By a narrow vote of 310 to 303, the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) voted in June 2014 to divest about $21 million in
stock from Motorola, Caterpillar, and Hewlett Packard because their respective
products were being used by the Israeli Government in violent occupation of the
Palestinian territories. The Friends Fiduciary Corp, which manages investments
for 250 Quaker groups, had divested from Catepillar, Motorola, and Veolia
Environment two years earlier, and in 2013 the Mennonite Central Committee
decided not to “knowingly invest in companies that benefit from products or
services used to perpetrate acts of violence against Palestinians [and]
Israelis.”[1]
This point brings up the ethical point of what to do about companies that sell
products used in violence by the Palestinians. To occupy is not like being
occupied, though violence is violence. Moreover, using divestment from holding
equity in a company may not be a very effective strategy, other than perhaps serving
as a symbol, though even in this respect the effort can fad without having
brought about the desired policy change.
The Caterpillar bulldozers used by the Israelis to topple
Palestinian neighborhoods in shows of “collective justice” had actually been
sold to the U.S. Government, which in turn either sold or gave the trucks to
Israel. Even if Caterpillar’s management could possibly have predicted the
eventual transfer from the buyer to a third party, holding the company
ethically responsible for the actions of the U.S. Government would be unfair.
To be sure, were the product inherently dangerous, such as a grenade, the eventual
use could be anticipated even by the manufacturer, but a bulldozer truck’s use
is not inherently violent. Nor would it be fair to draw attention to the
company simply out of frustration with the U.S. Government, given the power of
the main Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
If the U.S. Government is looking the other way as it hands over billions of
dollars in aid to Israel even as it continues to occupy Palestinian territory
and build still more settlements, taking frustration out on the companies that
sell to Israel’s government violates the ethical principle of fairness. Even if
divestment pressures the companies not to sell to Israel, the products can wind
up there in ways that are beyond the ability of companies to control.
Furthermore, how much financial damage to the three
companies is exacted from selling $21 million in stock? Presumably buyers exist—the
Dow at the time heading close to 17,000 and the S&P above 1960. The
principle impact, I submit, is symbolic; a religious group of 1.76 million
members essentially says “No” to Israel’s violence-ridden occupation of a
people. The ethical dimension is salient owing to the fact that the group is
religious in nature. Yet even in this respect, like the years of divestment
from South Africa to free Nelson Mandela and put an end to apartheid, the
creation of a symbol does not portend quick results. Indeed, the condition of
divestment can itself become part of the status quo, rather than an event.
Additionally, the symbol may backfire. At the Presbyterian
assembly meeting, Rabbi Steve Gutow of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
described the vote as coming out of a “deep animus” against “both the Jewish
people and the State of Israel.”[2]
To be sure, as depicted in the Oscar-winning 1947 film, Gentleman’s Agreement, anti-Semitism can be as subtle as simply
saying nothing after a joke at a dinner table. Following the defeat of the Nazi
Germany, many Americans were doubtless able to conclude that anti-Semitism and
racism had been squashed “over there”—meaning there’s none of that here. The
film demonstrates just how pervasive denial can be. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism
(and racism) can also be used as a weapon that obfuscates the real point of a
decision such as that of the Presbyterians. The violence of an occupier is
sufficiently galvanizing for observers that the alternative charge of
anti-Semitism has the air of phoniness. In other words, a person can be against
such violence without hating Jews.
Therefore, both the divestment strategy and the charge of
anti-Semitism can be viewed as weak responses. To the extent that political
mobilization would be futile too, given the political power of the pro-Israel
lobby in Washington, D.C., we might just be left with a “no good alternative”
situation in which the quagmire goes on and on. With regard to the natural
frustration at the status quo protected by long-entrenched, powerful interests,
perhaps the sad reality is that most people simply tune out.
[1]
Jaweed Kaleem, “Presbyterian
Church (USA) Makes Controversial Divestment Move Against Israel,” The
Huffington Post, June 20, 2014.
[2]
Ibid.
