Caterpillar crisis continues

On the Church Times website, you can see last week's Question of the Week. Nearly twice as many people voted in favour of divesting from Caterpilliar as against. But against this depressing result, editor Paul Handley has written: 'We are aware that voting on this question is being manipulated and no conclusions can be safely drawn.' In our online business section today, there is an excellent article by Anglican priest Gill Jackson, explaining why this vote was essentially futile because the bulldozers are 'ethically neutral'. We've been running a lot of letters on this debate but one of the best so far has also gone in today.

Here is one of the best pieces written about the Caterpillar debacle. As Melanie Phillips writes, Israel boycotts now seem to be as popular as a CND badge on a 1950s beatnik.

Like Lord Carey, I personally remain ashamed to be an Anglican. I will be reflecting inwardly on this in the coming season of Lent. However, for everyone in this debate, it is important to respect the views of those who feel differently. I still hold that the General Synod was led into shocking error. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who voted in favour of the motion, is now paying the price, as Jewish News reports today. A proposed meeting between him and Israel's two chief rabbis seems now unlikely to take place in May as planned. The meeting was intended to be reciprocal for one that took place during the Archbishop's earlier visit to Israel. In a seperate story, Ken Livingstone has been suspended from his office as Mayor of London for four weeks for comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Meanwhile, there is an appalling video doing the rounds of mailing lists showing a young boy deliberately having his arm crushed by a car as a punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Many people are attempting to check the provenance of this, but even if it isn't what it is alleged to be, it is sickening beyond measure. There is also this video, of Hamas. Sit down somewhere before looking at either. And at Thinking Anglicans, see the many links to the terrifying situation in Nigeria.

Where is the Church of England's denunciation of all this? Believe me, I am not the only person asking this. The reputation of England's established church is in serious danger at present. But that danger matters not in the slightest, when compared to far more serious dangers represented by the destruction of Israel as sought by Iran and Hamas, by the cruel punishment meted out to a young, hungry boy, by the bodies piling up in Nigeria as Muslims and Christians go to war over the Danish cartoons.

Comments

[Simon Sarmiento]

Ruth
I think the important point about the CT voting is not the ratio, but that instead of the usual 200 or so votes, over 10,000 votes were recorded. This is what suggests manipulation, not the ratio of Yes/No.

[Doug Chaplin]

Ruth,
Thanks for continuing to raise helpful questions and provide useful links on this story.
One thing puzzles me in particular about the letter to the Times from Alistair Burt and other MPs that you mention at the end of your first paragraph. They acknowledge they've been lobbied by Anglicans for Israel, but then describe it as non-partisan.
Whether you agree with the MPs (and indeed Anglicans for Israel) or not, I can't understand how a lobby group, a group whose name specifies what they are for, and a group whose website clearly and proudly aligns them with a Zionist position, can in any sense be described as non-partisan.
How is it possible for any MP to think a lobby group is non-partisan? Irrespective of the arguments put forward (some in my view better than others) how can you describe a letter that either displays astonishing political naivety, or a wilful distortion of either the English language or the facts, as one of the best published in the Times? I have seen better (and worse) arguments from both sides elsewhere.

[louis]

Ms Gledhil, why are you bringing Ken Livingstone into your diatribe? What does he have to do with the 'Caterpillar Crisis' as you call it?

[Margaret]

Thanks for the explanation Simon -- someone must have a lot of time on their hands to do that many pushes of the button.

And thank you Ruth for the sanest commentary on this issue. Like you I find the gaps in the discussion of issues as disturbing as the discussions that do take place. I think there needs to be a general reminder that ALL are equal in the eyes of God -- and having favourites is theologically untenable.

