Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Sharing aims in divesting controversy
By: MARILYN H. KARFELD Senior Staff Reporter
No one's calling it a breakthrough, and neither side has come around to the other's point of view.
But local Jewish and Presbyterian leaders say ongoing talks between the two constituencies have been the best antidote to the poisonous feelings that erupted last summer when the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. voted to explore divesting its stock in companies doing business in Israel. One such company is Caterpillar, which manufactures the bulldozers the Israeli army has used to destroy homes of Palestinians who committed terrorist acts.
The Rev. Dr. John Lentz of Forest Hill Church Presbyterian says the original 431-62 vote to investigate divestment seemed a rational move and the sort of intellectual political discussion that Presbyterians have historically had on other issues.
But, until he began meeting with Jewish leaders here, "it didn't hit me emotionally," he admits. "Clearly this is something much more profound for the Jewish community, their identity, culture and history. It's not part of being a Presbyterian to be connected to the land of Israel. The average Presbyterian in Cleveland didn't have a clue that we would be stoking this kind of emotional response."
If the Presbyterians had thought about it, Lentz adds, it would have been far better to meet with Jewish leaders prior to the resolution vote, rather than talking now in reaction to it.
Conversing with the Presbyterians has given participants a better understanding of each other's motivations, says Eric Bell, chairman of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland's Community Relations Committee. Both sides desire peace in the Middle East and mutual respect.
While Jewish professional and lay leaders have not asked the Presbyterians to rescind the resolution, Bell says the Jews have "done a nice job showing why we think it's a bad course of action. They didn't understand how disinvestment would have a negative impact" on the Mideast peace process.
In a statement released last month, the Federation said it hopes the Presbyterian Church reconsiders its position. "As Jews, we believe that a policy of divestment targeted against the state of Israel is a bludgeon that undermines peace and exacerbates the conflict."
The divestment resolution, passed last July at the Presbyterians' biennial General Assembly, stunned and outraged Jewish leaders across the country with what they call its bias and unfairness. The resolution also created dissension among some Presbyterian clergy and laity who oppose the action.
Jewish leaders fear that other mainline Protestant churches will study divestment as well. For instance, the Episcopal Church has placed the issue on its agenda.
Jews are also upset because the Presbyterian General Assembly defeated another resolution which would have cut funding for a proselytizing congregation in the Philadelphia area that was "out recruiting Jews," says John Hexter, area director of the American Jewish Committee.
Jews and Presbyterians failed to settle their differences at a September meeting in New York. Adding to the rancor was a Presbyterian delegation's meeting in October with a Hezbollah sheik in Lebanon. Hezbollah is on the U.S. government's list of designated terrorist organizations.
One Presbyterian participant, the Rev. Ronald Stone, was quoted on Hezbollah's television network as saying "relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders."
Three national leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. expressed "distress" over the Hezbollah meeting, calling it "misguided, at best." Stone's comments were termed "reprehensible" in the Presbyterian statement published on the Anti-Defamation League's website.
In apparent response to Jewish criticism that blaming Israel's occupation for the violence was one-sided, the Presbyterian leaders also said that terrorism is "one clear source of the lack of peace in the Middle East."
Despite the fence-mending efforts, last November, the Presbyterians' committee on socially responsible investment instituted criteria for "phased selective divestment" from corporations that profit from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These include companies involved with the construction of Jewish settlements and the separation barrier.
In response to the divestment resolution, local chapters of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish community federations across the country are meeting with Presbyterian leaders to find common ground.
In some cities, the Jewish leaders have pushed hard for the Presbyterian Church's General Assembly Council, meeting March 30-April 2, to either rescind the resolution or at least postpone any further action. This had led more than one Jewish delegation to stomp out of a meeting in frustration at the lack of Presbyterian response, news accounts have said.
In Cleveland, a dozen Jewish leaders met four or five times in the fall and winter with the Rev. Liza Hendricks, general presbyter of the Western Reserve, and other Presbyterian clergy and lay leaders.
"When a mainstream, thoughtful organization like the Presbyterians (votes to explore divestment), what does that do in terms of other mainstream Protestant churches?" asks Hexter, who has joined in the talks. "We want to head off others doing this."
