PITTSBURGH, July 2, 2012 – In a warmup to what promised to be heated debate over proposals on divestment from companies doing business in Israel, the General Assembly committee on Middle East and Peacemaking Issues reshaped a statement of opposition to a preemptive strike on Iran, then passed it easily.
The vote Monday was 47-1 to send forward to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly an overture that states the church’s support for a peaceful resolution to tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and calls for adherence to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It also calls for direct, unconditional negotiations between the US. and Iran, with the long-term aim of restoring diplomatic relations.
The measure passed by the committee blended an overture from the Greater Atlanta Presbytery with language recommended by the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethic Concerns.
Ed Martin of the Atlanta Presbytery told the committee, while the U.S. position is that “all options are on the table” in efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, one option seems excluded: “serious, sustained diplomatic negotiations without preconditions.”
Martin said analysts for the U.S., European Union and International Atomic Energy Agency agree that Iran has no nuclear weapons and no current program to develop one. Under those conditions, “it would be a crime of most serious proportions to launch an attack on Iran,” he said.
Other comments on the measure called attention to its failure to specifically mention Israel, which some analysts view as likely to attack Iran’s nuclear development facilities if Israeli leaders feel their country is threatened and the U.S. fails to take action. Speaking to a pro-Israel conference in the U.S., in March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he could not allow his people to “live in the shadow of annihilation.”
But one observer offering comments, Jim Roberts of Idaho, said it is unwise for the General Assembly to take a firm position on such a volatile issue as tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.
“I think it points out the futility of trying to legislate foreign policy in two-year increments,” he said.
