That post was called “From Fictions to Lies: Institutional Support for the MESC”. It was a scandalized reaction to recent official and semi-official Presbyterian strategic moves to push forward the anti-Israel agenda at the General Assembly. I found myself thinking about how best to persuade, how best to counter, how to even get a hearing from commissioners.
Then I remembered a line from the 1968 movie, Lion in Winter:
I’m vilifying you. For God’s sake, pay attention.
(I admit it; I’m a sucker for quotes.) When I thought of this, I laughed out loud. It struck me as eminently appropriate; it described both what I was doing in my intended post (and what I have done in one or two others), and what the MESC, the ACSWP, the MRTI, the IPMN, and some presbyteries are doing to Israel and to the Jewish people.
I’m no good at strategy; I detest marketing; I don’t even particularly like politics – except as a study in human behavior. I’m just a guy with a blog, spending way too much time (I don’t really have), hoping to dissuade people I actually care about from embracing something ugly, harmful, and untrue. At that point, I realized there was nothing I could do to improve the situation – the 219th General Assembly was going to do what it was going to do, and my best response was to wait it out.
So here we are, several days later. The 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has adjourned. For good or ill it has completed its work. And for the next few weeks a variety of interested parties will attempt to interpret their actions – both to Presbyterians and to people outside the denomination.
How did they do?
My first reaction is to say, “The lamps are going out in Presbyterian churches all over America; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”
But that is unjust. It is not an accurate reaction. It is no more true than the statements that celebrate the miracle at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
More accurately, the 219th General Assembly attempted to split the difference.
They seem to be seeking the illusion of safety by carefully steering a course between the virulently anti-Israel, the occasionally anti-Judaic, the sometimes openly antisemitic on one side and the less virulently anti-Israel and moderately prejudiced on the other. At this point commissioners do not seem to have realized that the coveted middle ground is only middle ground within the context of business items overwhelmingly skewed in one direction.
What they did that was good:
1. They rejected divestment.
2. They rejected the use of the word “apartheid”.
3. They elected to only receive the first section of the Middle East Study Committee Report. As such, it has no real status in the PC(USA) – so its statements criticizing American Jewish groups, its quirky theology, its patronizing letters, and the peculiar vignettes (whose status was never clear – as these were randomly interspersed in this section) aren’t PC(USA) policy. Nonetheless, receiving this section and using it as rationale for the large number of approved recommendations gives it some authority.
4. They altered the language on the Gaza blockade from blanket opposition to this:
Calls on the Israeli and Egyptian governments to limit their blockade of Gaza solely to military equipment/devices and to guarantee adequate levels of food, medicine, building supplies, and other humanitarian items, and to allow free commercial exchange in and out of Gaza, and calls on the U.S. government to end any support for the blockade that interferes with the adequacy of such items or such exchange.
5. They explicitly re-affirmed “Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders in accordance with United Nations resolutions.”
6. They rejected the call for the MESC to become a permanent monitoring group. Instead, they call for the creation of a seven member group selected by the current and immediate past moderators (Elder Cynthia Bolbach and Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow). This group must include at least one but no more than two MESC members; the total membership must “together comprise an authentic balance representing the fullness of the spectrum of commitments within the PC(USA) toward the people and issues in the region”.
7. They rejected part 3 of the report with its extremely one-sided history. Instead they solicited eight narratives of comparable length, four “from the range of authentically Palestinian perspectives” and four “from the range of authentically Israeli perspectives” to take its place. These narratives and an additional bibliography are to be approved by the monitoring group.
Clearly, the GA made some improvements to the MESC Report, and clearly the GA chose to avoid extremity in a couple of business items. Nonetheless, a great deal now hinges on the good faith of the current and immediately past moderators to select an authentic balance of participants in the new monitoring group. It should be pointed out that a similar requirement for balance was in place when the original, highly unbalanced MESC was selected.
There is one other positive outcome I must mention – in order to be fully honest and accurate. A large number of clearly moderate and even very pro-institutional Presbyterians (with regular critics of Israeli actions among them) recognized that the Middle East Study Committee Report went too far – was too unfair – and needed a greater degree of balance. Even two members of the committee supported some change in this regard. Some people place great hope in this change of heart; I am not among them. But it is a development worth watching.
What the 219th GA did that was neutral:
1. They switched the order of words in their partial endorsement of the Kairos document. Perhaps this helps to clarify the intent of the MESC recommendation. Yet it still leaves an open question: what exact elements of the Kairos document are indicated by, “emphases on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation”? [For those unfamiliar with the document, it should be mentioned that (among other things) it supports boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel, and it rejects the concept of a Jewish state. The bottom line: the moral character of this endorsement depends entirely what exactly it is interpreted to entail.]
2. They passed resolutions criticizing the U.S. for its military aid to Israel, and calling on the U.S. to make all aid to Israel “contingent upon Israel’s compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts.” [I have listed this as neutral because it is not a new action for the PC(USA); prior General Assemblies have made comparable demands. Yet the modified MESC report replaced the original report's "military aid" with the broader phrase "U.S. aid to Israel".]
What the 219th GA did that was bad:
1. They referred the paper, “Christians and Jews: People of God”, for a re-write. [Rejecting the paper was not necessarily bad in itself - one could have had legitimate reasons to do so. Nonetheless, the instructions the GA gave for the re-write, the overture to which it responded, and the fact that it passed the paper, "Toward an Understanding of Christian Muslim Relations" add up to an extraordinarily negative decision. Among other things, this rejected paper included a Presbyterian rejection of Christian antisemitism.]
2. They approved the inexcusably unbalanced ACSWP Human Rights Update 2010. [This committee was tasked with
Identify[ing] Violations of the Civil Rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and Other Areas of the World, Along with Other Incidents of Violation of Religious Freedoms, as Part of the Regular Human Rights Report to the General Assembly.
The only nation the ACSWP saw fit to mention by name as a violator of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim civil rights and a violator of religious freedoms was Israel.]
3. They denounced Caterpillar. [Although stopping short of divestment, as symbolic gestures go, I'm not sure Israel-based denunciation is any better.]
4. They approved the rest of the recommendations of the MESC report. [See here for a more detailed listing of problematic items contained in the modified report.]
5. They approved the Belhar Confession [which is being used by anti-Israel activists as a (false) justification for church condemnations of Israel.]
6. They rejected the proposal to amend the process for forming PC(USA) social witness policy [which would at least have broadened Presbyterian participation in decision making.]
A great many people will try to put the best face on this set of outcomes. Yet I cannot call the 219th General Assembly’s actions good. The PC(USA) is in a worse position than it was two weeks ago. It is more anti-Israel; it has taken steps to affirm biased, anti-Israel, and even anti-Jewish statements on the part of its staff, its networks, and partners; it has once again taken the lead position among anti-Israel U.S. denominations. Yes, there are glimmers of hope: it was not as bad as it threatened to be; the moderators may do a fairer job at selecting Middle East monitoring group members; influential Presbyterians may have started to see that there are limits to how far the PC(USA) should actually go.
Is the glass nine-tenths empty or ten percent full? I guess it depends on your perspective.
What I do know is this:
The situation of Israelis and Palestinians is very complicated. It is not, as it is often cast, solely a justice issue with Israeli perpetrators and Palestinian victims. There are injustices certainly – and these need to be corrected. But this cannot be done by unjustly hearing only the concerns of one side.
It is possible to be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel. It is difficult, but it is a worthwhile effort – especially for church organizations. This requires a greater degree of creativity and work than that exhibited thus far within the PC(USA). Yet it is a failing shared among the pro-Palestinian advocacy community and those Presbyterians committed to fairness and accuracy.
Antisemitic and anti-Judaic themes are NEVER OK. They are ugly, dangerous, and unworthy of followers of Jesus Christ. [Given the history of Christian antisemitism, this is an area about which Christians should be vigilant.]
Holding Israel to a standard different than that to which you hold all other nations is bias, it is prejudiced, it is unjustifiable – and it is being done here.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Antisemitism is antisemitism. Criticism of Israel can be biased – in which case the critic is guilty of anti-Israel bias. Some critics of Israel also happen to dabble in antisemitic themes. Bias is a problem, but it is the antisemitism that is THE problem – not the criticism of Israel.
The PC(USA) (like many groups involved in Middle East advocacy) has a systemic problem of anti-Israel bias, the employment of anti-Judaic themes, and the occasional use of classical antisemitic arguments. This problem remains unaddressed by the 219th General Assembly – not so much by silence but by actual choice on the part of commissioners to reject anything that might limit it.
The penultimate Presbyterian fiction is this: that Presbyterians in the pews are not accountable for the actions of the national organization. It is easy to regard this as the product of eight days in Minneapolis, an event of which many Presbyterians took little notice and which has little effect on them. But six years have passed since the PC(USA) emerged into the public consciousness with its divestment initiative. Three General Assemblies have come and gone. Much press coverage has been lavished on the PC(USA). By this point, the policies of the national organization on Israel and Palestine are the property of ordinary Presbyterians – whether they agree with them or not.
None of the actions will be final until the assembly concludes. Anything can still be “reconsidered”. At this point, however, all of the business items related to Israelis and Palestinians have been addressed.
* The paper, “Christians and Jews: People of God” has been referred for a rewrite.
* Divestment has been declined.
* The GA has denounced Caterpillar.
* The GA has declined to find Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid. It added this comment:
While we are deeply concerned with the policies implemented by Israel in relation to the Palestine territories and Palestinians under its jurisdiction, we believe that dialogue is hampered by words like “apartheid.”
* The GA approved a modestly less bad version of the MESC report.
* The GA expressed “its extreme disappointment with the U.S. government that … the State of Israel … continues to be the recipient of U.S. military aid.”
* The GA approved the Belhar Confession.
* The GA rejected the overture from the Presbytery of Grand Canyon on Amending the Process for Forming Social Witness Policy.
The good news: No divestment, no Israel = apartheid, and the modifications to the MESC.
Whatever may happen with the rest of the items on the PC(USA) 219th General Assembly Middle East agenda, it has taken definitive action on one thing. Presbyterians now own it.
The General Assembly has approved the overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco, “On Referring ‘Christians and Jews: People of God’ and ‘Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations’”. Well, more precisely, it decided to ONLY refer “Christians and Jews: People of God” for a re-write.
According to its rationale, this overture is based on a communication from the Israel/Palestine Mission Network. This communication is fraught with problems.
This action of the 219th General Assembly cannot be divorced from the rationale or from the IPMN communication that sparked it.
Among its many problems, it contains three elements that stand out.
1. The IPMN displays a strong animosity toward the existence of a Jewish State. The IPMN letter states it in this way:
“What the report fails to recognize is that expansionist forms of political and religious Zionism have been major ideological forces behind the confiscation of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by every Israeli administration since 1948. The literature on this subject is vast and the reality undeniable. The push by the current government of Netanyahu for recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is one example of this ideology.”
2. the IPMN clearly places blame on Judaism rather than Israel or “Zionists” only.
“By neglecting the reality on the ground, this report would “make nice” with certain American Jewish organizations to avoid unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism. These are the organizations that have provided financial and political support for the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands since 1948, and used threat and intimidation to censor debate about Israel within and without the Jewish community.1 A report that confesses Christian guilt for the past and calls for changes in our theology and practice but neglects to mention the CONTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN SYNAGOGUES to the oppression of Palestinians over the past six decades appears to us as inauthentic interfaith dialogue.”
In their footnote, the IPMN says (in offensive and patently false terms):
The package (a bomb?) sent to 100 Witherspoon St in 2004, the fire in a Rochester church, the picketing of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship event at GA when Professor Norman Finkelstein was a featured speaker, and the many visits of teams of Jewish neighbors to local Presbyterian churches are examples of these tactics.
3. In the same letter, the IPMN says:
This “anti-Jewish rhetoric” [referred to in the paper] does not arise out of a vacuum, or some inchoate reservoir of anti-Semitism. In fact, the case can be made that it is a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel. And that this is related to the American Middle East wars, which, combined with the U.S. defense of Israel internationally, fuels anti-Jewish stereotypes and some classic anti-Semitic beliefs.
When considered in conjunction with the substance of the original paper (with its clear rejection of Christian antisemitism) and with the false footnote, two elements of this are unavoidably antisemitic. Whatever may happen with the MESC, with divestment, with denunciation, with the apartheid label – the General Assembly of the PC(USA) has already embraced antisemitism. That is now the official policy of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
At a PC(USA) General Assembly, committees offer recommendations to the entire GA; these recommendations are usually – but not always – accepted.
* Committee 8 rejected the report on Christians and Jews. They accepted the recommendation from the Presbytery of San Francisco that contained (in an appended letter from the IPMN) blatant lies about the actions of American Jewish organizations. They refer the report for revision to the Office of Interfaith Relations and the Office of Theology and Worship – to rewrite after “broader consultation to include the National Middle East Presbyterian Caucus, PC(USA) partner churches and agencies in the Middle East, relevant mission networks of the PC(USA), the ACREC, and the ACSWP.
In short, Committee 8 insists that anything positive in this report – namely a move by the PC(USA) away from anti-Judaic and antisemitic discourse – be completely gutted.
* Committee 11 has approved the ACSWP Human Rights Report 2010 that takes an inexplicably bigoted stance in uniquely singling out Israel for criticism for religious discrimination and violations of religious freedom.
* Committee 14 has decided:
a. to denounce Caterpillar (and not to divest from Caterpillar). This is a distinction without a difference, but divestment might be regarded as having slightly more symbolic weight.
b. to approve the overture from Chicago expressing extreme disappointment with the U.S. government that the State of Israel continues to be a recipient of U.S. military aid.
c. to reject the overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco finding Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid.
d. to approve a “perfected” MESC report. This report has undergone several changes. Some are purely cosmetic. One looks like an improvement but is actually worse. A couple are clearly changes for the better. One of these is quite significant.
The problem is, the perfected MESC is still highly biased, its recommendations are remarkably weighted against Israel – and these give every indication of having been painstakingly chosen to do the most possible damage to Israel. While the perfected MESC is clearly different than the original, it is a matter of choosing between a very bad report and a somewhat less very bad report. The MESC coming out of committee 14 still poses insurmountable problems for people concerned with basic fairness and accuracy in Presbyterian policy statements.
* Committee 16 has approved the Belhar Confession.
The General Assembly has already acted on the recommendation of Committee 16 and chosen to add the Belhar Confession to the PC(USA)’s Book of Confessions. Because it involves a change to the Book of Confessions, this action must be ratified by the presbyteries.
Committee 14 has approved the overture from the Presbytery of Chicago calling on the 219th General Assembly to
“express its support for the U.S. government policy of carefully vetting the funds distributed to foreign countries in ways that ensure peaceful development and are consistent with international law, human rights protections, and U.S. foreign policy,” and to “Express its extreme disappointment with the U.S. government that while the State of Israel has been found not to comply with the above statutes, it continues to be the recipient of U.S. military aid.”
Committee 14 has approved the overture from the Presbytery of Baltimore.
“Call upon the government of Israel to establish an independent commission, whose findings it could accept, to investigate the allegations of inappropriate behavior contained in the Goldstone Report regarding actions of the Israeli Defense Force in Operation Cast Lead, and to report its findings to the government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Hamas authorities in Gaza, and the secretary general of the United Nations.” To, “Call upon the Hamas authorities in Gaza to work together to establish an independent commission, whose findings it could accept, to investigate the allegations of inappropriate behavior contained in the Goldstone Report regarding actions of Hamas and its military, and to report its findings to the Hamas authorities in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, the government of Israel, and the secretary general of the United Nations.” To, “Call on the United States government, its president and Congress, to actively engage with all authorities involved in the Gaza conflict to initiate and sustain the proposed independent investigations.” And to, “Urge the U.S. government to continue to work actively through the presence of its special envoy to further peace negotiations between the Palestinian Authority, the Hamas authorities in Gaza, and the government of Israel.”
Committee 8 has recommended disapproval of the paper, “Christians and Jews: People of God”. It has not yet revealed its rationale.
It will be remembered that this paper has received complaints that originated from the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) contained in a letter that among other things, publicly accused (without offer of proof) American Jewish organizations of bomb threats against Presbyterians and of arson at a Presbyterian church, and that cast the increase in antisemitism as a reaction to Israel’s actions. The IPMN farther insisted that it be a partner in any future rewrites of this paper – apparently to make sure it enshrined the IPMN’s bigoted perspective into Presbyterian theology.
It might also be remember that this paper:
1. Necessarily recasts “the relationship of the Christian church to the people Israel” from one “of a replacement” to one “of “a wild olive shoot” grafted into “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17).” This is a clear rejection of the replacement theology that has often appeared in much of the anti-Israel literature.
2. To some degree this report acknowledges the necessity of historic Judaism to Christianity and acknowledges that the historic Christian heresy of Marcionsism continues to be felt in the church today.
3.This paper acknowledges the continuation of Christian antisemitism and explicitly rejects this on behalf of the PC(USA).
4.This report explores the antisemitic and anti-Judaic elements in the activisms of Presbyterians and their partners. These include historic Christian anti-Judaism and its stereotypes and prejudices; replacement theology; Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Christ; false characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement and demonize Jews – such as claims that it is solely an extension of European colonialism and a result of anti-Semitism, or that the problems and suffering of the Palestinians are due solely to Zionism.
This report cautions that critique of Israel by Christians must never come close in tone or content to a denunciation of Judaism or the Jewish people. It rejects polemic that identifies Israeli officials with Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus. It insists that responsible theological critique of state policies should not characterize a whole people as oppressors or “Christ-killers.”
Rejecting these modest premises does not bode well for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I know commissioners might have legitimate reasons for rejecting the report, but it appears (with considerable justification) to observers as if Presbyterians then approve of the several hateful items this report cautions against.
Actions are not “official” actions of the General Assembly (and therefore not “official” PC(USA) policy) until they are voted on during plenary sessions later in the week. Nonetheless, work done in committees can give an indication of the direction things are taking.
Reading the entrails of committee work is not always easy and can defeat even the most experienced augurers. Two factors certainly affect this: advisory delegates have vote in committees but not in the plenary session, so that can affect the outcome; and the commissioners most familiar with a given topic are usually the ones serving on the committee that first considers it. Often – but not always – the plenary will simply rubber stamp the actions of committees.
So far, committees have acted on some business that pertains to Israelis and Palestinians.
Committee 11 (whose chief concern is “the Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World) has finished its consideration of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy’s “Human Rights Report 2010″. In this report, the ACSWP declined to act on an instruction from GA218:
Identify Violations of the Civil Rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and Other Areas of the World, Along with Other Incidents of Violation of Religious Freedoms, as Part of the Regular Human Rights Report to the General Assembly.
Instead, it decided to only mention one nation by name – singling it out for special criticism for violations of religious freedom. That nation, of course, was Israel.
Committee 11 apparently saw nothing unusual or problematic (or self-evidently bigoted and inaccurate) in this. Its members voted unanimously to approve the report.
Committee 14 has voted to approve the MRTI report including its recommendation to denounce Caterpillar. The committee has answered the overtures calling for divestment from Caterpillar with that action.
Committee members may or may not realize that the effect of denunciation is indistinguishable from that of divestment. Both are rhetorical actions; both are a form of theater; both are a part of a wider boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement designed to delegitimize Israel. And, frankly, neither are the product of the work necessary to render them moral decisions. The research is simply lacking; no account has been given of how CAT was selected from among all current and potential PC(USA) investments; no account has been given of how all other current and potential PC(USA) investments in corporations that do business with Israel are able to pass the PC(USA)’s ethical muster. It is not based on the actions of Caterpillar, but on the association of Caterpillar with Israel.
While the picture is in no way comprehensive, and these actions are not yet final, they give observers an idea of the direction the 219th General Assembly seems to want to take.
“I’m not sure that ‘do no harm’ is a Biblical value.”
- Rev. Susan Andrews, former GA Moderator and MESC member
“The way the U.S. government supports Israel is a form of terrorism. You are using government helicopters and F-16s. This is the worst kind of terror!”
Antisemitism no longer exists; it is a problem of the past that affects Israelis and Jews as a “psycho-trauma”, but it poses no serious threat today.
I first really became aware of the PC(USA)’s Israel problem when the General Assembly voted for divestment in 2004. I took it as harmless bandwagonism – a misguided attempt to seem relevant by copying fashionable, college campus activism. But I was startled enough to actually look into it – to read the GA minutes, to see what the ACSWP (in its now defunct Church and Society Magazine and in its history provided to the GA), the Washington Office, and the Presbyterian News Service had to say about Israel.
I detected bias – both in terms of a remarkable singularity of negative focus on Israel (about 20 times that spent on China, Iran, or North Korea), and in terms of presentation of facts (that either omitted relevant details, oversimplified events, or presented outright falsehoods). But, to be honest, I was not that concerned with anti-Israel bias. I regarded it in the same way I regard most political bias.
But something else in the Presbyterian literature (and in the literature or Presbyterian partners and sources) did concern me. I encountered significantly anti-Judaic themes (by which I mean hostility to Judaism as a religion); some anti-Jewish themes (by which I mean generalizations of negative character traits to the Jewish people); and several blatant examples of historic antisemitic themes (language of contempt, the use of crucifixion and other explicitly Christian imagery to demonize Israeli Jews, notions of Jewish control of the US and other governments, assertions of Jewish control of media, the use of the Khazar meme).
This problem was so pervasive that it needed (and still needs) to be confronted; the anti-Jewish themes, aside from being loathsome, are also dangerous. Yet every time the issue is raised it is brushed aside. The people who push these anti-Judaic, anti-Jewish, and antisemitic themes immediately protest: “criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.” They sometimes go farther (as in the case of the MESC Report):
I know how … viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Jewish community that are quick to attach the label “anti-Semitic” to anyone who even suggests that there are serious ethical and legal issues at stake.
These protesters view accurate observations of antisemitism as a diversion from the real topic – their political agenda. Others, who are not really that interested in the politics of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel advocacy, either are mystified by or ridicule Presbyterians and others who raise concerns over anti-Jewish elements in the dialogue. Still others – who oppose the anti-Israel bias – regard confronting the anti-Judaism / antisemitism issue as profoundly unhelpful – and would be happy just to have a more politically balanced approach.
The bottom line is that it is the anti-Judaism and antisemitism that form the heart of the problem with much of the advocacy in the PC(USA). These are not side-items, irrelevant to the “real” issue of activist politics. Instead they are a central moral and ethical question that must be decided by commissioners.
Yet they are devoutly ignored by many Presbyterians.
The reason for this is an assumption – a fiction – that is sometimes stated in the advocacy literature of Presbyterians and others – but is rarely fully articulated. The idea is that anti-Judaism and antisemitism don’t really matter because these have become non-issues in the world. In plain terms, antisemitism is no longer dangerous.
The basic thrust of the argument is not a denial of the historic existence of antisemitism or a claim that the incidence of historic antisemitism has been significantly exaggerated. Instead it assumes a change has occurred: antisemitism is no longer oppressive because oppression requires both prejudice and institutional power. As a population (the argument goes) Jews are now empowered – therefore, while anti-Jewish prejudice may still exist, it cannot today exclude Jewish people from positions of power and influence.
The premise, that antisemitism has somehow become obsolete – a tragic relic of history – is one that a great many people very strongly want to believe. An argument can be made; people want to be persuaded; sizable advocacy groups have little problem finding a podium. As a consequence, this idea, no matter how dangerously flawed, has the potential to penetrate widely into the public consciousness.
This argument hinges on an actual change – for it to be valid, a preliminary condition is necessary: antisemitism must once have posed a problem, and now no longer does. So we are obliged to ask: has there been a reduction in antisemitism? Have barriers to Jewish integration and success been functionally eliminated?
The available evidence suggests that the answers to these questions are somewhat complex. In many ways, at least in the United States, there have been significant improvements. A type of glass ceiling seems to have been removed; significant barriers in many industries are no longer the norm. To be sure, there remain pockets of segregation, but these are far less widespread than they were only a few decades ago.
Also significantly, surveys commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League have shown reductions in the numbers of people who will agree with many classically antisemitic statements. [Examples include, “Jews have too much power in the US today”; “Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want”; and “Jews have a lot of irritating faults”. Between 1964 and 1998, there were dramatic reductions in the numbers of respondents who agreed with almost all of the statements – with the exception of “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America;” and “Jews stick together more than other Americans.”] Since 1998, however, that trend has begun noticeably to reverse. Statistics about antisemitic incidents in the United States present another mixed picture. Acts of vandalism have fairly consistently increased over the last five years, while reports of harassment seem to have peaked in 2004. Campus related incidents have generally increased since 1999. The number of incidents involving high schools and middle schools adds a troubling dimension.
In England, the Community Security Trust reports a trend of rising antisemitic incidents since 1997. In 2006 the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism stated, “Until recently the prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond was that antisemitism had receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society. However, the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000.” The inquiry committee concluded that the belief that levels of antisemitism in Britain are rising is justified. It cited antisemitic discourse as a contributing factor in creating an “atmosphere where Jews have become more anxious and more vulnerable to abuse and attack than at any other time for a generation or longer.”
Statistics of antisemitic incidents reported in Europe do not show a clear trend. This is partly a function of disparate methods of compilation between nations. For instance, Germany and Austria appear only to record incidents that occur within a “right-wing political context.” A number of other European nations do not report antisemitic incidents. The Pew Global Attitudes Project has recorded a dramatic increase in unfavorable views of both Jews and Muslims since 2004. One eye-opening finding of their 2008 survey was the number of countries in which more than half of respondents reported an unfavorable opinion of Jews. These included Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon with a greater than 95% negative view; respondents in Turkey and Pakistan had a greater than 75% negative view; and Indonesia, China, and Brazil each reported at least a 50% negative view. Majorities of respondents in only three nations held negative views of Christians. Majorities of respondents in seven nations reported unfavorable views of Muslims; of these, Japan indicated the highest percentage of negative views at 61%. Attitude surveys commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League portray a fairly steady increase in the number of European respondents who agree to classically antisemitic statements over the last several years. Worldwide, the US State Department describes an increase in frequency and severity of antisemitic incidents in the 21st Century: “In recent years, incidents have been more targeted in nature with perpetrators appearing to have the specific intent to attack Jews and Judaism.”
An observable reality would be necessary to support any assertion that antisemitism has essentially become a non-issue, but the available facts present a mixed picture at best. A person would have to go to great lengths to minimize or excuse the antisemitism in several Islamic nations, in parts of Europe, and elsewhere. And a person would have to believe that the readily observable prejudices in those places were not held by people in positions of power.
