Starting at 3:30, you will see debate of divestment from companies profiting from the occupation at the United Methodist Church conference yesterday. Watch the official statement of rejection at 4:27. Disturbing. At 6:30 there is a harrowing statement for divestment. A woman says, We held stock in the manufacturing firms in Germany that received the bids to manufacture the ovens for the concentration camps.
How much evidence would we ask for, before it was time to stop the wholesale destruction of people?
Nobility. Listen to the amazing Tina Whitehead at 9:30, with a motion that will go nowhere:
The 2012 General Conference calls on all united Methodist boards and agencies to provide the moral non violent assistance called for by our sisters and brothers in the holy land and end our investments in the tools that systematically deprive them of their freedom. After more than 40 years of ethnic cleansing and occupation, Palestinian Christians are asking for divestment for their freedom not investment to improve life in their prison.
She's up against too much establishment support.
"We also as Christians have a relationship to Judaism and Israel," says a preacher, arguing against divestment.
Says Ilene Cohen: "A friend who watched the proceedings online wrote to me that he'd hoped against hope that the divestment measure would pass, but noted, quite soberly, 'it's quite a stretch for many Christians to consider sanctioning Israel (and Jews) this way. . . . [T]he struggle continues.'"
The Times has a good story on divestment. It quotes Susanne Hoder, a Methodist from Rhode Island and a spokeswoman for the United Methodist Kairos Response:
A one to one analogy between Israel and Auschwitz, and Phil calls it noble.
Does it ever occur to you that those sort of fear tactics and parodic exageratioj might put people off?
Put who off Terry? The dwindling fanatics that support Iarael and will never see reason?
Israel does all it can to oppress the natives for having been born non-Jewish in the land under Israeli control; what it does do to the natives is limited only by the fact it lives in a post-Nuremberg Trials world that also exhibits instant communication around the world, which is why it has a PR problem wherever news is not controlled by the main media.
The settlements enterprise are ongoing war crimes UNDISPUTED [Geneva 49.6] and ICC Act 2001 UK 8[2bv111], To aid and abet a war crime ICC Act 2001UK 55[1a] and/or 55[1d] assisting a grave war crime, UNDISPUTED, the so called Christians who voted against the resolution are simply aiding and abetting or assisting war criminals, and therefore are war criminals themselves, thats the Law, in the UK at least, I know the US has not signed up for the ICC, but our Attorney General could make a good case under the act since the perpetrators did it purposefully. He would not of course, war crimes charges are only for the ‘other’.
As the therapist in the story said, “I never promised you a rose garden.” BDS doesn’t work in a day. Still, per NYT, Methodists did call for boycott of products made in OPTs.
But Divestment? No. Racism.
American Christians largely supported slavery, and racism is hard to erase. The guilt and pity for past oppression of the Holocaust (a “card” repeatedly played for Israel’s benefit) is still working “jez fine” and guilt and pity for the present oppression of the occupation adn refusal to re-admit refugees/exiles from 1948 is a non-starter, I imagine due to dual racism — pro Jewish (white in USA’s imagination) and against Arabs (dark in USA’s imagination).
When they were campaigning in the Democratic Party Presidential primary, both Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton made clear they wanted US taxpayers to continue to fund the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel. Both were Methodists.
Good catch. And as I noted yesterday, in light of this utter spinelessness, it isn’t surprising that mainline Christianity, often associated with upper-scale WASPs, is totally dying out. What do they have? Nothing, only the empty rhetoric to grease the insiders.
If that movement has any future it is young people, often minorities, untainted by ‘white guilt’ towards any and all minorities and since they are minorities themselves, they can see themselves in Palestinians much easier, while the feckless white progressives still somehow feel bad about the Holocaust – as if they caused it, despite the fact that their grandfathers fought Hitler.
But you take in a Zionist troll like Jeff Goldberg who starts screaming Holocaust and Hitler at the top of his voice, and you bet the Methodist establishment all falls in line. Pathetic and weak.
