Posted on 02/18/2006 6:33:36 AM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
PORTO ALEGRE, BRAZIL - "If your church's money is in companies that profit from the oppression of Palestinians, then you have a moral responsibility" to question that situation. That was the message brought by the Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, canon of the Anglican cathedral in Jerusalem
The Palestinian Anglican canon specifically praised the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for the decision of its 2004 General Assembly to move toward divestment from selected companies doing business with Israel. He encouraged other denominations to follow suit. "We have a responsibility to stand with our Palestinian brothers and sisters who are oppressed," Ateek argued.
Ateek objected to the separation barrier because he saw it as a unilateral attempt to establish Israeli claims to West Bank land captured during the 1967 war. He urged churches invested in companies like Caterpillar to ask, "Are we profiting in an immoral way?" If the answer were yes, Ateek advised churches to intercede with the companies to change their practices. And if the companies would not change, "you might need to divest."
"At the end of the day," Ateek said, "all I can say is I am laying it [the question of divestment from Israel] on your conscience." Those who decide to divest, he insisted, "are taking a stand in line with biblical and contemporary prophets."
Ateek compared the current anti-Israel divestment push to the 1980s' movement for divestment from South Africa, reading a statement from Archbishop Desmond Tutu about how helpful divestment had been in fighting apartheid. "Similar pressures are being mustered on Israel, one person at a time," added the Palestinian Anglican
Ateek, however, indicated that he and his Sabeel Center were more modest in their demands. "We are talking [only] about selective divestment and targeting the occupation," he said. "If there is a company working within Israel [and not in the occupied territories], we are not targeting that company at this time."
The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek laments that "most Christians are unwilling to stand up and speak against what Israel is doing." (Photo courtesy Paulino Menezes / WCC) But Ateek also indicated that he was not disagreeing with others who advocated sterner economic measures against Israel. "I think we need to encourage everything that is non-violent," he said, including "a boycott [of Israeli goods], which would be wonderful."
Ateek warned his sympathetic audience, "If you take a stand on this [divestment], you will be attacked." He recalled, "Once the Presbyterians did this [endorsed divestment], the attacks started from the American Jewish Zionist organizations." He did not acknowledge that many Presbyterians also opposed the divestment move. Later in the workshop, Ateek made a passing scornful reference to "Zionist Christians" who are "working for Armageddon"; however, this phrase would not seem to be an accurate description of anti-divestment Presbyterians and other mainline Protestants.
The Anglican canon lamented, "Compared to the Zionists, we are nothing." He alleged, "The media, generally, has been pro-Israel - everywhere." Among all the prophetic stands that churches can take, Ateek contended, "speaking against Israel is the most difficult." He regretted that "today, most of the Christians are unwilling to stand up and speak against what Israel is doing."
In his workshop presentation, Ateek did not attempt to rebut the main arguments that have been made against his divestment movement. In fact, he did not even mention those arguments: that there is no legitimate reason to single out Israel as a pariah state, that Israel has a right to defend its people from terrorism, that Israel has made and offered more substantive concessions for peace than any of its Arab neighbors, that corporations selling non-military goods (such as bulldozers) to Israel (among many other nations) are not responsible for how the Israeli government chooses to use those multi-purpose items, that divesting from such corporations would have little or no effect or their behavior or Israel's, and that isolating Israel economically would not advance the prospects for a Middle East peace agreement.
There was no demand from Ateek's audience for him to answer these arguments. That audience of 30 to 40 - mostly North American and Western European activists - already seemed persuaded of the case for divestment.
This and other mutirão workshops do not necessarily represent the views of the WCC. But the WCC has facilitated the workshops, because they supposedly raise issues of interest to the council. All workshops have been endorsed by some church body related to the WCC, according to mutirão coordinator Faautu Talapusi.
Selected companies? That is a real profile in courage.
Communism and Islam easily fit the definition of the anti-Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.