But even were the initial contention about a reduction in the effective threat posed by antisemitism true – which is clearly not he case – the resultant argument still suffers from several flaws.
First, any argument of this kind, framed in terms of power dynamics, falsely implies that oppression causes harm while prejudice does not. It raises both moral and practical questions. Are prejudices and violent acts based on prejudices only to be resisted when the actors are perceived to be members of empowered groups and when their victims are held to be unempowered? The rationale provided here offers a moral cover story for treating some victims as if they were more important than others. This is faulty even when such a double standard is intended to redress a perceived imbalance of power; when it comes to individual victims of violence and actions based on prejudice, that imbalance no longer exists.
A related and equally indefensible consequence of this perceived power dynamic rationale is the fact that persons are held to significantly different standards of conduct based on their theoretical group affiliations. A tepid argument can be made to support the application of such a double standard to positive action. For example, one might reasonably expect greater contributions from a person who has access to greater resources – solely based on ability to contribute. It is morally indefensible, however, to apply this rubric to justify negative conduct – say, excusing indiscriminate violence on the part of the person held to be unempowered. The factors that might apply to positive responsibilities have no bearing on negative or violent behaviors.
While the language of power relationships is ubiquitous among advocacy groups and tends to be uncritically accepted, it is, in its own right, flawed. It requires a person to assign respective power, and that is something of an arbitrary judgment. In individual human interactions there is often an imbalance of power – one party often holds more power than another. But it is not always as easy as one might think to discern who is empowered and who is not, and things are not always as they appear on the surface. The application of this to groups, to races, to large populations becomes very tricky. It is often assumed without justification that all or most of the members of a population have the same level of power and privilege that some individuals enjoy.
An assessment of universal or near universal Jewish power and privilege is certainly not borne out by the data. It greatly depends on the communities in which individuals live. One must ask, is the Jewish resident of Sderot in the same position of empowerment as the Jewish resident of New York City, as the Jewish resident of London, as the Jewish resident of Russia, as the Jewish resident of Iran? This is manifestly not the case.
Additionally, arguments based on perceived power dynamics frequently contain an appalling and insupportable leap: if Jews are not currently an oppressed group (at least in the West) then antisemitism is no longer dangerous. The first portion of this statement can be responsibly argued – though most arguments currently being advanced are spurious. The second tenet, on the other hand, cannot be made to follow from the first. It either neglects the question of how groups become marginalized in the first place, or it naively over-simplifies the phenomenon. For this to be true, one would have to assume that a minority that enjoyed a certain level of power and access in a given community could never become marginalized by that community.
Indeed, that is the implication of the whole framework: it is the unempowered who become marginalized because they are already unempowered. If that were true, then the notion that prejudice was not dangerous – that only systemic oppression mattered – might (at least in broad terms) be sustainable. However, here again, the data does not fit the assumption. It supports a more complex phenomenon – one that has been repeatedly seen in history: prejudice often leads directly to disempowerment. It is true that prejudice is sometimes used to justify a previously existing imbalance of power, and it is true that the power relationship often enables and reinforces the prejudiced attitude. However, it is equally evident in other cases that specific prejudices do not spring from power relationships; instead, those prejudices create and sustain the power relationships.
For example, it is readily apparent that the Nazis employed systemic power to foster and increase prejudice, but at the same time, the Nazis came to power on the back of existing prejudice. Those areas under the control of the Third Reich where genocidal programs were most successful were precisely those areas where anti-Jewish prejudices already flourished. This prejudice wasn’t oppression until it had systemic power behind it – yet that power relationship never would have been possible had the prejudice not been present and considered acceptable in the first place.
It is obvious but apparently often overlooked that outbreaks of antisemitism that have resulted in horrific actions, have often been directed at people who regarded themselves as integrated and valued members of their societies. This self-perception of their own role and their own level of empowerment did nothing to protect them. It is also significant that the rhetoric employed to justify those historic outbreaks of antisemitism was often predicated on the assumption that the Jewish minority wielded disproportionate power. Here again, the perceptions of those outside the Jewish community of Jewish power offered no protection. In both cases – self-perceptions and external perceptions of empowerment and access seem to have increased (rather than mitigated) the harm caused by antisemitism.
Historically, this pattern of the public perception of Jewish people as being highly empowered leading directly to horrific actions against them has been too frequent and repetitive to ignore. In 1215, Pope Innocent III and the Fourth Lateran Council enacted significant anti-Jewish legislation, including an order that Jews be visibly distinguishable from Christians. This was part of a program to limit the financial activities of the Jews – based on the assumption that they were acquiring too much economic power and influence. When Jews were expelled from France, England, Portugal, and Spain, in all four cases they had previously lived (at times) under good conditions, had legal rights (sometimes even privileges), held some offices, got along well with their neighbors. In all four cases, they were perceived has having too much economic power and influence; and all four expulsions were preceded by long term increases in popular antisemitic attitudes.
Of course, many factors affected the variable treatment of Jews in these countries; but their minority status always created a vulnerability to shifting popular opinions. They were perceived as being in positions of power and influence, and this perception, along with others, led directly to anti-Jewish prejudice – which in turn led directly to often horrific anti-Jewish action.
In 1543, Martin Luther penned one of the more extreme anti-Jewish polemics; his motives and rationale were varied. But one theme he clearly presents: “Thus [Jews] are our masters and we are their servants, with our property, our sweat, and our labor.” The entire argument of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (and its related documents) is a conspiracy theory, yes, but it hinges on perceptions of Jewish power. This power outlined in the Protocols is, of course, diabolical and super-human, but it would never resonate with the public if the public did not already have a general perception of Jewish empowerment.
The bottom line here is that both internal and external perceptions of Jewish empowerment, integration, security, or access have in no way rendered antisemitism non-dangerous. Whether or not one chooses to regard antisemitism as no longer a form of oppression in the West, one cannot reasonably conclude that increases in antisemitic attitudes are somehow a non-issue. It would be naïve at best for people of good will to harbor the idea that antisemitism has become OK, or a minor thing, and that it no longer needs to be strenuously opposed. To conclude that the situation today is somehow different enough that antisemitism can be permitted to run its course without incurring the horrific results that have accompanied it throughout history strikes me as the extremity of foolishness.
However flawed it may be, this assumption and its argument, this fiction, is being held with increasing regularity.
In this context it primarily serves two purposes:
First, the power dynamic line of reasoning automatically appeals to activists predisposed to view the world in terms of group power relationships. While that framework fails in analyzing antisemitism, it is, nonetheless, a firmly held conviction for many people. The portrayal of the empowered versus the unempowered also carries considerable weight with the uninitiated – who tend to have a natural affinity for the perceived underdog. For the pro-Palestinian activist community, portraying concern with antisemitism as fundamentally unreasonable – will go a long way toward casting Israelis as incomprehensible bullies and Palestinians as blameless underdogs. In fact, this perception is fast becoming the common one – to such a degree that activists are able to distort the many facts that don’t quite fit that model with impunity.
Second, the inescapable cloud of anti-Judaic bias that hangs over many segments of pro-Palestinian activism has caused considerable embarrassment to churches like the PC(USA), to civic organizations, to colleges, and to municipalities who are generally supportive of Palestinian aspirations, but who do not want to be affiliated with antisemitism. If, however, antisemitism can be transformed into a non-oppressive, essentially harmless, historic curiosity, then it’s really no big deal. Suddenly the patently antisemitic statements – like crucifixion and deicide imagery, allegations that Jews control the government, that disagreeable elements of the “Jewish character” are to blame for Jewish support for Israel, the application of a double standard to Israel, and the tolerance for verifiably false information – that are embraced in that activism are no longer repellant. How individuals and society in general respond to anti-Judaic statements and actions will depend, at least in part, on whether or not people buy into this concept. Not only will this render rational discussion of legitimate issues between Israelis and Palestinians an impossibility, but it also threatens to have an even more harmful effect. As more and more sinister antisemitic statements become accepted into the public discourse, given credibility by churches, civic organizations, colleges, and others, attitudes toward the Jewish people will inevitably degrade.
The Rev. Ronald Shive, chair of the Presbyterian Church’s Middle East Study Committee has finally cleared up the MESC’s stance on Israel as a Jewish state:
We have reaffirmed time and time again, and this report reaffirms emphatically, the right of Israel to Jewish nation, as a homeland for Jewish people. We are emphatic there. We did not state as the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. This is nuanced. The question is, do you have to be Jewish to have full rights. If you say ‘Jewish state,’ it can imply that and you can have second class citizens. We never attempt to delegitimize Israel…I love America. I love Israel. Everybody on the committee would say ‘we love Israel.’
If you don’t find that clear and forthcoming, it is no doubt because you fail to understand Presbyterian nuance.
Apparently, Rev. Shive differentiates between a Jewish nation and a Jewish state. Although I suspect that was most likely a slip of the tongue. I think … my best translation of Presbyterian nuance would be: the Middle East Study Committee emphatically reaffirms the right of Israel to exist as a homeland for Jewish people.
[Though, in the actual MESC Report the writers included a footnote that seems to undermine the emphatic nature of even that commitment:
The phrase “the right of Israel to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the 2009–2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.]
What Rev. Shive acknowledges that the MESC refuses to say is that the PC(USA) supports the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state – i.e. the PC(USA) supports the right of the current State of Israel to continue to exist.
Apparently, the Middle East Study Committee graciously grants permission for some Jewish people to live in the geographic region currently called Israel. The MESC does, however, unequivocally support the existence of a Palestinian state. So … here’s the nuance: Palestinian state, yes; Jewish state, no. The MESC does not indicate whether or not it thinks Jews should be permitted in its envisioned Palestinian state.
If you want to say something offensive about Israel or the Jewish community, find a Jewish person who is saying it and quote him. That way you are absolved of all responsibility for the offense, and you couldn’t possibly be an anti-Jewish bigot.
This notion is so absurd it should require no response. Yet the tactic is being employed with such increasing frequency that, apparently, someone must believe it. I’m not really sure whether the believers are the people attempting to use Jewish voices for cover or their target audience.
In the PC(USA) context, uses of this tactic abound. Here are a few examples:
* In the Middle East Study Committee Report, one finds this remarkable statement:
“Israel acts as a spoiled child. America has helped create this undisciplined child. It depends on the U.S. for its lifeline of funding and weapons … even though the state of Israel is supposed to be a democracy, it acts as a Nazi state.”
It is attributed to an unnamed Israeli activist. Of course, no one would suspect the Middle East Study Committee member of saying something profoundly offensive … ALL SHE’S DOING IS QUOTING AN ISRAELI ACTIVIST.
* The Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) has often sought to distance the Jews from the residents of biblical Israel. Part of their motivation seems to be to negate any historic or biblical Jewish claim to the land. This is, of course, a familiar refrain within Palestinian propaganda. The Khazar argument raises problems, however, because it has also been a familiar refrain (from the late 19th Century on) among the most vicious and rabidly antisemitic groups. This is how the IPMN decided to handle the difficulty:
The founding narrative of the State of Israel links the modern-day Jews’ claim to the land of Israel/Palestine to their direct genealogical descent from the ancient Israelites. Recent anthropological scholarship shows that this widespread belief is very likely a myth, not historical fact. Shlomo Sand, an expert on European history at the university of Tel Aviv, and author of When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? posits that the Jews were never exiled en masse from the Holy Land and that many European Jewish populations converted to the faith centuries later. Thus, he argues, many of today’s Israelis who emigrated from Europe after World War II have little or no genealogical connection to the ancient land of Israel.
Thus the IPMN is not advancing an argument that is inextricably linked to the vilest forms of antisemitism. They’re only innocently talking about Shlomo Sand’s opinions.
* Shortly after the IPMN launched its website, they featured a powerpoint presentation attributed to Minnesota born Jewish Israeli activist and ICAHD founder Jeff Halper. [Interestingly, the IPMN has given money directly to ICAHD.] Among other things, a reader of this presentation is told:
The Jewish community in the diaspora must get a life.
There is no possible response to this.
This tactic is morally vacuous and deserving of ridicule. But more importantly, it is based on a falsehood. Yes, it can sometimes deceive the gullible; and yes, it can help some people deceive themselves about the true nature of the actions and statements. But ultimately, it cannot provide what its users want. The reasons for this are simple and obvious.
First, the Jewish population is not large – about 14 million worldwide, 6 million living in Israel. Nonetheless, Jewish opinions could hardly be called monolithic. In fact, you have a pretty good chance of finding someone who self-identifies as Jewish saying just about anything you want. This is true even among Israeli Jews. The effect is meaningless. It has no more or less relevance than citing the statements of a random Inuit or practitioner of Scientology to bolster your case. Think about it … big shock, someone has an opinion on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict or the Jewish people.
Second, the use of this tactic by the PC(USA) and others overlooks the considerable difference between internal and external criticism. In many cases it oversimplifies the discussion – bypassing any nuanced debate in favor of putting forward its own agenda. For example, the PC(USA) never explores Khazar history and various possible interpretations and arguments. Instead, it considers relating Sand’s general thesis to be sufficient to accomplish its rhetorical purpose. But in every case – speaking as an “outsider”, but using “insider” quotes, the PC(USA) displays a high degree of contempt for the “other” – in this case, for the Jewish people.
Third, there is a self-evident double standard in the use of this tactic. It is not applied to any other nation – negative (and plainly offensive) things said about China by some individual Chinese people are not quoted by the PC(USA). Equally, in American churches one does not see the same treatment of other religious groups. Can you really imagine the PC(USA) quoting a Muslim telling Muslims to “Get a life?” How about Catholics? The same would be true of ethnic groups. If the PC(USA) were to find an African American who told other African Americans to get a life – would they quote him?
At the end of the day, this tactic is absurd, it is logically flawed, it is inherently offensive, and it in no way mitigates anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias. Yet we continue to see its employment.
Presbyterian employees, members of national committees, agencies, and networks of the PC(USA) do not speak for the PC(USA). The PC(USA) is not responsible for their statements.
This refrain and its variants have been offered many times in response to controversial actions and statements of Presbyterian officials and groups. For example, this was the most common framing given to various Presbyterian delegations’ visits with Hezbollah – which usually resulted in widely reported Presbyterian flatteries of Hezbollah.
More recently, this rationalization has been applied to the activities of the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA).
It has occurred on more than one occasion that the IPMN posted information on its website or issued statements that conflicted with “official PC(USA) policy”. Most recently, in a letter – provided to commissioners to this General Assembly – the IPMN falsely accused unnamed American Jewish organizations of sending a bomb to PC(USA) headquarters and setting fire to a Presbyterian church as part of a concerted effort to censor Presbyterian speech on Israel and Palestine. Also in this letter, the IPMN argues that a “worldwide increase in anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions” is a reaction to Israeli policies, and objects to the concept of a Jewish state.
Rev. Victor Makari, Office for the Middle East, General Assembly Mission Council, responded to a reporter (by email) on this matter:
The Mission Network (IPMN) is an informal, autonomous grassroots organization made up of Presbyterians who are interested in and committed to peace and justice in Israel and Palestine. It has its own officers and steering committee, etc. … [T]hey run their own programs and activities.
Clearly this is a moral fiction. The Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) was created by an action of the 216th General Assembly. The IPMN has a PC(USA) staff adviser – though he insists his role is informal. The PC(USA) collects money for the IPMN. The PC(USA) distributes IPMN materials to its congregations.
In the case of the IPMN, this is also a legal fiction. The Israel Palestine Mission Network is not a stand alone entity; it operates under the non-profit status of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Under IRS rules, a charity (in this case, the PC(USA)) that allows a program (like the IPMN) to operate in this fashion must have complete discretion and control over any funds given to the charity for expenditure by that program, and it must ensure that the program furthers the charity’s tax-exempt purposes.
The bottom line here is that the PC(USA) IS BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY responsible for the actions and statements of the Israel Palestine Mission Network. Ultimately, whether or not Presbyterian officials want to publicly claim the relationship, when the IPMN speaks, it does so with the approval of the PC(USA).
To our Presbyterian friends: here’s a catchy tune. Perhaps you can use it at the General Assembly …
Two things are abundantly clear at this point.
First, the PC(USA)’s Middle East Study Committee did not explore very many facets of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The MESC does, of course, urge the General Assembly to:
Call … on all parties in the Middle East to cease rhetoric and actions that demonize others, whether … anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, [or] … threaten the well-being of another nation or people. This includes threats by Iranians and members of Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel, sponsorship by Iran of Holocaust-denial conferences, Israeli efforts to deny the Nakba and threats of a mass transfer (expulsion) of the Palestinians into Jordan or elsewhere, and the perpetuation of maps and textbooks that deny the existence of internationally recognized borders, states, and occupied territories.
But it doesn’t seem to mention popular children’s songs and television programs. In fact, it doesn’t address this type of cultural phenomena at all.
Second, if your response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is [simplistically and one-sidedly] to divest from or denounce Caterpillar, to find Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid, to embrace the Kairos document that rejects the existence of the Jewish State, to – out of all the world – single out Israel in a “human rights report” for religious discrimination, to take the advice of a Network that has falsely accused American Jewish organizations of setting fire to a Presbyterian church and sending a bomb to Louisville, you should be ashamed.
The debate on Middle East issues in the PC(USA) is surrounded by several fictions.
I do not mean the fictitious details of the actual Israeli / Palestinian conflict. There are, frankly, so many pieces of disinformation, glaring omissions, unfairly framed items, and disputed claims that sifting through them all would be prohibitive. More accurately, to even get an approximation of the truth of the conflict would be the work of many months or years. That is just the nature of the beast.
Instead, I refer to the claims that surround the actual debate. Some of these are specific to the situation in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) while others concern much wider activism. Some are dangerously flawed assumptions, while others are mis-statements of fact. What they have in common is that all are false.
Whether or not the people who spread these fictions believe them to be true is both and unknown and beside the point. Sincerity or dishonesty on their part makes little difference. More to the point is the fact that we – and commissioners to the PC(USA)’s 219th General Assembly – need to examine these more closely. We need to see the role they play in the debate, and, at least on a couple of them, we need to seriously analyze their merits.
This is, of course, only a very truncated list, but these items are either explicitly stated or logically necessary undercurrents in the conduct of PC(USA) officials, the Middle East Study Committee, the Israel Palestine Mission Network, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment, and many Presbyterians.
Fiction #1: Various entities of the PC(USA) (most particularly Networks) are “autonomous grassroots organizations made up of Presbyterians”, and therefore, the PC(USA) is not responsible for their activities.
Fiction #2: If you want to say something offensive about Israel or the Jewish community, find a Jewish person who is saying it and quote him. That way you are absolved of all responsibility for the offense, and you couldn’t possibly be an anti-Jewish bigot.
Fiction #3: Divestment from Caterpillar is an example of Christian integrity.
Fiction #4: Unfairness and imbalance in PC(USA) policy on Israel and Palestine is justifiable because the imbalance of power favoring the Israelis actually negates the possibility of being unfair toward Israelis.
Fiction #5: It is better to take fallible (or naive, or foolish, or actively harmful) actions than to refrain from doing so.
Fiction #6: Any increase in antisemitism in the world is a natural result of Israeli actions.
Fiction #7: Antisemitism no longer exists; it is a problem of the past that affects Israelis and Jews as a “psycho-trauma”, but it poses no serious threat today.
These fictions are either presented, implied, or assumed in order to sell commissioners and Presbyterians on the recommendations of the MESC, and many other institutional Presbyterian initiatives – or to cover for some of the more outrageous statements offered by some Presbyterian officials and groups. They serve mostly to muddy the waters and to foster the illusion that commissioners are somehow discerning the leading of the Holy Spirit – which, quite obviously supports the desired anti-Israel actions of these individuals and groups. Many Presbyterians do not consider the issue important enough to truly explore, but they may easily be lulled into accepting recommendations that make them imagine they have, without the work, acted fairly and wisely. Let the buyer beware.
One week this July, a small – though historically significant, United States Protestant denomination will hold its biennial national meeting. Hundreds of this denomination’s members and a host of interested parties will descend on the Minneapolis Convention Center. During that time, they will consider around 750 pieces of business; a surprising number of these business items concern Israel and the Palestinian territories. And they are heavily weighted against Israel.
What does it matter? Let’s suppose the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) passes every single resolution critical of Israel. I mean, who really cares? Some (by no means all – probably not even most) members of PC(USA) congregations are interested because it is, after all, their denomination. Some Presbyterians from other smaller denominations will care if the PC(USA) garners negative press coverage because they will be caught in the fallout – having the misfortune of being frequently mistaken for the PC(USA).
But when the PC(USA) is considering actions that are actively harmful to those outside the denomination, people should care. Members should care because their names and any money they have contributed to the denomination are being used to support those actions. People outside the denomination should care because those actions will affect many of us.
So, what is the harm? The proposed business items we’ve looked at amount to statements, words, endorsements of various documents, possible divestment. Sure, the process was stacked; sure, the statements presented as fact were one-sided at best; sure, they trespassed into the openly offensive; and sure, we would like to believe that Presbyterian commissioners would insist on basic fairness. But even divestment, were it to occur, would involve only a modest amount of money. So … no harm, no foul, right? Symbolic gestures only, but they have both a purpose and an effect that we would do well to consider.
It must be clearly understood that all of the actions on Israel and Palestine taken by the PC(USA) and many other American denominations – up to and including the divestment initiative of 2004 and the proposed divestment initiative of 2010 – are rhetorical. The purpose of these actions is to alter the conversation on the Middle East both inside and outside the denomination. The second instruction and the rationale in this year’s divestment overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco make the process explicit:
“Affirm that church investments should not support or profit from injustice and that actions of corporate divestment, when other shareholder engagement has not succeeded, are based both in the church’s own integrity and in the likelihood of greater continuing witness and effective influence from the outside, as was the case in the worldwide ecumenical campaign against South African apartheid.” [2nd point in business item 14-02]
And
“We have no illusions that this recommended action will actually sway Caterpillar to engage in better and more just business practices, although we pray for this eventuality.” [from the Rationale to business item 14-02]
The Intent:
The intent of finding Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid, of divestment from or denunciation of random corporations for their association with Israel, of calls for universal jurisdiction to support show trials of various Israeli officials, of endorsing documents that reject the Jewish state, of regretting the creation of the State of Israel, of minimizing (dismissing, even rationalizing) the violent acts of Palestinians and neighboring states, of exaggerating the negative actions of Israelis, of maligning American Jewish supporters of Israel – is twofold. First, for some reason this is supposed to show solidarity with and encourage some Palestinian Christians. Second, it is intended create a climate of global isolation in which Israel is pressured to make concessions. It is likely that these concessions are the envisioned result of the exercise.
To make the demanded concessions would, of course, be harmful – actually fatal – to the State of Israel. These concessions include a Jew-free state of Palestine; the rejection of a Jewish state; a multi-ethnic state – maybe even called Israel – with, thanks to right of return, a Jewish minority; the presence of UN peacekeepers in spite of the history of UN animus toward Israel; an international council for Jerusalem … you get the picture.
All this in spite of Presbyterian assurances that they support a negotiated solution and that they support the right of Israel to exist within secure, internationally recognized borders. Of course, the MESC report includes a footnote:
“the right of Israel to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the 2009–2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”
The Effect:
No matter how damaging those concessions might be, the effect of the rhetoric goes far beyond creating pressure for them.
1.The PC(USA)’s rhetorical stances (along with all of their embedded biases, anti-Judaic elements, factual errors, and unfair processes) will spread. This is true of statements made by employees, committees, networks – but the effect is far more pronounced when the General Assembly acts. When these stances are given the national imprimatur of the denomination’s highest governing body, it is presumed (sometimes incorrectly) that Presbyterians generally agree with them.
First, they will spread to other denominations. This happens for a variety of reasons, but it is mostly a product of the existence of an ‘advocacy community’ in part composed of officials of various denominations. These cooperate in order to speak with a common voice.
The presumed support of GA actions strengthens activists within other denominations. The bottom line here is that what begins with a two million member denomination soon encompasses tens of millions of members of several American churches.
Second, this rhetoric infects civil society beyond the bounds of the churches. Denominations like the PC(USA) give whatever credibility they enjoy to the cause. They add an air of respectability to anti-Israel actions and statements. This encourages other institutions to jump on board. It also reshapes the boundary to what is and is not acceptable conversation. Individuals, even public figures, can feel comfortable making statements they otherwise would not have made – safe in the knowledge that the PC(USA) has said worse.
2.The rhetoric will only increase in severity. It is not a matter of this far and no more. It is developmental, echoing back and forth among advocacy groups, becoming ever more hostile and ever less fair.
It is true that the items coming before the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) are the worst I have seen in an American denomination (I am not counting Christian identity groups, though to be fair to the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, their views of Khazaria, of Zionist control of the government, and of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion have all had some degree of institutional Presbyterian support).
Nonetheless, every time the PC(USA) seems to pull ahead, the UMC, or the UCC or some other mainline denomination steps in to push the envelope a little farther. Things we would not have heard last year, or five years ago, or a decade ago … things that would not have seemed reasonable, have been made, by repetition, commonplace.
3. In the effort to isolate Israel, this rhetoric transforms the conversation from one in which people actually evaluate the actions of Israelis and Palestinians to one in which Israel is assumed to be uniquely evil. In such a climate, the parties stop seeking productive solutions whereby both peoples can live in peace and security. Instead, Israel’s accusers conduct a debate among themselves: exactly how evil is (this caricature of) Israel (they have created)? Is it an evil on the level of apartheid South Africa – as the Presbytery of San Francisco asserts, or is it something worse?
4. If this brand of rhetoric actually succeeds at isolating Israel, it will not have the desired result.
First, if Israel is truly isolated through a successful campaign of demonization, a negotiated solution is less, rather than more likely. The concessions demanded by the PC(USA), taken together, could only be achieved by the dismantling of the current State of Israel. The Presbyterians are not alone in their demands. Israelis will understand that they are incapable of satisfying world opinion, and they will be disinclined to try. Israelis will also feel an (entirely justifiable) increased need for security.
Second, much is made of the fact that some Palestinian Christians are encouraged by symbolic actions of the type being considered by this PC(USA) General Assembly. Unfortunately, that encouragement is based on a tragic misreading of their circumstances – in which Israel is to blame, not only for the difficulties they share with Palestinians generally, but also for any friction or poor treatment they receive from their Muslim neighbors.
