Divestment activity …

I APPRECIATE James Wall's coverage of divestment activity in "Divestment" (Nov. 15). He clears the air about several accusations leveled at Sabeel, the Jerusalem peace center.

I disagree, however, with his claim that the United Church of Christ's resolution on divestment was "not quite a specific call for divestment." The resolution calls its church bodies to "use economic leverage, including, but not limited to... divesting from those companies that refuse to change their practices of gain from the perpetuation of violence, including the occupation." The fact that pro-Israel groups find it tactically useful to ignore the UCC decision does not itself indicate that the decision will bear no fruit. Indeed, ignoring or dismissing the UCC's decision as they have done, and as Wall underscores in his column, implies that divestment was rejected by other denominations and helps them convince lay-people and clergy that the PCUSA decision was a misstep. With the passing of the UCC's resolution this summer, the PCUSA is not the only denomination endorsing divestment.

Nathan Wright

Common Board of Global Ministries, UCC/Disciples, Fort Collins, Colo.

James Wall replies:

Nathan Wright makes a strong point that downgrading the UCC statement in contrast to the Presbyterian resolution does give support to the opponents of divestment within the Protestant denominations and to defenders of Israel's public image. But as a longtime watcher of the compromises involved in the writing of church resolutions, I find that I must stand with my reading of the UCC resolution, which reads to me like a statement that resulted from a compromise carefully crafted by pro-Israeli members of the conference.

I also wrote that the UCC is on the same page as its Presbyterian colleagues as to the proper strategy to push for corporations to halt their support of the occupation. But as Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem paper, notes, the compromise drafted by the UCC conference allows for an interpretation by opponents of divestment that sees a "victory" for the antidivestment forces. Which, was, of course, the purpose of the forces pushing for the final UCC compromise. Denominational bodies that draft antidivestment statements might want to keep in mind that a "balanced" resolution will fail to make a strong ease for divestment as a strategy to end the occupation. In church politics this is known as dialogue, divide, delay, compromise, and then dominate the public-relations battle.

COPYRIGHT 2005 The Christian Century Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning