Archbishop apologizes for divestment

[barb162]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395389789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has written to British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks to apologize for the Church of England's vote last week to divest from companies whose products are used by the Israeli government in the territories. This despite the fact that Williams himself backed the anti-Israel vote.

snip

Williams' predecessor, Lord Carey, told The Jerusalem Post he was "ashamed to be an Anglican when I see this kind of thing," while Britain's Council of Christians and Jews said it was "wholly regrettable" and "will have little consequence for Israelis and Palestinians, and only further inflame the conflict at a very difficult time".

Israeli Anglicans have distanced themselves from the vote, saying they were "in no way connected with the Church of England in sponsoring this initiative." Rev. Murray Dixon of Christ Church in Jerusalem has stated the "continuing preoccupation with Israel" by the Church of England, to the exclusion of other international conflicts, "points to anti-Semitism."

Now, in a February 10 letter to Sacks, Williams has expressed his "deep regret" for the "deep distress" caused by the vote, and said the church has been misunderstood and had "not resolved to disinvest." Sacks, evidently prepared to try and downplay the dispute, welcomed the Williams clarification.
snip

[Behind the Aegis]

1. What a load of shit.

Hey, I am really sorry I punched you (as I am still punching you). :eyes:

[barb162]

2. BTA, why are you punching me?

Or are you punching the Bishop who changed his mind

He "...said the church has been misunderstood and had "not resolved to disinvest"

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Heehee...not punching you, friend.

I was making a 'similar' statement. The 'apology' from the Bishop rings as hollow as someone who apologizes for beating you, while still doing it. He is basically apologizing for doing something, then saying they didn't really do it, at least not yet.

[barb162]

4. Bwa! I suspect this man is not going to divest

because he has put this in writing and mentioned he's deeply sorry and all. He'll look like an idiot if he changes his mind again. (I am glad he changed his mind.)

:hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I agree.

As my mom says, "never put in writing what you are not willing to see on the front page of the local paper."

:hug:

[Benbow]

8. Position of the Church of England`s Ethical Investment Advisory Group

http://www.palestinecampaign.org/campaigns.asp?d=y&id=139

In May 2005 the Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) gave consideration to the Church of England`s investment in Caterpillar Inc. and in September 2005 determined not to advocate disinvestment from Caterpillar. Nevertheless they have stated: “EIAG is concerned at the uses to which the Israeli authorities have put Caterpillar machines in the past. It will therefore actively monitor the situation, and review this decision rigorously if further sales are made that appear likely to result in the destruction of infrastructure or to place lives or livelihoods at risk.”

Canon Naim Ateek of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre in Jerusalem together with the Right Revd Riah Abu El Assal, Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, have both extended an invitation to the members of the EIAG to visit Palestine urgently and see first hand the wholesale destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and farms caused by the 100 Caterpillar bulldozers the Israeli army already owns. Canon Ateek and Bishop Riah have both called for disinvestment.

[Wordie]

18. I don' t think he DID change his mind. I think the reading of his letter

has been inaccurate and misleading. (See my post downthread, which has more extensive actual quotes from the letter.)

[Benbow]

7. The problem in the Middle East is the government of Israel

http://www.palestinecampaign.org/archives.asp?xid=1583

[cali]

10. I have no problem with the decision of the Anglicans,

but surely you don't believe that the Israeli govt is the only mideast government that poses a problem?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Yeah, that's it.

:eyes:

[Andromeda]

24. Oh, right....

and coming from the palestinecampaign.org, it's especially noteworthy. Nothing biased there. Nope, no-sir-ee.

Sure, Israel is the ONLY problem in the ME. How quaint. Where have I heard that before, let's see: Iran (the president there REALLY doesn't like Israel). He wants to wipe Israel off the map. (Maybe he was just having a bad day, huh?); Saudi Arabia, uh, I don't think they have Jewish problems there because they DON'T ALLOW JEWS in SA, do they?

I tell you what, when pigs start flying around the room I'll believe that little rumor that Israel is to blame for---EVERYTHING. Okie dokie?

