Archive | Israel Divestment RSS feed for this section

Comments

29 Sep

This will no doubt come to bite me in the butt, but until I can figure out what’s wrong with the CAPTCHA utility I installed a couple months back to keep the site from being flooded with comment spam from various pants and Viagra salespeople, I’ve decided to turn it off so that anyone can contribute without going through a wall that seems to be keeping out almost everyone.

Speaking of comments, I’ve officially collected enough data points to describe a meaningful trend with regard to those dialog-starved, tough-lovin’ BDSbyterians who want everyone to know that their behavior over the last year simply demonstrates their faith-based virtues, something we’d understand if we only grasped their outstretched hand.

The trouble is, when I’ve reach out for that supposed “hand of reconciliation” by providing responses to over a half dozen entries on blogs run by Presbyterians in favor of last summer’s divestment vote, in five out of six cases the creators of those blogs deleted what I had to say (one going so far as to delete the entire comment thread – including his own responses).

The most recent example of this had to do with someone who made an appearance in the BDSbyterian piece linked above: Reverend Mark Davidson of the Church of Reconciliation (!) in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

If you recall, Davidson was the fellow who decided the best way to show his devotion to justice and interfaith dialog was to plaster busses in the Chapel Hill area with those egregious “Be With Us” ads that have confused the public and appalled Jews and non-Jews across the country. And when he and his fellow BDSers were subjected to criticism for their thoughtless behavior, he decided that interfaith dialog could best be served by spreading this campaign across the country.

Recently, Rev. Davidson joined with a fellow NC BDSbyterian to write this piece which called for the church to stop pretending to not take a stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict and to be upfront with what everyone else can plainly see: that PCUSA has become a partisan in a hotly contested political conflict, favoring one side over the other (which, in this case, includes accepting the Arab characterization of events as the only acceptable truth).

In an odd way, I applaud Rev. Davidson’s honesty, just as I applauded John Spritzler who stumbled into stating plainly what others in the BDS brigade are trying to obfuscate: that the goal of BDS is the end of Israel as a Jewish homeland. And so I wrote the following comment to inform the authors and readers of that “Take a Stand” piece of the implications of such a decision:

“The problem (and the reason why so few take PCUSA’s opinion on the Middle East seriously) is that when there are two sides in a human conflict, then selecting to stand against one side means by definition that you are standing with the other. So by opposing the Israeli “side” (or, more specifically, standing against Israel and its allies, notably the US) in the conflict, you are embracing the Palestinian “side” (which must include *its* allies in the larger Arab and Muslim world).

But once someone starts probing how your choice of a side makes you complicit with the actions of those whose side you’ve chosen, suddenly there is an immediate retreat to the language of neutrality (often taking the form of claims that the church is simply embracing Christian love and peacemaking for all concerned). In other words, the notion that a church which has chosen a side must then take responsibility for that side’s behavior (including kidnapping, indiscriminate missile firing, use of human shields, killing of its own people – not to mention the repression of religious minorities: including Christians) is totally alien to an organization that wants all the benefits of taking a stand (including praise for its “bravery”) without having to live with any responsibility for its choices.”

Now you will notice that this response contained no obscenities or insults, no accusations of anti-Semitism or bigotry, but simply described what “taking a side” would actually involve (and cost).

And within minutes, my comment was deleted.

Stop and think about this for a moment. In a story specifically about “taking a stand,” the authors demonstrated an unwillingness to actually take a stand by defending their beliefs (although they did allow a couple of “you’re so wonderful” comments to appear below their posting). And, like other BDSbyterians who have been claiming since June that they are dying to engage in dialog with Jews (and non-Jews) who disagree with the divestment policy they stuffed down the throat of PCUSA, when it comes time to actually engage with critics, they do everything in their power to avoid the very dialog they constantly claim to crave.

While hypocrisy is always the easiest (and most obvious) explanation of such behavior, another explanation might be the fantasy bubble that BDSers routinely blow around themselves. For within this bubble, they can only hear the voices of those who shower them with praise and critics who shout vulgarities and accusations at them, which allows them to separate the world into the white-hatted, virtuous “we” and the right-wing-y, hysterical “they.” But when voices appear that ask challenging questions to which they have no answers, the response is to shut those words out and disappear them from any else’s view.

