5 thoughts on “The Moral Dilemma of Israeli Divestment – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. You make some very good points about the lack of precision in the use of divestment. As a Presbyterian, I hope that the next step of “progressive engagement” with the corporations named will make it possible to focus the efforts on disapproval of the Occupation.

    I, too, was puzzled about the selection of Motorola, and the cryptic way it was described in the New York Times. On the PCUSA website I found an expanded explanation: http://www.pcusa.org/mrti/actions.htm

    “This investment [in an Israeli cell phone company] is controversial because cell phone companies, according to the Oslo Agreement of 1995, must be licensed by the Palestinian Authority in order to operate in the West Bank and Gaza. With powerful facilities in the settlements, with a range covering all of the occupied territories, this licensing has not occurred.”

    There is a little more information about it on http://www.pcusa.org/mrti/profiles.htm#Motorola

  2. Stewart: thanks so much for expanding the explanation of Motorola’s inclusion in the PCUSA corporate list. I’ve added an update within the post with some of that information. I think PCUSA has to do a better job of explaining this to the general public. Laurie Goodstein is a terrific reporter and if she couldn’t explain it better than she did then you can’t expect the average person to understand it any better without more help.

    I also would like more explanation of how the encrypted communication equipment is used in the Occupied Territories before I’m willing to condemn it.

  3. If it appeared that I was criticizing Laurie Goodstein’s reporting, I want to apologize for that. I do understand some of the challenges of reporting someone else’s explanation.

    I don’t know when the information to which I referred first appeared on the PCUSA website, but I agree with you that the PCUSA needs to do a better job of explaining its position to the general public. I have not received a press release from the PCUSA naming the corporations selected for progressive engagement. My first reading of the NY Times article sent me on a hunt for more information.

    I don’t know anything about how the encrypted communication equipment is to be used in the Occupied Territories, but I will be glad to share what I learn when I learn it.

  4. I have received an email from Barry Creech in the communications office of the General Assembly of the PCUSA acknowledging our question about the purpose of the encrypted wireless communication devices that are the subject of the Motorola contract. He says in part:

    “[A]t this point, there have been no conversations with Motorola. Conversation will be our next step. The questions that you raise are good ones, and will likely be taken up in the course of that dialogue.”

    He reiterates some of the information posted here and also says,

    “Our dialogue with Motorola may shows [sic] that these encrypted wireless communication devices are not being used to support or maintain the occupation, but until we have that conversation, these business dealings of Motorola seem to fit within the criteria that guided MRTI’s work.”

    He closes the email to me by directing me to the staff person of the Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee who will be able to brief me on the information available to MRTI when they made the decision to include Motorola on the list of corporations. That staff person is on vacation this week.

  5. Thanks again, Stewart for following up so diligently on this matter. I’m heartened by both your own interest in making the strongest case possible for the campaign & by PCUSA’s interest in doing the same. I look forward to further updates which you should feel free to post here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link