But if Israel appears to be isolated, this will also provide encouragement for others. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad will be encouraged to believe they can succeed in their stated goals of removing the State of Israel, of establishing an Islamic state in greater Palestine, and of murdering Jews. If the Islamist Palestinian groups appear to have a reasonable hope of success, then more Palestinians will be encouraged to embrace them.
5. Whatever their intent, rhetorical campaigns designed to elevate Israel to the status of a uniquely evil state will also have an inevitable effect on world opinions about the Jewish people. Like it or not, because Israel is the only Jewish state, Israel and the Jewish people are linked. The anti-Zionist climate of defamation clearly fosters a considerable increase in antisemitism. The PC(USA) itself seems to have great difficulty avoiding anti-Judaic themes – and some PC(USA) statements about the Jewish people (as opposed to Israel) are sinister. Their intention is not really relevant; the result is readily observable.
At the end of the day, there is great gulf fixed between honest criticism of Israel and genuine advocacy for Palestinians on the one hand, and this evil rhetoric that treats Israel differently than any other nation, that refuses to acknowledge any circumstance that contributes to perceived negative Israeli policies, that blames violence against Israel (and against Jewish people) on Israel, that (uniquely among nations) continually challenges Israel’s legitimacy, that portrays Israel as a criminal state whose very existence is an offense.
[I believe most Presbyterians want a policy on Israel and Palestine that is both fair and helpful. I suspect many are not that familiar with the issues of the conflict, and fewer are aware of the current state of activism. I believe most Presbyterians want information on the Middle East that is accurate and not one-sided. I believe most Presbyterians are concerned for Palestinians – but also for Israelis. I believe most Presbyterians want to avoid unfairness, bias, and the anti-Jewish themes in PC(USA) statements and actions. And I believe most Presbyterians would be disappointed with the details (as opposed to the sound bytes) of the business coming before this General Assembly. This is my impression; if it is not the case, then so be it. You cannot force fairness and accuracy on Presbyterians, but if it is their desire, then commissioners have a responsibility to at least attempt it.
The two previous General Assemblies have made statements calling for basic fairness. Unfortunately, those calls have had a negligible effect on PC(USA) advocacy. This is partly because those GA’s sent conflicting messages. On one hand they called for fairness – and made decisions reflecting that priority, while on the other, they endorsed documents, reports etc. that undercut that emphasis. I believe the only way for the 219th General Assembly to actually accomplish that goal would be to speak with one voice – being careful not to make contradictory decisions, and being careful not to endorse statements and affirmations that sound good, but ultimately undercut fair treatment.
The following recommendations are intended to serve that goal.]
Committee 08 Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations
Approve Section C of item 08-03 “Christians and Jews: the People of God”
This section of the paper indicates that Christian antisemitism is an ongoing problem and not a relic of history.
This section discusses and rejects a number of ways in which pro-Palestinian church activism often makes use of antisemitic themes.
Disapprove item 08-09 “On Referring “Christians and Jews: People of God” and “Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations””
If you decide to refer the paper for revision, specify the exact nature and scope of the revision desired and the parties to be involved. (Office of Theology and Worship, Office of Interfaith Relations, Office of Evangelism)
In no event follow the overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco – its appended letter illustrates why. [This, at this moment, contains a reprehensible slander of American Jewish organizations that illustrates the attitudes and preconceptions of its authors.]
If you choose to refer the paper for revision, make explicitly clear that this revision is not the revision sought by the overture from San Francisco Presbytery.
Committee 9 Mission Coordination
Approve 09-03 “On Amending the Process for Forming Social Witness Policy” [Would require that “all social witness policy and resolutions … be sent to all presbyteries for study, discussion, and comment back to the ACSWP prior to the General Assembly that is to act on the policy or resolution.]
This policy change would help bring the national organization more into line with the beliefs and convictions of Presbyterians.
This policy change would slow down the pace of new social witness policy and resolutions – giving presbyters and members time to more carefully consider the issue.
Committee 11 Social Justice Issues B: the Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World
Disapprove item 11-04 “Human Rights Update 2010” [Report by the ACSWP]
In this report the ACSWP failed to follow the explicit directions of the 2008 GA – “Identify Violations of the Civil Rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and Other Areas of the World, Along with Other Incidents of Violation of Religious Freedoms, as Part of the Regular Human Rights Report to the General Assembly.”
The ACSWP did not complete the required task but still submitted a report.
That report found Israeli Jews alone (in all the world) to be committing violations of religious freedoms worthy of specific Presbyterian attention.
This report found Muslims and Christians to be the only victims of such discrimination worthy of Presbyterian support
Committee 14 Middle East Peacemaking Issues
Disapprove item 14-01 “On Divestment from Caterpillar Inc.” and answer with 14-06
Disapprove item 14-02 “On Divestment from Caterpillar, Inc.” and answer with 14-06
Disapprove item 14-03 “MRTI Report of its Engagement” and answer with 14-06 [The MRTI recommendation is to denounce CAT rather than to divest from CAT.]
Because it falls under a larger, state-sponsored boycott movement, it would likely violate US law for CAT to refuse to sell to Israel. The PC(USA) would end up either divesting from or denouncing a company for NOT breaking US law.
There is no information to show that CAT is unique even among PC(USA) investments – in terms of either the uses of its products or its corporate policies that merits being singled out.
CAT was selected for maximum publicity value. It is theater, not moral investing. CAT is a target of a wide campaign of BDS – BECAUSE it can’t legally comply, and therefore provides regular publicity.
The opposition to Caterpillar is expressly related to the divestment initiative from apartheid South Africa. It intentionally communicates an equivalency between the two situations.
The MRTI and the presbyteries have not looked at most other companies’ products used in Israel and the occupied territories. For example, the MESC report includes a photo of a bulldozer being used, apparently, for some nefarious purpose. (It is listed as an Israeli army bulldozer at work destroying crops.) Look closely at the photo. It is a Volvo.
Disapprove item 14-04 “On Recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid Against the Palestinian People” and answer with 14-06
Creates an equivalency where none exists. It ignores the history of the conflict. It fails to acknowledge the reasons for many Israeli policies to which we might object. It makes it appear that these occur in a vacuum – growing out of the evil nature of Jewish Israelis.
It seeks to elevate Israel to the status of uniquely odious – making it a criminal state and a chief human rights abuser.
It is about placing one-sided blame.
Disapprove item 14-05 “On Commending “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering” as an Advocacy Tool” and answer with 14-06
The Kairos document objects to the existence of the Jewish State. (It may allow for some state, perhaps called Israel. But it rejects Israel as a Jewish state.)
It is patterned after a “Kairos” document used to challenge apartheid. Once again, the PC(USA) is being asked to assert equivalency between Israel and apartheid South Africa.
It falsely suggests that the “occupation” is the source of violence against Jewish Israelis – ignoring most of the history of violence that predates the 1967 occupation, and the history of violence that predates the creation of the State of Israel.
It goes on to suggest that if Israel ends the occupation, they will “see a new world in which there is no fear, no threat but rather security, justice and peace.” This absurd contention ignores the charters of Hamas and Hezbollah – and even the historic statements of the PA.
It calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions.
Approve item 14-06 “On Middle East Peacemaking”
Unlike all other overtures and business items, this is a call to resist unilateral support for one side.
It would instruct the GAMC “to ensure that staff, council members, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks abide by these directives.” This is a pro-active measure that recognizes the contradictory policies of the last 2 GA’s.
Disapprove item 14-08 ““Breaking Down the Walls”—From the Middle East Study Committee”; thank the committee for its work; and answer with 14-06
7 of 9 original committee members were known to publicly support one side and oppose the other before even beginning their study. At least 75% of the committee’s contacts presented a pro-Palestinian narrative only. They heard from very few persons who presented a pro-Israel narrative.
The recommendations in this report are entirely hostile to Israel.
The history provided in this report is notable for its one-sidedness and its glaring omissions.
The report quotes (seemingly favorably) an activist describing Israel acting as a nazi state, bemoans “how viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Jewish community”, complains of the Israelis’ “masterful manipulation of the U.S. political process”, finds it “painful” that “the clock cannot be turned back to 1948”, insists the Jewish state was created to “assuage the guilt of Western Christianity”, and describes “the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli soldiers.” A committee with these biases cannot hope to attain a fair, just, or moral result. Its members’ statements border on hate speech, and its characterizations of the conflict are extraordinarily one-sided.
The opening affirmations are harmful because they call on the GA to affirm things like the principle of universal jurisdiction – with which many commissioners will be unfamiliar. That principle has been altered from its historic use in recent years to launch numerous politically motivated trials of Israeli government officials in various countries.
Disapprove item 14-09 “On Seeking Compliance to U.S. Government Policy in the Use of Military Aid by All Parties in the Middle East.” and answer with 14-06
On its surface the title of this overture tips its hat toward balanced treatment. However, it is immediately clear – even to a cursory reader – that the title is, at best, a polite fiction. This overture has one purpose, and only mentions a change in policy toward one party: Israel.
Committee 16 Theological Issues and Institutions
Approve item 16-01 “On Commending Confessions that Uphold the Oneness of All Believers, and Discontinuing Efforts to Include the Belhar Confession in the Book of Confessions.”
Disapprove item 16-12 “Report of the Special Committee on the Belhar Confession.” [This is a recommendation to include the Belhar Confession in the Book of Confessions]
Regardless of its own merits, the Belhar Confession is currently being removed from its context and used to support a wide variety of mischief. This is particularly apparent in its application to Israel. Presbyteries – and many commissioners will be unaware of how the document is being used and judge it solely on its relationship to South Africa.
One of the burning issues the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) will consider is what they will do with Caterpillar, Inc. The Presbyteries of San Francisco, Newark, and San Jose are calling for divestment while the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee and the Middle East Study Committee are calling for denunciation. I think the PC(USA) holds 54 shares of CAT stock, so the material effect would be negligible. It is likely that the MRTI’s process of corporate engagement directed at Caterpillar has already cost more than the total value of CAT stock owned by the PC(USA). It is clear that the action is more rhetorical than practical.
[Update: I don't know the current holding. In 2007 the Board of Pensions held 54 shares.In their annual report (June 30, 2009) New Covenant Funds listed no holdings of CAT stock. In their semi-annual report (December 31, 2009) New Covenant Funds listed 38700 shares.If the latter figure is true, the holding is more significant - as of today they would be worth $2,215,575 - out of about $700,000,000 in stock holdings.]
Actions of this type – because they are rhetorical – can cause far more significant harm than their immediate material result. That potential harm must be a significant factor in commissioners’ decision making process (and I will address this more directly in another post). But if commissioners want to make responsible, moral, and ethical decisions, they must also deal with other considerations.
As of right now, the MESC is scheduled to present its report – taking about an 1:15 (in three sessions), the MRTI is to be given about 30 minutes (in two sessions), the presbyteries of San Francisco, Newark, and San Jose will have about 10 minutes. About an 1:30 of open hearings will be held. Commissioners will be given about 1:00 (in two sessions) to discuss what they have heard in “small groups”.
In what we must assume to have been unintentional, the only contrary proposal (item 14-06) is, of course, not being heard until after the commissioners are supposed to have decided Caterpillar’s fate. [An observe might be tempted to think that whoever sets the schedule determines the outcome.]
Central to this entire issue are the activities of the MRTI. In order to make an informed decision, commissioners will need to ask the MRTI some serious questions about those activities. They will find asking meaningful questions of this type difficult, but the questions themselves are crying out for answers.
1. Of the, no doubt, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of companies who do business in Israel – whose practices you exhaustively reviewed, how did you determine to focus on Motorola, Citibank, Caterpillar, ITT Industries, and United Technologies? What companies did you review? How many companies whose stock is owned by the PC(USA) actually do business in Israel? And what evidence did you consider to exonerate those companies and focus on these five?
2. Was this determination the product of your own research, or did you draw from lists already selected by the larger activist community – lists designed for maximum effective publicity? In other words, what assurances can you give, from YOUR research that these five are the worst offenders – or the least compatible with historic PC(USA) investment policies?
3. In 2006, when the 217th General Assembly explicitly removed the Israel divestment instruction and actually limited the MRTI’s corporate engagement in Israel, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza to making sure that the companies in which the PC(USA) invests are only engaged in peaceful pursuits, how did your policies change? The instructions from 2004 – a phased selective divestment in corporations doing business in Israel – are very different than the corporate engagement instructions from 2006. Naturally, in order to comply with such a different set of specific GA instructions, you must have re-evaluated your positions. What criteria did you use when you re-evaluated all of the stocks held by the PC(USA)? What corporations did you examine? How did you decide which companies to engage?
4. In 2008, the 218th General Assembly expanded your mandate (at your recommendation) to include requiring companies to:
“refrain from allowing their products or services to support or facilitate violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians, construction and maintenance of settlements or Israeli-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 “Green Line” into Palestinian territories”
At that point, how did your process change? Since you were only given permission in 2008 to apply these expanded criteria, what activities did you change in order to fulfill the instructions of the General Assembly?
5. How might you account for the fact that the Caterpillar denunciation you recommend seems to spring in a direct line from the instruction of the 2004 General Assembly, uninterrupted by the actions of the 2006 and 2008 General Assemblies when you work for and are accountable to the General Assembly?
Commissioners to the PC(USA)’s 219th General Assembly, you face a moral quandary. Unfortunately you also face a practical nightmare. The amount of business on Israeli and Palestinian issues you will have to consider is daunting. In writing over the last couple of weeks, I have spent considerable time examining that business. It reaches a point where one’s instinctive reaction is to tune it out and look for a bottom line.
You may feel a lot of pressure to complete this business amicably; the climate of General Assemblies insures that you will automatically feel pressure to affirm reports from committees. It is a simple fact that the GA system is weighted toward approval of committee recommendations. Failure to do so might indicate a lack of appreciation for all the committee members’ hard work. Additionally, you may feel a pressure to try to please everyone – knowing that whatever you do, someone will be unhappy and critical. This combination of pressures tends to result in one of two outcomes: affirmation of committee work and recommendations or an attempt to split the difference.
I wish I could offer you a simple evaluation of the issues before you. Unfortunately, I can’t. There is a great difference between the actions you are being asked to take and their purpose and symbolic significance. Each occurs within a larger context that is distinct from what you see on paper. Your task is to discern both properties.
Of each action, you must ask – will it help the situation? Will it cause harm? Is it part of a larger, more sinister rhetoric? Is it fair? Does it take into account all sides? Or is it weighted in one direction only? How will it be understood by Presbyterians, by Palestinians, by Israelis, by Muslims, by Jews, by other Christians, by Americans generally, or by people in other parts of the world? Will this action tie the PC(USA) to a particular agenda? If so, how is that justified?
Though this is probably a gross oversimplification, these are the actions you are being asked to take by committees of the national PC(USA) or by presbyteries:
* divest from Caterpillar
* strongly denounce Caterpillar
* charge Israel with the crime of apartheid against the Palestinian people
* endorse the Kairos document, ‘A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering,’ [This is problematic because of the attitudes of the document rejecting the existence of a Jewish State and casting Palestinian violence solely as a response to the occupation.]
* cut off military aid to Israel – or tie such aid to Israeli compliance with certain demands
* call on Israel and Gaza to consent to independent evaluations of their actions in the recent conflict
* approve a human rights update that alone, out of all the world, finds Israeli Jewish violations of religious freedom worthy of Presbyterian attention, and alone, out of all the world, finds Palestinian Christians and Muslims to be the only victims of religious discrimination worthy of comment
* endorse the concept of “universal jurisdiction” (currently used as the basis for politically motivated trials of Israeli officials in various European courts)
* endorse right of return (for Palestinians – though no mention is made of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people also displaced and dispossessed in 1948)
* make the Middle East Study Committee a permanent monitoring group of PC(USA) policy
* support the establishment of an international council for Jerusalem
* approve a paper on Christians and Jews – unique in that it cautions against continuing Christian antisemitism
* refer the paper on Christians and Jews for a re-write because of complaints from the Israel/Palestine Mission Network contained in a letter that among other things, publicly accused (without offer of proof) American Jewish organizations of bomb threats against Presbyterians and of arson at a Presbyterian church, and that cast the increase in antisemitism as a reaction to Israel’s actions.
* approve the paper on Christian Muslim Relations
*acknowledge the inherent complexity of the conflict and defer from taking positions that appear to favor either side in the conflict
* defer from taking actions or making statements that align the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with unilateral support for any of the specific parties involved in the struggle.
* approve part of the MESC report, and receive another portion of it.
The action items that you must consider are weighted in one direction. All of us can agree that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories is bad. Most of us can agree that Palestinians have legitimate aspirations and legitimate complaints against Israel. They were promised a state in 1948 and 60 years later it has not materialized. Most of us can agree that Israel has legitimate security interests and legitimate complaints against the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, and some neighboring states. Most of us can agree that Palestinians have experienced some human rights abuses. Most of us can agree that Israel has, at times, taken unhelpful and unfair actions.
When I was in the West Bank, I understood clearly that if I had to put up with what many Palestinians do, I would hate it. In Sderot, I understood that if I had to put up with a constant barrage of rockets lobbed indiscriminately, I’m not sure what I would do. The bottom line is that something does need to be done.
Yet at that point, I part company with the advocates of most items you will consider. They are either about placing blame on one side only, or they assume blame and seek to punish one side. I do not believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Instead it seems to warp the facts into a cartoon with inhuman villains on the Jewish Israeli side, and mostly virtuous and much aggrieved victims among the Palestinians. Of course, exceptions are made for Jewish and Israeli supporters of this narrative – the Middle East Study Committee lifts up Jewish Voice for Peace, J-Street, and B’Tselem for particular commendation.
[Yet even J-Street - which was praised by the Middle East Study Committee - was "troubled by 'Breaking Down The Walls'", and has "serious disagreements with the Committee’s recommendations". They found "the study document [to] consistently downplay Israel’s very real security concerns, appear to shrug off any Palestinian responsibility for resolving the ongoing conflict, and underplay the Israeli narrative throughout”.]
Unfortunately, J-Street has a point. Many of the items presented for your consideration by the Middle East Study Committee, by the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment, by the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, by the Israel Palestine Mission Network, and by the presbyteries of San Francisco, Newark, San Jose, and Chicago embrace and rely upon one narrative only. In every case where facts are disputed, the presumption of honesty is given to the pro-Palestinian side only.
Among other things, the Middle East Study Committee describes, “the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli soldiers”, laments the formation of Israel in which “the Palestinians were deemed expendable for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity”, favorably quotes an activist who describes Israel as “a spoiled child” and “a Nazi state”, bemoans “how viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Jewish community”, and regrets that “the clock cannot be turned all the way back to 1948″.
The Middle East Study Committee does well to lift up particular stories of Palestinian loss – stories like those of Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek and (committee member) Dr. Nahida Gordon that reflect the experience of many Palestinians. The MESC does well to lift up difficulties and injustices often faced by Palestinians today. It is important and right that Presbyterians hear these voices – voices that demand your compassion and empathy. That is an integral part of understanding the conflict and being able to respond appropriately to it.
But there are other voices I am not hearing in this report. Absent are the testimonies of the families of victims and the survivors of terrorist attacks. Missing are voices like that of Yossi Mendelevich – whose thirteen year old son, Yuval, was murdered in a bus bombing in Haifa on his way home from school; voices like that of vascular surgeon, Dr. Shmuel Yurfost – who was blinded in an explosion at a mall; voices like that of Philip Litel – whose daughter Abigail was killed by Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma on the same bus as Yuval. Kwasma’s mother reportedly said she was proud of his deed.
These voices too demand your compassion and empathy. But they are missing, sidelined, minimized. Instead you are told (with something approach cold indifference), “a relatively small minority [of Palestinians] has resorted to violence as a means of resisting the occupation.”
Also missing from the MESC report are the voices of a significant number of Palestinian Christians not represented by our partners in the region. Also missing are the voices of converts to Christianity who have often been kidnapped, jailed, or tortured by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. Also missing are the voices of Jewish people displaced and dispossessed from neighboring countries in the 1948 and later. Yes, their existence is mentioned in the MESC report – but only in the context of bolstering calls for Palestinian right of return. Under no circumstances are Presbyterians being asked to advocate FOR the right of return or negotiated compensation for Jewish displaced persons. And at no point are we hearing their voices.
The problem is: hearing one side only can never result in justice. It can never be a wise act. It can never be a moral act.
You can choose to adopt the narrative offered to you. But understand – to do so is to choose to favor one side and to treat Israel and the Jewish people in a manner distinct from your treatment of all other nations and groups under heaven. You can choose to embrace a double standard; you can give that choice whatever rationalization appeals to you. Or you can insist on fairness.
You can choose to accept the history offered to you by the MESC even though many of its proffered ‘facts’ are seriously disputed. But by doing so, by believing one side in every case you will be demonstrating the assumption that, where there are competing claims, the government of Israel – the only Jewish state – always lies, and the Palestinians always tell the truth. Or you may choose to reject bias and require accuracy.
You can choose, along with the Presbytery of San Francisco, to embrace the letter from the Israel/Palestine Mission Network. But if you do, you will be saying that lobbing unsupported accusations of violence and criminal behavior at American Jewish organizations is OK with you; you will be indicating that you believe it is reasonable to argue that the uptick in antisemitism is caused by Israeli actions; you will be saying that rejection of the concept of a Jewish state is fine; and you will be saying that American synagogues contribute to the “oppression of Palestinians over the last six decades”. You may choose this option, or you can decide that some statements really are out of bounds.
You can choose to reduce a tragic, longstanding, complex, and seemingly intractable conflict into a cartoon or morality play in which one side is made up of victims and heroes and the other side is energized and motivated by supernatural evil. You can choose this even though it is manifestly false. You may choose it even though it will in no way bring peace or justice to anyone. Or you can choose to be responsible, ethical, and moral.
As we approach the PC(USA)’s 219th General Assembly, a lot of people are writing on the Middle East issues being considered. I’d like to highlight a number of these resources.
Presbyterians for Middle East Peace [A group of Presbyterians committed to fairness and accuracy in the formulation of the PC(USA)'s Middle East Policy. This site features analysis of overtures coming before the GA, articles, and videos.]
Bearing Witness 2010[I am contributor to this site. It has been created by Jon Haber in response to the fact that many of the materials coming before the PC(USA)'s GA do not present both sides of the issues. "Bearing Witness 2010 hopes to rectify that situation with some well-reasoned analysis that puts the entire matter of Presbyterian relations with the Jewish state into context, as well as taking on individual issues related to this year’s GA votes."]
Viola Larson is a Presbyterian elder who has been very concerned by the anti-Jewish elements she sees in many PC(USA) resources. On her blog, Naming His Grace, Viola has written about many of the Middle East issues coming before the GA, and she has consistently opposed bias. Check out her posts:
An Exchange of Emails about Item 08-09 [Item 08-09 is the overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco based on a letter from the IPMN that contains a number of troubling elements - including an accusation that American Jewish organizations set fire to a PC(USA) church and might have sent a bomb to PC(USA) headquarters.]
David Fischler is a pastor in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. His blog, The Reformed Pastor, features a number of posts about church positions on Israel – including the PC(USA), other denominations and organizations like the NCC, and the WCC.
Dexter Van Zile has followed issues of church related anti-Israel activism for a number of years.
Robert Austell was a commissioner to the 218th General Assembly, and based on his experiences he has gathered a host of resources useful to commissioners. In his site, GA Help, he provides a considerable amount of information and links to resources on a wide variety of topics.
I am persuaded the PC(USA)’s Middle East Study Committee was designed to reach a predetermined result. Whether this happened by intent or by accident, I’m not prepared to say. But the weighted composition of the committee (demonstrated by the prior public stands of committee members), the views of PC(USA) staff assigned to the committee (demonstrated by their prior public statements and actions), and the perspective of the large majority of contacts made by the committee (demonstrated by those contacts’ statements, actions, and chosen group affiliations) all worked together to insure only one possible result.
I recognize this will be a difficult proposition for Presbyterians to accept. It is often a part of human nature to want to believe that things work the way they should – especially in an institution to which one has dedicated a considerable portion of one’s life.
I am also persuaded the recommendations of the Middle East Study Committee are, in the main, unhelpful, one-sided, sometimes unfair, sometimes unjust, and sometimes naive. Some of these are actively harmful; some of them seem to be deliberately misleading. Here again, many Presbyterians will have difficulty accepting this assessment.
However that may be, I would hope that Presbyterians – especially General Assembly commissioners – would take the time to read the 172 page report.
Some elements of this report are idiosyncratic; these probably do more to illustrate the mindsets of committee members than they do to illuminate the situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately the mindsets of committee members have a direct bearing on the reliability and legitimacy of the committee’s recommendations.
1. Early in the report, it becomes apparent that the Middle East Study Committee has an astonishingly high self image. Not only do they modestly suggest that they be transformed into a standing committee to monitor Presbyterian compliance with their many helpful recommendations, but they describe themselves this way:
“Our voice is one, which is priestly, prophetic, and pastoral…. From the VAST experiences and study of the members of this committee, from numerous meetings with people and leaders of diverse communities throughout the Middle East (including Iraqi and Iranian church leaders), from meetings with political and religious leaders in Washington and New York with a wide spectrum of perspectives, from debating and challenging one another, and from traveling together for TWO WEEKS IN THE MIDDLE EAST , we strive in this report to tell the truth as we see it and understand it.”
Really. Who Describes Themselves in This Way?
2.The MESC maintains that the “exodus of Palestinian Christians” stems mainly from Israeli actions. They list two factors, but for one and a half of them, the MESC blames Israel:
“[T]he increasingly rapid exodus of Christians from Israel/Palestine caused by anti-Palestinian discrimination and oppression, the growth of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism”
3.Their letter to American ecumenical partners contains a puzzling assertion:
“And unfortunately, where we have disagreed on matters of practice and policy, this has become an opportunity for those who do not share our concern for all parties in the region to divide us and even to manipulate one denomination’s policy to criticize another denomination’s approach. Let us be of one voice.”
Apparently, if one does not walk in lock step with the Middle East Study Committee of the PC(USA) one must either be the victim of manipulation, the manipulator, or fail to share the concern the MESC claims to have for all parties in the region. I’m wondering exactly who this describes. Is it perhaps related to the opinion expressed by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network (also communicated to this GA): “American Jewish Organizations … use threat and intimidation to censor debate about Israel within and without the Jewish community”? Or is it more closely related to the assertion made in “Steps Toward Peace in Israel and Palestine” (2005 Conference sponsored by the PC(USA)’s Office of the General Assembly): “The clear intention of the Jewish community, in most cases, is to change our minds. This is not, for them, simply an opportunity for open sharing to learn from and better understand one another. It is clear that there is an effort underway to convince and stir up enough Presbyterians to change the decisions of the 216th General Assembly (2004)”?