Anyway, I just discovered that this “Taking a Stand” piece was part of a series which also includes this piece which takes aim at the censorship (or “book burning”) represented by Zionism Unsettled being removed from the official PCUSA web site, to which I commented:

“Given how much the writers of this piece despise censorship (or “book burning at the courthouse steps”) in any form, you may be shocked to learn that the authors of another piece in this same series on the ecclesio web site (Taking a Stand, by Reverends Davidson and Shive) have repeatedly censored my comments, despite the fact that they contained no vulgarities or irresponsible accusations, just challenging questions that (I must assume) the authors were not comfortable confronting.

You can read about the issue at http://divestthis.com/2014/09/comments.html.  And, given the churches call for genuine dialog (no matter how difficult), I hope you will convince contributors to this site to not shy away from difficult issues going forward.”

I’ve got a stop watch going to see how long it takes for them to wipe those words from existence as well.

UPDATE: That comment I posted failed to appear, which would imply the site may not be accepting comments generally or has blocked yours truly.  Now it may be stuck in moderation, but I’m choosing to not hold my breath until it appears.  Nuff said.

Denormalizing Denormalization

23 Sep

With the Gaza war behind us (for now), things seem to be unfurling on campuses about as expected.

While anti-Israel activity is usually more of a second-semester phenomenon, the BDSers have been trying to leverage momentum from last summer’s war (and associated anti-Israel hysteria) to get their propaganda program rolling early at colleges and universities, even as chapters of groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) are just raising recruits and getting off the ground.

Given the thuggish tactics these groups were trying on for size at the end of the last academic year, it’s no surprise that early tales of SJP on campus involve violence and intimidation as tactics of choice.  And given the amount of information coming out of Gaza that they need to suppress, we can expect the usual tactic of ignoring anything others have to say to be accompanied by ever-louder shout-downs of those who choose to mention little details like 4000+ rockets fired at Israeli civilians from behind Palestinian ones.

But a decade of manufactured anti-Israel hostility has also generated counter-measures in the form of bigger and better-organized pro-Israel campus groups that have proven their skill (and patience) again and again.  And following a dynamic I described nearly a decade ago, these groups have been given the leeway to take the lead on their own campuses, pulling in resources from the wider Jewish if and when they are needed.

Within this battlefield, Israel’s foes have some decided advantages.  To begin with, as the propaganda arm of a war movement, the BDSers – by definition – have militant goals which means they can be perpetually on the attack.  In contrast, Israel’s supporters are not interested in destroying anyone and thus do not have the incentive to spend semester after semester smearing Palestinians (or other Arabs) or even telling stark truths about what the Palestinians have done to bring so much misery upon themselves over the decades.

Similarly, the sociopathic nature of the boycotters mean they are free to pick the battlefield unhindered by worries over the damage they may cause to others.  Again, in contrast, pro-Israel groups are hesitant to drag the Middle East conflict into every civic space in the land and thus must wait until the Israel haters act before they can react to any situation (such as a BDS vote) that requires a fight.

Those advantages are somewhat mitigated by the fact that most college populations consist of roughly 5% of students hostile and 5% of students supportive of the Jewish state with the other 90% indifferent (above and beyond wondering why this particular political conflict must be in their face 24/7).  In theory, this vast majority can be swayed, possibly by propaganda (the BDSers preferred choice), possibly by reasoned argument.  But, in general, this large group tends to support dialog and are looking to see which groups seems most sincerely dedicated to working things out via genuine communication vs. screaming matches.

This makes the over-the-top nature of groups like SJP a liability, which makes an aspect of this year’s campaign – one having to do with “denormalization” all the more surprising.

If you recall, “normalization” means treating Israel like a normal country whose citizens have the right to participate in all of the activities allowed by citizens of any nation in the world.  Which means that “denormalization,” making normal life impossible for Israelis (and their friends), is at the heart and soul of the BDS project.

For instance, any scholar in the world is allowed to be part of the community of academic discourse – even if they come from nations rules by monstrous, murderous regimes that suppress academic freedom at home.  But an academic “denormalization” campaign seeks to make just one exception to this rule through attempts to bar Israelis (although just the Jewish ones) from the scholarly community.