Over the years, the Presbyterian Church has used its investments to try to influence corporate policy or to make a moral statement, says Hendricks. Church membership is "pretty split" around the issue of divestment from Israel.
Since dialogue with local Jewish leaders has begun, "We're learning more about what the ramifications of divestment might mean," she says. The group has been talking about whether other economic tools might be more effective.
The divestment resolution, she explained, reflected the "church's huge concern for peace in Israel and in Palestine, and huge concern in the way the separation barrier has been built. Certainly, there have been some strong voices of concern over the situation of the Palestinian people."
Both Jewish and Presbyterian participants in the ongoing local discussions say they most appreciate the focus on the common desire for peace and human rights. Hendricks declined to state her own opinion on divestment, saying it would not be helpful to the conversation. Instead, she is trying to stay open to learn.
The Presbyterian-Jewish dialogue shows that two communities who care deeply about Israel have learned from each other's perspective, says Rabbi Howard Ruben of Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple, who attended the talks.
It's too early to tell what will ultimately come out of the meetings, he adds. "Whether there will be some concrete action (or not). Neither one of us wants to back one side into a corner" by prematurely announcing any joint initiative.
Local efforts may or may not be able to impact the action of the national church, notes Hendricks. But the coming together of Jews and Presbyterians in Cleveland has already yielded positive results.
"We recognize the importance of our relationship to the Jewish community here," she says. "We all want to understand each other better. I see that as a short term and a long term goal."
"The average Presbyterian didn't have a clue that we would be stoking this kind of emotional response."
Rev. Dr. John Lentz, Forest Hill Church Presbyterian
Jews have "done a nice job showing why divestment is a bad course of action."
Eric Bell, Community Relations Committee
would be stoking this kind of emotional response."
If the Presbyterians had thought about it, Lentz adds, it would have been far better to have met with Jewish leaders prior to the resolution vote, rather than talking now in reaction to it.
Conversing with the Presbyterians has given participants a better understanding of each other's motivations, says Eric Bell, chairman of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland's Community Relations Committee. Both sides desire peace in the Middle East and mutual respect.
While Jewish professional and lay leaders have not asked the Presbyterians to rescind the resolution, Bell says the Jews have "done a nice job showing why we think it's a bad course of action. They didn't understand how disinvestment would have a negative impact" on the Mideast peace process.
In a statement released last month, the Federation said it hopes the Presbyterian Church reconsiders its position. "As Jews, we believe that a policy of divestment targeted against the state of Israel is a bludgeon that undermines peace and exacerbates the conflict."
The divestment resolution, passed last July at the Presbyterians' biennial General Assembly, stunned and outraged Jewish leaders across the country with what they call its bias and unfairness. The resolution also created dissension among some Presbyterian clergy and laity who oppose the action.
Jewish leaders fear that other mainline Protestant churches will study divestment as well. For instance, the Episcopal Church has placed the issue on its agenda.
Jews are also upset because the Presbyterian General Assembly defeated another resolution which would have cut funding for a proselytizing congregation in the Philadelphia area that was "out recruiting Jews," says John Hexter, area director of the American Jewish Committee.
Jews and Presbyterians failed to settle their differences at a September meeting in New York. Adding to the rancor was a Presbyterian delegation's meeting in October with a Hezbollah sheik in Lebanon. Hezbollah is on the U.S. government's list of designated terrorist organizations.
One Presbyterian participant, the Rev. Ronald Stone, was quoted on Hezbollah's television network as saying "relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders."
Three national leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. expressed "distress" over the Hezbollah meeting, calling it "misguided, at best." Stone's comments were termed "reprehensible" in the Presbyterian statement published on the Anti-Defamation League's website.
In apparent response to Jewish criticism that blaming Israel's occupation for the violence was one-sided, the Presbyterian leaders also said that terrorism is "one clear source of the lack of peace in the Middle East."
Despite the fence-mending efforts, last November, the Presbyterians' committee on socially responsible investment instituted criteria for "phased selective divestment" from corporations that profit from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These include companies involved with the construction of Jewish settlements and the separation barrier.
In response to the divestment resolution, local chapters of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish community federations across the country are meeting with Presbyterian leaders to find common ground.
