marched - tutored - registered voters -- been arrested and jailed. Please.

[dameocrat]

22. He wasn't jailed for years on end without trial and he

wasn't deported. Nor was he ever shot at with missles from an Apache helicopter or run over with a bulldozer. And if anyone did fire M16 rifles into the crowds that he lead he wasn't personally hit. That is what Israel would have done to him, and it would have killed the civil rights movement if they had.

[centristo]

38. you've built up a lovely mindset of Israel...

devoid of anything remotely factual. There are anti-occupation demonstrations all the time in Israel. As far as I can tell the non-militant peaceful protestors are free to speak their minds without government interference, just like in the USA. There is a peace march upcoming in Jerusalem slated for July if you want to go...

The demonstrations with rock-throwing and flag-burnings may not turn out so nice though...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/isra-a14.shtml
http://www.anti-imperialist.org/palestine-pna3_4-7-02.html
http://www.hopedance.org/archive/issue34a/articles/34a-17_march.html
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/photos.html
http://www.5millionpeacemarch.org/index.php
http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/SITE_Default/news/2004_07-09/Peace_March.asp

[dameocrat]

41. Those demonstrators are Israeli citizens

How are non citizen Palestinians on the West Bank going to protest in Haifa or Tel Aviv? Explain, because I don't get it. If the same rule were applied to King only whites would have been allowed on the March to Selma. Do you think the Civil Rights movement would have been effective if only white voters were allowed to lead it?

.

[Nadav]

46. protests

The Palestinians can protest where they are, and of course the nightly flag burnings were a feature of the Intifada, along with closed borders. Then there are Arab Palestinian sympathizers who did protest not only at the Knesset but around the country.

[dameocrat]

50. Not true

According to Israeli authorities, one reason for my arrest two weeks ago in Biddu and my denial of entry into Israel in 2003 is that I "organized and participated in illegal demonstrations." Israeli authorities frequently use the term "illegal demonstrations" to describe peaceful protests against Israeli government violations of international law. This twisted reasoning needs to be exposed and rejected...........................

Why is it "illegal" for hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children to march peacefully to assert their right to their land in the face of Israeli soldiers, who are defending the construction of a wall that has been declared illegal by the world's highest legal body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Why is it "illegal" for communities to try and implement the ICJ decision by walking together to their farmland to try peacefully to block Israeli contractors from bulldozing their land, from building a wall to cut them off from their land and from imprisoning them in their villages?

Apparently, it is forbidden for Palestinians to use the tactics of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to try to save their land and their communities from destruction. Apparently, Israeli authorities believe that it is legal for Israeli soldiers to club Palestinian men, women and children, to use tear gas on them, shoot rubber bullets and live ammunition at them and arrest them for peacefully protesting. This use of violence against peaceful protesters is "legal" even though the ICJ declared the construction of the wall on Palestinian land illegal. The Israeli government explains the soldiers' violence as "Palestinian clashes with security forces," even though the Israeli military invariably initiates the violence and young Palestinian men only occasionally respond with rocks



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/539812.html

[centristo]

47. the reason King succeeded

in acquiring Civil Rights for African-Americans was because they used NON-VIOLENCE and NON-VIOLENCE ONLY. Dr. King was a man of peace and he practiced what he preached, unlike one Yasir Arafat.

The Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers are more analagous to Hamas and the PLO (although not nearly as bad). If Malcolm X or Huey Newton lead the civil-rights movement in the 60s instead of Dr. King things would be much different today.

The Palestinians have no one comparable to King and if they do no one knows about him/her. Abbas has a chance to earn a place in history next to a giant like MLK Jr.; let's hope it works out.

[dameocrat]

49. If they had shot KIng or jailed him permantly like they

do other passive resisters on the West Bank you would have been stuck with Huey Newton and Malcolm!

That is the point.

[centristo]

55. um, MLK was shot and killed.

Also, Huey Newton and Malcolm X were both shot and killed. But the message of non-violence trumped that of violence and the civil rights movement succeeded. The same can happen in Palestine.