4. In its letter to Palestinian Friends the MESC offers criticism:
“We still see the occupation as the major obstacle to regional stability, and to the just solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We do not see it as the only obstacle. Being oppressed does not justify using the means of the oppressor; nor does suffering from the breach of international law permit similar breaches, even if smaller in scale. We are alarmed by acts of violence committed by militants and extremists.
We are also alarmed when we hear some Palestinians use anti-Semitic language against Jews and Israelis. We know that you are well-versed in the language of human rights; it has meant the building of a strong civil society in the face of incredible odds and overwhelming oppression of occupation. We hope that this zeal for equality would include all.”
Yet in this criticism acts of violence are relegated to the work of militants and extremists. In this criticism antisemitic language is confined to “some” Palestinians. In this criticism, the MESC’s opinions of the acts of Israel – “overwhelming oppression”, “large[r] scale breaches of international law”, “major obstacle to regional stability” – starkly outweigh any negative actions of Palestinians.
5. The Middle East Study Committee claims to review commitments of the PC(USA) and its predecessors for 62 years.
On one side, the MESC says the PC(USA) is committed:
“To the right of Palestinians to self-determination and to have their own separate, contiguous, economically viable, sovereign nation-state within the wider borders of “the land.”
Full stop. No qualifications. But to that it does add criticism of Israel:
“Arising from this … commitment has been our denomination’s steady call for the government of Israel to put an end to its military, political, and economic occupation of Palestinian land after 1967 and its practice of establishing and expanding settlements there.”
On the other side, the MESC says the PC(USA) is committed:
“To the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and legitimate borders.”
This is not strictly accurate, but it has been often recently repeated. That statement should, in theory, be able to stand by itself. The PC(USA) is for the right of Israel to exist …. Full stop. No qualifications.
In this case – the case of Israel, the Middle East Study Committee does not stop. It follow its commitment with the clause:
“borders that are not contended for on the basis of some literal reading of “biblical” geography….“ [scare quotes in original].
This seems to imply that majorities of Israeli Jews or the Israeli government is basing its claims on “some literal reading of “biblical” geography.”
The Middle East Study Committee goes farther – reminding everyone of the PC(USA)’s call:
“to Israeli Jews to fulfill their “land responsibilities,” responsibilities that include the covenant obligation to extend to “others” in their midst—that is, to Israeli Christians and Muslims—a full equality of civil rights and a full measure of justice.”
The Middle East Study Committee reserves words and phrases like “legitimate”, “bas[ed on] some literal reading of “biblical geography”, “land responsibilities”, “covenant obligation”, “full equality of civil rights and full measure of justice” exclusively for Israel. In one fell swoop this committee rejects biblical geography yet asserts unique requirements to the Jewish people based on biblical covenant. Ethical commissioners might wonder how the Middle East Study Committee thinks it gets to have it both ways.
But the Middle East Study Committee is not content with this treatment weighted against Israel. Instead, it felt the need for a footnote:
“The phrase “the right of Israel to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the 2009–2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”
In short, the Middle East Study Committee is saying, ‘we’re for the right of the State of Israel to exist … but not really.’
6. Some participants of the Middle East Study Committee produced “vignettes”. They do not seem to be included in the portion of the report commissioners are supposed to approve. Instead these impressionistic revelations are simply provided to commissioners. Yet these reveal a great deal about the opinions of their authors.
In her vignette, Rev. Susan Andrews resorts to extraordinarily biased language to describe some of her contacts and her opinions of Israeli actions:
“I see the angry settler in Hebron—greeting us with contempt in his voice and a pistol on his hip. And the soldiers who kept us waiting as they cleaned up the early morning blood from a confrontation between a Palestinian resident and an Israel soldier.”
Interestingly, the only angry and contemptuous person Rev. Andrews describes is a settler in Hebron. Contrast this with her description of an ICAHD activist:
“I see Angela, a Jewish human rights activist working for the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, who showed us the inequities of roads and houses and schools and freedom between East and West Jerusalem, and who grieves the very loss of the soul of the Jewish people amidst the power politics of the Israeli government.“
Without explanation, Rev. Andrews describes the formation of the nation of Israel in terms no one could possibly suspect of bias, anti-Israel animus, or blatant falsehood:
“I see a church packed with Christians in predominantly Muslim Amman, Jordan—most of them from families displaced by the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli soldiers.“
Andrews goes on:
“The second idea that has stuck with me focuses on the mantra we so often hear from our Jewish friends. “Never again” —never again will the world allow the horror and hatred of a holocaust against God’s people. But that mantra can have two meanings—never again will MY people go through such devastation, even if it means oppressing and destroying others in the process. OR, never again will ANY people go through such ugly destruction. And all of us—Christian, Muslim, Jew—must work together to find true shalom in the Middle East and around the world.”
And finally Rev. Andrews sums up what she learned from her Middle East trip (which was, by the way, entirely predictable given her pre-existing opinions and given the one-sided roster of contacts the MESC visited):
“The second was a plea from our Israeli Jewish brothers and sisters to engage our Jewish partners here in the United States in such a way that they can hear our message—and be transformed into peacemakers with and for the people of both Israel and Palestine.”
This vignette reveals no conception at all in Rev. Andrews’s mind that those who dispute the facts she embraces and differ with her opinion need to be heard and considered. Instead, they apparently need to have their thinking adjusted to match hers. A STUDY COMMITTEE BY ITS NATURE DEMANDS OPEN HEARING AND CONSIDERATION AND IT IS PRECISELY THIS THAT REV. ANDREWS REVEALS HERSELF UNWILLING TO DO.
7. In her vignette, Nahida Gordon describes an idyllic Palestine before Israel:
“Before Israel, we Palestinians were more like the birds—we lived in a multicultural society of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I had friends who were Jews and Muslims. Why cannot the world allow us to strive for that again?”
She concludes with a question that contains a false characterization of the formation of Isarel:
“[W]hy were the Palestinians deemed to be an expendable people for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity?”
[I have no doubt Nahida Gordon believes what she is saying to be true, but the characterizations are wholly insufficient to describe the period surrounding 1948. And the implication that somehow, after Israel, a new idyll will emerge is insupportable.]
8. Lucy Janjigian adds this to the conversation:
“Around 1946, militant Zionists began blowing up British soldiers and policemen. July 22, 1946, was Palestine’s September 11. Irgun Zionists blew up the King David Hotel that housed the British Mandate Government, killing 92 Arab, Armenian, British, Greek, and Jewish personnel, including my aunt’s sister Eugenie, and a Greek girl I knew, a recent graduate from our school.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations announced the Palestine Partition Plan.”
She goes on to quote an Israeli activist.
“Israel acts as a spoiled child,” remarked one Israeli activist. “America has helped create this undisciplined child. It depends on the U.S. for its lifeline of funding and weapons.” She continued to say “that even though the state of Israel is supposed to be a democracy, it acts as a NAZI state.” She did not feel she could live in the country much longer if it continued to be an oppressor, ignoring human rights.”
9. Committee member John Huffman claims to be a moderate theological pro-Zionist. In his vignette, he opines:
“It was with great reservation that I accepted the invitation to join this General Assembly task force. I know how controversial is this topic and how viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Jewish community that are quick to attach the label “anti-Semitic” to anyone who even suggests that there are serious ethical and legal issues at stake. I support the security of the State of Israel and believe that American tax dollars should be used for that purpose. But it should not be done at all costs on Israeli-dictated terms resulting from a masterful manipulation of the United States political process.“
He goes on:
“I personally plead for a reversal of the apartheid actions that now are integral to Israeli domestic and foreign policy. Something must be done to remove the ghastly wall that is such a reminder of the Soviet unjust endeavor to exclude. And I would hope for the negotiation of a land swap that will inconvenience the fewest possible Palestinians and Israelis in a realistic understanding that, as painful as it is, the clock cannot be turned all the way back to 1948 but that reparations can be made.”
Is Huffman implying that a return to 1948 and the removal of Isarel’s existence is somehow desirable or less painful?
10. In a profound display of bad taste, the Middle East Study Committee decided to end one section of its report this way:
On the floor of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the words attributed to Martin Niemoller, which he wrote as an anti-Nazi German pastor, read:
First, they came for the socialist, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionist, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
We all do have a shared responsibility to guard human rights everywhere, and now is the time for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to speak out, stand up, and take action. We must be those who will say, “Never again” not just for the Jew, but for every suffering victim in the world today,”including the Palestinians.“
Judge for yourselves: Is this the work of fair minded people who value truth and who honestly seek a just peace? Or is it the work of people who have wholeheartedly committed themselves to one side in a conflict at the expense of another?
We’ve already examined the mandate of the Middle East Study Committee, its composition, and part of its process. From the outset, the committee failed in one portion of its mandate: its composition was supposed to be drawn from “a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members.” Optimistically, before even beginning their work, 77% of the study committee’s members publicly favored one side. Again, optimistically, three quarters of the PC(USA) staff tasked with supporting the study committee’s work had a record of bias against one side. The study committee spent a lot of time, traveled, and met with a number of people; but 78% of the study committee’s contacts represented one perspective. In all three cases, the weight was toward the Palestinian narrative and against the State of Israel.
Given those circumstances, the Middle East Study Committee produced the report a person might expect. They made sixty recommendations to the General Assembly. These recommendations range from the non-offensive to the odd to the extreme to the patently unfair. I am not going to attempt to examine all of them in this limited space. Instead, I’ll confine myself to reporting some of the more colorful ones.
The recommendations section is divided into subsections. (I’m addressing items from four of these subsections.)
1. Affirmation of Human Rights and Moral Principles:
These eleven points are the type of statements commissioners often like to affirm. They tend to be viewed as “no brainers”. I mean, who is opposed to “human rights”? Who stands against “moral principles”? Most of these items are designed to sound good to the unsophisticated hearer. Yet – like the “justice and peace” language, the “human rights and moral principles” language is used to mask a rather darker agenda. They may be cast as if they were good and moral ideas, but that does not happen to be the case – at least for some of them.
1 c. Those additional rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights conventions, INCLUDING THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION. This last phrase “universal jurisdiction”, sounds innocuous enough, but I seriously doubt that most Presbyterians are that familiar with the concept. The principle of universal jurisdiction allows nations to prosecute alleged crimes that were committed outside the boundaries of that nation. A person might easily wonder why this is included in recommendations focused almost exclusively on Israel and Palestine. What is not said is that this concept is currently being strategically used among fashionable anti-Israel activists to to justify attempts to try alleged Israeli war criminals in Belgium, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Norway, and Spain.Its potential for prosecutions that are motivated more from a desire for political theater than from any idea of the rule of law or actual justice is being widely realized. The goal of this strategy is to reinforce the status of Israel as a pariah state whose government officials cannot travel to a variety of countries without risk of imprisonment and/or trial. It is NOT EVENLY APPLIED to all parties. And the PC(USA) really can’t call it a “human right” with a straight face. If commissioners endorse this they will be endorsing this strategy – whether they realize it or not.
1 g. The moral principle that all refugees have an individual right to return or to adjudicate or negotiate compensation for the loss of home and homeland, wherever those may be.This is applied in one direction only – ALWAYS. I have never heard of any Presbyterian advocate for the right to return or to adjudicate or negotiate compensation for ANY of the 800,000 Jewish persons displaced from Israel’s neighboring countries in the 1948 war. I have never heard any Presbyterian mention the property seizures that affected Jewish people. It simply has NEVER COME UP in Presbyterian accounts of the conflict. For PC(USA) commissioners to enshrine this “right of return” principle with the full intention and long history of only applying it in one direction could hardly be construed as “moral”. Will commissioners be aware of this double standard?
1 h. The moral goal for nations to create a nuclear-free world and, toward that goal, to sign and comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other relevant treaties.Another targeted “moral goal”. It is fine if Presbyterians oppose nuclear weapons – but is this being applied equally? Are Presbyterians focusing on England, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China? Are they issuing statements on the real or imagined nuclear capabilities of any of these nations? Why the exclusive focus on Israel? Or does this correspond to another fashionable initiative in the world of Palestinian advocacy politics?
2. Affirmation of Previous General Assembly Policies & Statements:
At this point the MESC provides a selective list of PC(USA) policy statements that it wants the 219th General Assembly to reaffirm. It includes the usual suspects: the end of the Israeli occupation, the relocation of the separation barrier, a shared Jerusalem, corporate engagement. Gone are the prior General Assembly calls for fairness and calls to avoid one-sidedness. Gone are General Assembly condemnations of terrorism and suicide bombing as crimes against humanity. A couple of these raise eyebrows.
2 b. the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories AND DIVERSION OF WATER RESOURCES
2 c. an immediate freeze both on the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and on the ISRAELI ACQUISITION OF PALESTINIAN LAND AND BUILDINGS IN EAST JERUSALEM
2 e. THE WITHHOLDING OF US GOVERNMENT AID TO ISRAEL as long as Israel persists in creating new West Bank settlements
2 i. the cessation of systematic violation of human rights by any party, specifically, practices of administrative detention, collective punishment, the torture of prisoners and suspects, home demolitions and evictions, and the deportation of dissidents;The significance of this particular item is that all of the “violations of human rights” listed are accusations that the PC(USA)’s advocacy community level against Israel. No mention whatsoever is made of Palestinian violations of human rights. It is true that the PA and Hamas authorities have practiced an equivalent of administrative detention, torture of prisoners, murder of suspected collaborators, murder of dissidents, and home demolitions. But these items are NOT EVER THE OBJECT OF PRESBYTERIAN FOCUS.
3. For the Witness of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):
This mystifying category includes a series of rather unrelated initiatives oddly lumped together.
3 a. … Travel opportunities with a particular emphasis on visits with the Christian communities, study of Reformed theological understandings of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of historical understandings that ENCOMPASSES VARIOUS NARRATIVES AND VERIFIABLE SOURCES, [the very thing the Middle East Study Committee entirely failed to do] itineration throughout the U.S. by Middle Eastern Christian partners, local dialogues and shared projects with American Jews and Muslims, participation in the ECUMENICAL ACCOMPANIMENT PROGRAM (EAPPI) in Palestine and Israel of the World Council of Churches, and robust publicity and promotion of these activities.
3 b. The Middle East Study Committee makes itself into a monitoring group that continues to exert its heavily weighted influence in guiding Presbyterian policy over the next two years.
3 c. STRONGLY DENOUNCES CATERPILLAR’s continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of its products and presses Caterpillar to review carefully its involvement in obstacles to a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine and to take affirmative steps to end its complicity in the violation of human rights.
3 d. Calls on denominational agencies and entities, presbyteries, congregations, and individual members to invest positively, after due vetting, in sustainable economic development projects for the West Bank and Gaza (that do not support the occupation) sponsored by Palestinians or jointly by Palestinians and Israelis in equitable partnership.
3 f. Endorses the Kairos Palestine document (“A Moment of Truth”) in its emphases on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation. This is a remarkably dishonest statement. It implies that commissioners can endorse a document without endorsing it. Claiming to support the unspecified good parts of the document is a claim to nothing. Without an indication of what exactly the GA is supporting and is not supporting, such a statement is open ended. For instance, the Kairos document rejects the existence of the Jewish State. Is this part of the emphasis on hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation? Or isn’t it? The PC(USA) cannot endorse this document without rejecting the existence of the Jewish State. So is it an endorsement or isn’t it? Similarly, the Kairos document cites the occupation as the source of Palestinian resistance and claims that when Israelis end the occupation, “Then they will see a new world in which there is no fear, no threat but rather security, justice and peace.” The claim is absurd – perhaps naive if one wants to give the benefit of the doubt – but absurd nonetheless. Is this a claim the PC(USA) is endorsing? Is it part of the “emphasis on hope….”?
4. Urgent Actions Toward Justice and Peace in Israel, the Occupied Territories of Palestine, and Jerusalem
It is at this point that the Middle East Study Committee really runs off the tracks and turns into something between a wish list of anti-Israel activists and an oversimplification of the realities of the conflict.
4 b. Calls on the U.S. government to exercise strategically its international influence, INCLUDING THE POSSIBLE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID as a means of bringing Israel to compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts.Seeing the similarity to recommendation 2 e, a reader might be tempted to think the Middle East Study Committee has gotten repetitive. That is not really the case. In this instance the MESC is wanting to use the withholding of military aid in the service of international law (which is vague enough) and unspecified peacemaking efforts. What efforts? Whose? What constitute peacemaking efforts?
4 c. Calls upon Israel to release, without any further delay, withheld Palestinian tax moneys to the Palestinian National Authority.
4 d. Calls on the Israeli government to end immediately its blockade of Gaza, and on the U.S. government to end any support it is giving to the blockade, and also calls on the Egyptian government to facilitate the passage of humanitarian supplies into Gaza as well as consumer goods from the strip.
4 e. Urges the main Palestinian political parties (Fatah and Hamas) to set aside their differences, to pursue an ideology of nonviolence, to reconcile immediately, and to work for peace with each other and with their neighbor, Israel, for the sake of their people, and also calls on the U.S. government to offer support for such reconciliation.
4 f. Supports the establishment of an international council for Jerusalem to ensure the nondiscriminatory treatment of all Jerusalemites, including fair allocation of housing and family unification permits, free movement of religious workers of all faiths, fair provision of city services in exchange for taxes, protection of all religious and historic sites, international scientific review of all archeological sites and labeling of historic sites, and equitably accessible mass transit from both Israeli and Palestinian areas and links to the West Bank and Gaza.Before commissioners approve this item, they might want to give thought to the composition of such an “international council” and the difficulties in finding neutral parties. This difficulty, while plainly evident, seems to be entirely lost on the MESC.
4 h. Calls for Bethlehem to be a free and open city accessible to all people.What exactly is being asked in this recommendation? Is the PC(USA) being asked to make its requirement for Bethlehem the same as those for Jerusalem? How would it enforce its “free and open city” policy and universal accessibility while it remained a part of a sovereign nation? Or is it to be internationalized like Jerusalem? I’m curious why they don’t just suggest doing that with the whole area – Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem. Why not reverse the 1948 partition? Why not have a new mandate administered by the United Nations?
The function of this report is to gather issues that affect Israelis and Palestinians into one neat package. It creates a climate in which it is very easy for commissioners to accept these recommendations together and it is very difficult for commissioners to examine each proposal on its individual merits. This report re-iterates items covered in overtures from various presbyteries and in reports and recommendations of other committees. THIS IS THE INSTITUTIONAL PACKAGE. As such it embodies systemic institutional biases against Israel and at times against the Jewish people. It will be presented to commissioners as if it were moderate and broad based. It is not. It represents the views of relatively small minorities of Presbyterians AND it represents the views of significant majorities of national employees, committee members, networks and some affinity groups of the PC(USA).
On a personal level, when I see these items gathered in one place, I find the total picture appalling. To be sure, there have been, within this reports, some brief attempts at even-handedness. But the overwhelming effect is heavily weighted against Israel. Most of the negative action items are directed at Israel. Many of the suggestions are favorites among radical anti-Israel activists. All of this is couched in the language of peace and justice and human rights and witness and moral principles. But taken together, these recommendations will do little to bring about peace; their human rights emphases are one-sided – sometimes egregiously so. On a deeper level, justice can never result from unjust church actions. A weighted committee, staffed by people who have led the Presbyterian charge against Israel, meeting with a list of contacts heavily supportive of only one opinion – is, in itself, unjust. Justice cannot be obtained through this process.
I appeal to commissioners: look at each recommendation on its own merits. Look at the total picture. Is it one sided? Is it fair? Have you been provided with all the relevant information? Are you being asked to treat Israel in a manner distinct from the way you treat all other nations? Do you really believe Israel is the unique in the annals of human rights abuses? Is the existence of a Jewish state the problem? If so – what about the existence of Islamic states? What about the existence of ethnically based states? What about the existence of an Arab league? Who are the honest brokers? Is Israel being held to a different standard? Clearly, many Middle Eastern Christians express a particular opinion. Hearing that opinion is certainly important – but does that automatically make it right or true? Are you somehow obliged to take the same political positions as you hear being advocated by some Middle Eastern Christians? If so, why? And why are the opinions of large segments of Christians who disagree being ignored? Are your sources of information biased? How do you justify that? This is not an easy task. No one is pretending otherwise. You have been posed with a moral quandary. But approving this without examining all of its aspects is immoral. There are people who will tell you to trust the work of the committee. They spent two years on these issues; they know what they’re doing. But they’re not the ones required to make this choice. And they’re not the ones accountable for this choice. Like it or not, that falls to you.
The Middle East Study Committee of the PC(USA) was given a rather ambitious mandate:
“The study should include an evaluation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s mission and relationships, including an assessment of the future for the Christian presence and witness in the Middle East, an overview of the complex interactions among religions, cultures, and peoples that characterize the region, an analysis of U.S. policies that impact the area, and steps to be taken with our partners in the Middle East and the United States to foster justice, improve interfaith relations, and nurture the building of peace toward A SECURE AND VIABLE FUTURE FOR ALL.”
They had two whole years to accomplish these modest goals. In order for the Middle East Study Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to have produced anything even remotely helpful two things would have been necessary to start: the members of the committee would need to have represented “a broad spectrum of viewpoints” (as specified by the General Assembly instruction that created the committee), and the information sources used by the committee would need to have been accurate and broadly based – covering a wide range of perspectives.
Let’s see how they did.
The Makeup of the Middle East Study Committee
The 218th General Assembly placed only one requirement on composition of the Middle East Study Committee:
The 218th General Assembly (2008) requests that the Moderators of the 218th, 217th, and 216th General Assemblies (2008), (2006), and (2004) select a nine-member committee from a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members.
The first question is this: how broad are the opinions of Presbyterian members? It really depends on the questions asked. Significantly more members and elders opposed the PC(USA)’s phased, selective divestment policy instituted in 2004 than favored it. Significant numbers (30%) had no opinion on this policy. The greater the respondent’s reported awareness of the policy, the more likely he or she was to oppose it. At the same time, majorities of Presbyterians agree that, “the PC(USA) should shift its investment funds away from such corporations if it is unable to dissuade them from doing things that directly or indirectly SUPPORT VIOLENCE against Israeli or Palestinian civilians (as it already does from corporations involved in tobacco, military-related production, and human rights violations).” This was consistent with the stand of the 2006 General Assembly. It is, however, inconsistent with the modified stance of the 2008 General Assembly in which the MRTI report managed to include the tag “construction and maintenance of settlements or Israeli-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 “Green Line” into Palestinian territories”. Majorities of Presbyterians favor a two-state solution.Majorities of Presbyterians oppose the expansion of settlements. When asked to rate the importance of maintaining relationships between Presbyterians and the US Jewish community, 76% of member and 77% of elders considered it “important” or “very important”. It would only be a slight oversimplification to say that most Presbyterian members tended to be thoroughly moderate and well within the mainstream of political discourse.
The Middle East Study Committee consisted of nine members and was assisted by four PC(USA) employees.
The four employees were:
Christian Iosso, coordinator of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. The ACSWP’s record is one of thorough anti-Israel bias over numerous years. This is well-documented elsewhere, but it is readily apparent when one reads the 2003 and 2004 ACSWP reports (and numerous other recommendations) at the General Assemblies or when one peruses the ACSWP’s former publication, Church & Society.
Rev. Victor Makari, oordinator for the Middle East, Asia Minor and the Jinishian Memorial Program for the General Assembly Council, is notable for his Mammon comment in accounting for Jewish reaction to the 2004 divestment decision.
PC(USA) Mission Co-Worker Douglass Dicks has provided an email list from which he culls every possible (English language) criticism of Israel appearing in Middle Eastern, European, and decidedly left-wing US publications, and forwards them to Presbyterians as if these were accurate representations of the conflict.
Rev. Kerry Clements is the director of Communication, Development, and Technology for the Office of the General Assembly.
Minister members included:
Rev. Susan R. Andrews, moderator of the 215th General Assembly (2003) has been an outspoken supporter of the 2004 divestment action, and was influential in misrepresenting the decision of the 217th General Assembly that literally removed the 2004 divestment instruction.
Rev. John Huffman publicly endorsed the 2004 divestment decision.
Rev. Rebecca Reyes – at the time of the appointment her public opinions on Israel and Palestine were unknown.
Rev. Marthame Sanders – a former PC(USA) mission worker in the West Bank – whose website in 2003 and 2004 recommended a blanket boycott of Israeli goods.
Rev. Ronald L. Shive opposed the 2008 overture calling on the PC(USA) to be non-partisan.
Rev. John W. Wimberly was the only member of this committee known to have opposed to the 2004 divestment policy and to have advocated for greater fairness. Rev. Wimberly resigned in protest at the one-sided makeup of the Middle East Study Committee and the direction it desired to take.
Elder members included:
Frederic W. Bush is a professor emeritus of Fuller Theological Seminary who has participated in several FOSNA sponsored events.
Nahida H. Gordon has publicly accused Israel of ethnic cleansing.
Lucy Janjigian is an artist who has been outspoken on her criticisms of Israel.
Byron Shafer replaced Rev. John Wimberly on the MESC and provided the only dissenting vote.
The net result here is that the chosen committee members do not reflect the diversity of the opinions of PC(USA) members on the subject. By a margin of at least seven to two, the committee was predisposed toward a particular outcome. The PC(USA) support staff for the committee, by a margin of at least three to one was already publicly committed to (or against) one particular side in the disputes between Israelis, Palestinians, and neighboring states. Yet, as glaringly obvious as that lack of diversity remains, it seems to be lost on the chair of the committee. Rev. Ron Shive opined, “This report reflects the extensive, hard work of the study committee and the wealth of experience each member brought to our discussions. Given the interest in this topic and the diversity of our backgrounds, our conversations were always lively. And yet, we managed to have consensus on the bulk of our report and recommendations.”
Contacts made by the Middle East Study Committee:
The Middle East Study Committee believes (or at least says of itself) that:
“The methodology for the study has been to engage as many representatives from a spectrum of perspectives on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and to embrace the witness and concerns of our Christian partners in the region. This approach involved conversations both in the United States and in the Middle East; with both Israelis and Palestinians; Jews, Muslims, and Christians. We have worked diligently to listen to the multitude of voices that are crying aloud in the midst of the Middle East conflict.”