In some cities, the Jewish leaders have pushed hard for the Presbyterian Church's General Assembly Council, meeting March 30-April 2, to either rescind the resolution or at least postpone any further action. This had led more than one Jewish delegation to stomp out of a meeting in frustration at the lack of Presbyterian response, news accounts have said.
In Cleveland, a dozen Jewish leaders met four or five times in the fall and winter with the Rev. Liza Hendricks, general presbyter of the Western Reserve, and other Presbyterian clergy and lay leaders.
"When a mainstream, thoughtful organization like the Presbyterians (votes to explore divestment), what does that do in terms of other mainstream Protestant churches?" asks Hexter, who has joined in the talks. "We want to head off others doing this."
Over the years, the Presbyterian Church has used its investments to try to influence corporate policy or to make a moral statement, says Hendricks. Church membership is "pretty split" around the issue of divestment from Israel.
Since dialogue with local Jewish leaders has begun, "We're learning more about what the ramifications of divestment might mean," she says. The group has been talking about whether other economic tools might be more effective.
The divestment resolution, she explained, reflected the "church's huge concern for peace in Israel and in Palestine, and huge concern in the way the separation barrier has been built. Certainly, there have been some strong voices of concern over the situation of the Palestinian people."
Both Jewish and Presbyterian participants in the ongoing local discussions say they most appreciate the focus on the common desire for peace and human rights. Hendricks declined to state her own opinion on divestment, saying it would not be helpful to the conversation. Instead, she is trying to stay open to learn.
The Presbyterian-Jewish dialogue shows that two communities who care deeply about Israel have learned from each other's perspective, says Rabbi Howard Ruben of Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple, who attended the talks.
It's too early to tell what will ultimately come out of the meetings, he adds. "Whether there will be some concrete action (or not). Neither one of us wants to back one side into a corner" by prematurely announcing any joint initiative.
Local efforts may or may not be able to impact the action of the national church, notes Hendricks. But the coming together of Jews and Presbyterians in Cleveland has already yielded positive results.
"We recognize the importance of our relationship to the Jewish community here," she says. "We all want to understand each other better. I see that as a short-term and a long-term goal."
But local Jewish and Presbyterian leaders say ongoing talks between the two constituencies have been the best antidote to the poisonous feelings that erupted last summer when the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. voted to explore divesting its stock in companies doing business in Israel. One such company is Caterpillar, which manufactures the bulldozers the Israeli army has used to destroy homes of Palestinians who committed terrorist acts.
The Rev. Dr. John Lentz of Forest Hill Church Presbyterian says the original 431-62 vote to investigate divestment seemed a rational move and the sort of intellectual political discussion that Presbyterians have historically had on other issues.
But, until he began meeting with Jewish leaders here, "it didn't hit me emotionally," he admits. "Clearly this is something much more profound for the Jewish community, their identity, culture and history. It's not part of being a Presbyterian to be connected to the land of Israel. The average Presbyterian in Cleveland didn't have a clue that we would be stoking this kind of emotional response."
If the Presbyterians had thought about it, Lentz adds, it would have been far better to meet with Jewish leaders prior to the resolution vote, rather than talking now in reaction to it.
Conversing with the Presbyterians has given participants a better understanding of each other's motivations, says Eric Bell, chairman of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland's Community Relations Committee. Both sides desire peace in the Middle East and mutual respect.
While Jewish professional and lay leaders have not asked the Presbyterians to rescind the resolution, Bell says the Jews have "done a nice job showing why we think it's a bad course of action. They didn't understand how disinvestment would have a negative impact" on the Mideast peace process.
In a statement released last month, the Federation said it hopes the Presbyterian Church reconsiders its position. "As Jews, we believe that a policy of divestment targeted against the state of Israel is a bludgeon that undermines peace and exacerbates the conflict."
The divestment resolution, passed last July at the Presbyterians' biennial General Assembly, stunned and outraged Jewish leaders across the country with what they call its bias and unfairness. The resolution also created dissension among some Presbyterian clergy and laity who oppose the action.
Jewish leaders fear that other mainline Protestant churches will study divestment as well. For instance, the Episcopal Church has placed the issue on its agenda.