However, 40 % is a working number. Do anyone know when the next conferece is? I also heard individual Methodist congregations have already moved to disinvest.
And I’m still looking for the Brooklyn Parkslope BDS motion to be returned at their next annual meeting. Never give up, keep pushing.
the conferences are every 4 years krauss. and yes, 4 regional councils have already divested..i think.
Yes, Annie:
The United Methodists conference passed a strongly worded resolution denouncing the Israeli occupation and the settlements, and calling for “all nations to prohibit the import of products made by companies in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.”
A spokeswoman for the United Methodist Kairos Response said four geographic regions, or “annual conferences,” of the Methodist Church – Northern Illinois, California Pacific, New York and West Ohio – had already voted to pull out their own investments. “We expect that more United Methodist conferences will do this,” she said. The Presbyterian Church USA will vote on a divestment measure at its general assembly, which begins on June 30 in Pittsburgh.
One young woman who stood up and spoke yesterday was quite impressive. Think she said she was in her late 20′s. She pointed out how people her age were not in attendance. She said that many of the young people were not impressed by older Methodist who were not walking their talk. She said “stop hiding behing pretty rhetoric.” She hit the nail on the head. Wonder if Adam or Phil could find out who she is and wonder if she would write a guest entry for Mondoweiss about what she thinks about the decision.
40% was also the result of the initial attempt by the Park Slope Co-op.
From looking at the Methodist web site page of the divestment petition. It seems to me that originally the majority report was a specific call for divestment from three companies , Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard and Motorola.
It looks like the that petition was amended on April 28. This amended version completed gutted the resolution and removed the names of specific companies. As a result it appears that those who opposed to the amended version, put forth a minority report.
Does anyone know why there was this drastic change in the original petition? I wonder how the vote would have been effected if the divestment proposal was presented as the majority and not the minority report.
Compare – Petition text, legislative committee report, legislative committee minority report
link to calms.umc.org
I suspect church leaders did not want to offend the rabbis they have worked together with for decades on “Interfaith Dialogue.” You’ll hear no support for BDS from Palestinian Arab/Muslims who participate in this either. Community leaders including rabbis will always position those Arab/Muslims as the “moderates” and sole representatives of the Palestinian people. It just takes one or two in every town to effectively obstruct human rights advocacy by “extremists” promoting the right of return, BDS, or a one democratic state.
You’ll hear no support for BDS from Palestinian Arab/Muslims who participate in this either
BS, this is absolutely untrue. i personally know a palestinian methodist who has been participating in interfaith dialogue for years and she supports bds. she was at the conference, one of the speakers assembled at the presentation table in a video of the conference i viewed. you have no idea what you are talking about. none whatsoever. perhaps you could find, perhaps, some palestinian christians who agreed with you, but that would be a rarity.
do not ever speak for them.
I have much documentation on this in my community and state. I’m glad others are beginning to write about this problem also. Pls. see link to ikhras.com
“do not ever speak for them.”
Agreed. That’s Annie’s job.
ok, who are the palestinian representatives of the anti bds community? is there a website you can direct me too. i think palestinians speak quite well for themselves.
Annie,
What would you think about a Palestinian/Arab/Muslim who accepts the community’s “peace-builder award” in a well-attended ceremony at the “progressive” synagogue nominated by the very rabbi who has organized and written against pro-Palestinian activists and speakers like Ali Abunimah? Or for that matter, the Christian pastor he works with along with these rabbis at the Interfaith Service and dialogue who gave a sermon one Sunday slamming the one democratic state solution and promoting J Street? This very pastor declined to host one of Sabeel’s noted speakers, Mark Braverman, because MB had signed a statement supporting a one democratic state. “Dialogue” is misused as a strategy to eviscerate potential support for BDS.
BTW, this rabbi and other local/regional rabbis signed the statement against Methodist divestment.
are you asking me my opinion about Ray Hanania?
perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning hhm, are you saying palestinians who participate in the practice of normalization do not support bds?
ok, disclosure ..i do not know if my friend still participates in innerfaith dialogue groups. not since anti normalization has picked up.