[Benbow]

6. Well, I am proud to be an Anglican when I see this kind of thing

The text of his letter is published on the Archbishop of Cantebury's web site

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/060210.htm

The majority in the Synod was clearly particularly unhappy with the idea of the church profiting from one specific and controversial security policy. The demolition of Palestinian homes in recent years has been a regular source of controversy, and raises moral issues of some seriousness. To register our concern over this and to review whether we should or could continue with an investment policy which appeared to accept something with which we were deeply uneasy

Like many other Anglicans (eg the Bishop of Chelmsford, "the Rt Rev John Gladwin, said Christians in Palestine were in despair, and he held the Israeli government to blame"), I hope that the Church of England does sell all its unethical investments. I don't believe that the Church should be making money out of bulldozers that flatten houses in Palestine and make families homeless.

Lord Carey is behaving like a twit.

[xchrom]

9. yes, i was very happy to see the disinvestment as well.

it's a step forward for seeking justice -- on a small scale -- but it's the right thing to do.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. I shall write to Sam Palmisano and Steve Balmer and Astra-Zeneca's

David Brennan -- and ask them to lay off all of their Palestinian employees at their respective Haifa Labs - as an act of peace and reconciliation.

[xchrom]

13. lol -- you do that.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. If you really believed in the legitimacy of your cause

you would do that by shareholders' initiative, shareholders' derivative suits, soliciting proxies, etc. - like the Unitarian Universalist Church does.

[xchrom]

16. i'm an episcopalian.

and i send monthly checks to schools in ramallah.

more to the point thisisn't about me. -- this is about what the anglican church in england did - which i support.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. What stocks would be divested?

So far the only stock I have seen enumerated is Caterpiller.

What else?

I have done WSJ, Nexis, Yahoo, and Google searches. I have also spoken with a manager of a GLBT "Socially Responsive Investments" family of funds. And I have read and - and the on line references therein, when one gets past

*armaments/munitions (not narrow definitions, but real stuff like Raytheon, Lockheed/Martin, etc),
*Caterpiller, and
*Civil and financial infrastructure

there isn't much left.

The big players in civil and financial infrastructure are irrigation and food processing equipment manufacturers of equipemnt unique to the conditions in the WB. I can see "divesting" in the sense of selling the stock to Palestinian entrepreneurs under very favorable terms to encourage Palestinian ownership. But, that is not what is proposed.

The other investments are those where divestment has been recommended because of activities in Sudan, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Central America, with very marginal holdings in the WB. God's Fund Managers, above, enumerates Caterpiller, BP-Sohio, Arakis Oil, Shell Oil, Atlantic Richfield, TotalFINA-ELF, and Nestle.

God's Fund Managers enumerates BP-Sohio, Arakis Oil, Shell Oil, Atlantic Richfield, TotalFINA-ELF, and Nestle. This is because of activities elsewhere in the world, not the WB or Gaza.

If the Church means Caterpiller - say it.

If they mean armaments makers/munitions mkers - like Raytheon, Lockheed/Martin, Hughes, and Boeing - say it.

If they mean the irrigation equipment and food processing equipment companies - let them set forth a way to transfer ownership to Palestinian entrepreneurs - not British banks.

While this divestment campaign had little credibility to me -- it has even less now. I am getting the cynical impression that when all is said and done - it is really directed against IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, Astra-Zeneca, GSK, and Stem Cell Research inter alia.

[Wordie]

17. Better article, w/ quotes from letter; Anglicans' intent (Times Online)

This article also calls the letter an apology in it's title and says that the Archbishop has called the decision "unfortunate," but when you actually read the quote from the article, the word "unfortunate" is applied to the timing of the disvestment, not the divestment itself. If one reads carefully what was said, it also appears the apology was for any misunderstanding of the intent, rather than for the decision itself. The motion recieved a vote of overwhelming support in the synod. It appears to me that the JPost article, as well as the title and intro of this one, are misleading. Does anyone else see this?

Archbishop apologises to Chief Rabbi over Israel snub
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, for Times Online

In his carefully crafted letter, Dr Rowan Williams, who voted in favour of the motion, denies that it represented a decision to disinvest at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise and a Hamas administration committed to the destruction of Israel is preparing for power.

...However, Dr Williams defends the synod as merely urging the Church of England "to engage with companies about whom we had concerns and, specifically, to encourage a fact-finding visit to the Holy Land."

In his letter to Sir Jonathan, the Archbishop of Canterbury says: "The Synod has not, by this action, resolved to disinvest."