Jews are also upset because the Presbyterian General Assembly defeated another resolution which would have cut funding for a proselytizing congregation in the Philadelphia area that was "out recruiting Jews," says John Hexter, area director of the American Jewish Committee.
Jews and Presbyterians failed to settle their differences at a September meeting in New York. Adding to the rancor was a Presbyterian delegation's meeting in October with a Hezbollah sheik in Lebanon. Hezbollah is on the U.S. government's list of designated terrorist organizations.
One Presbyterian participant, the Rev. Ronald Stone, was quoted on Hezbollah's television network as saying "relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders."
Three national leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. expressed "distress" over the Hezbollah meeting, calling it "misguided, at best." Stone's comments were termed "reprehensible" in the Presbyterian statement published on the Anti-Defamation League's website.
In apparent response to Jewish criticism that blaming Israel's occupation for the violence was one-sided, the Presbyterian leaders also said that terrorism is "one clear source of the lack of peace in the Middle East."
Despite the fence-mending efforts, last November, the Presbyterians' committee on socially responsible investment instituted criteria for "phased selective divestment" from corporations that profit from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These include companies involved with the construction of Jewish settlements and the separation barrier.
In response to the divestment resolution, local chapters of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish community federations across the country are meeting with Presbyterian leaders to find common ground.
In some cities, the Jewish leaders have pushed hard for the Presbyterian Church's General Assembly Council, meeting March 30-April 2, to either rescind the resolution or at least postpone any further action. This had led more than one Jewish delegation to stomp out of a meeting in frustration at the lack of Presbyterian response, news accounts have said.
In Cleveland, a dozen Jewish leaders met four or five times in the fall and winter with the Rev. Liza Hendricks, general presbyter of the Western Reserve, and other Presbyterian clergy and lay leaders.
"When a mainstream, thoughtful organization like the Presbyterians (votes to explore divestment), what does that do in terms of other mainstream Protestant churches?" asks Hexter, who has joined in the talks. "We want to head off others doing this."
Over the years, the Presbyterian Church has used its investments to try to influence corporate policy or to make a moral statement, says Hendricks. Church membership is "pretty split" around the issue of divestment from Israel.
Since dialogue with local Jewish leaders has begun, "We're learning more about what the ramifications of divestment might mean," she says. The group has been talking about whether other economic tools might be more effective.
The divestment resolution, she explained, reflected the "church's huge concern for peace in Israel and in Palestine, and huge concern in the way the separation barrier has been built. Certainly, there have been some strong voices of concern over the situation of the Palestinian people."
Both Jewish and Presbyterian participants in the ongoing local discussions say they most appreciate the focus on the common desire for peace and human rights. Hendricks declined to state her own opinion on divestment, saying it would not be helpful to the conversation. Instead, she is trying to stay open to learn.
The Presbyterian-Jewish dialogue shows that two communities who care deeply about Israel have learned from each other's perspective, says Rabbi Howard Ruben of Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple, who attended the talks.
It's too early to tell what will ultimately come out of the meetings, he adds. "Whether there will be some concrete action (or not). Neither one of us wants to back one side into a corner" by prematurely announcing any joint initiative.
Local efforts may or may not be able to impact the action of the national church, notes Hendricks. But the coming together of Jews and Presbyterians in Cleveland has already yielded positive results.
"We recognize the importance of our relationship to the Jewish community here," she says. "We all want to understand each other better. I see that as a short term and a long term goal."
"The average Presbyterian didn't have a clue that we would be stoking this kind of emotional response."
Rev. Dr. John Lentz, Forest Hill Church Presbyterian
Jews have "done a nice job showing why divestment is a bad course of action."
Eric Bell, Community Relations Committee
would be stoking this kind of emotional response."
If the Presbyterians had thought about it, Lentz adds, it would have been far better to have met with Jewish leaders prior to the resolution vote, rather than talking now in reaction to it.
Conversing with the Presbyterians has given participants a better understanding of each other's motivations, says Eric Bell, chairman of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland's Community Relations Committee. Both sides desire peace in the Middle East and mutual respect.
While Jewish professional and lay leaders have not asked the Presbyterians to rescind the resolution, Bell says the Jews have "done a nice job showing why we think it's a bad course of action. They didn't understand how disinvestment would have a negative impact" on the Mideast peace process.