[dameocrat]

57. As I recall his shooting resulted in riots and it

the radicalization of Panther violence as well.

[Coastie for Truth]

58. And the rise of

the Nixon Democrats and the Reagan Democrats, and the GOP Southern Strategy, and the abandonment of urban communities (and public schools) by white upper middle class liberals, just to name a few happenings.

[dameocrat]

63. Too bad the shot him!

. The Regan dems weren't very sympathetic to civil rights in the first place. Does that mean Johnson shouldn't have tried, and we should just keep Jim Crow?

[Coastie for Truth]

64. I was speaking with resp to the 1968 riots

that followed MLK's assassination. I am at a loss to see how that can be conflated with the Civil Rights Act -- please educate me.

[dameocrat]

69. Violence went up after the civil rights act

didn't it?

[simcha_6]

88. I really don't think they do that

Show me an example where a peaceful, nonaggresive protester was killed or jailed for long periods of time.

You're doing a diservice to peaceful protesters by grouping them with Hamas.

[Yosie]

19. By what new age, pseudo progressive moral relativism

are random homicide bombings of weddings, Seders, college cafeterias, school buses, night clubs, and open air markets the moral equivalent of the non-fatal indignities of the occupation.

[drdon326]

20. I / P forum.

.

[dameocrat]

23. Who are you talking to?

Not all Palestinians are suicide bombers and people who stick up for their right to have a state aren't defending suicide bombings, and I suspect you know that. . Nobody is justifying suicide bombings. You are engaging in moral relativism when you say the justifies the original injustice that incites them though. Also twice as many civilians have died on the Palestinian side so it is hardly unfatal. If people must live there lives in poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, lack of water, and lack of education and hope and opportunity, not to mention segregation and degradation. That is slow murder. I am not surprised people raised in such conditions don't value there own lives or anyone elses.

[Yosie]

28. When it looks like there may be peace--

some people rush to pour gasoline on flames.

[dameocrat]

30. There terrorists and the extremist settlers

maybe but Church divisters are probably pushing the process along, in my view. Things were very bleak till the mainline churches made there threats.

[eyl]

33. You mean

it was the churches that killed Arafat (that was what started the progress, after all)? I'll admit I never thought of them as suspects before....

[Yosie]

34. Disinvestment has not been implemented

on any scale - just threatened and talked about -- there is a little technicality -- it's called "Sarbanes-Oxley." If a "fiduciary" (as a church's investment manager) divests - and the replacement investment "tanks" --- massive Sarbanes-Oxley liability. Open and shut.

The push has come from a "go slow" on "job creating" foreign investment across the Middle East (Israel, and the Muslim countries --- even Malaysia and Indonesia are hurting) -- and the diversion of that "job creating" investment to India and China.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. I beg to politely disagree

Your view "maybe but Church divisters are probably pushing the process along, in my view. Things were very bleak till the mainline churches made there threats." is a little bit wrong.

Divestment has been talked about in college dorms and church basements - but there hasn't been any serious actual divestment -- I can see a college trustee or church trustee selling IBM or Intel or Microsoft or Caterpillar or Starbucks to buy some stock approved by "Socially Worthy Investment Consultants".

I will have to go with Yosie that

"The push has come from a "go slow" on "job creating" foreign investment across the Middle East (Israel, and the Muslim countries --- even Malaysia and Indonesia are hurting) -- and the diversion of that "job creating" investment to India and China.

and that is motivated by "War Risk Premium" - and it is hurting Indonesia and Malaysia and Egypt and Morocco and the Palestinians as much as it is hurting Israel -- if not more so.

[dameocrat]

40. They weren't kids in college dorms who have to take on

politically appointed adminstrators. They were the leadership of the Presbyterian Church.

[Coastie for Truth]

42. And they have "talked" - but haven't divested.

As my lawyer friends tell me --

Oyez Oyez Oyez -- comes now the plaintiff who wants to know where the Church endowment went -- and brings this law suit under Sarbanes-Oxley to make somebody pay for "wastage" of the Church's endowment.