Dr Rowan Williams says: "It is specially unfortunate that this has arisen at a time when, as we are well aware, anti-Semitism is a growing menace and when the State of Israel faces some very particular challenges not only in respect of the new administration in the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority but also elsewhere in the region." (emphasis mine)

Williams is also quoted as saying the following:

"I must repeat that no-one in the Synod would endorse anything that could even appear to endorse terrorist activities or anti-Semitic words or actions. But there is a real concern which we hope our Jewish and Israeli colleagues will help us address honestly and constructively."

"The majority in the Synod was clearly particularly unhappy with the idea of the church profiting from one specific and controversial security policy.

"The demolition of Palestinian homes in recent years has been a regular source of controversy, and raises moral issues of some seriousness.

"To register our concern over this and to review whether we should or could continue with an investment policy which appeared to accept something with which we were deeply uneasy is emphatically not to commend a boycott, or to question the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its rights to self-defence; least of all is it to endorse any kind of violence or terror against Israel and its people, or to compromise our commitment to oppose any form of anti-Semitism at home or abroad.

"No-one in the Synod would have an instant’s sympathy with any such hostility to the Jewish people or the State of Israel as such, and I believe that this was made clear in the actual debate in synod, where concerns were raised and fully accepted about the sufferings of Jewish communities as well as others in the Holy Land."

The motion in question moved that the synod:

"...heed the call from our sister church, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, for morally responsible investment in the Palestinian occupied territories and, in particular, to disinvest from companies profiting from the illegal occupation, such as Caterpillar Inc, until they change their policies."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2034591,00.html

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Wordie

I trust you and Tom (we may disagree - but I grudgingly trust you two), and I am seriously looking for a way to get past Caterpiller, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc. while protecting (from divestiture) shares in companies that are seeking to build a Palestinian infrastructure as a pathway to a viable, side-by-side "two state" solution.

I do not mean to be facetious in my append - and in my personal investing I follow the guidance of the UU Community as to "Socially Responsible Investing" where I look at such factors as:

1. Employment opportunities for historically under represented groups.
2. GLBT, racial minority, religious minority, elder, handicapper, and family friendly "work floor" and hiring policies. (Extra points for example for allowing Eid el Fidr off without penalty, and even more points for kosher friendly and hallal friendly cafeterias)
3. Fair, living wages and funded health plans - and transparency in retirement plans.
4. Environmental concern.
5. No prison labor, slave labor.
6. No union busting, strike breaking.
7. General avoidance of armaments and munitions.

So, who gets divested? And how can divestiture be handled in the context of trying to build a viable, Palestinian economy.

My bias - I do not look at divestitute as "punishing" Israel --- but as a tool for building a viable Palestine in a viable two state solution.

[Wordie]

20. But do you agree that the OP article appears to be misleading???

I would also think that rather than "punishment" the intent of the Anglicans is to send a message to the Israelis regarding the occupation. If that message were to be heeded, it would indeed be a step toward a just peace.

It would seem to me that divesting only from Catepillar would do the trick. Although I must say that I am not aware of what other companies may be a part of the Church of England's portfolio.

What would you think of that, Coastie?

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Caterpillar I can see

But anything that is even perceived as being of the same flavor as the Post WW 1 Versailles Reparations will be counterproductive.

I hope I am not faced with the issue, but if the divestment should become a "Versailles Reparations" game - and I should be faced with hard decisions, I will make cuts in Democratic Party cash contributions and Palestinian Red Crescent Society contributions and give the money to Israeli charities - most likely , Israel Bonds, and .And to cut Palestinian Red Crescent - and give the money to Magen David Adom really goes against my attitudes of the universality and internationality of Red Cross-Red Crescent-Red Star of David. (Note my avatar)

[Wordie]

22. Still you didn't answer the question, Coastie. Did you read the quotes

from the letter I posted? It sure appears that the quotes in the article from the OP paint a very misleading picture of what the letter is saying. What do you think of that?

[Coastie for Truth]

23. I agree there is some variance between the OP and the letter

but that is not the issue to me.

My issue is what does divestment do to the creation of two independent, viable states. And yes, the situation could get worse.

Let's get realistic.

Israel and the Israelis are not going to go away.
Palestinian and the Palestinians are not going to go away.
This "war of attrition" is attriting both sides - and is hurting both sides.
Maybe the "cure for cancer" will be delayed for two generations as a result.

I am using the "cure for cancer" allegorically