You’ll hear no support for BDS from Palestinian Arab/Muslims who participate in this either.
?????? The very first organization listed on the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for BDS is the “Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine (Coordinating body for the major political parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory)” The PA has adopted a formal BDS program against the Israeli settlements.
*http://www.bdsmovement.net/call#.T6LITZjcAs0
*http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/pa-upgrades-boycott-of-settlement-products-despite-israeli-warnings-1.291128
The Kairos document addresses the restrictions on the freedom of movement of both Christians and Muslims: “the freedom of access to the holy places is denied under the pretext of security. Jerusalem and its holy places are out of bounds for many Christians and Muslims from the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Even Jerusalemites face restrictions during the religious feasts. Some of our Arab clergy are regularly barred from entering Jerusalem. ”
The Muslim call for divestment was also implicit in the Kairos document, since it cited the call from “Palestinian civil organizations, as well as international organizations, NGOs and certain religious institutions” to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation.
Hostage,
Please stay on topic. I’m talking about those Arab/Muslims who allow themselves to be positioned as the “moderate” voice and sole representatives of the Palestinian people in their communities. By doing so they obstruct advocacy for the right of return, BDS, and the vision of a one democratic state. And I gave an example of this. They function to rubber stamp the ” progressive Zionist” positions such as J Street’s. Again, it only takes one or two in each community to effectively obstruct BDS advocacy.
A few years back a piece in our Jewish Federation newsletter bragged how both dialogue was used to neutralize local Presbyterian efforts for divestment and right after Cast Lead to neutralize education and mobilization for Palestinian human rights at the university with the students.
Hostage, Please stay on topic.
I am. I named Islamic groups who called for, and support BDS, then I supplied links to back that information up.
I’m talking about those Arab/Muslims who allow themselves to be positioned as the “moderate” voice and sole representatives of the Palestinian people in their communities. By doing so they obstruct advocacy for the right of return, BDS, and the vision of a one democratic state.
Name one and gives us a link. FYI, it’s counterproductive to mix messages. International humanitarian law and BSD are much more relevant to ending a foreign occupation and removing illegal settlements than to implementing a vision of one democratic state. That’s why the BSD movement doesn’t officially endorse a 1ss or 2ss. In the case of South Africa, the result was a two state solution that ended the occupation of Namibia.
A few years back a piece in our Jewish Federation newsletter bragged
Lots of special interest groups brag about the effectiveness of their strategies or exaggerate their own importance or that of others. Anonymous Palestinian Muslims are not likely to be the sole representatives of anyone and they are certainly not blocking Methodist or Presbyterian divestments, the right of return, & etc.
P.S. See Conference urges world-wide boycott of South African and Namibian goods.:
A world-wide boycott of Namibian and South African products– scheduled to begin on 1 January 1986 unless South Africa complies with Security Council resolution 435 (1978)–was urged by the Conference on the Intensification of International Action for the Independence of Namibia.
The Conference, which met in New York from 11 to 13 September, also urged that a special 1986 session of the General Assembly be convened to terminate South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia.
In addition, the Conference condemned South Africa for its “continuing defiance of the international community’ and rejected the United States’ “constructive engagement’ policies as well as the Reagan Administration’s insistence on the linkage of Namibia’s independence to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola.
Organized by the United Nations Council for Namibia, the Conference was convened to focus attention on the “ever-growing threat to international peace and security’ caused by South Africa’s refusal to comply with all United Nations resolutions and decisions on Namibia.
Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar reminded the conferees that the Security Council–through resolution 566 of 19 June 1985–had declared the interim government in Namibia “illegal, null and void’, and demanded that South Africa immediately rescind its illegal and unilateral action.
Noting that 1985 marked not only the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, but also the twenty-fifth anniversary of the formation of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), General Assembly President Paul J.F. Lusaka (Zambia) said that in Namibia’s case “there is nothing to celebrate’.