Not frivolous!

[dameocrat]

43. No not true

They are looking into what businesses to divest from.

[Yosie]

44. "Looking Into What Businesses to Divest From" is not divesting

Free legal advice--

1. If you, for sure, as a trustee or board member of a local Church or university, know what share will be sold - and you sell your own shares at that time -- that is "Insider Trading" - just like Martha Stewart. You probably will not be prosecuted -- but it is an "exposure."

2. If the church or other "non-profit" is in a state that imposes a fiduciary duty of due care of the assets - and you sell a high performing IBM or Microsoft for low performing stock - the individual trustees could have personal liability for the loss in value of the portfolio. Under both state law and Sarbanes-Oxley.


3. If the directive from the trustees is to sell shares in companies that "enable" the West Bank settlements (per Michael Lerner's article) -- and the trustees sell stock in a company that has no West Bank operations -- and that hires and pays Palestinians a good income (like Microsoft or IBM in Haifa) the individual trustees could have personal liability for the loss in value of the portfolio and for an ultra vires action. Under both state law and Sarbanes-Oxley.

I do not think most trustees can cut it that finely - between companies that do not "enable" the West Bank settlements (IBM, Microsoft, Merck, Astra-Zeneca, Solectron, Sanmina, etc.) and companies that do actually and factually directly "enable" (allegedly Caterpillar) West Bank settlements.

And if they mess up and "guess wrong" -- they have significant liability exposure - under state law and Sarbanes-Oxley.

Check out my post below -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=86934&mesg_id=87157&page=

See, I am not even going to send you a bill -- I do Democratic Committee stuff for free - as in pro bono. And I do Church, Temple, and Mosque stuff for free- pro bono.

[Darranar]

25. Non-fatal?

Ah, so those thousands of Palestinians just shot themselves to smear Little Israel?

[newyorican]

26. You got it

n/t

[martymar64]

74. The intentions of the settlements

are to create multiple isolated bantustans in the West Bank.
The method is to allow settlers to attack Palestinians with impunity and then to send in the Army for a healthy dose of collective punishment when the Palestinians respond, as would any reasonable person when threatened with physical harm.

It's the same thing that happened here in the USA vis a vis the Native Americans.

[simcha_6]

89. Eh, the settlements were meant to defend against Egypt and Jordan

and now they're being used to grab more land in the West Bank. But they're not meant (by the Israeli government- (I can't speak for Yesha) to be jumping off points to kill Palestinians.

[simcha_6]

87. The heck you say

Of course they do. What about the incident on the bridge with MLK? Indians protesting were attacked by the British. There were protests in China, and the Dalai Lama is up against the Chinese, who don't like protests.

Please think before making such bogus sweeping statments again.

[simcha_6]

66. Pissing Israel off is only going to make them more defiant

When has the world truly responded to Israel in an hour of need?

1948: U.S. puts an arms embargo on Israel
1956: U.S. tells Israel to STOP enforcing international law (concerning free waters and international waterways)
1967: Six day war; look at economist articles from the week during and after. The U.S. sympathized with Israel, but didn't send troops to defend it OR international law (remember, technically the war was started not because Syria was shelling Israel and had been for nineteen years, or because Egypt had tanks preparing to invade the Negev, but because Nasser closed the strait of Tiran, and international waterway.
1973: After a short delay, the U.S. sent arms to Israel. Kudos.
1991: After supporting America in its war against Hussein and refraining from self-defense (not a typical Israeli choice) the U.S. leans on them to give up a sizable chunk of their territory to the nation who supported the enemies of the United States. (This isn't a bad thing, actually, but that's how a lot of Israelis probably view it.)