[Keith Downer]

The debate about investing in Caterpillar is a perfect example of how two separate issues combine together to confuse, exasperate and polarise everyone. Here, the first issue concerns ethical investment, the second Israel and the Palestinians. If the Church was to avoid conflict in this matter, these two issues should have been treated separately.
Should the Church invest in any company, the products of which can be used in a manner many Church members disapprove of? In this case, a bulldozer manufactured by Caterpillar is used to knock down Palestinian homes in the occupied territories. It has also been used to destroy Israeli settler's homes so that the land can be given to the Palestinians.
Personally, I find it difficult to accept that this piece of machinery - used in the construction industry worldwide - is at the centre of so much upset because the operators - that is, the people who bought the machinery, not the manufacturers - used it for a questionable purpose. If the Church invested in a Sheffield cutlery company and they manufactured a dinner knife used by a murderer on his victim, would that justify divestment? What about an automobile company producing open-backed goods vehicles that can be adapted by militia groups to act as a weapon carrier; would that justify divestment? There are thousands of common products from weed-killer to civilian aircraft that can be used in a manner for which they were not intended.
Will the Church review it's investment portfolio and take account of all possible uses - intended or otherwise - of the products or services involved?
Where does the Church stand on the question of the existence of Israel in the land it now occupies and the Palestinian claims to that land?
There are obviously many Church members, including those in the Synod, who have doubts about the Israeli handling of the Palestinian question. What a happier world it would be if everyone was sensible and could get on together. The election of Hamas not only makes this as unlikely as George Bush giving back America to the Red Indians but has completely changed the dynamics of that area for the worse.
Given the Israelis precarious position and taking account of the moves they have been making towards meeting Palestinian demands, in many people's eyes they have taken a large section of the moral high ground. Reviewing the worrying statements from the Hamas leadership and their preference for violence rather than negotiation, the Church needs to decide if the Palestinians have now squandered their right to equal treatment.
These are the questions that should have been addressed by the Synod before taking their unfortunate decision on divestment.

[mark]

It was staged as street performance. To raise money. Exploitation of a child? Yes. Despicable? Yes. So your questions of "what offense would warrant this punishment?" is moot. It is not a punishment. It is not related to Islam. It is street performance, pure and simple.

Again, the truth is harsh enough. It is horrible that Islamic law calls for barbaric punishment. It is horrible that this "father" or whomever is abusing this child to make some cash. But don't post an apocryphal story about a boy being punished for stealing bread.

(RG writes: this story is in massive circulation on many email lists. I posted it to try and discover the truth behind it. Thank you for letting us know what the actual provenance is.)

[Simon McIlwaine]

Mr Chaplin.You would like me to define "non-partisan"."Anglicans for Israel" have supporters and activists from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties in the UK.Our Episcopalian supporters in the US are either Democrats or Republicans.Our supporters in Israel support all the main parties-Labor, Kadima, Shinui or Likud-or none, but there is a pronounced bias towards centrist politics.We are neither Left wing nor Right wing.

[John (in New Zealand)]

It would be good if the Times were honest enough to use a photo of an armoured D9 bulldozer such as this:

http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Ground_support/bulldozer.jpg

which the issue is about in the article.
Or better still, as it would be more topical, a picture of one in action demolishing a Palestinian house:

http://stopthewall.org/enginefileuploads/content/cat01_001.jpg

or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/45/D9R-idf.jpg/250px-D9R-idf.jpg

instead of trying to confuse readers, softening their feelings and drawing their attention away from the reason for the debate by putting a non-related and irellevant picture of a Caterpillar log-lifter in action.

This way readers would be better informed as to why some people feel that Cat are not "neutral".

Or would presenting the facts to readers be too dangerous?

I'm sure that StopTheWall would be more than happy to allow the Times to use their picture if they don't have any stock pics in their library.

[Cyrus]

John, I don't need photos to tell me that having your house demolished isn't pleasant.

Will you post again and tell us where we can find photos of (a) body parts being picked up off the street after a suicide bombing in Israel and (b) homes being demolished in Zimbabwe (and yes, they do have Caterpillar bulldozers there too, but that forms no part of Synod's case for disinvestment)?

Louis, the Ken Livingstone affair is a straw in the wind. What I find worrying is his confidence that he can brazen out his refusal to apologize for a blatantly anti-Semitic remark without losing the backing of his political constituency. Reaction in, for instance, the Guardian has shown this to be fully justified.

Ruth, congratulations on the stand you've taken from another ashamed Anglican. I hope you won't mind me plugging my blog (christianaidwatch.blogspot.com), which focuses specifically on Christian demonization of Israel.