Similarly, product boycotts and divestment campaigns are designed to make buying Israeli goods or investment in Israeli companies seem extraordinary, just as last year’s marches in Europe and elsewhere want to “normalize” the notion that just one country (the Jewish one) has no right to defend itself when enemies shower its cities with rocket fire.

But among anti-Israel campus groups, “normalization” would require treating interaction between pro- and anti-Israel student groups as a normal form of human discourse.  Which is why they reject it, insisting that any dialog can only begin once those that disagree with them accept every BDSer fact and opinion in advance.

While the term “de-normalization” tries to smooth over some rough edges, the proper description of this position would be “anti-dialog” and “anti-peace” which pretty much sums up the alpha and omega of the BDS “movement.”

Which means that it is worth it for pro-Israel groups on campus to continue extending a hand to their opponents and then communicate out every time it is slapped away, thus demonstrating that the only thing abnormal going on is what takes place in the minds and meetings of groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.

Are the Presbyterians Really Peacemakers?

16 Sep

During this summer’s Gaza conflict, two organizations that made news earlier in the year when they passed boycott or divestment resolutions – the American Studies Association (ASA) and Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) – issued statements on the conflict.

Of the two, ASA’s call to immediately terminate all aid to Israel (taken this time without any pesky interference from the rank and file) simply demonstrated the organization’s true nature: as a membership group made up of scholars largely indifferent to ASA’s political posturing led by a cadre that is nevertheless happy to make politically charged statements in the name of those they purport to represent.

The inability of ASA leaders to argue their positions or explain their behavior outside of like-minded audiences has exposed them as charlatans and cowards long ago, which may explain why their summer Gaza statement made no news beyond the usual BDS fever swamps.  But PCUSA’s public rhetoric that claims their various statements and motions (up to and including a decade of divestment votes) represent a desperate craving for peace makes their behavior regarding the Gaza war more worthy of scrutiny.

As I noted previously, a statement made early in the conflict by PCUSA’s Stated Clerk followed a familiar pattern of making Palestinian victims concrete and visceral while retreating to the passive voice when it came time to “condemn” violence directed towards Israelis.  And while there is no question who PCUSA considers to be the victimizer when it comes to Palestinian casualties, it’s not at all clear that they are ready to place responsibility for missile fire and tunnel terrorism (successful and thwarted) where it belongs.

But another statement, made in late July (in the name of the entire church membership), one which calls on President Obama to “press for an immediate ceasefire,” is far more telling when looked at in the context of the many ceasefires declared and then broken between July and the final cessation of hostilities in August.

If you recall, this round fighting in Gaza was marked by countless calls for a ceasefire (made by, among others, the US President to whom the Presbyterians appealed).  But, each and every time, those truces ended when Hamas finished using them as occasions to reload and redeploy, allowing them to start firing once again.

The second to last ceasefire (in August) was the most bizarre since everyone (including Israel) thought the fighting was over, only to see it start again when Hamas decided that rocket fire would continue until their demands were met.

During each of these ceasefires (especially the last one), the leadership of PCUSA never managed to deliver some of the “tough love” they routinely deliver to their Jewish “friends” to the Palestinians they have spent the last several decades cultivating by embracing their narrative and joining in their divestment calls.  In fact, the relationship they have built (at the cost of their relationship to the Jewish community) placed them in the ideal position to have their voices heard.  Yet, as far as I know, no such “tough love” emanated from Louisville explaining that PCUSA’s continued support was contingent on Palestinians doing what everyone else was begging them to do: stop firing rockets and thus restarting the war.

Remember that PCUSA could have made such a call without compromising its all-but-official positions on who is right and who is wrong in the Arab-Israeli conflict in any way.  For placing blame on Hamas for causing this particular war to continue when it could have stopped much earlier in the summer does not necessarily require condemning Hamas for the many other things you or I could list (diverting development supplies into tunnel and weapons manufacture, hiding and firing among civilians, etc.).  It just requires you to ask the party that seems to be doing things that are prolonging the war PCUSA claims to desperately want to end to stop doing those things.

Just imagine the headlines you would have seen if the church had put its divestment position on hold unless and until Hamas agreed to the same truce everyone else had.  And think about the impact such a bold move would have had in demonstrating to the world (including the Palestinians) that PCUSA’s commitment to peace took precedent over their seeming pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel partisanship.