It is true that the authors of the MESC report only said “A SPECTRUM” of perspectives, and it is true “that limited time, resources, and other circumstances prevented us from engaging some voices.” But they claim to have “worked diligently to listen to the multitude of voices that are crying aloud in the Middle East conflict.” So the natural question: with whom did they meet? They provided a listing in appendix 1. I urge you to carefully examine this document.
All told, the MESC reports that it met with more than 50 individuals in addition to several larger groups. I realize, of course, that the names will be unfamiliar to many readers. Yet a pattern emerges: By my count, the Middle East Study Committee met with 43 people who were – either personally or representing groups who were – at a minimum, highly critical of Israel. I must say categorically that many of these have interesting things to say; committee members may have gleaned considerable information from these contacts. Some of them have displayed restraint in their public criticisms; others have tended toward the vitriolic, the dubious, and sometimes extreme. The Middle East Study Committee had 3 contacts that are difficult to evaluate and could easily be regarded as neutral. The Middle East Study Committee also met with 9 people favorable to Israel.
43 pro-Palestinian (often anti-Israel, sometimes more extreme) TO 3 neutral TO 9 pro-Israel.
The problem here is not that the Middle East Study Committee met with any of the persons listed. The problem is that their meetings were overwhelmingly weighted in one direction. While the MESC met with ICAHD, JVP, Rabbis for Human Rights, and B’tselem, and listened attentively to all of their criticisms of Israel, it did not meet with any equivalent Palestinian organization that leveled the same degree of critical focus on Palestinian society. While the MESC met with numerous representatives of Sabeel, and with a Christian Peacemaker Team in Hebron, it did not meet with any equivalent organization taking the contrary viewpoint.
One of the 9, Rabbi Ed Rettig of the American Jewish Committee in Israel described his meeting with this committee:
“[T]hey listened to nothing… When interlocutors like me try to lay out for them that what is taking place [in Israel] is not in a cartoon but involves real people living real lives and facing real threats and having real rights … they did not open their minds and hearts to listen, which is terribly disappointing.”
Yes, they met with a lot of people. Yes, they traveled. What the MESC study committee failed to encounter over the course of two years was diversity of opinion.
Once those three determinations were made – a committee membership with pre-existing (and publicly stated) opinions heavily weighted in one direction, support personnel sharing that bias (some of whom have an impressive record of anti-Israel animus), and a series of contacts heavily skewed to one side – the Middle East Study Committee became an exercise in futility, an enterprise predestined to fail at its mandate from start to finish. There was simply no way that a group of people with that set of pre-existing opinions, using that set of resources, could possibly achieve the outcome desired by the 2008 General Assembly.
Will Spotts
Contacts of the Middle East Study Committee:
These NGO’s have very public records of intense criticism of the State of Israel.
Speaking for Rabbis for Human Rights: Rabbi Navah Hefetz
Speaking for B’tselem: Yael Stein
Speaking for the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition: Angela Godfrey-Goldstein
Speaking for PASSIA: Dr. Mahdi Abdel Hadi
Speaking for Churches for Middle East Peace: Ambassador Warren Clark
Speaking for the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Society Center: Rev. Ian Alexander, Nora Carmi, Cedar Duaybis, Samia Khoury
These church groups have public records on Israel/Palestine – that, while variable, could hardly be construed as favorable to Israel:
Representing (affiliated with) the Middle East Council of Churches: General Secretary Guirgis Saleh, Wafa Goussous, Archbishop Boulos Matar
Representingmembers of the Middle East Council of Churches:His Beatitude Igantius IV Hazim (Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Anticoch and All of the East), His Beatitude Gregorios III (Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All of the East), HE Metropolitan Elias Audeh (Archbishop, Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All of the East), Rev. Boutrus Zaour (Evangelical Church of Damascus)
Representing the World Council of Churches: Chris Ferguson
Representing the Lutheran World Federation: Rev. Mark Brown
Representing the National Council of Churches of Christ of the USA: Archbishop Viken Aykazian
Representing the National Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon: Rev. George Mourad, Rev. Fadi Dagher
Representing the Office of International Justice and Peace, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Dr. Stephen M. Colecchi
Representing the Episcopal Church as the National Cathedral’s Canon for Global Justice and Reconciliation, Rev. Canon John L. Peterson
Representing theEpiscopal Diocese of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Rev. Canon Robert Edmunds, Rev. Fa’eq Haddad, Rev. Fadi Diab
Representing the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land: Pastor Samer Azar
These individuals have taken public stands highly critical of Israel:
Bill Somplatsky-Jarman is the PC(USA)’s associate for Mission Responsibility through Investment.
Dr. Marc Braverman is listed as “clinical psychologist and author, executive director of the Holy Land Peace Project.” He has also served on ICAHD‘s board of Directors and Sabeel‘s advisory committee. He has argued that Israeli actions create antisemitism.
Dr. Noura Erakat is listed as “adjunct professor, International Human Rights Law in the Middle East, Georgetown University.” She has also worked for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Interestingly, Dr. Erakat appears in the PC(USA)’s photo directory participating in an Israel/Palestine Mission Network event – reading “one of Rachel Corrie’s email messages … Erakat spearheaded the development of ‘Rachel’s Words.‘”
Dr. Mary Mikheal is listed as “president, Near East School of Theology, Beirut, Lebanon.” She has also referred to Hezbollah as a resistance group – suggesting it was formed to rid Lebanon of Israeli occupation.
Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour is listed as “general secretary, Arab Group for Christian-Muslim Relations”. Dr. Jarjour has accused Israel of genocide and colorfully refered to Sharon as the grinning servant of the Prince of Darkness.
His Beatitude Fouad Twail is listed as “Patriarch, Latin (Roman Catholic) Patriarchate of Jerusalem”. He has also spoken out against 60 years of occupation – indicating, of course, that he objects to the existence of the State of Israel.
HE Avraham Burg is listed as “Former MK and Speaker of the Knesset and Cabinet Minister and author”. His book, The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes, is quoted favorably in the MESC report and used as part of the basis for the MESC claim “This sense of historical victimization creates for some Israelis a compensatory reflex to choose power and armament; to reject the claims and critique of others; and the adoption of a philosophy that the “end justifies the means,” even if that means the loss of human rights, life, and the dignity of others.” [This claim is made by the MESC - not Burg, but his book is used to support it.]
Dr. Judith Harel is listed as “Information and Advocacy Unit, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs”. Among other things, Harel speaks of the IOF – Israeli Occupation Force, and has called for a boycott of Israel.
Rabbi Na’amah Kelmanis listed as dean, Hebrew Union College. Rabbi Kelman also serves on the board of Rabbis for Human Rights.
Dr. Tawfiq Nasseris listed as chief executive officer, Augusta Victoria Hospital. Augusta Victoria Hospital is operated by the Lutheran World Federation. Dr. Nasser has spoken at several Sabeel conferences.
Rueben Brigetyis listed as director of the Sustainable Security Program, Center for American Progress. He was also a researcher with Human Rights Watch.
Dr. Paul Haidostian is listed as president, Haigazian University.
HE. Metropolitan Mor Theophilos George Salibais listed as archbishop of Mount Lebanon, Syrian Orthodox Church.He signed the Middle East Oriental Common Declaration – which said, among other things, “A comprehensive and permanent peace with justice is achieved when the Palestinians are given full right for an independent state having Jerusalem as its capital, when the occupation by Israel of the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms is ended. The attempts to change the demographic structure of Jerusalem aiming at its Judiazation, ignoring the international agreements, building more settlements, confiscating lands, military aggression against the Palestinian people, refusal of the return of the refugees and besieging of the people in their towns and villages, etc., all these will widen the circle of violence”
Officials of governments often opposed to Israel:
HE Ambassador Riyad Mansour, permanent observer of the Palestine Authority to the United Nations
His Excellency Senator Akel Biltaji, former minister of Tourism and Antiquities and specialadvisor to His Majesty King Abdullah II
Madame Colette Khoury,cultural advisor to President Bashar Al-Assad
Others (difficult to evaluate):
Representatives of organizations:
Dr. Joseph Jabbra, president,Lebanese American University.
Father Nabil Haddad, the Jordanian Interfaith Co-existence Research Center
Government officials:
HE Ambassador Thomas Goldberger, director, Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State. [Goldberger is impossible to classify as he has taken positions that are all over the map. This is probably a function of his role.]
Sources favorable to the Israeli position:
Representing the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel: Rabbi Dr. Ron Kronish, Ophir Yarden, Rabbi Shelton Donnell
Representing the Jerusalem Center for Jewish Christian Relations: Daniel Rossing
Representing the Jewish Community (Israeli Settlement Association) of Hebron: David Wilder
Representing the American Jewish Committee, Jerusalem: Rabbi Edward Rettig
Stuart Schoffman, senior fellow, The Shalom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem [moderate left of center - favors a two state solution, opposed divestment.]
Mark Pelavin, associate director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
HE Ambassador Daniel Carmon, deputy permanent representative of Israel to the United Nations
[I said earlier that the commissioners to the PC(USA)'s 219th General Assembly are faced with a Solomonic task. They are barraged with:
> calls to divest from Caterpillar;
> calls to condemn Caterpillar;
> a call to endorse the Kairos Palestine document, "A Moment of Truth";
> a call for the PC(USA) to find Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid and to urge the United Nations to take some unspecified action;
> a call to "express extreme disappointment" that Israel continues to be a recipient of US military aid;
> a peculiar report from the ACSWP that, in the entire world, finds ONLY Israel to be guilty of religious discrimination requiring Presbyterian attention;
> a communication from the Israel / Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) that objects to the existence of a Jewish state, that blames an increase in antisemitism on Israelis actions, and that accuses - without offer of proof - American Jewish Organizations of burning down a church, that suggests that American Jewish Organizations sent a bomb to PC(USA) headquarters as part of a pattern of intimidation and censorship, and that puts these two terrorist accusations they have leveled on an equal footing with Jewish neighbors visiting Presbyterian churches. This hate-filled communication was apparently supported by they Presbytery of San Francisco.
At the same time, commissioners have been presented with a couple of options that lack the overt hostility toward Israel and the Jewish people seen in the above proposals.
> a call for independent commissions to investigate the actions of both the IDF and Palestinians. (The significant things here that are fairly unique among proposals to the GA are that both are being treated in an equivalent fashion, that the presbytery issuing the call recognizes (the possibility of) flaws with the Goldstone report. Now this is not to say there is equivalency, but in most of the other proposals any report critical of Israel - indeed any criticism of Israel at all - is taken as automatically true.)
> a report on Christians and Jews that acknowledges the role of antisemitism in the modern church - including in many of the elements of the advocacies of the PC(USA) and its partners. (Sometimes, of course, the advocates REALLY ARE UNAWARE of the full anti-Judaic and antisemitic implications of some of their figures of speech. But the report does insist that Presbyterians have a responsibility to see that their actions are free from bigotry.)
> an overture from the Presbytery of San Joaquin that acknowledges the inherent complexity of the conflict between Israel, Palestinians, and neighboring states, that calls on the PC(USA) to defer from taking positions or making policy statements that appear to favor either side in the conflict, and asks the GA to instruct “the General Assembly Mission Council to ensure that staff, council members, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks abide by these directives.”
Additionally, commissioners are being asked to consider a proposal to alter the way the PC(USA) makes social policy statements and proposals relating to the Belhar Confession. Both of these would impact the PC(USA) Middle East actions and statements. The social witness policy change would ensure that such actions and statements had broader Presbyterian support, and the Belhar Confession would be used to increase anti-Israel activism.
Those outside of PC(USA) culture (and many Presbyterians) should be aware that every one of these initiatives must be dealt with in some fashion by commissioners to the General Assembly. These can be approved; they can be rejected; they can be amended and then approved; or they can be referred - usually to an appropriate committee in order to be reconsidered by a future General Assembly. In order to accomplish this task, commissioners must sift through a great deal of information. Many of these initiatives include rationales that offer a wide variety of assertions of fact.
One very pronounced weakness of the General Assembly system is the fact that commissioners usually only have the information provided to them to work with. They simply lack the time and wherewithal to go through and check each assertion of fact. is it valid? Is it fair? Is the WHOLE truth being told? Does the speaker have a bias? Is there a larger story? Are the facts in dispute? Commissioners are usually left to their best guess. The other sources of information tend to be testimonies during the committee meetings at the GA, materials presented by various special interest groups, and testimony of PC(USA) staff and representatives. Here again, fact checking is simply not-possible. Here again, questions of speaker bias are a crap-shoot.
In THIS PARTICULAR CASE (i.e. Israelis and Palestinians), that is a fatal flaw. The reason for the problem is simple enough: on every major point, there is conflict among multiple competing narratives. Virtually every offer of fact is disputed by someone, somewhere. Interpretations of facts are equally scattered. The cases submitted will tend to omit any inconvenient details. Here, in this environment, commissioners must sift through everything being said. Is it true? Does it mean what I'm being told it means? Does it make sense? If I can't ascertain that, what course of action can I take? Is there an overwhelming pattern of bias? Is one side being given more credence than another across the board? And if so, why? Is one party being treated differently than all others - essentially in the world? If so, how is this unequal treatment being justified? Do I understand what is going on? Can I predict what the effects of the actions I'm being asked to take will be? If I can't, what is the responsible course? What is the ethical course? Can it be called ethical to do something that might cause harm without knowing (or at least without having enough information to make an educated guess) what the result will be? Is it ethical to affirm biases? Is it ethical to hold one people or one nation to a standard distinct from that of every other nation?
All of this SHOULD BE in the forefront of a commissioner's mind. Sadly, I suspect that will not be the case. I once heard the General Assembly described as Disneyland for Presbyterians. That assessment was, of course, made jokingly, but it contains a particle of truth. It is very easy for commissioners to get carried away, to view themselves as better informed, more competent, having greater moral clarity than they actually possess. It is very easy for commissioners to give in to an almost pep-rally ethic that permits them to view their actions and pronouncements as the work of the Holy Spirit and to push for ground breaking statements that are treated as if they were somehow prophetic. In fact, many GA's and many Presbyterians have actually used the word "prophetic" to describe GA actions and decisions.
Add to this the fact that majorities of commissioners - precisely because of the level of involvement in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that being a commissioner of necessity entails - have a pro-institutional mindset. It becomes extremely difficult for them to distrust the information provided to them by Presbyterian staff, national committees, networks, and governing bodies. Unfortunately, in this particular case, that trust is being misplaced. The very people tasked with making these decisions are the least likely to see what is patently obvious to most people outside of the denomination: the record of various PC(USA) entities on Israel and Palestine has historically failed the test of fundamental fairness. These have indulged in statements biased against Israel, and often they have crossed whatever lines exist between pro-Palestinian activism, anti-Israel bias, and anti-Jewish bigotry.
What I have described would be the situation if the above items were the sum total of statements on Israel and Palestine that commissioners to the 219th General Assembly had to address. It would be a very taxing process posing a number of difficulties. However, this year's General Assembly must also deal with a lurking behemoth: the 172 page Middle East Study Committee report with its numerous recommendations. This report, in spite of its mandate, provides the centerpiece for the institutional PC(USA) case against Israel.
Item 14-08 "Breaking Down the Walls" from the Middle East Study Committee.
The Middle East Study Committee of the PC(USA) was formed by an action of the 2008 General Assembly.
"The 218th General Assembly (2008) requests that the Moderators of the 218th, 217th, and 216th General Assemblies (2008), (2006), and (2004) select a nine-member committee from a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members] to prepare a comprehensive study, with recommendations, that is focused on Israel/Palestine within the complex context of the Middle East. The study should include an evaluation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s mission and relationships, including an assessment of the future for the Christian presence and witness in the Middle East, an overview of the complex interactions among religions, cultures, and peoples that characterize the region, an analysis of U.S. policies that impact the area, and steps to be taken with our partners in the Middle East and the United States to foster justice, improve interfaith relations, and nurture the building of peace toward a secure and viable future for all, and report back to the 219th General Assembly (2010).”
The original proposal in 2008 called for this study to be produced by the General Assembly Mission Council in conjunction with the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. This item was modified in 2008 to require the selection of an entirely new committee. Only one real qualification was placed on this selection by the GA: it must include “a broad spectrum of viewpoints from PC(USA) members”.
This Middle East Study Committee was given a somewhat broad mandate. The moderators who selected its members were also given only that one requirement. Had they followed it, had they selected members from a broad spectrum of viewpoints, and had the committee met with people and consulted sources from a broad spectrum of viewpoints, they might have produced a truly helpful document. The MESC could have offered the commissioners to the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) a document that reflected a variety of perspectives, that provided timely and factual information, that gave commissioners a real sense of the complexity of the issues, that indicated genuinely fair and productive ways forward for Presbyterians.
If, on the other hand, the moderators stacked the deck – chose a committee weighted in one direction, and if the national PC(USA) staff persons that supported the committee helped guide them to seek only a limited range of opinions from the parties involved, the result would be disappointing and predictable. If, for example, the moderators selected a committee membership that ranged from the moderately anti-Israel to the devoutly anti-Israel, and if they assigned national employees whose records of fundamental fairness towards Israel were lacking, any chance of a helpful contribution from this group would evaporate. Instead, a group of this kind, in spite of their perceived differences, would tend to form an ever more radicalized echo chamber. That situation would almost guarantee that 219th General Assembly commissioners, Presbyterians generally, and the rest of the world are to be treated to business as usual – yet another one-sided document that affirms one people at the expense of another, that places blame exclusively and unjustly on one party, that becomes ever more shrill in the tone of its criticism, that regurgitates one narrative while ignoring contrary facts, that really does more to muddle than to clarify.
Unfortunately, as we will see in the next post, the direction of one-sidedness and imbalance against Israel has been chosen. And the work product of this Middle East Study Committee profoundly reflects that choice.
[Items from committees that concern Israelis and Palestinians that are scheduled to come before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).]
These two papers, “Christians and Jews: People of God“, and, “Toward an Understanding of Christian Muslim Relations“, have been submitted by the General Assembly Mission Council. They were produced jointly by the Office of Theology and Worship, the Office of Interfaith Relations, and the Office of Evangelism. They are (for the most part) intended to reflect the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s self-understanding of its theology in relationship to Judaism and Islam. As such, I believe this to be a mostly internal matter to the denomination. Basically, the PC(USA) has the right to form and articulate its own theology, and it is not really the place of those of us on the outside to do so. As a former member of a PC(USA) church, I, of course, have a strong personal interest in the topic, but I only want to comment on this insofar as it impacts Presbyterian activism directed at others.
Item 08-03 “Approve the paper: ‘Christians and Jews: People of God’”
Unlike the paper on Christian-Muslim relations, this paper is accompanied by only three recommendations.
1. Approve for study and reflection the paper, “Christians and Jews: People of God” and distribute it to the church electronically.
2. Commend “Christians and Jews: People of God” to governing bodies and congregations as guidance for the occasions in which Presbyterians and Jews converse, cooperate, and enter into dialogue.
3. Commend “Christians and Jews: People of God” to governing bodies and congregations as guidance for the development of programs and resources.
Unlike the recommendation from the paper on Christian-Muslim relations, this is not a call for the development of specific items. It is, however, an indication that this document is to be used as a resource when such resources are produced.
There are, however, several significant (even extraordinary) items within the paper itself that have a direct bearing on PC(USA) actions and stances on Israelis and Palestinians.
1. “The relationship of the Christian church to the people Israel is not that of a replacement, but of “a wild olive shoot” grafted into “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17). While the New Testament contains numerous references to God’s “new covenant” in Christ, these cannot be taken to mean that “new” cancels God’s previous covenants. Just as the covenant at Sinai did not dissolve the covenant with Abraham, so the new covenant sealed in Christ’s blood “… does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise” (Gal. 3:17).”
This is a clear rejection of the replacement theology that has often appeared in much of the anti-Israel literature. The issue of Christian self-understanding, and the distinctions between supersessionism and replacement theology are complex. The self-evident bottom line is that Christianity and Judaism teach certain mutually exclusive things – each believes themselves to be factually correct. No Christian document can evade that fact. BUT, A REJECTION OF REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT MOVE.
To some degree this report acknowledges the necessity of historic Judaism to Christianity: “Christian faith is firmly grounded in the faith of Israel”; rejects false characterizations that have plagued Christianity: “Superficial contrasts between “the wrathful God of the Old Testament” and “the loving God of the New Testament” are not only inaccurate readings of both Old and New Testaments, but also denials of the very foundations of Christian faith”; and acknowledges that the historic Christian heresy of Marcionsism continues to be felt in the church today.
2. This paper acknowledges the continuation of Christian antisemitism. “Christian teaching of contempt for Jews and the subsequent history of ghettos, pogroms, and even holocaust is not simply a distant memory. Anti-Semitism is a continuing reality throughout the world, including within the Christian church.“
It goes farther:
“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is called to examine its interpretation of Scripture, its theology, its educational materials, and its public policy in order to avoid explicit or implicit teaching of contempt for Judaism and Jews. Continuing conversation with Jews should include faithful exploration of inaccurate and offensive characterizations of Jews and Judaism.”
3. At this point the paper ventures into truly extraordinary territory. Rather than a generic rejection of historic theological anti-Jewish animus, and rather than a generic acknowledgment of continuing Christian antisemitism, here the report’s authors begin to explore the antisemitic and anti-Judaic elements in the activisms of Presbyterians and their partners.
“However, Presbyterian commitments to justice and peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike can only stand if we base these commitments on strong support for justice for all people.This means that, in our work for Israeli-Palestinian peace, we must be sure to seek justice and security for both peoples. We must also reject and not make use of the history of Christian anti-Judaism and all of the stereotypes and prejudices that accompany it.
Whenever our critique of the Israeli-Palestinian situation employs language or draws on sources that have anti-Jewish overtones, or makes use of classic Christian anti-Jewish ideas, we cloud complicated issues with the rhetoric of ignorance, subliminal prejudices, or the language of hate. This undermines the church’s advocacy for peace and justice. Critical questions such as ending the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel or the future of Jerusalem are complex and difficult. We must not make them more difficult by importing anti-Jewish motifs into our discussions.
Arguments suggesting or declaring that the Jewish people are no longer in covenant with God, or statements that echo the medieval Christian claim that the Jews are to blame for the crucifixion of Christ, employ classic themes of anti-Judaism. Presbyterians should be alert to occurrences of these themes and question any assertions that are based on them.
Characterizations of Zionism that distort that movement can all too easily demonize Jews. When Zionism is presented as monolithic or univocal, or solely as an extension of European colonialism and a result of anti-Semitism, the Zionist movement’s history, internal debates, and ethical concerns are distorted. The problems and suffering of the Palestinians are not due solely to Zionism. Many Israelis working passionately for peace are motivated by forms of Zionism. The origins, development, and practices of Zionism and its relationship to the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian situation are much more complex than such a picture presents.
Critique of the state of Israel and its policies is always legitimate and is not, in itself, anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. It is common among Jews and Christians; Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans. However, critique by Christians can sometimes come close in tone or content to a denunciation of Judaism or the Jewish people. Polemic that identifies Israeli officials with Jewish authorities in the time of Jesus is especially problematic, and clouds an accurate understanding of the current situation. In addition, citizens in democracies such as Israel and the United States are responsible before God for the actions of their governments. The citizens of Israel, not the Jewish people as a whole, are responsible for the conduct of Israeli state policy.
Christian liberation theology embraces the Exodus narrative as a story of God’s liberation for all oppressed people. This theology reflects on the experience of an oppressed people and its liberation in light of the experience of ancient Israel. Broad theological use of the Exodus narrative does not abrogate its continuing centrality in the faith and self-understanding of the Jewish people. The biblical stories of liberation, like those of God’s gift of land, are at one and the same time particular narratives regarding God’s relationship with the Jewish people, and also descriptions of God’s intention to free and provide a home for all peoples.
Some expressions of Christian liberation theology tend to describe the Palestinian experience as oppression by “Jews” or “Zionists” rather than by Israeli state authority, or liken the passion of Jesus to the sufferings of the Palestinian people. Responsible theological critique of state policies should not characterize a whole people as oppressors or “Christ-killers.” Such a characterization of the situation can easily sound like an echo of the classic anti-Jewish accusation that all Jews everywhere are guilty of killing Christ. For Jews this is terrifying, because the narrative of the passion and crucifixion has been used as a theological basis for the ghettoization, denigration, and killing of Jews for nearly twenty centuries. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is attentive to Palestinian Christians as they speak theologically about what is happening to them. At the same time, Presbyterians are called to discern echoes of the historic condemnation of Jews as “Christ-killers,” and to eschew any such anti-Jewish teaching.
Clearly, the relationships of Presbyterians (or any Christians) and Jews should neither depend on, nor dictate, particular positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation or its resolution. Our relationships with Jewish neighbors do not necessitate approval of Israeli state policy. Speaking out respectfully against actions of Israeli authorities and groups, or of Palestinian entities, is to be expected among Christians and Jews. Disagreements about the dynamics and possible solutions of the Israeli-Palestinian situation are to be expected as well. Jews and Presbyterians may be surprised by the similarity of their critiques of Israel’s actions as well as by their shared hopes for the aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis alike.”
While I believe there are several more anti-Judaic and antisemitic elements within the activisms of the PC(USA) and its partners, and while I believe biased and one-sided information is an unaddressed problem of great concern, I have to admit that this paper dose raise a lot of the issues I find objectionable, dangerous, and just plain wrong within that advocacy.
[Items from committees that concern Israelis and Palestinians that are scheduled to come before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).]
These two papers, “Christians and Jews: People of God“, and, “Toward an Understanding of Christian Muslim Relations“, have been submitted by the General Assembly Mission Council. They were produced jointly by the Office of Theology and Worship, the Office of Interfaith Relations, and the Office of Evangelism. They are (for the most part) intended to reflect the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s self-understanding of its theology in relationship to Judaism and Islam. As such, I believe this to be a mostly internal matter to the denomination. Basically, the PC(USA) has the right to form and articulate its own theology, and it is not really the place of those of us on the outside to do so. As a former member of a PC(USA) church, I, of course, have a strong personal interest in the topic, but I only want to comment on this insofar as it impacts Presbyterian activism directed at others.
Item 08-04 “Toward an Understanding of Christian-Muslim Relations”
In addition to urging that the 219th General Assembly approve this paper the GAMC provides numerous (eighteen) recommendations. The three that draw immediate attention are:
2 a. “developing and making available updated resources for study and reflection on Islam and Muslim life, including case studies of Muslims and Christian-Muslim relationships in a variety of countries of the world, and especially in the United States;”
This constitutes, of course, a call for denominational educational resources. While the goal may be laudable, I personally question the nature of the resources that will be produced. I say this because of the denominational resources I have seen (and even commented about) in the past.