As for what Sharon's doing: I don't doubt he plans to annex the West Bank, but once new elections come around in Israel following the evacuation of Gaza (which actually might not be good for the Israeli economy in the short term) Likud will almost certainly lose the settler vote, who'll vote for UTJ, Shas, or maybe Aliyah, and the leftists in the North now supporting Sharon will abandon him when they see he isn't a real peace-maker. Labor will roll in and hopefully form a coalition with Meretz or at least a newly emasculated Likud, and then real peace will come.

As for divestment: maybe good, maybe bad, definitely late, probably pointless, and possibly self-defeating.

[Yosie]

12. "The Divestment Debate" - Tikkun -- March/April 2005

There is a three article discussion of the "The Divestment Debate" in Tikkun, March/April 2005.

Michael Lerner has a long article, which comes down to support for a very narrowly targeted divestment - only of those companies whose activities are one to one in direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank. A very narrowly drawn divestment.

I do not know what "one to one direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank" means. What about a US pharmaceutical manufacturer or civilian chip manufacturer that has operations in Haifa - but has some employees who live in a West Bank illegal settlement. Is that "one to one direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank." I have heard that argument made by lawyers in the Netherlands. Lerner's response in the article is that "one to one direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank" is very limited - and means the manufacturer of bulldozers used to demolish civilian homes in the West Bank. I think that is pretty narrow and foolishly idealistic.

What about the supplier of the micro tube irrigation equipment - used within the pre-1967 borders and on the West Bank -- is that "one to one in direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank?" Certainly that is closer to "one to one in direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank" then simply hiring workers who live in illegal West Bank settlements.

Let's look at a realistic to overly broad definition of what "one to one in direct enablement of the occupation of the West Bank" means. I do not like the "Quo Bono" question - but - given the paucity of meaningful (non-petroleum) investment in the total region, we must ask "Quo Bono" - who benefits from the present low levels of investment in the total region -- and a further lowering of investment in Israel? "Quo Bono?"

Not the Palestinian worker. Not the Israeli worker. And, surprise, surprise -- not the Egyptian, Jordanian, Qatarian, Bahrainian, or even Malaysian or Indonesian worker.

"Quo Bono?" - Probably India and China.

[Yosie]

59. What is the Power of the World Council of Churches AS A SHAREHOLDER?

Consider - a significant factor in SA (which is distinguishable from the West Bank or Israel) was the power AS VOTING SHAREHOLDERS of the vast California and New York Public Employee Pension Plans, and various churches AS VOTING SHAREHOLDERS.

Consider -- the Governor of California is "going to the people" with a referendum to break up CALPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System), and A reason is because the business community is pissed at CALPERS for using its power AS A VOTING SHAREHOLDER to effect corporate policy on various social/political issues.

Same thing when H. Carl McCall ran the New York Public Employee Plans.

Point of fact - eight percent of the voting shares can generally elect a director -- and in that way effect corporate policy on various social/political issues.

Divesting is a lot less persuasive then voting the Church and Public Employee shares -- and soliciting proxies.

[dameocrat]

60. Must be pretty powerful given how hard

everyone is trying to stop it.

[Yosie]

65. Illogical ?????????????

If you "divest" your stock you are no longer a stockholder - and can not vote for Directors.

If you hold your stock you can work with other shareholders - including "institutional" shareholders with similar views -- and "solicit proxies" to effect a change in corporate policy.

I have not heard of any solicitation of proxies or any attempt to form a bloc of shares -- so, "Must be pretty powerful given how hard everyone is trying to stop it." just doesn't follow, because nobody "is trying to stop it."

What point are you trying to make? I am asking you to try to convince me.

[newyorican]

67. because nobody "is trying to stop it."

That's false, and much too easy to prove so.

Israel divestment campaigns by mainline churches

The American Jewish Committee is issuing this background report in response to recent moves by two mainline Protestant denominations toward divestment from Israel. In July, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. passed a resolution at the group's General Assembly adopting a policy of "selective divestment" from companies supporting what it deems wrongful Israeli actions. The church mandated that a special church body examine its $7 billion investment portfolio and make recommendations to the church's consultative body on which, if any, companies it should divest from. Subsequently, the Anglican Church said it was investigating divestment as well.