No doubt there are hundreds of bureaucratic reasons that might make it difficult for the organization to move in such a direction (although such bureaucracy never seems to keep PCUSA from taking all kinds of actions directed at Israel, up to and including Zionism Unsettled).  But one would think that an organization that is truly dedicated to peace, one which really wanted a particular conflict (the Gaza war) to stop, would do anything in its power to turn that desire into reality – even if it meant temporarily condemning someone other than their usual target of criticism.

Given that the church remained silent when their voice might have helped, it seems that there is something more important than peace on PCUSA’s agenda.  Which means we should take their demands that we treat them as peacemakers with the same grain of salt we treat their claims of love and friendship.

Battle Stations!

2 Sep

While life required taking a break from new writing in August, it’s time now to get ready for what is likely to be an ugly year with regard to BDS battles brewing on campuses and elsewhere.

One of the reasons BDS hasn’t gone into remission (as it did between 2006 and 2009) is that it remains the tactic of choice for Israel haters eager to mobilize supporters into action.  For, despite all its flops and failures, frauds and faux-pas, the “movement” derives certain advantages from its choice of the BDS tactic, namely:

  • BDS campaigns are easy to explain and implement.  Set up a survey monkey account and BANG!, you’ve got a petition-driven divestment campaign up and running at a college or university.  Sign up a few volunteers to march in front of a local hardware store and POP! a SodaStream boycott effort is underway.
  • Because virtually every institution in the world retains some tie to the Jewish state (investments in Israeli companies or US companies doing business with Israel, academic exchange programs, sale of Israeli consumer products and technology), that gives the BDSers license to inflict themselves on any civic organization they please.
  • And because the boycotters could not care less about the damage they might cause to those civic organizations, there are not bound by the limits normal people confine themselves to (such as the need to tell the truth and not use others as mere means to an end).

As always, geopolitics beyond any of our control is what has allowed BDS to chug along since it was resurrected in 2009 (or – to be more accurate – when it was reborn in fraud with the Hampshire College hoax that took place that year).  For whenever Hamas decided to restart hostilities (as it did in 2009, 2012 and this summer), carefully orchestrated outrage brought people into the streets.  And those orchestrators have been ready to give anyone who shows up to their rallies desperate to “Do something” something to do: start a BDS project in their neighborhood.

Traditionally, anti-Israel activity on campus is more of a second-semester phenomenon since it often takes a few months for a chapter of groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) to get their act together, recruit new members, get funding, and plan and execute programming.  This is why events like Israel Apartheid Week (no matter how tired and loathsome) tend to be scheduled for the Spring.

But with this summer’s carnage still fresh in people’s minds, we have already seen the anti-Israel bandwagon rolling on college campuses and beyond.  And given that physical assault seems to now be on the SJP menu, I think we can expect the out-of-control behavior we saw in places like Northeastern and Vassar last year to spread and escalate.

As depressing as it might be to have to start dealing with the attack on Israel’s legitimacy (including its legitimate right to defend itself against endless rocket attacks) immediately and everywhere, keep in mind that our side brings its own assets to the fight.

First off, years of escalating anti-Israel activity on campus and beyond has created a counter-force in the form of enthused, energetic and informed pro-Israel groups fighting effectively against defamation of the Jewish homeland across the planet.    And both Israel and the diaspora have woken up to the fact that we need to take the battle against the propaganda weapon wielded by faux “peace-activist” war groups just as seriously as the IDF takes the threat of missile and tunnel weapons.

Finally, the sheer volume of lies people are being asked to believe in order to embrace the SJP/BDS/Hamas storyline of pure Israeli villainy and Palestinian pristine innocence is pretty much ready to not just snap the camel’s back but flatten him into a millimeter-thick camel pancake.  And with ISIS running amok in Iraq, Boko Haram kidnapping and raping their way across Nigeria and Syria racking up more Arab casualties per month than Israel has in decades, the notion that we must ignore the rest of the world and talk only about Gaza casualties (based on figures provided by Hamas, of course) becomes an ever-harder sell.

But how should we be framing our message during a period when SJP and the like minded will be doing all they can to manipulate the uniformed and shout down (or beat down) those with opposing views?

Some thoughts on that tomorrow.

