Divestment –
Why Did The Anglicans
Get Cold Feet?

After beating the big bass drum of divestment from US companies profiting from sales to Israel, specifically Caterpillar Inc, the Anglican Church seems to have gotten cold feet.

Not knowing how to get out of the mire of their own making they appointed an Advisory Panel to study their decision and to report back.

Church Owns $4.4 Million Stock

The panel has done so and has urged against pulling investments “to break financial ties with companies linked to Israel’s control of Palestinian territories”. Specifically, the Caterpillar company in which the Church holds some $4.4 million stock.

We are not told why the advisory panel offered that advice though we may guess that it came in time to stop the church making a right fool of itself.

Selling Stock Does No Harm

Because selling their stock does not harm Caterpillar in any way. Their stock would be purchased by new buyers – that’s all that happens. We may presume the new buyers would not share the church’s anti-Israel stance. Some might even be pro-Israel.

So how would it hurt Israel if the church sold its stock? I can’t for the life of me figure that out. Nor, I imagine, can the church.

Building With Bulldozers

Caterpillar bulldozers are generally employed in construction and revamping the environment. Israel certainly used them to build many new roads in the areas of Arab habitation. And no doubt those 7 universities it built for the Palestinians. Plus a hospital or two, surely the airport in Gaza, schools and a whole lot more.

Does the church in its muddled thinking believe it is essential to use a Caterpillar bulldozer to raze a house? Of course not. Israel has previously used tanks or just plain old fashioned dynamite. However, the Caterpillars are safest in this usage.

Could Israel could buy Caterpillars from several countries in Europe or nearer still from Turkey? Even if they did cost 5% or 10% more. You can bet your shirt on it.

Human Rights Factor

John Reynolds, the chairman of the advisory group, said his panel “could find no compelling evidence that Caterpillar is, or has been, complicit in human rights abuses.”

So the motivation of the church was its strong opposition to countries which abuse the human rights. That sounds like an above board reason for which the church might well be entitled to applause.

Selective Discrimination

But not however, when Israel is the only country selected for condemnation while the human rights violations of so many other countries are ignored. When we alone are chosen for special treatment, Mr. Reynolds and fellow Presbyterians, that’s when we recognize the poisonous arrow of anti-Semitism.

The Tibetan Comparison

Compare China’s conquest of Tibet and its brutal ongoing occupation and extinction of Tibetan identity, culture and religion. What was the nature of the Anglican church’s protest against the Chinese grievous abuse of Tibetan human rights?

Correct me if I suggest, wrongly, that what happened in Tibet and which continues there unabated, was like water off your church’s back. You turned your cheek away from their human rights.

But the gall of those uppity Jews in Israel who demolished the homes of maybe 100 or 200 suicide murderers, who had killed hundreds of our fathers, mothers, boys, girls and babies . . . and wounded and crippled thousands more, why that’s another kettle of fish. Jews are not permitted to react to the abuse of some hundreds of Palestinian murderers and their family of accomplices. It was ok however, for the Chinese to abuse the human rights of six million Tibetans.

Where The Cap Fits

There are no perfect countries. There are scores of countries however, with flagrant records of abuse far, far worse than those for which Israel stands accused. Palestinian allegations always avoid admitting that Israel has any right to defend herself against terrorists whose collective purpose is, without deviation or variation, the death of Israelis, by murder most foul.

Natan Sharansky has defined modern anti-Semitism by its three features: the application of double standards, demonization and delegitimization of Israel.

Regrettably, this cap fits the heads of the Anglican church. {} {} {}

One Response to “Divestment –
Why Did The Anglicans
Get Cold Feet?”

  1. Israpundit » Blog Archive » PC(USA) and Divestment Says:

    […] s cause a person to wonder why Israel has been singled out. Jock Falkson in his recent post Divestment – Why Did The Anglicans Get Cold Feet? expands on the hypocrisy and suggests antisemitism i […]