4 c. “continuing to work with Christian churches in areas of Muslim majority in their efforts to live freely and openly as Christians, and to work for full religious freedom (including the right to change one’s religion) and for equal citizenship for all persons in their societies;”
This recommendation surprised me. While this is certainly an issue in a number of countries, this document marks one of the few times I have ever seen the PC(USA) acknowledge that fact. [For what it's worth, I applaud them for including it.]
4 d. “continuing to monitor the use of religion in the service of power, in the undergirding of systems of oppression, and in legitimating extreme political agendas, and to act as peacemakers and peacekeepers;
I’m unsure the exact intent of this recommendation. It seems to me to be overly broad. On the surface, I think many of us would agree with it, but in practice it really depends on one’s point of view. What constitutes an extreme political agenda? Who are actually peacemakers? Many who go by that label do, in fact, support extreme political agendas. What is indicated by peacekeepers?
Bottom line: I certainly agree with attempts to foster greater understanding among Christians and adherents of other religions. I would, however, prefer to see no vague, open-ended instructions.
Item 14-03 The Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment offers a “Report of Its Engagement with Corporations Involved in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.”
Coupled with that are recommendations from the General Assembly Mission Council. Among other things, these recommendations ask the 219th General Assembly to:
3. Direct the General Assembly Mission Council, through its Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment (MRTI), to continue the corporate engagement process with identified companies doing business in the region, as follows:
b. Whereas the Spirit of Christ “… gives us courage to pray without ceasing, to witness among all peoples to Christ as Lord and Savior, to unmask idolatries in Church and culture, to hear the voices of peoples long silenced, and to work with others for justice, freedom, and peace” (The Book of Confessions, A Brief Statement of Faith—Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), lines 66–71), we seek to fulfill this calling by continued engagement with Caterpillar in accordance with the following policy statement of the 219th General Assembly (2010):
Caterpillar, Inc. has produced, sold, and profited from equipment that has been and continues to be used—with or without modifications made by their exclusive dealers and by others—for clearly non-peaceful purposes. Caterpillar thus profits from continued actions by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and other government agencies (at times by private companies under contract with government entities or on construction projects approved by Israeli government bodies) that have been condemned by the international community and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). These uses include (but are not limited to) the demolition of the homes of Palestinian civilians, the building of Israeli settlements and the separation barrier on Palestinian territory that is occupied illegally by Israel, and the provision of (and possible conscription in the future) of civilian employees of Caterpillar’s exclusive dealer to the Israeli military for the purpose of maintaining Caterpillar equipment for military purposes.
The inaction of Caterpillar in addressing the injustice and pain caused by its failure to monitor and take actions to prevent such uses by its Israeli dealer is inconsistent with our stated position calling on all corporations doing business in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank “to confine their business activity solely to peaceful pursuits and refrain from allowing their products or services to support or facilitate violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians, construction and maintenance of settlements or Israel-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 ‘Green Line’ into Palestinian territories.”
Further, Caterpillar has been slow to engage the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment and the broader ecumenical community in these shareholders’ earnest attempts to have constructive conversation about these concerns. For extended periods, the company was unwilling to meet. When they have met, they have denied any responsibility for how their products are used or for their knowledge of the clear purposes for which these products are acquired from Caterpillar’s dealers. Caterpillar’s representatives have been dismissive of the ecumenical community’s concerns, and their responses (or lack thereof) have stood in sharp contrast with those of other companies doing business in Israel/Palestine. While we might like to see greater progress in some of those other dialogues, Caterpillar’s unwillingness to engage with authenticity and openness is unique and disappointing. Their actions do not provide much encouragement about the possibility for real change coming through conversation and correspondence conducted “behind the scenes.”
In contrast to its unyielding stance on this specific issue, Caterpillar has in many ways provided positive leadership to its community, its state, and the nation. It has donated considerable resources and equipment in support of local development and disaster relief at home and overseas. It has significantly improved workplace safety, acted aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and pursued environmental conservation within its production processes. In recognition of these accomplishments, Caterpillar has been listed for seven consecutive years in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. But these positive acts do not excuse the severity of the particular injustice that is being done to the Palestinian people through the use, in part, of certain Caterpillar products and from which Caterpillar profits directly or indirectly. This injustice undermines Caterpillar’s own stated commitment to human rights and positive global citizenship.
On the basis of Christian principles and as a matter of social witness, the 219th General Assembly (2010) strongly denounces Caterpillar’s continued profit-making from non-peaceful uses of a number of its products. We call upon Caterpillar to carefully review its involvement in obstacles to a just and lasting peace in Israel-Palestine, and to take affirmative steps to end its complicity in the violation of human rights. We hope that, by God’s grace, Caterpillar will come to exercise its considerable power and influence in the service of a just and lasting peace in Israel/Palestine.
At first glance, the natural reaction to this series of words is, “huh?” Readers could be forgiven for not quite grasping what the General Assembly Mission Council and the Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee of the PC(USA) are trying to say or what they are trying to accomplish. A few details might help to clarify this initiative.
1. The MRTI and the GAMC rightly report (see full text of item 14-03) the instruction from the 2004 General Assembly – “to begin a process of ‘phased, selective divestment’ related to corporations doing business in Israel.” The words “phased” and “selective” left a wide latitude for the MRTI’s work. “Phased” indicated the process of corporate engagement as a preface to actual divestment; “selective” allowed for a process of picking and choosing companies to confront. Nonetheless, the operative phrase here was “corporations doing business in Israel.” The criteria for this divestment process was Israel rather than the corporations’ behaviors. This (intentionally) made Israel rather unique in the annals of PC(USA) history: the only two other countries to be specifically targeted for Presbyterian divestment were Sudan and South Africa. Of course, Presbyterians had not invested in companies that manufactured weapons or tobacco – or engaged in other practices Presbyterians found offensive. But in those cases it was the corporation’s actions that was the guiding factor in divestment. In the case of 2004, it was Israel that was the guiding factor.
2. The MRTI and the GAMC falsely report the action of the 2006 General Assembly. The accurately report the statement: “urging that ‘… financial investments of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, be invested in only peaceful pursuits, and affirm that the customary corporate engagement process of the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal’”. But they OMIT another significant action taken by that General Assembly. The very instruction to which they refer was coupled with the REMOVAL OF THE ORIGINAL DIVESTMENT INSTRUCTION. The work of the MRTI from 2004 to 2006 which resulted from that original instruction was effectively discontinued by the removal of that instruction. Specifically, by indicating Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and by affirming the customary corporate engagement process Israel was no longer the guiding factor.
The MRTI, of course, refused to accept this and continued its work according to the original 2004 instruction. This appeared to be dishonest of them. But it might be argued that they misunderstood the action of the 2006 GA. The fact that they omit this relevant instruction NOW indicates that they have some awareness that they were not acting in good faith between 2006 and 2008. The bottom line here is that the ‘engagement’ with Caterpillar is a continuation of the process initiated in 2004 and actively removed by the 2006 General Assembly of the PC(USA).
3. Be that as it may, in 2008 the MRTI’s policy of continued (non-authorized) actions that proceeded from a 2004 instruction that no longer longer existed was given an aura of retroactive legitimacy when the 2008 General Assembly expanded its provisions to include a call on “corporations doing business in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank ‘… to confine their business activity solely to peaceful pursuits, and refrain from allowing their products or services to support or facilitate violent acts by Israelis or Palestinians against innocent civilians, construction and maintenance of settlements or Israeli-only roads in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, and construction of the Separation Barrier as it extends beyond the 1967 “Green Line” into Palestinian territories’”.
Of course, that same 2008 General Assembly also asked “PC(USA) members, congregations,
committees, and other entities to become nonpartisan advocates for peace… [not] over-identify[ing] with the realities of the Israelis or Palestinians… [and] avoid[ing] taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.” This fact too is omitted in this MRTI report and General Assembly Mission Council recommendation.
As quirky and full of omissions as the history the MRTI presents is, that is not the only problem with this recommendation.
4. In the wake of the initial divestment decision in 2004, there emerged a concerted effort on the part of PC(USA) committees and staff to misrepresent many negative reactions they received from Presbyterians and from members of the Jewish community. They insisted falsely that the primary concern was with THE WORD DIVESTMENT. This argument was, of course, insupportable – it was either an inherently mendacious attempt to manipulate Presbyterians, or it was the product of a profound failure to listen, or it could simply have demonstrated a remarkable lack of insight and awareness. FOR THE RECORD – THE PROBLEM MANY PEOPLE HAD WITH THE ORIGINAL DIVESTMENT ACTION IN 2004 WAS THEIR BELIEF THAT IT UNFAIRLY TARGETED ISRAEL. Israel was being held to a standard different from that to which the PC(USA) was holding any other nation. Additionally, the perceived problem with the 2004 action was that it was part of a larger boycott, divestment, and sanction program directed against Israel: no talk of ‘phased, selective’ divestment takes away from the PC(USA)’s place in the larger picture. Finally, it quickly became apparent to observers that this divestment action was the culmination of a considerable period of systemic anti-Israel and sometimes openly anti-Jewish bias within the PC(USA).
For those who objected to PC(USA) divestment policy, IT HAS NEVER BEEN about the difference between the scary-sounding word “divestment” and the more friendly sounding phrase “corporate engagement”. The issue is now what it has always been – the POLICY OF THE PC(USA) AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT DECIDED THAT POLICY LACK FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
5. Today the MRTI (and apparently the GAMC) are once again trying to get around the word divestment by choosing instead to “STRONGLY DENOUNCE” Caterpillar. Apparently the MRTI and the GAMC believe that commissioners to the 219th General Assembly will perceive this as the more moderate option. [It will be considered within Committee 14 along with two actual divestment overtures. Like it or not, at General Assemblies, work from national committees tends to be given more weight than individual overtures from presbyteries.] The problem here is that this is not a more moderate option in any meaningful way. Like divestment, the proposed denunciation of CAT does not spring from CAT’s actions. Instead, it is about Israel. Like the 2004 divestment action, the proposed denunciation does unfairly target Israel. (Name one other candidate for denunciation based on the use of its products in any other nation.) Like the 2004 divestment action, this proposed denunciation still occurs within the larger framework of an organized boycott, divestment, and sanction movement. And like the 2004 divestment action this proposed denunciation is one of many products of a long-term, systemic anti-Israel and sometimes openly anti-Jewish bias within the PC(USA).
6. It is still an open question why Caterpillar has been targeted rather than other corporations that also provide materials used by Israelis, the government of Israel, and the IDF. One of the reasons listed in this recommendation seems to be the fact that Caterpillar has been “slow to engage the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment and the broader ecumenical community.” Was Caterpillar selected because the MRTI thoroughly researched the matter? If so, some description of that research phase would probably be helpful. Or was Caterpillar selected because it was already a target of “the broader ecumenical community”? And who exactly is being indicated by the phrase “broader ecumenical community”? Is not Caterpillar also a target of secular boycott, divestment, and sanction activists? Is this really the work product of the PC(USA)’s Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee acting on instructions from General Assemblies of the PC(USA), or does it represent the MRTI’s choice to participate in political theater?
In suggesting that this recommendation and the process of corporate engagement specifically with Caterpillar constitute theater, I am, in reality asking what action Presbyterians truly want Caterpillar to take. Does the MRTI, like many in the BDS movement that currently target Caterpillar, seem to think Caterpillar should refuse to sell its products to Israel? If so, it is demanding that Caterpillar violate US law. Is the PC(USA) really requiring Caterpillar to monitor the end use of its products – an action it has neither the legal right nor logistical capability of doing? Is there a reason that, for example, Intel is not similarly targeted? Or is Caterpillar merely the vehicle by which the MRTI and others seek to publicize their indictments of Israel?
[Items from committees that concern Israelis and Palestinians that are scheduled to come before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).]
Item 11-04 From the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy, the Human Rights Update 2010
In 2008, the 218th General Assembly instructed the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to “Identify Violations of the Civil Rights of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States and Other Areas of the World, Along with Other Incidents of Violation of Religious Freedoms, as Part of the Regular Human Rights Report to the General Assembly.” This was part of a GA referral of an overture from the Presbytery of Newton. This is one of several items the ACSWP has chosen to address in its Human Rights Update 2010. The instruction is quite clear and unambiguous – the Committee is to focus on “violations of the civil rights of CHRISTIANS, JEWS, and MUSLIMS … along with other incidents of VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.”
It is a clear enough instruction, and it seems a fair enough approach. The problem is, the ACSWP has decided NOT TO ADDRESS THIS MANDATED TOPIC. Instead they refer us to the work of another committee:
“To speak directly to this third referral, in the case of this General Assembly, the most substantial discussion of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian interreligious incidents is in the historical perspective appendix to the Middle East report. They cite the U.S. State Department Religious Liberty report on Israel and the Occupied Territories, finding discrimination against both Muslims and Christians and neglect of their holy sites.1 The nature of church/state or religion/state issues differs, of course, in Muslim majority countries and Israel. The instances of torture discussed in the third section of this update largely include Muslim detainees, and certainly religiously linked extremism is affecting the conditions of Christian minorities in certain conflict areas. We expect to do more with this referral in the future.”
The Advisory Committee for Social Witness Policy offers zero rationale for its failure to address the topic – though it does cryptically and open-endedly “expect to do more with this referral in the future.” In the meantime, the report to which the ACSWP refers commissioners, “Breaking Down the Walls” – a product of the Middle East Study Committee of the PC(USA), is biased and wholly inadequate to the topic.
Having elected not to seriously address this referral, the ACSWP did not remain content with silence – the legitimate product of their work on the subject. Instead they decided to affirm the MESC’s truly odd presentation of a US State Department document, International Religious Freedom Report 2009. They completely bypass any discussion of the religious discrimination in Muslim majority countries with two sentence:
“The nature of church/state or religion/state issues differs, of course, in Muslim majority countries and Israel.”
And
“… and certainly religiously linked extremism is affecting the conditions of Christian minorities in certain conflict areas.”
Instead, they find Israeli “discrimination against both Muslims and Christians and neglect of their holy sites.”
So, after scouring the world for examples of violations of religious freedoms in accordance with their clear instruction from the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA), the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy FOUND ONLY ONE NATION WORTHY OF COMMENT: ISRAEL. And, in considering religious discrimination against Muslims, Jews, and Christians, the ACSWP FOUND MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS TO BE THE ONLY VICTIMS OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION DESERVING OF PRESBYTERIAN ATTENTION; and the ACSWP FOUND ONLY JEWS TO BE GUILTY OF ANY RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION MERITING PRESBYTERIAN SCRUTINY.
If commissioners decide to adopt this report, they need to be aware that the egregious double standard is appalling and unjustifiable to anyone who values fairness.
[The following presbytery overtures that concern Israelis and Palestinians are scheduled to come before the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This list only reflects the situation as of today - May 14, 2010.]
Item 14-01 and 14-02 “On Divestment from Caterpillar, Inc.” – from the Presbyteries of Newark and San Francisco.
The Presbyteries of Newark and San Francisco have overtured the General Assembly to “Instruct the Presbyterian Foundation and the Board of Pensions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to begin the process of disinvestment from Caterpillar, Inc. and to not reinvest in this corporation unless the Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is fully satisfied that Caterpillar, Inc. no longer engages in the selling of equipment to Israel that is used to build illegal Israeli settlements, construct walls that illegally encroach upon Palestinian lands cutting Palestinians off from their own property and natural resources, destroy Palestinian life and property, and otherwise continue to support the occupation of Palestinian territories.” The wording of much of these two overtures is identical, but they part company on a couple of points.
The San Francisco overture (14-02) calls on the PC(USA) to affirm that, “…the occupation needs to end … to prevent the extinction of Christianity in Jerusalem and the West Bank.” It is important to note that this is NOT a part of the rationale for the overture, but is an actual item to be voted on by the GA. If it succeeds, the PC(USA) will be declaring that it is the occupation that threatens the extinction of Christianity in Jerusalem and the West Bank. No mention is here made of any other threats or difficulties encountered by Christians in those areas. The effect, of course, is to place blame on Israel alone.
The San Francisco overture (14-02) also calls on the PC(USA) to affirm that “actions of corporate divestment, when other shareholder engagement has not succeeded, are based both in the church’s own integrity and in the likelihood of greater continuing witness and effective influence from the outside, as was the case in the worldwide ecumenical campaign against South African apartheid. …” If this passes there can be no coy evasions – as happened in 2004 – where Presbyterians try to claim that divestment was not meant to indicate an equivalency between the situations in apartheid South Africa and present day Israel. The equation is contained within the overture.
These two overtures, while distinct, share a word-for-word rationale. Presbyterians who want to evade some criticism will tell you (with some very limited justification) that rationales are not what the General Assembly actually votes to affirm. Rationales are, however, the arguments presented to the GA, they have been used to attempt to discern the intent behind some past GA actions, and they tend to be very instructive. This verbatim rationale offered by both Newark and San Francisco has a rehearsal of recent PC(USA) history that is creative at best, one might argue completely false, but at the very least, not to be taken literally. The rationale’s first line, the one that demonstrates how these presbyteries seem to view themselves, is quotable: “In July 2004, the 216th General Assembly (2004) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), meeting in Richmond, Virginia, took the ecumenical world by storm in its decision to begin the process of engaging in selective divestment…”
[The Presbytery of San Jose concurs with the Presbytery of San Francisco on 14-02.]
Item 14-04 “On Recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid against the Palestinian People”– from the Presbytery of San Francisco.
The Presbytery of San Francisco overtures the General Assembly, asking them to “Direct the Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) to send this overture to the United Nations, encouraging them to find that the state of Israel is committing the crime of apartheid and to take the appropriate actions…”; and to “Direct the General Assembly Mission Council to prepare study resources, and urge presbyteries to provide opportunities for study and discussion to further educate church members about the Israeli occupation of Palestine.”
If passed, this overture would, of course, clear up the PC(USA)’s stance on whether or not it is labeling Israel apartheid. In one sense that might be a positive development: it would no longer allow representatives of the PC(USA) to deny the full import of their statements. I am curious, however, what the Presbytery of San Francisco believe they have indicated by encouraging the UN to “take the appropriate actions”.
The Presbytery of San Francisco, naturally, provides a litany of crimes attributed to Israel. These range from legitimate complaints to the false, to the absurd. It is, however, absolutely silent on the actions of other nations or of Palestinians in this situation. By way of example, the Presbytery of San Francisco accuses Israel of “Denying Palestinians the right to work”. The Presbytery of San Francisco accuses Israel of “Denying Palestinians the right to education.” The Presbytery of San Francisco accuses Israel of “Denying Palestinians the right to a nationality.” The Presbytery of San Francisco accuses Israel of “inflict[ing]…serious bodily or mental harm … [and] inhuman or degrading treatment… on Palestinians.”
The Presbytery of San Francisco does provide a tortuous rationale for some its charges; were it not for the outright bias they are asking the PC(USA) to embrace, this might provide some entertainment value. As is, it is more like a dangerous form of propaganda than anything else.
Item 14-05 “On Commending, ‘A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering,’ as an Advocacy Tool” – from the Presbytery of San Francisco.
the Presbytery of San Francisco also overtures the 219th General Assembly to “receive “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering,” commending it to use by our presbyteries and congregations as an advocacy tool…” and to “call on the Interfaith Office to include in its discussions with American Jewish and Muslim groups a careful study of the Palestinian Christian Kairos document.” Apparently not content with the other two overtures, divesting from Caterpillar (14-02) and finding Israel guilty of the crime of Apartheid (14-04), the Presbytery of San Francisco felt that it could be even more helpful. It is calling for the PC(USA) to endorse a highly flawed document.
The Kairos document has a number of theological quirks – which do merit a closer look. However its chief flaws are three. First, it places blame for the difficulties of the regions squarely and solely on Israel. While this perspective is common enough these days – it continues to be a falsification of the history of the state of Israel, of the actions of neighboring states, and of the actions of Palestinians. Second, it is not a call for non-violence – it does not reject terrorism – in some senses it honors it. And third, it positively rejects the identity of Israel as a Jewish state.
“Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all its citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty, and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority.”
Ironically – within the same paragraph - the Kairos document at once calls for a rejection of “the principle of “’double standards’” AND “the beginning of a system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel.”
[The Presbytery of San Jose concurs with the Presbytery of San Francisco on 14-05.]
Item 08-09 “On Referring ‘Christians and Jews: People of God” and “Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations’” – from the Presbytery of San Francisco.
The Presbytery of San Francisco overtures the 219th General Assembly to “Postpone the reports from the Offices of Interfaith Relations and Theology and Worship entitled: “Christians and Jews: People of God,” and “Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations” until such time as funding is provided by the General Assembly for the appointment of a special committee of the church, to be appointed by the moderator, to rewrite both reports after broader consultation to include the National Middle East Presbyterian Caucus, PC(USA) partner churches and agencies in the Middle East, relevant mission networks of the PC(USA), the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns, and the Advisory Committee for Social Witness Policy.”
This overture references other business items coming before the General Assembly. Until we more carefully consider the reports mentioned, it will be difficult to make complete sense of this overture. A couple of things are immediately evident. First, the Presbytery of San Francisco is calling for the involvement of specific groups within the PC(USA) that ALL have records of bias. The ACSWP prepared the biased and flawed report that was accepted by the 2003 and 2004 General Assemblies. That report’s histories were one-sided and inaccurate. The former publication of the ACSWP, Church and Society, presented articles that at times crossed into the overtly anti-Jewish. It appears that the Presbytery of San Francisco intends to include the Israel/Palestine Mission Network among its “relevant mission networks of the PC(USA)”. Unfortunately, the IPMN’s work has been more biased, more flawed, and has had more overtly anti-Jewish elements than has the ACSWP. Noticeably lacking, however, is any call to cooperate with Jewish or Muslim groups.
Appended to this overture is a communication from the Israel/Palestine Mission Network – that is, at best, giving it every possible benefit of the doubt, alarming. Amid its many problems, three things are very important to note:
First, the IPMN displays a strong animosity toward the existence of a Jewish State. This may or may not conflict with PC(USA) policy – but if that animosity is a reflection of that policy then the PC(USA) needs to come out and clearly say this. The IPMN letter states it in this way:
“What the report fails to recognize is that expansionist forms of political and religious Zionism have been major ideological forces behind the confiscation of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by every Israeli administration since 1948. The literature on this subject is vast and the reality undeniable. The push by the current government of Netanyahu for recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is one example of this ideology.”
Second, the IPMN clearly places blame on Judaism rather than Israel or “Zionists” only.
“By neglecting the reality on the ground, this report would “make nice” with certain American Jewish organizations to avoid unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism. These are the organizations that have provided financial and political support for the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands since 1948, and used threat and intimidation to censor debate about Israel within and without the Jewish community.1 A report that confesses Christian guilt for the past and calls for changes in our theology and practice but neglects to mention the CONTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN SYNAGOGUES to the oppression of Palestinians over the past six decades appears to us as inauthentic interfaith dialogue.”
In their footnote, the IPMN says (in offensive and patently false terms):
The package (a bomb?) sent to 100 Witherspoon St in 2004, the fire in a Rochester church, the picketing of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship event at GA when Professor Norman Finkelstein was a featured speaker, and the many visits of teams of Jewish neighbors to local Presbyterian churches are examples of these tactics.
Third, in the same appended letter, the same IPMN that the Presbytery of San Francisco would have helping write a theological paper on Christianity and Judaism, says:
This “anti-Jewish rhetoric” [referred to in the paper] does not arise out of a vacuum, or some inchoate reservoir of anti-Semitism. In fact, the case can be made that it is a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel. And that this is related to the American Middle East wars, which, combined with the U.S. defense of Israel internationally, fuels anti-Jewish stereotypes and some classic anti-Semitic beliefs.
This chilling assessment – that antisemitism proceeds from Israeli actions – is brought to you by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA), and is intimately tied to this overture from the Presbytery of San Francisco. Commissioners would be well advised to seriously consider the role they want such a Network to play in the formulation of Presbyterian theological statements.
Item 14-09 “On Seeking Compliance to U.S. Government Policy in the Use of Military Aid by All Parties in the Middle East” – from the Presbytery of Chicago.
The Presbytery of Chicago overtures the GA to “express its support for the U.S. government policy of carefully vetting the funds distributed to foreign countries in ways that ensure peaceful development and are consistent with international law, human rights protections, and U.S. foreign policy,” and to “Express its extreme disappointment with the U.S. government that while the State of Israel has been found not to comply with the above statutes, it continues to be the recipient of U.S. military aid.”
On its surface the title of this overture tips its hat toward balanced treatment. However, it is immediately clear – even to a cursory reader – that the title is, at best, a polite fiction. This overture has one purpose, and only mentions a change in policy toward one party: drum roll please …. Israel.
Having noted the apparent one-sidedness, the Presbytery of Chicago has offered a disclaimer within the rationale for this overture:
Any criticism of Israeli policy must be understood as criticism of government policy and not as anti-Jewish; many Jewish individuals agree with the arguments presented in this overture (see statement below from Jewish Voice for Peace.) While the Jewish people have suffered from persecution and have been victims of violence perpetrated by Palestinians, the Israeli government’s abuse of human rights, illegal land acquisition, and disregard for the peace process cannot serve as excuses and should not be subsidized by U.S. funds.
This overture communicates concern for Israel’s long-term secure place in the international community and for the Palestinians’ rights to unified leadership pledged to non-violence. Suspension of aid until conditions are met is intended as a strategy to move peace-making forward, and not as a punishment. Should Israeli aid be suspended, that country would be able to defend itself given strategic agreements and a strong military.
I note without comment the attempt by the Presbytery of Chicago to use a statement from Jewish Voice for Peace as an example of “many Jewish individuals [that] agree with the arguments presented in this overture.”
Item 14-10 “Toward Peace and Reconciliation in the Middle East” – from the Presbytery of Baltimore.