Mr. Lusaka called on the Conference to take stock of where things stood and seriously reconsider how a more effective effort could be made to bring about Nambia’s independence.
With a situation “more encouraging than it had ever been’ for liberation movements of South Africa and Namibia, Noel G. Sinclair (Guyana), Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, said it was “essential to take full advantage of the present moment of weakness’ and to proceed with a planned and carefully co-ordinated application of pressure on the Pretoria regime.
“The writing on the wall is emerging with greater clarity’, he said.
Whereas a “moderate” like Caroline Glick can propose a single apartheid state and gets a standing ovation.
“Interfaith” actually means “Judeo-Christian” sometimes with an added sprinkling of minor religions but always with a fastidious regard to which particular “Muslims” are found to be acceptable by the gate keepers.
There’s nothing inherent to Christianity about ‘supporting’ Israel – for proper Chrstians the opposite is true(as long as Israel continues in it’s current state) -as it should be all Christians. There is no argument that is Christian-based for allowing an illegal occupation(with all of the crimes that insues) of another people and their land – their land. Some tried a few centuries ago – and now we look upon them as extreme assholes. So why should we look differently upon Israel and it’s ongoing crimes?
Can U say “Hagee”?
Can U say “Poser”?
Hagee is not a Christian. Period.
The Christian Right are NEITHER Christian nor right.
“Hagee is not a Christian. Period.”
Sure he sure is. He’s just one that doesn’t like haggis.
I agree, stevieb, but tell that to 30 million Christian fundies. Won’t make a dent, They support Israel always, and fund Israeli settlements, anything Israel in fact.
after reading comments and articles, I get that this is really about money/power/politics instead of religion/human rights. (I’m slow.)
Ira Glunts points out connections, and it resembles the same problem that infects all our issues. labor councils turn against labor to stay cozy (and coopted) with big politicians. Planned Parenthood is doing the same thing – they tell me their entire strategy is to support democrats and Obama, then they’re surprised to learn Kucinich was replaced by an anti-choice female democrat. but they still give money and get their egos fluffed.
the churches sound exactly the same. when our local activists met with our congresswoman to beg her to vote against war funding, our Unitarian minister was meeting with her and applauding her “support for the troops”.
the issues are not the issue. the Methodists aren’t concerned about their inter-faith groups, they’re concerned about their corporate friends and political gods. they will run around with Obama buttons too. and Obama wants that super PAC money, so they can’t rock his boat. “it’s complicated”, as they say.
it’s worth pointing out that the democratic party used to rely on their voting blocs with a much smaller purse than the republicans, but over the years they have chosen money over issues, and now they brag about getting MORE than the republicans. the result is that we get the same wars, privatization, social regression – just under a different brand name, and no one will touch the real issues. we will see the two brand names distracting us with fights over abortion rights, while they will BOTH de-fund the largest non-profit health services we depend upon so that the private for-profit corporations can cash in.
but another parallel tying all these issues together is the image of the multi-cultural, multi-age, multi-everyone majority united on the real issues against a shrinking 1% elite.
It was not Plato who ate the hemlock, kma. It never is. Both parties have their ideologies and they know how to enrage the masses to vote for them. Kucinich, Paul, Nader–Dick n Jane don’t go for them.
In the summer of 1964 I watched the Southeast Jurisdiction of the Methodist Church meed at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina. A friend of mine had a father who was made a Bishop, elected to that office during that session, so we watched this large gathering with interest and attend the sessions as much as we could. It was also historic, we knew, because a vote would be taken on whether or not to integrate the Methodist Church in the South. Debate was keen and long-winded on both sides with hundreds of voting members. When the final vote was taken, the move to integrate carried by a single vote. By and large the Church in the South had finally been dragged against its will to submit to integration, but it was a close thing.
Thanks for sharing that info, Mike Jacobs. Maybe next time around, when i will likely be dead?
