Ateek shows up at WCC
No one listens to the deliberations of the World Council of Churches any more, other than the political activists who use it as a platform and a source for funding their numerous campaigns. It is not surprising, therefore, that Naim Ateek, director of the Sabeel Center, should show up at the Ninth Assembly of the WCC to call for divestment from Israel - and receive no opposition! From the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which is covering the WCC Assembly (full story on the IRD site):
“If your church’s money is in companies that profit from the oppression of Palestinians, then you have a moral responsibility” to question that situation. That was the message brought by the Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, canon of the Anglican cathedral in Jerusalem, to an unofficial mutirão workshop held February 14 in conjunction with the World Council of Churches Assembly here. Ateek is also director of the Sabeel Center, the main promoter of a version of “liberation theology” adapted to the Palestinian national struggle…
“At the end of the day,” Ateek said, “all I can say is I am laying it [the question of divestment from Israel] on your conscience.” Those who decide to divest, he insisted, “are taking a stand in line with biblical and contemporary prophets.”
Ateek compared the current anti-Israel divestment push to the 1980s’ movement for divestment from South Africa, reading a statement from Archbishop Desmond Tutu about how helpful divestment had been in fighting apartheid. “Similar pressures are being mustered on Israel, one person at a time,” added the Palestinian Anglican…
A sympathetic member of the audience asked discreetly about the effect of the recent Palestinian elections - won by Hamas, a terrorist group that vows to destroy Israel and impose Islamic law upon Palestinian society. Ateek’s answer was: “Again, that’s very confusing, because people are wondering what’s going to happen with Hamas in the government - and we don’t know.”
Ateek expressed his hope that “Hamas, which has been extremist in opposition, will have to be responsible in the government.” He predicted that the group would be under domestic and international pressure to moderate its stands. “Hopefully, the pressure will change Hamas,” Ateek said.
Then Ateek assumed the fulfillment of his wish: “Once Hamas changes, we will have a stronger non-violent movement.” He remarked, “We’re hoping that we can move Hamas and the Palestinian people” toward non-violence. The Palestinian Anglican did not address the possibility that Hamas might not be willing to change its longstanding and deeply held convictions, enshrined in its charter.
A member of the audience asked for Ateek’s reaction to the possibility of the European Union cutting off aid to a Hamas-ruled Palestinian Authority. “I think it’s crazy if they’re going to stop supporting [the Palestinian Authority],” he replied. “We need to keep the pressure on Hamas, but we need to help the Palestinian people….”
The Anglican canon did not suggest any other means of exerting pressure on Hamas. Indeed, it appeared that Israel was the only actor that he wished to target for economic pressure. Ateek did not discuss human rights abuses committed by other governments in the region: the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, among others. Christians are suffering under those regimes, too. But Ateek did not call for any actions in solidarity with all those other oppressed Christians in the Middle East.
In his workshop presentation, Ateek did not attempt to rebut the main arguments that have been made against his divestment movement. In fact, he did not even mention those arguments: that there is no legitimate reason to single out Israel as a pariah state, that Israel has a right to defend its people from terrorism, that Israel has made and offered more substantive concessions for peace than any of its Arab neighbors, that corporations selling non-military goods (such as bulldozers) to Israel (among many other nations) are not responsible for how the Israeli government chooses to use those multi-purpose items, that divesting from such corporations would have little or no effect or their behavior or Israel’s, and that isolating Israel economically would not advance the prospects for a Middle East peace agreement.
There was no demand from Ateek’s audience for him to answer these arguments. That audience of 30 to 40 - mostly North American and Western European activists - already seemed persuaded of the case for divestment.