The Presbytery of Baltimore overtures the 219th General Assembly to, “Call upon the government of Israel to establish an independent commission, whose findings it could accept, to investigate the allegations of inappropriate behavior contained in the Goldstone Report regarding actions of the Israeli Defense Force in Operation Cast Lead, and to report its findings to the government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Hamas authorities in Gaza, and the secretary general of the United Nations.” To, “Call upon the Hamas authorities in Gaza to work together to establish an independent commission, whose findings it could accept, to investigate the allegations of inappropriate behavior contained in the Goldstone Report regarding actions of Hamas and its military, and to report its findings to the Hamas authorities in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, the government of Israel, and the secretary general of the United Nations.” To, “Call on the United States government, its president and Congress, to actively engage with all authorities involved in the Gaza conflict to initiate and sustain the proposed independent investigations.” And to, “Urge the U.S. government to continue to work actively through the presence of its special envoy to further peace negotiations between the Palestinian Authority, the Hamas authorities in Gaza, and the government of Israel.”
This is, of course, a call to deal with Hamas. It is, however, significant to note that the Presbytery of Baltimore implicitly recognizes the flaws (or at least the possible existence of flaws) with the Goldstone report. And more significantly, this overture is relatively unique among this year’s crop of overtures because the Presbytery of Baltimore is treating both parties in the same fashion. The Presbytery of Baltimore is not starting with the assumption that Israel is automatically in the wrong, and the version of events most critical of Israel is not automatically credited with veracity.
Item 14-06 “On Middle East Peacemaking” – from the Presbytery of San Joaquin.
The Presbytery of San Joaquin takes a different approach when it overtures the 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) to answer all overtures concerning Israel and Palestine with the following statement:
“The Arab-Israeli conflict presents an unprecedented level of complexity amid constantly changing political conditions in the region. Thus the best course of action for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is to defer from taking positions or making policy statements that appear to favor either side in the conflict.
We call upon the leadership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to use our limited resources and influence to direct our specific involvement as peacemakers to: offer our prayers to God for the success of all peaceful efforts; support peacemakers who encourage tolerance and reconciliation; advocate for the process of establishing a step-by-step, negotiated, two-state Israel/Palestine solution; condemn all acts of terrorism and unwarranted violence; provide humanitarian assistance to innocent victims of the conflict.
As we witness for peace in this manner, we will defer from taking actions or making statements that align the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with unilateral support for any of the specific parties involved in the struggle.”
This is a call to refrain from making the statements and taking the positions the PC(USA) and its representatives have consistently taken. Unlike ALL the other overtures coming before this General Assembly, this is a call to resist unilateral support for one side. It is a recognition of the inherent complexity of the conflict. It is a call for fundamental fairness. The Presbytery of San Joaquin goes farther, however, when it urges the 219th General Assembly to instruct “the General Assembly Mission Council to ensure that staff, council members, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks abide by these directives.”By this statement the Presbytery of San Joaquin indicates that the staff, council members, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks of the PC(USA) have not displayed the basic fairness for which it calls. It also acknowledges that these have historically failed to abide by prior General Assembly decisions. In fact, the instruction would be entirely unnecessary if the staff, council members, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks of the PC(USA) customarily did abide by GA decisions.I suspect it will be difficult for most commissioners to acknowledge the problems of systemic bias, lack of fundamental fairness, occasions of outright anti-Jewish statements, and the failure of some staff, council members, entities, affiliated organizations, and networks of the PC(USA) to abide by GA decisions – without essentially re-writing those decisions in ways more favorable to their pre-existing agendas. It will be difficult – but if commissioners value fundamental fairness, if they think that accuracy and lack of bias are courtesies that should be accorded to everyone, if they think that Judaism and the Jewish people deserve equal treatment, then they will be find a way to address the full scale of the problem within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
The 219th General Assembly of the PC(USA) is scheduled to begin on July 3, 2010. Among many things on their agenda, the assembled commissioners are yet again being called on to pass judgment on the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. I sometimes wonder if the gathered commissioners (or the Presbyterians who send them) comprehend the magnitude of the task they are being asked to do.
General Assemblies are often littered with lofty words and phrases – things like ‘discernment’, ‘justice’, ‘prophetic’, and the ‘guidance of the Holy Spirit’. In spite of this elevated language, I’m inclined to wonder if commissioners know going in of the unprecedented complexity of the issues upon which they are being asked to sit in judgment. Do they know the sheer volume of literature on Israelis and Palestinians? Do they know that every fact offered in support of one agenda or another is disputed? Do they know that multiple competing narratives of the history of the region exist? Do they know the competing legitimate claims to justice? Do they know the notorious biases that afflict dialog on this subject? Do they know the demonstrable biases of the committees, agencies, and officials of their denomination? Are they even expecting the volume of information they are actually being presented in the proposals themselves? These proposals total literally hundreds of pages of text. Even if the commissioners intentionally sat down and tried to sift through the information, to give a fair hearing to all sides, to verify the statements presented to them as facts, it is doubtful that they would be able to come to a fair and true conclusion. Going farther, the likelihood that they, in their week or so together, would be able to propose any productive policy solution is, to put it diplomatically, slim. At best they have before them a Solomonic task.
But that is not the way General Assemblies work. Far more issues come before a General Assembly than the Middle East. The commissioners have their work divided into committees – so that only a portion of the commissioners consider any given issue in any depth. It is the committee that hears testimony and makes recommendations to the whole assembly – who then votes. But the gathered assembly votes without having heard the testimony or understood the committee’s process and rationale, often without being particularly familiar with the issues in question. In order to form recommendations for the entire GA, the committee itself has only a portion of the time of a General Assembly. In short, only a fraction of commissioners will spend much time with the various proposals on Israel and Palestine. Even these will be very limited in what they are able to consider. The procedures of a particular committee can be strongly affected by the moderator – who can, depending on personal temperament and agenda, guide the conversation toward a particular end. Additionally, officials, committees, and agencies of the denomination have far more (essentially unlimited) time to make their case than do overture advocates or others who testify. Since these are the very people who are often providing information that reflects a particular (in this case anti-Israel) agenda, it is highly unlikely that both sides will get a full, fair, and unbiased hearing. Yet the commissioners must still make a judgment.
Now those of us outside the PC(USA) – and the vast majority of members within the PC(USA), are powerless to alter this system. It can, in theory, be done; but the process required is daunting enough to be prohibitive. Instead, I think it would be better for us to actually examine and speak out about those things the commissioners are being asked to consider. So what is coming before this assembly?
Items of business for a General Assembly in the PC(USA) come from three basic sources. Individual presbyteries overture the General Assembly with proposals about issues of common concern to Presbyterians. These can either originate at the presbytery level or they can be proposed to a presbytery by an individual session (a congregation’s governing board). National Committees of the General Assembly can make proposals – for example, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy has provided a Human Rights Update 2010 that includes three action items, and the Committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment is proposing that the PC(USA) strongly denounce Caterpillar. Sometimes proposals from national Committees of the PC(USA) stem from their standing mandates; at other times, specific items are requested by referral from a prior General Assembly – as in the case of the report from the Middle East Study Committee. [As a point of clarification – these national committees are either permanent or have been given a specific mandate; they are not the same as the committees that consider business before a General Assembly.] Additionally, commissioners to the General Assembly can author individual resolutions.
At this time (May 10, 2010) there are Sixteen items of business are scheduled to come before the General Assembly. Eleven are overtures from presbyteries; five are from national committees. Both these are listed below. I will present more information about their specific contents in my next two posts. Additional items may still appear, and commissioner’s resolutions will, naturally, not be available until the event begins. All the overtures and committee recommendations can be found on the PC(USA)’s 219th General Assembly website.
Overtures from Presbyteries:
Item 14-01 and 14-02 “On Divestment from Caterpillar, Inc.” – from the Presbyteries of Newark and San Francisco.
Item 14-04 “On Recognition that Israel’s Laws, Policies, and Practices Constitute Apartheid against the Palestinian People” – from the Presbytery of San Francisco.
Item 14-05 “On Commending, ‘A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering,’ as an Advocacy Tool” – from the Presbytery of San Francisco.
Item 08-09 “On Referring ‘Christians and Jews: People of God” and “Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations’” – from the Presbytery of San Francisco.
Item 14-09 “On Seeking Compliance to U.S. Government Policy in the Use of Military Aid by All Parties in the Middle East” – from the Presbytery of Chicago.
Item 14-10 “Toward Peace and Reconciliation in the Middle East” – from the Presbytery of Baltimore.
Item 14-06 “On Middle East Peacemaking” – from the Presbytery of San Joaquin.
Businees Brought to the GA by Committees
Item 11-04 “Human Rights Update 2010″ (A Report for General Assembly full consideration from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy).
Item14-03 “MRTI Report of Its Engagement with Corporations Involved in Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.”
Item 14-08 “‘Breaking Down the Walls’—From the Middle East Study Committee.”
Item 08-03 “Approve the paper, ‘Christians and Jews: People of God.’” – sponsored by the General Assembly Mission Council.
Item 08-04 “Toward an Understanding of Christian-Muslim Relations” – sponsored by the General Assembly Mission Council.
There are two additional scheduled items that are not directly related to Israelis and Palestinians that would have an effect on advocacy of this kind.
Item 09-03 “On Amending the Process for Forming Social Witness Policy” – from the Presbytery of Grand Canyon.
Item 16-01 “On Commending Confessions that Uphold the Oneness of All Believers, and Discontinuing Efforts to Include the Belhar Confession in the Book of Confessions” – from the Presbytery of Sacramento.
In just looking over this list of titles – even without seeing their specific contents – three things stand out.
First, these items of business do seem to be weighted in one direction. There are, of course, three or four exceptions, but the general trend does not bode well.
Second, at the General Assembly they will handled by five separate committees. Most will be addressed by Committee 14 – Middle East Peacemaking Issues. The papers on Christianity and Judaism and Christianity and Islam will be considered by Committee 08 – Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations. The “Human Rights Update 2010″ will be considered by Committee 11 – Social Justice Issues B: The Exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the World. The overture about the Belhar Confession will be addressed by Committee 16 – Theological Issues and Institutions. And the formation of social witness policy will be considered by Committee 09 – Mission Coordination. One effect of this distribution will be to make it very difficult for observers to follow all of the issues – as these committees will be meeting simultaneously.
Third, the relevant overtures come from seven presbyteries. Four of them (out of ten or eleven depending on how you count the divestment overtures) come from the Presbytery of San Francisco. The PC(USA) consists of 173 Presbyteries. This can hardly be considered a groundswell of interest or support from the church as a whole. Given that fact, I find interesting that five items are coming from national committees of the denomination.
CLASSES OF PROBLEMATIC ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BY CHURCH GROUPS
#4 Speaking FOR Another Religion
In a variety of materials (including the reports approved by the 2003 and 2004 General Assemblies) and in a number of public statements offered by PC(USA) officials, the denomination has often spoken for Judaism in a way that is troubling. These have asserted principals of Judaism to advance their anti-Israel case, have offered their own quirky interpretations of ‘what Judaism teaches’ or emphasizes, or have latched onto fringe groups that supported their chosen viewpoints as if these were representative of Judaism.
For example, various Presbyterians (and others) have asserted that Jewish claims to land are null and void, but that Jewish covenant obligations remain in force. In cases they have posited an idyllic view of Jews living in the Diaspora as modeling “community life not dependent on violence to sustain it. . . [They] ‘were able to maintain identity without turf or sword, community without sovereignty. They thereby demonstrated pragmatically the viability of the ethic of Jeremiah and Jesus.’” [As an observer, I must say, I’d be surprised if many Jews in the Diaspora would be particularly pleased to be credited with demonstrating the ethic of Jesus … and I’m certain most of the people who experienced this life as a minority population subject to humiliating laws and officially sanctioned persecution would not take the suggestion well that this was God’s unremitting purpose for them.]
I’m very sure that Christians would not take kindly to members of other religions exploitatively declaring “what Christianity teaches” – especially if these non-Christians asserted teachings different from those Christians actually believe. Similarly, were non-Christians to select fringe elements who claim to be Christian as if these were representative spokespersons for Christianity – I would imagine this would be profoundly offensive. Say, for example, that non-Christians were to decide that Rev. Fred Phelps were a representative spokesman for Christianity, Christians would rightly cry foul. Yet, in the service of their political activism, the PC(USA) and other church organizations are doing the equivalent thing to Judaism. I am aware of no particular rationale that has been offered to defend this practice, but I would imagine that following the (not entirely original) Christian tenet, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” would preclude such statements and actions.
#5 Generic Statements Directed Against the Jews
A small but significant number of statements issued by PC(USA) offices, employees, networks, and their partner organizations (either speaking for themselves or repeating with agreement the opinions of others) involve generic statements about ‘the Jewish people’. For example, article after article from the PNS – and the official Presbyterian meeting “Steps Toward Peace in Israel / Palestine”, cited the chief opposition to the 2004 divestment decision as coming from Jewish groups; the “Jewish community” is explicitly credited with attempting to “stir up enough Presbyterians to change the decisions of the 216th General Assembly (2004).” Yet the PC(USA)’s Rev. Victor Makari opined (on behalf of the PC(USA)):
“It is ironic that, in the Judaeo-Christian milieu of this nation, the church’s appeals, for over five decades, to the convictions of faith, to the biblical mandate of justice, and to moral consciousness have fallen largely on deaf ears. But when Mammon was aroused, flood gates of anger broke loose.”
Since the PC(USA) officially credited the negative response to its divestment initiative to “the Jewish community” = to whom could Rev. Makari be referring in his ‘aroused Mammon’ statement? Who does he suppose has been aroused to anger by Mammon?
The PC(USA) has officially taken the trouble to warn people about the “emotional rhetoric that Presbyterians encounter in conversation with Jews [that] can easily derail the conversation or turn it away from issues of justice and peace.” An official network of the PC(USA) has said (more precisely, provided and endorsed a power point presentation that said) that “Jews in the Diaspora must get a life.” Similarly, the United Methodist Church has informed the world that it is “called to testify when oppressors use their identity as the oppressed with stories of sixty years ago but through some failure of perception cannot see what transpires now in the shadow of the Holocaust”. This year, the same official Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has this to say to General Assembly commissioners:
“By neglecting the reality on the ground, this report would ‘make nice’ with certain American Jewish organizations to avoid unwarranted charges of anti-Semitism. These are the organizations that have provided financial and political support for the Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands since 1948, and used threat and intimidation to censor debates about Israel within and without the Jewish Community. A report that confesses Christian guilt for the past and calls for changes in our theology and practice but neglects to mention contribution of American synagogues to the oppression of Palestinians over the past six decades appears to us as inauthentic interfaith dialogue.”
They add a footnote to describe the threat and intimidation they credit to American Jewish organizations:
“The package (a bomb?) sent to 100 Witherspoon St in 2004, the fire in a Rochester Church, the picketing of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship event at GA when Professor Norman Finkelstein was a featured speaker, and the many visits of teams of Jewish neighbors to local Presbyterian Churches are examples of these tactics.”
[NOTE - the above quote from the Israel Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA) is NOT discussing Zionism or the Israeli government. Instead it is specifically referring to AMERICAN JEWISH GROUPS and AMERICAN SYNAGOGUES.]
It must be observed that the PC(USA) has sometimes quietly removed more explicitly anti-Jewish statements from websites. But these midnight disappearances have rarely corresponded to any acknowledgement whatsoever that the statements were out of bounds, and if any explanation was given, it was credited to a failure to be diplomatic – not to an acknowledgment that such gross, unfair, and bigoted generalizations were actually wrong.
All of the other classes of action I have considered have possible rationalizations. I find them insufficient; I find they do not justify the actions. I find them problematic, and I find the classes of statement and action profoundly troubling. However, it is conceivable that someone could engage in them out of some mistaken sensibility, out of ignorance, or out of a failure to grasp their ramifications. I do not believe that serves as an excuse – when one chooses to take action, when one chooses to be affiliated with a group that takes actions or issues statements, then one gains a responsibility for those actions and statements.But the possibility exists – that a person is simply behaving with gross irresponsibility and not active, self-aware malice.
However, I have encountered no rationale for this fifth behavior pattern. Those who have attempted to defend it are generally rabidly incoherent, sometimes bothering to wipe the foam from their mouths, sometimes not. The fact is – at least for this class of statement, no justifying rationale is possible. It is beyond doubt that those who excuse it and defend it demonstrate themselves to be antisemitic. When a church organization fails to see this, when it sometimes engage in the practice, when it partners with people who do so, and when it fails to act to correct such practices, that places it firmly in the camp of antisemites.
So my original question remains: Which is it to be? Commissioners to the 219th General Assembly must decide. Will you be pro-Palestinian? Fair-minded people won’t fault you for that. People of good will will share your concerns. Will you be anti-Israel? Will you indulge the extreme bias that characterizes a number of proposals coming before you? Or will you plunge fully into antisemitism – either through openly endorsing it or by failing to correct it when it appears in official PC(USA) statements and actions?
The line between these three is often blurred. Commissioners, even though you will have limited time to work, please, when you read the materials provided to you – sometimes by offices, officials, and networks of the PC(USA) – seriously consider the ethical issues surrounding those materials. Is there a singular focus on Israel making it unique among nations? If so, ask yourself why. Why should Israel be treated in a fashion distinct from the way in which you treat all other nations? Does the information you receive present only one view? Even if it claims to be broad-based, is there an overwhelming sense that the diversity is NOT diversity of opinion? If something sounds improbable, check it out. See if there is more to the story; see if there is another narrative you are not being given. Do you see instances where explicitly Christian imagery is used to demonize Israel and Jewish groups? If so, is that OK with you? Are there places where people are speaking for Judaism – or where Jewish groups are cherry picked from among the fringes of opinion? If so, does that strike you as fair? And are there general statements of hostility to the Jewish people and Jewish groups? Are there stereotypes and antisemitic canards being stated or assumed? Are the Jews (or, for that matter, “the Zionists” – which are not generally differentiated) being credited with controlling US policy or the media? Is the language of contempt being used? Are blood libels being mentioned?
The fact is, all of these things have appeared in the conversation within the Christian advocacy community. The fact is, the PC(USA) has sometimes participated in them to varying degrees. No – it is not monolithic, but it has occurred and is occurring. Please. Be very careful what you decide because you might very easily end up approving of highly unethical, profoundly unchristian, potentially dangerous, and morally repugnant behaviors. If you must judge a matter, make sure that judgment is fair. And even if you feel the need to be harshly critical, make certain that this odious form of bigotry is not a part of the equation.
CLASSES OF PROBLEMATIC ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BY CHURCH GROUPS
#2 Presentation of One-Sided Information
Many Christian groups have provided information on the Middle East that is marked by a consistent pattern of one-sidedness. Some Christian Zionist groups have advanced one-sidedly pro-Israel narratives. Far more common, however, are the one-sidedly anti-Israel narratives presented by many mainline denominations and interest groups – including the PC(USA). These take the form or ‘resources’ for congregational worship and education, of trips to the region, of hosting visitors from the region, of presenting information to members of congress or national governmental officials, of hosting conferences claiming to be about ‘peace with justice’, and of issuing statements for use by national agencies of the denominations.
The information often offered by PC(USA) employees, networks, and offices has several salient features:a complete list of Israeli misdeeds (some real, some imagined); a systematic failure to mention Palestinian misdeeds (even the most egregious of these are only tangentially acknowledged with a qualification that they find their ultimate source in ‘the occupation’); contacts with like-minded persons only (in all visits to the Middle East, and all hosted speakers); the systematic omission of historically relevant details; the inclusion of (verifiable) factual errors and distortions of history; the consistent misrepresentation of the actual text of UNSC resolutions; the presentation of unfounded statistics; and a persistent failure to correct information that has been proven false (specifically, false information is initially offered, it is challenged, and no mention is made that it was false – at best such information will stop being included in presentations).
As with the issue of Israeli exceptionalism, a couple of rationales are consistently offered to defend this practice. Here again, an observer would do well to examine these rationales more carefully.
A. One rationale offered for provided unbalanced resources is the assumption that there is a fundamental imbalance of power between Israelis and Palestinians which confers an imbalance of responsibilities on the parties and calls for an unbalanced response by churches. This notion was advanced by the PC(USA)’s Vernon Broyles (among many others) in The Christian Century. In a letter to members of the New Covenant Presbytery, the PC(USA)’s Clifton Kirkpatrick reiterated the same argument:
“The ability to be “fair” and “balanced” rests upon the recognition that at present, things are grossly out of balance with respect to issues of power, economic stability, living conditions and even the issue of daily survival.”
This rationalization attempt runs into two problems. First, it makes an assertion about a power relationship that it does not actually establish. Who, for example, is considered in this relationship? Are neighboring countries that take an active role in the conflict relevant? How about the UN? The burden of proof justifying an imbalance of reaction rests on the one advocating that imbalance.
Even were this imbalance established, the rationalization for offering one-sided information would still fail. It might suffice to warrant an imbalance in a church’s response, but it would never justify an imbalance in process.After a church organization had thoroughly explored the matter, it would be free to take a stand that reflected a legitimate situation on the ground. However, we are not talking about the PC(USA)’s response – we’re talking about their gathering of data upon which to base any response. Bias in that process is unjustifiable because it makes formulating any coherent analysis of the situation on the ground impossible. It may perhaps be that the officials who advanced this argument arrogantly presume that they have analyzed the situation – and are therefore justified in lying to members of the organization about it. However they may regard their action – this rationalization of it is not workable.
B. Another rationalization offered for the provision of one-sided information appeals to the notion that the American media is biased in favor of Israel, therefore by being biased against Israel, church organizations are merely providing balance. This argument has been offered by the PC(USA), the United Methodist Church, and several other denominations on a variety of occasions. When it commended a film, Peace, Propaganda, and the Holy Land as a “study resource for children and youth”, representatives of the PC(USA) had this to say:
“This film orients the viewer to the source of his or her existing biases about the Middle East and prepares the viewer to be a more critical media consumer. Combining American and British TV news clips with observations of analysts, journalists, and political activists, this film provides an historical overview, a striking media comparison, and an examination of factors that have distorted U.S. media coverage and, in turn, American public opinion.”
Christie R. House, the editor of the United Methodist Church global ministries magazine, New World Outlook, expressed much the same thinking:
“New World Outlook is not attempting to provide balanced views about the conflict in this issue. New World Outlook is attempting to be the balance. Readers can find the Israeli viewpoint in the mainstream media, on the internet, and in many books on the issue.”
Some of the difficulty engendered by this rationalization is self-evident. The PC(USA) quote seems to suggest that bias is a bad thing, yet the PC(USA) fully embraces bias when presenting an extraordinarily biased film to children and youth.
But this rationale also contains three embedded false assumptions, and it is in itself an appeal to the baser natures of its hearers. 1. It assumes that people have some familiarity with the facts of the conflict between Israelis, Palestinians, and neighboring states. This is demonstrably untrue – in surveys, many Americans have had difficulty locating the State of Israel on a map. In order to provide balance by offering one-sided information people would have had to already be familiar with the other side. 2. It assumes that the ‘mainstream media’ actually offers the Israeli viewpoint – or even a particularly favorable view of Israel. This also is manifestly false. In the film commended by the PC(USA), the BBC was held up as an exemplar of balance – in spite of the BBC’s record of gross bias and the findings of the Balen Report. 3. And it assumes that the American media is somehow controlled in order to provide favorable coverage of Israel. Any bets who the controllers of the ‘mainstream media’ are supposed to be? But it is also an encouragement to people to consume their particular brand of biased information because it plays on those people’s egos. It suggests that to do so would make them somehow superior to those who rely on the ‘mainstream media, the internet, and many books on the subject’ – apparently because the reader who accepts their biases is better informed. This ego-appeal is particularly troublesome because anyone who has spent more than five minutes looking into it will discover that there are numerous conflicting narratives about virtually every issue involved. Some of these are legitimate perspectives; some are deliberately deceitful; others are accidentally false. The policy of church organizations like the PC(USA) providing one-sided information does nothing to help a person who genuinely seeks to understand the situation.
Additionally, some of the same faulty rationalizations offered to attempt to justify Israeli exceptionalism have also been applied to the distribution of one-sided materials. They remain as insufficient to justify this practice as they were to warrant an excessive negative focus on Israel. In any case, to provide people with one-sided information is inescapably an attempt to prompt people to take sides based on a falsehood. This is not necessarily antisemitic, but it is fundamentally deceitful and completely inexcusable. Such attempts at deceit are never Christian practices, therefore any church organization that indulges in them violates its own claimed beliefs. That this deceitful practice targets a specific people group raises serious questions. It is a form of defamation, and that it seems to be tolerated among church members uniquely in the case of Israel compounds the problem.
#3 Religious Imagery of Demonization
When speaking about the conflict between Israelis, Palestinians, and neighboring countries, the PC(USA) has partnered with a variety of Christian groups in indulging a peculiar practice. These tend to employ a specific set of religious images: comparisons of Israel to Pharaoh, comparisons of Israel to King Herod, references to the Israeli crucifixion system, references to Israelis trying to put stones in front of the tomb of Jesus, labeling the creation of Israel as ‘the original sin’, labeling Jesus the first Palestinian shaheed.
Except for being tailored to the Palestinian cause, these are, for the most part, familiar tropes of liberation theology. In liberation struggles the use of this set of images serves two purposes. First, they provide comfort to the unempowered who can identify their struggles with the sufferings of Christ or other heroic biblical figures. Second, by casting their opponents as biblical evil figures, those who invoke this set of images can effectively demonize those opponents.
The first usage has some merit; it can be very effective at offering comfort and encouragement. The second usage is more troubling. It is this second usage – that of biblical demonization – that is being employed by the PC(USA) and its partners. [This is readily apparent when PC(USA) sources repeat or publish the use of such imagery – because the intended audience is clearly not the group these organizations regard as unempowered. The fact that this imagery is directed at a US audience eliminates any other possible use than that of swaying public opinion against the chosen opponents of these organizations through demonization.]
In many other favored historic liberation struggles this might have been an acceptable practice; when it is employed by Christian organizations against the only Jewish state, it acquires a number of complications. There is a very long history of the use of this set of images by Christians against the Jews that has caused untold misery and bloodshed. That fact cannot be ignored by any responsible person.
Although officials within the PC(USA) and other Christian organizations that use these images have been made aware of the problematic nature of their language of contempt, these have failed to distance themselves from it. This failure evidences, at the very least, a callous disregard for the danger that has always been historically inherent in language of this type. This may not be overt antisemitism, but it displays a type of depraved indifference to the familiar language of historic antisemitism.