[Colin Fergus]

The Anglican community seems eager to shoot itself in the foot dare I say as usual. Would they disinvest in Ulster if Sinn Fein were elected to power in the Irish Republic? Israel is a key target, according to Iran, the key target of Muslem extremists. It is a loyal, reliable ally in the frontline of a war on terror which if lost will make those who voted for this decision subjects, if they are still living, of a tyranny every bit as evil as that of the Nazis, who of course, lest we forget, started out with anti-semitism.

[Mary Whiteland]

Why does an "ethically neutral" bulldozer require machine-gun turrets?

[Robin Bather]

A few facts on this subject:

The 49 ton D9 Caterpillar Inc. bulldozer has been used by the Israeli Army to destroy 4,000 Palestinian homes, some with people inside, and (according to Wikipedia) approximately 1,000,000 olive trees also owned by Palestinians.

Some of the Israeli modifications include machine guns and grenade launchers: very handy for road and bridge work and construction jobs.

An American, Rachel Corrie, was run over and killed by a D9 driven by an Israeli Army driver. The driver was never brought to trial and thus never accused of murder, manslaughter or even reckless behaviour.

Keith Downer's likening of the D9 to a piece of Sheffield cutlery would be laughable if the subject were not so serious.
Whilst I don't doubt that somewhere sometime someone may have been murdered with a marmalade knife, it was never remotely designed for that use and it is probably quite difficult to use for killing someone.
On the other hand the Caterpillar D9 works very well for causing death and destruction and seems to have been made for the job.
Don't tell me that the Caterpillar Board of Directors are ignorant of this fact.

No, the Synod of the Church of England were very ethical and Caterpillar Inc. stands with its head hanging in shame.

[Robin Bather]

I have reread Ruth's article at the top of this page and tried to make some sense of it as I am afraid she has veered off the subject which is the General Synod's decision to recommend divestment of stock in Caterpillar Inc. as a protest against the Israeli Army's destruction and murder of Palestinians and their property.

There are undoubtably many crimes and injustices being committed in the world at any one time but this must not deter us from trying to correct one of them if it is within our power. To bring in all the other wrongs confuses the issue with red herrings however urgent and necessary it be to solve them.
"Two wrongs don't make a right" springs to mind but I don't think it practical or useful that the C of E make a list of the many evils in the world that need to be adressed.

Simply put, in keeping with its declared code of ethics, the Synod made a sound decision that was within its power and in doing so showed that it is in touch with world events.
The lands now known as Israel, Palestine and the West Bank are obviously very near and dear to the origins of Christianity and as such will always be subjects close to the hearts of thinking Christians. That is probably the reason why the Israeli/Caterpillar scandal has been included in the Synod's agenda, instead of some innate anti-Semitism that many would have us believe.
The call of anti-Semite is a much abused tactic designed to prevent open criticism of Israel and its supporters.

To conclude, I am sure that Caterpillar Inc's shareholders are grinning with glee at Ruth Gledhill's defense of big business.

[Cyrus]

Robin, I’m struggling to understand your reasoning.

You think the C of E justified in singling out, from all the injustices committed around the world, those committed by the one small state that is run by Jews. You want to it do this even though you are unable to offer any coherent ethical case for doing so (sorry, but ‘The lands now known as Israel, Palestine and the West Bank are obviously very near and dear to the origins of Christianity’ won’t do at all - that was the Crusaders’ excuse). You want the Church to treat these injustices for all practical purposes as if they were the world’s worst, and thus encourage others to see them as such, even though they are manifestly nothing of the sort. You are content to see Israel put in the dock without Hamas standing alongside it. And, even though Christianity has a long, inglorious history of anti-Semitism, you expect that nobody will see anything remotely anti-Semitic in any of this – or at least nobody who is not making the accusation in bad faith.

How does the saying go? If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Maybe someone can arrange to bring you face to face with a poor Zimbabwean whose house was flattened by Robert Mugabe’s bulldozers, or with a villager from Darfur whose family has been massacred by the Janjaweed, so that you can explain to them why their sufferings are ‘red herrings’.

[Martyn Sandford]

Cyrus, I don't see why Israel should escape criticism over its appalling human rights record. The USA is rightly being called to account for its treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, and any state which abuses human rights should be made to cease its wrongdoing.