The Presbyterians’ Gradye Parsons On Gaza

22 Jul

I recently reloaded a Tweetdeck App I used when tracking activity during last month’s Presbyterian GA, where a tweet informed me that Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk for PCUSA, released a statement on July 16th calling for an end to the conflict currently underway in Gaza and in the skies over Israel.

Now normally, I might be tempted to critique this statement, making note of the Mr. Parson’s choice to devote a quarter of his document to list every Palestinian victim by name, the use of the passive voice (are Hamas rockets “indiscriminately fired” or does Hamas indiscriminately fire them – and at who?), or the tendency to trace all conflict back to that metaphysical entity: “the illegal Israeli occupation.”

But given that PCUSA decided to add calls for an end to rocket fire and suicide bombing (or, at least in the latter case, their condemnation – although an end to those would kind of be good too), I’ve decided to lay off a line-by-line analysis in favor of seeing just how widely this call has been listened to now that the church decided to make its moral voice heard through last month’s divestment votes at the 2014 General Assembly.

I began with a Google news search which allows me to sort by date to see if any news sources had picked up on what the Stated Clerk no doubt felt was an important and newsworthy statement from an institution that made all kinds of news just a few weeks ago when they passed their divestment policy.  Strangely, nothing seemed to show up regarding news coverage of the church’s Gaza statement.

Knowing full well that such an online search was just a starting point, I repeated my search with other search engines (Bing, Yahoo and the meta-search engine Dogpile).  But even here, no media coverage seems to show up (even in papers that covered divestment with at least one story).

Undaunted, I went directly to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Boston Globe web sites and did individual searches there.  Again, nothing.

Finally, I went back to Google which allows you to search the entire Internet with a date range to see if anyone picked up on the story.  And, outside of the Presbyterian publications Presbyterian Outlook and The Layman, not one non-Presbyterian media outlet seems to have noticed the church taking a stand on what they have decided is their A #1 top international priority: the Arab-Israeli conflict.

How can this be?  After all, the church has decided to put at risk its relationship with every Jewish organization in the nation – secular and religious – outside of Jewish Voice for Peace in order to establish its moral bone fides on this issue.  Supporters of the churches old/new divestment policy have spent days on end congratulating the organization for its moral courage and insisting that last month’s votes put the group on the right side of history. So shouldn’t someone take heed of what a group on that right side has to say about the very topic they decided was the most vital of the day?

Unless, of course, last month’s GA choices simply generated a week of “man-bites-dog” stories, after which the public fell into the default mode of ignoring the pontifications of a church that seems more interested in listening to anti-Israel partisans outside its ranks than to its own membership (which, you should recall, voted down divestment four times before finally giving those partisans the answer they wanted).  And, perhaps calls to stop raining rockets down on Israeli cities might have had more impact had they been made when the Presbyterians were all together making statement after statement and passing resolution after resolution about the region, rather than waiting for Israel to return fire before finding something to say after a near decade of rocket fire/war crimes directed against the Jewish state.

To be fair, perhaps this statement was directed at the parties to the conflict, rather than the press.  In which case, I think Israel’s Prime Minister succinctly expressed a view of church political opinion shared by not only his countrymen but a majority of American Jews and Christians (including Presbyterians).

And if Israel’s supporters now look at PCUSA as an organization that cannot be trusted, the Palestinians know it can be trusted – to only take action in support of their positions, offering everyone else generic prayers, Zionism Unsettled, and demands that their open partisanship be treated as acts of love.

So, after a decade of demanding that divestment must be the policy of the organization, PCUSA finds itself distrusted by one side in the conflict, taken for granted by another, and utterly ignored by everyone else as they slide their way towards physical oblivion that matches their non-existent moral footprint on the world stage.

Reverend Ufford-Chase’s Faux Dialog

8 Jul

It’s now officially time to call it quits on the whole Presbyterian issue and move onto other vital matters, such as the disintegration of the entire Middle East (or at least those portions rarely mentioned in discussions of a “Middle East Conflict” that seems to include Israel, the Palestinians and precious little else).

But before saying goodbye to this topic, I have to mention this article written by Rick Ufford-Chase which provides techniques and talking points to anyone who must engage in interfaith dialog between Presbyterians who support the church’s return to their 2004 divestment position and the vast majority of Jews who were justifiably appalled by that decision.

