Presbyterian Church's Selective Divestment from Israel

Today I received an email from a Palestinian-American friend of mine that had some powerful lines in it. He was responding to the softness of PCUSA's selective divestment from Israel. He wrote,
"People have to be reminded of what Will Madisha, president of COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) said about apartheid in South Africa being a "Sunday picnic" compared to what Palestinians are enduring. PCUSA have shown spinelessness and lack of moral leadership in failing to pursue unequivocal full-blown divestment and they should not be praised for that.
...And by the way, I want to be able to go see where my mother was born and grew up in Jaffa, Palestine without being asked stupid questions by some Zionists. I am not even saying anything about claiming my mother's property at this point."
Here are some excerpts from the latest Jewish Voice for Peace statement regarding PCUSA's decision:
In 2004 the Presbyterians voted to begin a process of phased corporate engagement, including investigating selective divestment, from companies that profit from the occupation. Yesterday they reaffirmed that vote. They did not rescind it, as has been reported. Nor was the 2004 vote a decision to embark on a divestment program, as was reported back then. It was a decision to investigate the various ways the PCUSA could use economic pressure to help bring about a just peace in Israel-Palestine.
Clearly, the Church has no intention of backing down from making a powerful moral judgment about the occupation. Despite overwhelming pressure to rescind their vote, the Presbyterian GA reaffirmed their policy of using economic pressure to help bring an end to Israel's occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a policy that JVP has long supported both in other groups and with our own shareholder activism with Caterpillar. The PCUSA voted overwhelmingly to continue the same process of corporate engagement they started in 2004. This means, as in 2004, the process could still end in a vote for divestment in 2008, and, just like in 2004, that is a measure of last resort. They also reaffirmed their opposition to the portions of the wall being built on pre-1967 territory, and their commitment to ending the occupation not only in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in East Jerusalem. It's difficult to imagine why many organizations that work overtime to block critics of the occupation are crowing about this as a success. But perhaps the truth just hurts too much.