In a statement released last month, the Federation said it hopes the Presbyterian Church reconsiders its position. "As Jews, we believe that a policy of divestment targeted against the state of Israel is a bludgeon that undermines peace and exacerbates the conflict."
The divestment resolution, passed last July at the Presbyterians' biennial General Assembly, stunned and outraged Jewish leaders across the country with what they call its bias and unfairness. The resolution also created dissension among some Presbyterian clergy and laity who oppose the action.
Jewish leaders fear that other mainline Protestant churches will study divestment as well. For instance, the Episcopal Church has placed the issue on its agenda.
Jews are also upset because the Presbyterian General Assembly defeated another resolution which would have cut funding for a proselytizing congregation in the Philadelphia area that was "out recruiting Jews," says John Hexter, area director of the American Jewish Committee.
Jews and Presbyterians failed to settle their differences at a September meeting in New York. Adding to the rancor was a Presbyterian delegation's meeting in October with a Hezbollah sheik in Lebanon. Hezbollah is on the U.S. government's list of designated terrorist organizations.
One Presbyterian participant, the Rev. Ronald Stone, was quoted on Hezbollah's television network as saying "relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders."
Three national leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. expressed "distress" over the Hezbollah meeting, calling it "misguided, at best." Stone's comments were termed "reprehensible" in the Presbyterian statement published on the Anti-Defamation League's website.
In apparent response to Jewish criticism that blaming Israel's occupation for the violence was one-sided, the Presbyterian leaders also said that terrorism is "one clear source of the lack of peace in the Middle East."
Despite the fence-mending efforts, last November, the Presbyterians' committee on socially responsible investment instituted criteria for "phased selective divestment" from corporations that profit from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. These include companies involved with the construction of Jewish settlements and the separation barrier.
In response to the divestment resolution, local chapters of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish community federations across the country are meeting with Presbyterian leaders to find common ground.
In some cities, the Jewish leaders have pushed hard for the Presbyterian Church's General Assembly Council, meeting March 30-April 2, to either rescind the resolution or at least postpone any further action. This had led more than one Jewish delegation to stomp out of a meeting in frustration at the lack of Presbyterian response, news accounts have said.
In Cleveland, a dozen Jewish leaders met four or five times in the fall and winter with the Rev. Liza Hendricks, general presbyter of the Western Reserve, and other Presbyterian clergy and lay leaders.
"When a mainstream, thoughtful organization like the Presbyterians (votes to explore divestment), what does that do in terms of other mainstream Protestant churches?" asks Hexter, who has joined in the talks. "We want to head off others doing this."
Over the years, the Presbyterian Church has used its investments to try to influence corporate policy or to make a moral statement, says Hendricks. Church membership is "pretty split" around the issue of divestment from Israel.
Since dialogue with local Jewish leaders has begun, "We're learning more about what the ramifications of divestment might mean," she says. The group has been talking about whether other economic tools might be more effective.
The divestment resolution, she explained, reflected the "church's huge concern for peace in Israel and in Palestine, and huge concern in the way the separation barrier has been built. Certainly, there have been some strong voices of concern over the situation of the Palestinian people."
Both Jewish and Presbyterian participants in the ongoing local discussions say they most appreciate the focus on the common desire for peace and human rights. Hendricks declined to state her own opinion on divestment, saying it would not be helpful to the conversation. Instead, she is trying to stay open to learn.
The Presbyterian-Jewish dialogue shows that two communities who care deeply about Israel have learned from each other's perspective, says Rabbi Howard Ruben of Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple, who attended the talks.
It's too early to tell what will ultimately come out of the meetings, he adds. "Whether there will be some concrete action (or not). Neither one of us wants to back one side into a corner" by prematurely announcing any joint initiative.
Local efforts may or may not be able to impact the action of the national church, notes Hendricks. But the coming together of Jews and Presbyterians in Cleveland has already yielded positive results.
"We recognize the importance of our relationship to the Jewish community here," she says. "We all want to understand each other better. I see that as a short-term and a long-term goal."
 |
 |
|
| Cleveland International Film Festival gets rolling | Morton Levin elected president |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of clevelandjewishnews.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments. Registration is free.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