The settlements enterprise are ongoing war crimes UNDISPUTED [Geneva 49.6] and ICC Act 2001 UK 8[2bv111], To aid and abet a war crime ICC Act 2001UK 55[1a] and/or 55[1d] assisting a grave war crime, UNDISPUTED, the Christians who voted against the resolution are simply aiding and abetting or assisting war criminals, and therefore are war criminals themselves, thats the Law, in the UK at least, I know the US has not signed up for the ICC, but our Attorney General could make a good case under the act since the perpetrators did it purposefully. He would not of course, war crimes charges are only for the ‘other’.
I know the US has not signed up for the ICC
The US was a signatory of the Rome Statute in accordance with the procedures outline in the treaty itself. There really is no such thing as “unsigning” a treaty.
In any event, it’s doubtful that the President and the Senate have the authority to waive an accused person’s Constitutional right to a trial by jury. The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that they could not use a treaty to accomplish that (e.g. Reid v Covert). The Court held that treaties, like statutes, have to comply with the Constitution and that neither a statute nor a treaty is listed among the methods that can be employed in accordance with the Constitutional, Article V, amendment process.
The ICC doesn’t need US consent to prosecute acts or plans against other territories. In fact, the ICC has adopted a standard for a joint criminal enterprise which doesn’t even require that the plan envision a crime, just a reasonable risk that one might occur if events follow the ordinary course.
Here for example are extracts from an article about the Charles Taylor case by Prof. Schabas and the judgment in the Lubanga case:
The majority of the Trial Chamber concluded that Lubanga had been part of a ‘plan’, and that as a result he could be convicted of crimes perpetrated by others even in the absence of evidence that he actually knew of them or intended them. Because he was part of a ‘plan’, he could be convicted of acts perpetrated by others to the extent that there was ‘a sufficient risk that, if events follow the ordinary course’ they would take place. Accordingly,
984. In the view of the Majority of the Chamber, the prosecution is not required to prove that the plan was specifically directed at committing the crime in question (the conscription, enlistment or use of children), nor does the plan need to have been intrinsically criminal as suggested by the defence. However, it is necessary, as a minimum, for the prosecution to establish the common plan included a critical element of criminality, namely that, its implementation embodied a sufficient risk that, if events follow the ordinary course, a crime will be committed.
link to humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com
I sure as hell wouldn’t sell armored bulldozers or anything else to the IDF. In the normal course of events, they use those items to commit crimes.
This is outrageous. Obviously Aipac has bought out the methodists too.
BDS is the only way Israhell will know that their gimmick is winding to a close. The methodists are anti-palestinian.
Bummer!
One battle in a long war
Cowards! When will the Methodists, and others like them, finally say, and in utter shame…”But we didn’t know”? They knew, and they turned their heads. Shame! Palestine is a lonely place, indeed.
As a second thought, rather than lobbying seemingly caring and concerned people to show us a little love, we should lobby the PA to change the name of the territory to Northern Darfur — maybe Clooney and others will vist, maybe someone will finally give a damn (I know, the tide is slowly turning…I get that. But really, if you can’t convince a group of do-good Christians, and I’m one of those Palestinian Christians who left as a child in 1967 and can’t return, to divest from companies that are clearly profiting from the brutal occupation of an entire people, then what do you have to do, really?! I mean, for Christ’s sake!!) Oh, and I know that you all give a damn — very heartening to visit Mondo every morning before the day starts. Peace!
peace to you too mascraig!
I empathize with what you say, mascraig. Please post here more often if you can spare the time.
The reaction a couple of years ago from my own branch of Christendom, the Church of England, to the Kairos Palestine Document, was all but deafening silence. In comparison a 2:1 defeat amid considerable publicity, such as we see here, looks almost like progress. But I’m not sure about the turning of the tide. To me it seems rather more like swirls and eddies on a gloomy shore with no clear sign of long-term change.
don’t forget it’s darkest before the dawn…