AJC views these efforts as a blow to Middle East peace and an unfair singling out of Israel for special censure and sanction. It also sees the Presbyterian move, in particular, as a setback to Christian-Jewish understanding and has called upon its 33 U.S. chapters to reach out to Presbyterians to express serious concern about the denomination's resolutions.

Divestment by Protestants and business-as-usual with American Jews are incompatible

Like other Jewish communities, following the Presbyterian Church USA’s Israel divestment decision we participated in a new, high-level track of discussions with Presbytery leaders. There have been six meetings; we declined to participate in the last session.

In those first five sessions we strongly stated the case against divestment. We directly called on the Presbytery, qua Presbytery, to speak out against it. And we requested an opportunity to address the full Presbytery, as has been done in other communities. Our Presbyterian friends courteously listened to us on divestment, but indicated they do not plan to speak out against it or to provide us the forum we requested.

Now the operative question is: Why would someone with your level of intelligence be engaging in disingenuous discourse?

[Yosie]

68. "because nobody "is trying to stop it." redux

I posted

"I have not heard of any solicitation of proxies or any attempt to form a bloc of shares -- so, "Must be pretty powerful given how hard everyone is trying to stop it." just doesn't follow, because nobody "is trying to stop it."

where

"because nobody "is trying to stop it."

referred to a "solicitation of proxies..." such as CalPers and H. Carl McCall used.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt as a gentleman and a Progressive - and just assume that you did not deliberately misinterpret me - but got lost in my verbose prolix.

[Yosie]

71. Thank you for the citations.

I read them carefully. There is nothing in them besides polite dialog.

But, and this is what concerns me, the "studies" (I did not say "resolutions" - nothing has been finally decided yet) by the WCC, the Presbytery, and the Anglicans, taken with the March 28, 2001 Arab Summit, which resolved:

The Arab leaders "demand the reactivation of the Arab Boycott against Israel by holding regular boycott conferences which the Central Office of the Boycott (in Damascus) has called for with the aim of preventing dealing with Israel."


— excerpt from unofficial English translation of the March 28th resolution

This raise some very serious legal issues (and exposures) for divestment.

I realize that nothing has gone beyond polite dialog. Even the dialog on DU is polite by web chat room standards, and I am not accusing anybody of anything, nor am I trying to be disingenuous.

I have read the WCC, Anglican, and Presbyterian statements -- and they could easily be applied over broadly or seriously misconstrued in such a way as to constitute a "boycott" as used in the "anti-boycott" laws.

The Sherman Act and at least two other "anti-boycott" laws regulate the conduct of organizations with regard to the Arab boycott of Israel. It is possible that all three may apply in one way or another to divestment.

I will not delve into the Sherman Act - except as a caution flag for any officer, director, or trustee of a company competing with a "divested" company. There is exposure there.

The first law is the Export Administration Act ("EAA") The other law is part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 ("TRA").

The EAA applies to the activities of individuals, partnerships, corporations or any other form of association which is a resident or national of the United States as well as any "domestic concerns" foreign subsidiary, partnership, affiliate, branch office, or permanent foreign establishment which is "controlled-in-fact" by the domestic concern.

The TRA has a broader reach than the EAA. Although the test for who is regulated is more complicated to state, essentially every person or corporation that files a U.S. tax return must comply with the TRA.

Prohibited boycott activity includes:

• boycott of infrastructure development projects
• boycott of securities offerings
• international trade financings and transactions
• mergers and acquisitions
• bank financings

Clearly, a concerted "divestment" that impacts "infrastructure development projects" or "securities offerings" (which divestment would clearly impact), or "international trade financings and transactions" or "mergers and acquisitions" or "bank financings" -- all of which the "divestment" would do -- is proscribed and creates significant legal exposure.

I realize that the proposals only contemplate very narrowly limited "divestment" of activities that "enable" the occupation, and that do not otherwise impact Israel. However, these things have a life of their own.