What the world sees is Israel calling for international support against those who wish to dismantle it - at the same time as it is dismantling the homes, economy and lives of its palestinian neighbours. These are crimes against humanity, and I hope we will see its perpetrators brought to justice by the UN.

[Robin Bather]

Cyrus, first let's read carefully my statement about "red herrings" before accusing me of being hardhearted torwards Zimbabweans and Darfur villagers.
I said:
"To bring in all the other wrongs confuses the issue with red herrings however urgent and necessary it be to solve them"
"Urgent and necessary" I think, absolves me of your accusation.

I continue to affirm that we should stick to the subject at hand (divestment of Caterpillar Inc. stock as an ethical statement) because the widening of the discussion to encompass many other wrongs will get us nowhere. There are, without doubt, rights and wrongs on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinan conflict and many attrocities have been committed in the name of self defence or retribution.

If you insist on bringing in the Hamas issue together and their declared aim of wiping Israel off the map, I also abhor this statement of intent but if we are widening the topic, why not bring in the Stern gang atrocities, the King David Hotel bombing by Israelis against British troops, the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre carried out by Israeli troops, the infamously cruel statements made by Menachen Begin, the Sabra & Shatila massacre......the list is endless and fruitless but ends with suicide bombings and downtrodden Palestinians living below the poverty level whilst a rich and agressive neighbour enjoys almost limitless military and financial aid from the world's only superpower.

The murderous aims of Hamas and Iran are well covered by FoxNews, CNN, AIPAC and the US Government but when we speak up for the Palestinians that's called anti-Semitism!

Cyrus, is there ANYTHING that Israel can be accused of and found guilty of, without the cry of "anti-Semite!"

[Cyrus]

Robin, I continue to fail to understand how something can be urgent and necessary and at the same time a red herring.

I wrote a comment about the singling out of Israel, and two responses accuse me of wanting to single Israel out for exemption from criticism. That really makes no sense - especially when I explicitly acknowledged the existence of injustices committed by Israel.

'Cyrus, I don't see why Israel should escape criticism over its appalling human rights record.'

I quite agree, but I'd like to ask whether 'appalling' represents a purely emotional reaction or whether you have any objective measures for assessing a country's human rights record. I think if you want to claim the moral high ground you have to strive for objectivity, and I also think that by any objective standard Sudan's record (to take just one case) is far and away worse than Israel's.

So I'll ask the question again: why is Israel singled out?

[Martyn Sandford]

Cyrus, Israel is not being singled out, except by those who want to exempt it from criticism.

[Martyn Sandford]

GAZA (Reuters) - "An Israeli airstrike killed two Islamic Jihad militants and two other people in Gaza on Monday, including an eight-year-old boy, Palestinian medics and witnesses said.

The Israeli army confirmed the strike but offered few details." 6 March 2006

Is this not appalling enough to count as a human rights abuse? A modern and well-equipped army killing civilians and children with air strikes? Can anyone simply look away and point to problems elsewhere?

[Cyrus]

Martyn, it is appalling that an eight year old was killed. It is also appalling that the two 'militants' killed belonged to an organization openly committed to the deliberate, targetted killing of Israeli children. This is the reality of a conflict that is not morally simple.

'Can anyone simply look away and point to problems elsewhere?' Well, apparently one can: I challenged you over Sudan, where children have been killed by the thousand, and you reply by talking about... Israel.

[Martyn Sandford]

I don't think there is any disagreement over Sudan. Nobody is claiming that it is racist to criticise its government.

[Cyrus]

But strangely the C of E doesn't seem very interested in criticizing the Sudanese government. See Ruth's posting on the David Frost interview with Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Martyn Sandford]

Cyrus, I could provide a list of 1000 things which the church has criticised or could criticise. It is not possible to do so in one debate, which was about the ethics of holding investments in a particular company which has made money out of supplying weapons of terror to the Israeli Defence Force. But you would rather distract attention from their activities.

[Robin Bather]

Did anybody notice today when the Israeli army invaded the West Bank to smash down the walls of the Palestinian prison in Jericho they were again using armed Caterpillar bulldozers but now painted grey so the CAT logo cannot be seen?
Perhaps the Synod's decision has made the Israelis a tiny bit more sensitive to this issue.