3 Comments

1. David Tiley

   July 18, 2005

   Uh oh. I suppose Troppo traverses most other terrain, so it was inevitable we would end up on Israel and Palestine. The greatest destroyer of friendships I know of, much worse than the war in Iraq.

   I am not sure that a pox on both their houses approach is the same as moral equivalence. It can simply set a point at which behaviour becomes unacceptable, and shun both parties as they cross it in different ways.

   Indeed, I don't know that the description in the cited link fits the actual resolution. It reads:

   "b) commends the resolve of the Episcopal Church (USA) to take appropriate action where it finds that its corporate investments support the occupation of Palestinian lands or violence against innocent Israelis, and...

   ii) encourages investment strategies that support the infrastructure of a future Palestinian State

   The blog says:

   "The Anglican Consultative Council, whose President is the Archbishop of Canterbury, has voted to recommend that its member churches divest from businesses that support Israeli "occupation"

2. fatfingers

   July 22, 2005

   Isn't it just an example of a voluntary organisation deciding what to do with its money? That is, a right-wing ideal?

3. Homer Paxton

   July 22, 2005

   Dave is correct.

   moreover I am sure the Anglican denomination would be aware of the palestinian christians whose lands have been taken and who neiither support nor encourage Palestinian islamic 'action' against Israel.