And, as I said "nobody is trying to stop it." When somebody tries to stop, you will know -- in a mahogany court room with a white haired person in a black robe sitting at a raised bench, with US flags, the Great Seal of the US, and the Ten Commandments, etc., and bailiffs, and clerks.

I also think you could send as effective a message with less liability exposure by a stock proxy solicitation on the issue -- as CalPers and H. Carl McCall have amply demonstrated.

[newyorican]

72. I've read this already...

I did not detect a question in your message. Is there one requiring a reply?

[Yosie]

81. Risks of divestment

I just want to keep people out of trouble.

If you should divest "target stock" prior to or contemporaneous with an actual announcement of a divestment of the said "target stock" -- with actual or imputed advance knowledge of the divestiture -- that is at least civil "insider trading" and could be "insider trading."

If you work for a brokerage house of a financial institution and execute a sale (especially a "short sale") of "target stock" prior to or contemporaneous with an actual announcement of a divestment of the said "target stock" --- with actual or imputed advance knowledge of the divestiture -- either for your account or for a customer's account - that is at least civil "insider trading" and could be criminal "insider trading."

If you are an officer, director, trustee, etc. of an organization (church, university) that divests any of said "target" stocks and you also sell your stock in the target company -- -- with actual or imputed advance knowledge of the divestiture -- as above -- "criminal" insider trading.

Here's where it gets dicey --- if you work for XYZ drug company, and you participate in an organization's divestiture of ABC drug co (which is a competitor -- and has Israeli operations) -- big trouble. That is criminal insider trading.

Insider trading is both a tort (civil damages) and a crime (fines and incarceration)

Oh The Sound of the Men Workin' On The Chain Gang

[newyorican]

82. "I just want to keep people out of trouble."

Well thanks for that. I'm sure there are Law firms in every city chock full of lawyers that are aware of the difference between divestment and insider trading.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

84. What he said is correct

It also forms the basis for the bulk of rules dealing with the Independence of auditors, accountants, consultants and officers of third party companies such as PwC, E&Y and Arthur Anderson (whatever they are called today).

L-

[Coastie for Truth]

85. Any Talk of Divesting Dell Computers

for their real, actual anti-Muslim actions??

Check out this thread--
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1304227

[Yosie]

86. How fine will the divestment knife cut??

Check out this article by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times (Sunday, March 13), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13friedman.html

and the DU thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x88148

Of particular interest are the following two paragraphs:

"Now, that's a new Middle East. On Dec. 14, Egypt, Israel and the U.S. signed an accord setting up three Qualified Industrial Zones (Q.I.Z.'s) in Egypt. The deal stipulated the following: Any Egyptian company operating in one of these Q.I.Z.'s that imports from an Israeli company at least 11.7 percent of the parts, materials or services that go into the Egyptian company's final product can then export that finished product to the U.S. duty free. This is a big deal for Egypt, which, unlike Jordan and Israel, does not have a free-trade treaty with the U.S. As part of the accord, the U.S. named Greater Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said the three Q.I.Z.'s. It had to be limited to only three municipalities so that the U.S. would not be swamped with Egyptian exports - hence the protests from the two big Egyptian manufacturing centers that were left out.

According to Rashid Mohamed Rashid, Egypt's impressive new minister of foreign trade, 397 Egyptian companies have already signed up to participate in the Q.I.Z. program, most of them small and medium-size firms. Many of these Egyptian companies have already gone to Israel to forge deals with Israeli suppliers or started work with Israeli partners to identify export markets in the U.S. Some Israeli companies are setting up shop in the Egyptian Q.I.Z.'s to provide services right on the spot."

With that background, I will ask "How fine will the divestment knife cut??" Will the WCC - or the Presbyterian Church or the Anglican Community divest stocks of companies operating on the West Bank ("enabling Israeli occupation") for the purpose of creating a viable, post-independence Palestinian economic infrastructure joined with economically viable democracies across the ME???????????

Or will the divestment be a broad blade - killing the good with the bad?