{ OUTLOOK FORUM }
For eight years now, we Presbyterians have engaged in heated discussions over the possibility of divesting or making “positive investment”in Palestine and Israel. The fact is, from the perspective of direct economic impact, neither divestment as currently discussed in the denomination nor positive investment amounts to a hill of beans.
Note the important qualifier: “direct economic impact.” Their indirect effects are a different matter. As discussed below, they explain why I strongly support the implementation of MRTI’s recommendations on divestment. Clarifying their limited direct economic significance helps clear away some distractions.
First, with regard to divestment, it is flat wrong to describe what is under consideration as “divestment from Israel.” No such thing is under consideration. PC(USA) policies here are clear. When MRTI finds that the operations of a company are inconsistent with the ways in which we understand Christ’s call for us to live, the committee engages the corporation in discussions seeking clarity and, where needed, change. Now, after eight years of such discussion, the committee has determined that three companies have shown no interest in change or in further discussion. In such a situation, our standard procedure is to ask that the denomination remove all our investments from those companies.
The truth is, if PC(USA) sold all its shares in those three companies, it would not be noticed in their share prices. We would, in effect, be “shaking the dust off our feet.” Neither church workers, with their retirement funds, nor other church agencies benefitting from loan and investment programs, want their returns to be based on activities judged to be instrumental in bringing about unjust outcomes.
It is true that by doing so we would remove any leverage we might have through further engaging the companies in corporate dialog. But our MRTI representatives have made clear that, after eight years of trying, they see no evidence that there is any interest on the part of the companies in further conversation. They recommend moving on to the only conclusion that maintains the integrity of the MRTI process.
So what about “positive investment”? Isn’t it the Christian approach to engage in positive acts, rather than negative ones aimed at punishing those who engage in wrongful activities? This leads to another uncomfortable economic truth: there is no shortage of funds for economically viable projects in Palestine. Major investment funds operating there have plenty of money, which they find it difficult to find ways to invest. Some in our church have suggested investing through the Palestinian stock market; I wonder how many think it would help the depressed American economy for people to buy shares on our stock exchange. Most economists would laugh at that claim. The constraint holding back economic growth in Palestine is not shortage of money but the bind in which Palestinians find themselves: lack of freedom of movement, control of both imports and exports, non-issuance of permits of dozens of types (including permission to build), the network of regulations controlling access to water, etc. In the absence of changes in these characteristics of a country under occupation, attempts to move forward through expanded investments only provides a smokescreen for continuing the occupation.
In the past, I have supported positive investment in Palestine and have put a lot of time into looking for ways to implement it. I have come to believe there is very little that can be done along those lines, in the absence of fundamental change in the occupation regime that governs Palestine today.
Positive investment by itself is not an effective tool for making that happen.
This leads to another question, this time one of mission practice. A bedrock feature of our missiology is that “Presbyterians do mission in partnership.” So, who are our partners in Israel and Palestine? After our denomination’s 170 years of mission involvement in that part of the world, I would suggest we start by listening to our Christian brothers and sisters. Ignoring or overruling their views either means that we feel we know better than they what they need (a colonialist mentality, “bearing the white man’s burden”?); or it means our relationships with others are more important than those with Palestinians. In such cases, I believe Christ always calls us to pay special attention to those who are powerless, the marginalized. If that doesn’t describe the Palestinians, I don’t know what does. They have never placed a high priority on positive investments.
So let us return to economic factors, but expanding the field to include indirect effects. It is here that the power of divestment comes into its own. Past General Assemblies have regularly affirmed our conviction that the expansion of settlements in the West Bank is wrong and must cease, as must the network of check-points that constrain travel by Palestinians across their territory. Divestment from three companies, each complicit in implementing that process, is our affirmation that not only do we condemn those things, but we will remove our investments from companies helping enforce those practices, even if it lowers the overall financial returns from our investments.
When we move beyond broad statements of principles of right and wrong to a commitment to act, even when it costs us financially, that is a strong affirmation that we really mean what we say. This is what makes people on all sides of the discussion sit up and take notice. My hope and prayer is that this will be the year in which we do that.
DONALD MEAD, a lifelong Presbyterian and ruling elder, is Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University. He has spent much of his life doing research, teaching and advising in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.
