American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) Investment Screen

The AFSC Board has adopted a "screen" barring investment in companies that provide products or services (including financial services) used by Israeli governmental or military bodies or by Israeli or Palestinian organizations or groups "that are used to facilitate or undertake violent acts against civilians or violations of international law."

The AFSC Board minutes of March 7-9, 2008 report on this action:

The AFSC Board is called to approve a new investment screen in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We take this action as a matter of conscience and an expression of our unwillingness to remain complicit with violence and oppression occurring daily in Palestine and Israel, which is contrary to all that we know to be true and right. We humbly acknowledge that this is a relatively small witness that is not conceived, in itself, as a way to change policies or to transform the conflict--and that additional actions may suggest themselves as we move forward. Despite a long history of Friends involvement in the region, we are acutely aware that we do not truly know how to affect the situation, and continue to search for effective ways to change U.S. policies and to work with the parties in Israel and Palestine that seek deep and durable solutions to a protracted conflict with global impacts. In addition, we know that similar principles could be applied in many areas of the world and are challenged to consider broader applications of this kind of action.

The screen would include companies that:

1. Provide products or services that contribute to violent acts that target either Israeli or Palestinian civilians;

2. Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance of the Israeli military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem;

3. Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance and expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories;

4. Establish facilities or operations in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories;

5. Provide products or services that contribute to the maintenance and construction of the Separation Wall.

The Rationale provided by the National Peacebuilding and International Program Executive Committees (NPEC and IPEC) includes these "key understandings" to which they came in this discernment:

Grave concern has been expressed within NPEC and IPEC about the suffering of Palestinians under occupation: the demolition of homes and olive orchards, the roadblocks, "settlers only" roads, the impact of the separation wall, the loss of access to healthcare and services, and the imbalance of power and disproportionate use of Israeli military power, heavily supported by the U.S. Equally deep concern was expressed about the suffering inflicted upon Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers and rockets. Both committees believe that an AFSC policy on this issue should address violence on both sides of the conflict.

The proposed investment screen does not question Israel's rights as a sovereign state. Also, it is different from the boycott of all companies doing business in South Africa during the period of apartheid. The proposed policy is narrowly focused to prohibit the investment of AFSC resources in companies that benefit from the occupation...or in facilitating Israeli or Palestinian acts of violence.

The proposed policy is not seen to be a strategy or a tactic designed to affect the situation in significant ways, though we are very clear that AFSC should be actively applying resources to helping to build a just peace in the area. This proposal arises from a deeper leading. Committee members and staff at the joint meeting spoke passionately about the issue of conscience, recounting how abolitionist John Woolman refused to engage in any business that profited from the slave trade, while he also initiated dialogue with slave owners.

We were united in the understanding that where AFSC puts its resources is a matter of conscience. To invest in companies which are profiting from the violence occurring daily in Israel and Palestine is abhorrent, and is contrary to all that we know to be true and right.

Pros: (from the joint committee): Support of the proposed Investment Screen would be consistent with AFSC practices of making its internal operations consistent with its philosophies and external commitment to nonviolence and justice. Board action on the proposed screen would be responding to the call to end financial support for continued military occupation that has come from Palestinian and Israeli allies in the region. Withdrawing financial support for military occupation is a nonviolent response to worsening conditions for Palestinians and Israelis due to continued occupation and violence. To invest in companies which are profiting from the violence occurring daily in Israel and Palestine is abhorrent, and is contrary to all that we know to be true and right.

Cons: No matter what action is taken from the Board, the decision of the Board will be viewed as controversial and could affect organizational relationships. There are also questions about how thoroughly the screen can be implemented at this time. This is an issue that will be left to the Board and Investment committee to determine.

Clerk Paul Lacey reports on next steps: "The Board was advised that establishing such a screen may be difficult because doing the research would be difficult, but we recognized that we were acting on conscience and that the aim is to begin with what can be discovered and work, step by step, toward an effective screen. As the two Committees affirmed in their document, the model we aspire to is John Woolman, who extricated himself step by step over time as way opened for him, from all connection with the slave trade.

"The Board instructed the Finance Committee to undertake the work of devising the new screen, with whatever information can best suit our purposes."

"A Framework for the Report"

From Clerk Paul Lacey's letter to the AFSC Board and Corporation, April 10, 2008

"In 2002, I asked former General Secretaries and Chairs of the Board to write reminiscences of their time with the Service Committee and give me advice on how we should be working today. The following paragraph was in a letter from Henry Beerits, who was actively involved with the Committee for over thirty years, as staff member and later as Board member and Chair. I urge you to reflect on Henry Beerits' recollection as a framework for the report I will give on a Board action in its March 7-9 meeting.

"At the time when Israel was created as a nation, the United Nations requested that the Service Committee administer the refugee camp for a huge number of displaced Palestinians. I was present at the Board meeting that considered this. The staff reported that after very careful consideration they had concluded that we did not have the experience or personnel to undertake such a tremendous task and could not accept the request. If the Board had acted at that point, it seemed clear that the request would be reluctantly declined. However, the chairman suggested that they should pray about the problem, and there was a period of silent prayer for about ten minutes. When discussion of the matter was then resumed, the atmosphere had completely changed. There was clarity that it was unthinkable to decline the request and there was confidence that ways would be found to carry it out, and approval was given to notifying the UN that the request was accepted. I believe that it is very important that the Service Committee should never drift away from its religious roots."

Key Board Contacts from the committees bringing this item to the Board (NPEC/IPEC) were Jim Fine, Susan Waltz, and Arlene Kelly. For further information see: <www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/default.htm> or contact Jennifer Bing-Canar <jbing-canar@afsc.org> or "Adam T. Horowitz" <AHorowitz@afsc.org>