CLASSES OF PROBLEMATIC ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BY CHURCH GROUPS
#1 Israeli Exceptionalism
The PC(USA) (like many mainline denominations) has displayed a peculiar singularity of focus on Israel. This has been thoroughly documented, but a brief perusal of the articles from the Presbyterian News Service, of the public statements of their representatives, even of the proposed actions at the upcoming General Assembly will confirm this as a unique priority. It is not the PC(USA)’s only issue of concern, but it assumes a top place in their attentions. If (as is mostly self-evident) Israel is being given disproportionate attention in the PC(USA) (and other mainline denominations), a natural question arises: Why? In itself, an extraordinary focus on a single nation is not evidence of anti-Judaism at work, but it does indicate the presence of some type of bias. That this focus is overwhelmingly negative, and that this focus is on the only Jewish state in existence is alarming. I have heard several possible rationales articulated, and I think it would be prudent to consider them.
A. One possible reason for this disproportionate and negative emphasis would be if Israel were, in fact, worse than any other nation in existence – the chief among human rights abusers, and generally morally repellant.This allegation is advanced when Israeli actions are equated with those of countries like Sudan (as was done by former PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick), or Nazi Germany (as was done in the Warsaw Ghetto reference in the PC(USA)’s 217th General Assembly pre-assembly event, or in the UMC’s educational materials.) It is advanced when Israeli actions are cast as ‘blatant savagery (without correctly even describing the actions or providing information about the circumstances). It is advanced when words like genocide and apartheid are used to describe Israeli policies. Statement after statement from various officials has mirrored this essential charge. If it is true then the singularity of focus by the PC(USA) is justified. If it is not true, then the assertions made are themselves delusions and slanders – and (of equal importance) no justification for Israeli exceptionalism can be found there.
Let’s examine the allegation. If Israel were intent on genocide, then Israel must be a miserable failure at genocide – because this attempt would be unique in history: the population allegedly targeted has dramatically increased. If one attempts to use a differing definition of genocide, then one is functionally lying because it is clearly known how the word is commonly understood. Even if a person were to grant some bizarre alternative definition, the rationale would fail because the unique nature of the charge would no longer apply. More precisely – if genocide is regarded as mass murder of a population, then Israel is clearly not guilty of any form of it. If, in deceitful form, genocide is regarded as the displacement of a population during a defensive war, then Israel would be at most as guilty as Israel’s neighboring states.
In this rationale, the Arab-Israeli conflict is generally blamed explicitly on Israeli intransigence – usually the occupation is cited as the root cause of the conflict, and in much literature the term occupation refers equally to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and Israel proper. (In many instances 60 plus years of occupation are referenced. At least one of these is in the materials commissioners will see at the GA.) This deranged blame placing ignores the entire history of the region … But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we do place the entire blame for the conflict on Israel. What then? Would Israel be justifiably condemned singly above all other nations? Even if it were “all Israel’s fault” would Israel (as has been frequently asserted) be the chief player in the culture of violence in the world? Would the government of Israel be responsible for more deaths than other governments?
In terms of loss of life, in all conflicts from 1950 to the present, the Israeli-Arab conflict (including all deaths of Israelis, Palestinians, and citizens of neighboring states) ranks forty-ninth. One out of every 1700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has been killed in this context. For comparison purposes, the death toll in conflicts in Sudan amounts to one out of every 50 persons killed in conflicts since 1950.
If one were to look at other human rights issues a similar picture would emerge. Israel has freedom of worship – a rarity among states in the region. Israel has freedom of speech and a free press; name one other country in the region whose newspapers print the same level of criticisms of their government. Israel has a court system that frequently rules against policies of the Israeli government; there is no counterpart court system in surrounding nations. Israel does not target civilians in military strikes – yes, civilian casualties occur – but, unlike its military opponents, Israel does not deliberately attack civilians or celebrate when civilians are murdered. [The Middle East Study Committee report is acutely dishonest on this issue, but I'll cover that in a later post.] Unlike other military forces, Israeli soldiers are statistically very unlikely to commit rape – interestingly enough, this lack of rape has actually been criticized by those who demonize Israel. Israel has a sizable non-Jewish population – that lives in safety; what other nation in the region has a sizable Jewish population? The instances of collective punishment, closures, and the separation barrier, while sometimes draconian, are generally responses to the ceaseless attacks against Israeli citizens. These responses may not always be justified – but they occur within a context.
Does Israeli society have inequities and problems? Yes. Are there abuses of Palestinians? Yes. Is Israel the singular human rights abuser it is often portrayed as being within the PC(USA)? Not only does the evidence not support such a contention,any notion that the imbalance in the critical attention given to can be justified by Israel’s misdeeds is unsustainable. One is forced to conclude that one must look elsewhere to ascertain the true reason for this peculiar Israeli exceptionalism.
B. Another possible reason for this negative focus on Israel is the possibility that the Israeli-Palestinian situation, more than any other conflict, threatens wider war.This is perhaps true. Quite frankly it is an extremely tricky process to analyze potential future scenarios – and this particular one is certainly possible. The conflicts between Israel, the Palestinians, and neighboring countries could spin out of control into a far wider war.
Ironically, this fails as a reason to account for the excessive negative attention focused on Israel because one of the major reasons this situation could escalate centers around the existing negative attention focused on Israel. In other words, the threat of wider conflict exists precisely because of disproportionate emphasis placed on the conflict. It begs the question of why the emphasis was there originally.
That the Arab League and the OIC place an extraordinary emphasis on the existence of Israel – which these have historically continually opposed – is certainly true. That many other nations have responded to that opposition by directing excessive negative attention toward Israel is also true. But one must wonder why these direct disapprobation toward Israel. It is as though these believe that if Israel didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be an issue of contention. Why might that be? Because Israel has fewer people? Less land? Because many nations already oppose Israel? Because Israel is expendable?
No rationale for demonstrated excessive critical focus on Israel because Israel is a potential flashpoint of wider war makes sense unless it is a function of appeasement. While this form of appeasement that treats the Jewish state singularly as expendable is not de facto antisemitic, it could hardly be considered a good or valid motive for church action.
C. A third reason often offered for the disproportionate negative focus on Israel exhibited by the PC(USA) (and others) is the fact of US support for Israel.They are somewhat consistent in that they apply a heightened level of criticism against the Unites States – presumably because they are speaking as Americans, and can therefore be “self-critical”. This seems to be an attempt to rationalize obsessive critical focus on Israel as self-criticism by proxy.
Upon closer examination, however, that rationalization fails for a host of reasons. First, what is one to make of statements and actions by the Word Council of Churches or the World Alliance of Reformed Churches? Unless these organizations are regarded patronizingly as extensions of American church groups, their extraordinary negative focus on Israel could not be construed as ‘self-criticism’ by proxy. Second, self-criticism by proxy is, by itself, an extraordinary and dubious concept. I can think of no other situation in which this would be attempted. Third, those who would offer this rationalization create a fiction of the history of Israel by pretending that US support for Israel has been a factor since 1948 – which is quite simply not the case. Fourth, this attempted rationalization ignores the fact the US policies have often not been in the best interests of Israel. One cannot examine our oil policies, our relationships with the direct enemies of Israel, or the concessions we have sometimes bullied Israel into accepting and suggest anything like the relationship between nations this rationalization would necessitate. It is simply untrue. Fifth, much is made of the veto of UN Security Council resolutions – which has been used by all permanent members of the Security Council – while the effect of voting blocs such as the OIC has been deliberately understated. When a Secretary General of the United Nations can officially appear at an event observing the nakba – standing in front of a map of ‘Palestine from the river to the sea’ – treating the UN as honest broker is untenable. Sixth, this rationale necessitates a view of alliances that its holders do not exhibit in their treatment of any other US ally. For example, the United Kingdom almost never appears in critical statements by US church groups, is almost never featured in denominational news services, has never had its legitimacy as a nation questioned by denominational officials, has never been had its leaders demonized by offices of the PC(USA), has never been a target of divestment. It is self-evident that the rationalization of US support for Israel is not the motivating factor in the observable obsessive negative focus on Israel.
D. A fourth reason offered for the excessive negative focus on Israel is the assertion that the underlying basis for Israel is racist and colonialist. This has been blatantly stated by some officials in the PC(USA) and other denominations. The issue, of course, is that Israel is a Jewish state. If Judaism were to be considered a racial or ethnic designation, then any state with a racial or ethnic basis would merit the same level of negative attention currently lavished on Israel.Were Judaism regarded as a religion – then any state with a religious designation would, no doubt, be subject to the same level of disapprobation as Israel is. The lack of Jewish presence in Israel’s neighboring states would certainly not have escaped their attention. Yet in no case do we see this … except one – the Jewish state. Clearly, this too is a false rationalization.
E. A fifth reason offered for negative scrutiny applied to Israel is the existence of a cabal of Zionists who control the governments of the world. Yup … that’s what they say. Some church spokespersons are more subtle and polished: they’ll opine about ‘the powerful Jewish lobby’. But the gist of the rationale remains the same. In this instance, churches view themselves as combating the global forces of evil, the sinister and shadowy Jewish / Zionist lobby. They will sponsor speakers (as the PC(USA) has done) who cite the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to support their allegations. If this allegation were true, then yes, the PC(USA) would justified in its obsessive critical attention leveled at Israel. As absurd as it sounds, an observer would still be well advised to consider the possibility. I find this particular conspiracy theory unpersuasive for a variety of reasons.
a. This hypothesis assumes activities without an actual offer of proof; and it treats the Jewish people in a manner distinct from all others. If this has in mind a worldwide lobby – then it is remarkably ineffective; UN initiatives, statements from European countries, from the EU, and from the OIC, as well as conferences like Durban clearly demonstrate this. If the allegation is solely concerned with the US Jewish lobby, then it treats one minority group in a manner distinct from that to which subjects any other group: it is as if there is a presumption that Jews alone, of all types of persons, should be disqualified from political participation. If this argument envisions a handful of secret, behind-the-scenes conspirators, then it fails to demonstrate that these have any interest in Israel.
b. This hypothesis fails to identify the ends to which such a conspiracy would be directed. For a conspiracy to work, it must have specific goals. If this cabal controls and uses the governments of the world for some nefarious objectives of its own, what might they be? It would seem to me that a piece of land roughly the size of New Jersey would be beneath the notice of such all-powerful forces of evil. To make money? Yes, there are profits to be made from conflict – but there is also an incredible amount of money wasted on this particular conflict. To oppose Islam, to foment dispute between Moslems and Christians? Other than that dispute fomented by historic jihads and crusades? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense either. To get oil? If this cabal already controls the governments of the world, it would seem it already controlled the oil resources of the world as well. To stage a worldwide imperial government? Possible I suppose – but again, I highly doubt that PC(USA) officials believe that; I might also point out that many leaders in the denomination actually support some system of global governance or other. More significantly, I fail to see how obsessing about the state of Israel would in any way resist or even mitigate such an imperialist ambition.
c. This hypothesis fails to identify the actual players. The word Zionist is a catch-all, used to indicate unidentified conspirators. To substitute ‘the Jews’ would be to indulge in the rankest form of scapegoating. Its advancers cannot really believe that all Jewish people are somehow involved, or that such a massive collaboration can remain hidden. So who do they mean? Who are the forces they oppose that justify their actions and statements against Israel? The government of Israel? Yet these have offered zero evidence that the government of Israel controls US policy. I would think rather the reverse more likely. Was it really an initiative of the Israeli government to return Sinai to Egypt?
Sadly, little can be done for those who attempt to advance this rationale. It constitutes a departure from sanity, and perhaps they should be pitied. However, if those clinging to the cabal rationale are the ones crafting PC(USA) policy, then we have a problem.
All of the rationalizations we have examined fail to account for the posture of Israeli exceptionalism being exhibited within the PC(USA). Very few other possible explanations remain. Such an exclusive negative focus on Israel is not, by itself, automatically antisemitic, but antisemitism would explain the data. Other possibilities, no doubt, exist, but members of the PC(USA) would do well to thoroughly examine the motives that drive its statements and actions on the conflict between Israelis, Palestinians, and neighboring states.
[In order to understand what is going on in the PC(USA) this year; we will need to examine all the relevant business items coming before this year’s General Assembly; we’ll need to review the PC(USA)’s overall record; we’ll need to understand the distribution of Presbyterian opinion – from the people in the pews, to pulpit pastors, to institutional insiders; and we’ll need to see where the PC(USA) fits into the landscape of “Mainline” Christian Denominations and the broader Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions landscape. Before we can get to any of that, I need to try to clarify a few things. Specifically, the choice that major choice that confronts commissioners to the 219th General Assembly is this: will you be pro-Palestinian? Will you be anti-Israel? Or will you be antisemitic. Those, quite simply, seem to be the options.]
If we go back over the actions and public statements of several mainline denominations –something seemed to have changed during 1980s and early 1990s. During this period a pro-Palestinian emphasis began to emerge as a priority; but along with that emphasis, various statements began to take on a markedly anti-Israel character. Subsequently, clearly biased anti-Israel statements and actions have become increasingly interspersed with more overtly anti-Jewish ones. How it happened that these themes came to be tied together remains unclear, but for certain groups within the American church they clearly have.
I have been, frankly, puzzled – not so much by the incidence of bias and antisemitism, as by the ease with which these have corrupted the actions and ‘witness’ of various denominations. Most importantly, I have been amazed by the lack of reaction among ‘ordinary’ Christians. It is as if these ‘ordinary’ Christians – who are not themselves antisemitic, and who do not, themselves hold Israel to a double standard – remain perfectly content for organizations to which they belong to do so. It is as if they do not recognize their responsibility and culpability for the actions of churches where both their membership and their financial contributions are voluntary.
Because I want to seriously consider the topic, I need to say a few things upfront – in the naïve hope of warding off the acolytes of the idiot coalition*.
1.The history of Christian antisemitism is both well documented and well known to anyone who has paid the least attention to the subject. This represents a complex phenomenon that has been occurring off and on for the better part of two millennia. In some places and times it was absent, in some situations it was worse than in others, and it led to varying degrees of bad treatment ranging from social isolation to outright mass murder. I will not assay to unravel the reasons for this in this post – though that story must indeed be explored; for now, it is sufficient to mark the fact that the pattern has been one of virtually unremitting hostility.
2. With that observation comes a corollary: this rank and long-standing bigotry was a fundamental violation of Christianity as described in the Christian Bible. When Christians (or organizations or societies that labeled themselves ‘christian’) indulged in biased and bigoted behaviors, their own religion condemned them.
3. It is self-evident that professing Christians have demonstrated biases in addition to anti-Jewish bias, and it is self-evident that others beside Christians have demonstrated biases against the Jewish people. But because of the peculiar relationship between the origins of Christianity and Judaism, this anti-Jewish bias is extraordinary and jarring; more alarming is the fact that the Jewish people have been singled out by professing Christians more frequently and with more vitriol than have been any other people – with the possible exception of periodic internecine Christian fights (say, for example among Protestants, Catholics, and the radical Reformed groups).
4.It is possible for a person to be pro-Palestinian without being particularly anti-Israeli. This is not a comfortable political space to occupy, but it can be done. It is possible for a person to be anti-Israel without being, of necessity, antisemitic; this is more difficult (yet still possible) distinction to make. It is possible for a person to be well-intentioned, yet easily and inadvertently slip from one of these into the others. It is also relevant that biases are not always consciously owned – a person may demonstrate even extreme bias without being aware that his or her perspective is warped.
5. I have tended to avoid employing the word ‘antisemitic’ for a couple of reasons. One is that people often reflexively respond to the charge by saying, “Anyone who criticizes Israel’s policies is accused of antisemitism”. (Usually this charge is followed by the phrase, “by the powerful Jewish Lobby” – which kind of speaks for itself.) Those who advance this assertion often inexplicably turn things around in their minds to suggest that because the accusation has been leveled in differing circumstances it is therefore untrue. The fact is that people who oppose the anti-Israel activism of groups like various professedly Christian denominations are not making the charge their detractors claim. These usually go far out of their way to avoid leveling a charge of antisemitism as it is regarded as unhelpful at best, and if present, unconscious. Today I reject this – because the proponents of anti-Israel activism DO DEMONSTRATE A BIAS, and it is, in many cases, overtly antisemitic; I see no reason to attempt to sugar-coat this any longer; and the activists in question have been frequently alerted to the blatantly antisemitic content of some of the statements and information they provide. That they have chosen not to correct it dictates that they can no longer claim to be acting innocently in good faith.
6. The second reason I have frequently resisted using the word ‘antisemitic’ is linguistic; one invariably hears a response from some member of the anti-Israel brain trust: “Jews are not the only Semites … therefore someone who opposes the racist, evil, colonialist, settler state of Israel and its Jewish supporters is not anti-Semitic because he is supporting the Palestinian and Arab Semites.” In one sense, I concur – Jews are, in fact, not the only semitic people; obviously Arabs and others share the semitic family of languages as well. There are only two problems with this argument: it is solely a semantic distraction, and it is based on a very ill-informed understanding of the history of the word ‘antisemitic’. The word ‘antisemite’ itself was apparently coined by Wilhelm Marr when he formed the German ‘Antisemitic League’ (“Antisemiten-Liga”) specifically to combat the ‘Jewish threat to Germany’. Marr also used the phrase “Jew hatred” (Judenhass) in a pretty much equivalent fashion. Marr’s emphasis was placed on non-religious, race based opposition to the Jewish people. The word ‘antisemitic’ came to be preferred over ‘Jew hatred’ because it seemed to provide a thin, pseudo-scientific veneer for the whole concept. [It should be noted that the related word ‘antisemitische’ appeared to have been employed a few years earlier – but this equally exclusively indicated Jews.] In any case, the use of the word itself is really an irrelevance: whether one wants to employ the label ‘antisemitism’ or the label ‘Jew-hatred’ is quite beside the point. What one is indicating by either word is that there is an overt anti-Jewish bias that is being demonstrated by factions in various Christian denominations. This could be religious, cultural, or race based; it could be some overlap of the three. Semantic arguments simply evade the issue.
With those preliminary considerations out of the way, we can turn our attention to the original question. Will commissioners chose a pro-Palestinian posture? Will they choose a posture of anti-Israel bias? Or will they choose a posture of anti-Judaism and antisemitism? The first posture is commendable; the second is not; the third is reprehensible. Yet it is very easy to slip from one into another without even being fully aware of it – especially when required to make decisions with limited time and limited information. I can only hope that they will take their responsibilities seriously enough that they go to great pains to steer clear of these pitfalls.
There are five classes of actions and statements that represent serious ethical problems in church advocacy:
#1Israeli exceptionalism – a peculiar singularity of focus on Israel as distinct from that applied to all other nations.
#2 Presentation of One-Sided Information
#3 Religious Imagery of Demonization
#4 Speaking FOR Another Religion – as if your interpretation of that religion’s beliefs is more correct than that of its own members.
#5 Generic Statements Directed Against “the Jews”
All of these behaviors pose moral and ethical problems for a church. Sometimes justifications for them can be offered – though they are rarely sufficient to excuse the action. In my next post I will examine them more carefully.
Will Spotts
[Portions of this post are taken from an article “Church Anti-Israel Activism and Antisemitism".
* When I use the phrase “idiot coalition” I refer to people who seek to evade the relevant topic with meaningless tangents.]
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is rapidly approaching General Assembly season. As a former member of the denomination, I always find this time period prompts me to a kind of nostalgia and a renewed interest in Presbyterian affairs. It’s kind of like hearing news about someone you used to know. Sadly, this year’s festivities contain an unusually large number of alarming and sinister elements. Among other things, this General Assembly intends to address the Israel-Palestine Conflict, the relationship between Christians and Jews, and the relationship between Christians and Muslims. It will consider divestment proposals; the application of the label apartheid to Israel; a report on human rights that seems to find violations of religious freedom singly in the State of Israel; an incomplete, inaccurate, and alarmingly biased report on the Middle East; and a proposal to commend “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith and Hope from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering” (the Kairos document) as a tool for advocacy. I have a sinking feeling, like the witch in Macbeth: “By the pricking of my thumbs something wicked this way comes.”
I recognize that for better or worse, people don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the pronouncements of national denominations any more. They tend to go in one ear and out the other. The members of a particular congregation often don’t even know the stands their national organizations are taking. In many cases (and the PC(USA)’s own statistics compiled by Research Services bear this out), such stands do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of most members. But as much as one might be tempted to pass them off as irrelevant, the political stands of a denomination should not be ignored – even by those outside of the denomination – because they do have a couple very unwholesome effects.
First, public stands of institutions of this kind are used to lend an air of legitimacy to specific political agendas. To have the support of a church (or a college or university, or a municipality, or a union) is to have its imprimatur. Whatever public credibility that denomination or organization had is now given to the particular cause it chooses to support. This applies whether or not the members of the organization actually support that cause. In the case of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, when a church endorses biased materials, fosters a one-sided, anti-Israel narrative, or even trespasses into more blatant anti-Judaism and antisemitism, those things – biased materials, anti-Israel activism, anti-Judaism and antisemitism – gain whatever credibility that church has. These are rendered normal, acceptable in polite conversation, apparently virtuous. This doesn’t even function on a wholly conscious level; if a person harbors warm, fuzzy feelings toward the sponsoring organization, he will be far more receptive to the things that organization endorses, no matter how loathsome he might otherwise accurately find them.
Second, the statements and actions of agencies, committees, organizations, and officials of the national denominations eventually will penetrate to local congregations. It will not happen right away; in the case of the PC(USA), anti-Israel activism has been a recurring theme since the late 1980s. But it will show up in local churches, whether in Sunday School materials, worship resources, hymns, prayers. And the members of those churches will accept the biases built into these materials they have received from a trusted source. They will absorb them; and they will do so uncritically, and they will go away feeling well-informed.
I recently attended an event held at a local PC(USA) church. I am familiar with this church. I know many people who attend – some of them quite well. I know them to be thoughtful, basically decent people. They are modestly more intellectually inclined and bookish than is probably the norm for Presbyterians. They participate in a variety of PC(USA) initiatives: they are active in Presbyterian Women; they buy and sell “fair trade coffee”; they go on PC(USA) sponsored mission trips; they support local Presbyterian homeless shelters; they employ PC(USA) curricula in their Sunday School classes.
We met in the church’s library, a room lined on two sides with bookshelves. It doubles as a conference and class room. For a while the quirky selection of books occupied my attention: it ranged from historic theology to local history to academic works to the “popular Christian books” of recent years. It was then that I noticed maps displayed on the remaining wall. I could not see them clearly from where I sat, yet their shapes were familiar to me – as they would be to anyone raised in a church. Upon closer examination, I discovered one to be a map of ancient Israel – the Davidic Kingdom I think. Another was a juxtaposition of two maps on one paper; they were obviously intended for comparison. On one side a person could see the borders of the nation of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. The other side purported to be a map of Mandate Palestine from 1947. The large majority of the area was yellow; interspersed within the yellow were small, random blobs of dark orange. I consulted the legend. Yellow was labeled: Palestinian lands and publicly owned lands. Dark orange was labeled: Jewish owned lands.
My heart sank. I have, of course, seen this or similar visual displays all too frequently. This time it made me profoundly sad. I was in a local church – a church populated by otherwise decent souls – people who intend to do good. This was not something on the internet. It was not something in Louisville (the PC(USA)’s denominational headquarters). It was not an activist political group. It was my own backyard. These maps were, as you might guess, props from a class or presentation on the subject of Israel and the Palestinian territories. Attendees actually believed they were somehow better informed for having undergone the process. Yet the self-evident problem with this visual map display was completely and utterly lost on them.
This map presentation creates a manifestly false impression. It is an attempt to graphically illustrate injustice. The only problem is that the illustration is itself unjust. And its creators know that – even if ordinary people in church groups or classes don’t notice that they have been manipulated. A more honest map would have distinguished a third group: Palestinian owned lands. As is, without overtly lying, by netting together publicly owned lands and privately held Palestinian lands as if they were one and the same, the map is intentionally misleading. There are, naturally, reasons for this deception – many of which stem from complexities of land ownership in the Ottoman period and from certain British practices. An honest person could make the argument that the category of publicly owned lands is a faulty one. However, an honest person would also have to acknowledge the Mandate restrictions on Jewish land purchases, the limits on Jewish immigration (a policy not applied to non-Jewish immigration), and the creation of the state of Jordan. Given the difficulty in graphically and fairly illustrating this complexity, an honest person would never have produced this map comparison.
The map itself is deceptive, but it is commonplace. Much more sinister, however, is the fact that this is being displayed in an ordinary church. I’m honestly not sure what unknown factor prompted ordinary people in a run-of-the-mill church to use materials like the map illustration I described; I’m not sure what would account for a blind spot of that type. But I suspect it is ultimately a predictable result of the activism of the PC(USA).
I was a loyal (if mildly oblivious) member of a PC(USA) church for fifteen years. I was a ruling elder in my local church. I taught Sunday School classes, played for services, occasionally preached. I have had relationships with Presbyterian churches for a large chunk of my life. Historic Presbyterian doctrines, for the most part, held a strong appeal for me – that has increased over the years. I came to discover that they matched my own beliefs more closely than did the doctrines embraced by most other traditions. To me, they had (and have) the ring of truth.
A couple of years ago I left that church. The reasons for this decision were complicated, but the shortest explanation was that the national denominational organization seemed bent on abandoning both those Reformed doctrines I found so compelling, and the historic system of church governance known as Presbyterianism. The truth be told, these were not recent developments – I had just never looked closely enough to realize this fact.
For me – for my mental and spiritual well-being, and for ethical reasons – to leave the PC(USA) was a right decision. And I am better off for having done so. At the time I left, once I gave my reasons, I promised myself I would not comment on internal PC(USA) matters again. With one exception: If there came a time when the PC(USA) was taking actions that threatened to actively cause harm in the world outside the PC(USA), I would be obliged to speak out.
That time has come.
This is a temporary blog. I have no interest in permanently following PC(USA) doings. But, a series of worrisome proposals are coming before the 219th General Assembly concerning the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Many of the actions asked of that assembly are supported with biased, inaccurate, in cases downright false information. The General Assembly is being asked to weigh in on one side with a force that is unfair, unwarranted, and actively harmful to ANY productive discussion of the many issues. These actions, if taken, will in no way improve the quality of life Palestinians; they will in no way lead to peace. But they do threaten to render bias, dishonesty, and even antisemitism more acceptable.
Because this is loathsome to me, because this is loathsome to all people of good will, I urge the 219th General Assembly to reject all elements of bias, dishonesty, and antisemitism outright. I urge them to actively require the committees, agencies, officials, networks of the PC(USA) – the bureaucratic elements that answer to the GA – to desist from these practices once, for all.
And if urge is not strong enough a word, I implore, I even beg them to carefully consider the full implications and effects of the decisions they are required to make in July, 2010.