Like Reverend Clifton Kirkpatrick, Reverend Ufford-Chase is one of those PCUSA leaders whose fingerprints can be found all over the PCUSA divestment project.  The moderator for the 2004 General Assembly where divestment was first voted in (as a last-minute decision, with barely any debate), Ufford-Chase seems to have dedicated the last decade to undoing every “No” vote taken against divestment (in ’06, ’08, ’10 and ’12) in order to once again get his pet cause made PCUSA policy.

The first problem Ufford-Chase is likely to run into is finding someone to take his advice, given that many (probably most) Presbyteries were either (1) unaware that the divestment issue was once again going to throw the church onto the front pages (and create new rifts with the Jewish community) or (2) were actively hostile to the leadership’s divestment obsession all along.

But for those clerical and lay leaders who do want to explain church policy to alleged interfaith partners, Ufford-Chase recommends a format for organizing one’s talking points, one which puts a central argument in the middle of a triangle (in his case, that “Presbyterians are committed to bringing about peace for all Israelis and Palestinians”), then putting statements that support this main thesis on the corners of the triangle, with each statement supported by stories or further statements.

In this case, Ufford-Chase’s corners are filled with talking points with which anyone who has followed this debate will find familiar (“Presbyterians do not invest in companies that violate human rights,” “The Occupation must be dismantled and Settlement expansion must be brought to an end,” “Presbyterians seek both an internationally recognized State of Israel and a viable Palestinian State”), with evidence (interestingly) consisting not of facts but of stories that can add a human face to statements being presented as true.

While this might seem like a useful technique for organizing an argument, I could just as easily draw my own triangle which focuses on a different characterization of the PCUSA’s decision such as “A minority within the church has been committed to dragging the Middle East conflict into the organization for over a decade,” and then support my characterization with statements about how PCUSA leaders (including Ufford-Chase) have betrayed principles of Presbyterian governance, broken promises to the Jewish community, and suppressed dissent in order to get their way.  And, again, each of my statements could be well supported by stories and evidence (starting with detailed research, like the work of former PCUSA member Will Spotts).

Now one way genuine interfaith dialog could proceed from such an exercise would be for Rev. Ufford-Chase and I to swap our triangles and attempt to find common ground between them or, failing that, to agree to disagree.

But given how much church leaders have banished Presbyterian voices challenging their preferred (and highly truncated) presentation of facts over the last decade, what are the chances that a church member trying to engage critics outside of the church will be willing to listen to those critics’ legitimate concerns?  In which case, Rev. Ufford-Chase’s Techniques and Talking points become not a means for engaging in a genuine (and challenging) conversation, but a way to ensure any conversation is always brought back to a preferred set of talking points – ones which require an interlocutor to accept their opponent’s assumptions in advance or be accused of refusing to engage in “dialog.”

As I mentioned previously, I’ve reached out to a couple of people who claimed to thirst for the chance to engage with those who disagree with church divestment policy, and while my sample size is pretty trivial, I have noticed increasing discomfort whenever the conversation veers towards questioning PCUSA’s self-characterization as loving, unbiased, peace-makers.

Even keeping in mind the fact that Jews and Christians are destined to come at these issues from different vantage points (a challenge eloquently described in Rabbi Poupko’s Looking at Them Looking at Us), there is a difference between genuine dialog that involves people trying to find common ground and faux-dialog in which one side will only continue if their central premises go unchallenged.

Remember also that there is another audience for Rev. Ufford-Chase’s message: those fellow Presbyterians who warned that a return to 2004 would mean a return to the rifts and acrimony that followed PCUSA’s original divestment vote.  For this group, a call for interfaith dialog (just with Jews, by the way, not with the church’s Palestinian peace partners who are using PCUSA divestment policy as their latest propaganda weapon) is meant to imply that church leaders are holding an outstretched hand which the Jews refuse to grasp.

Perhaps a strategy based on faux dialog masquerading as the real thing will convince some uninformed souls of PCUSA’s sincerity.  But given the number of people within Ufford-Chase’s own organization who are reaching out to apologize to their Jewish partners for PCUSA behavior (rather than try to explain it away), I suspect Ufford-Chase and other BDSbyterians will have a hard time convincing many members of their own church that this move represents anything other than an attempt to gorge on their divestment cake without suffering any consequences.