the 221st General Assembly

The Wall

When people say “the wall” in the context of Israel and the West Bank, they generally mean the separation barrier. “The wall” is used for rhetorical effect: it summons ominous images of Berlin and Pink Floyd. For the more literate, it might conjure China or Hadrian. Some might even be put in mind of the Wailing Wall. The rhetorical use is often amplified by adding modifiers – things like “the apartheid wall”. For a while, supporters of Israel employed the term “fence”. It sounds almost friendly, pastoral. The thing is, portions of the separation barrier are a fence; other portions are a wall. And while less draconian than its detractors often imply, it is anything but friendly.

I am no fan of the separation of populations. I acknowledge the security issues the barrier is intended to address, but it does not bode well for the prospects of long term peace.

Then there are concerns about the route of the separation barrier. Some of these are clearly legitimate; others (seemingly intentionally) misquote UNSC resolutions.

The whole process applied to this one aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian contention is illuminating. Most people on all sides of the issue are unconcerned with what is real. It’s all about the spin; about how things sound; how they appear. It’s all about rhetorical oneupsmanship and jockeying for some imaginary moral high ground. Decisions are not made on substance, and what legitimate concerns the parities once had, become obscured in a haze of pure (or rather, impure) rhetoric.

This is how we have learned to get our own way – in personal relationships, in politics, and in church affairs. Even those who don’t start out on this dishonest marketing express quickly discover that getting on the wrong side of spin is a mortal liability.

Don’t get me wrong. Some statements on all sides of the Israeli Palestinian controversy have some basis in fact. Some are whole cloth, of course, but by no means all. Unfortunately the facts always seem to get twisted, turned around until the truth disappears into an extreme and simple-minded mirage.

Presbyterians get quite exercised about “the wall” in the West Bank. But there is another wall to which they remain oblivious. This wall is as wide and high and impenetrable as any real or imagined wall Presbyterians might oppose. There is a wall around the hearts and minds of Presbyterians that keeps them from feeling or perceiving the fact that their Middle East witness is compromised and the reasons why it is compromised. This is true of members, elders, denominational officials and staff, news outlets, and activists. It is even true of many who desire more fairness in PC(USA) Middle East policies and statements. Something interferes with their thinking on the subject. Something prevents them from acknowledging that there is a problem; and something prevents them from acknowledging the extent of that problem.

The facts are clear. The PC(USA) has a history of institutional anti-Israel bias that makes them unable to fairly treat the issues. The PC(USA) has a history of toleration for, encouragement of, and indulgence in antisemitic themes. There is no gray area in these classical antisemitic tropes. There is no doubt on these points. Both can be confirmed easily by examining the statements and actions of General Assemblies, of PC(USA) officials, of PC(USA) partners, of PC(USA) networks and interest groups. The task is unpleasant; it’s nauseating at times; but it is easily enough accomplished.

Yet the vast majority of Presbyterians – members, elders, pastors, various officials and committees, news organizations – simply refuse to do it. They will, in fact, employ mental gymnastics and tortured pseudo-moral reasoning to excuse and ignore bad behavior.

As a side note – if these actions and statements were directed at any other people group, we would not be having this conversation. There is no other ethnicity or religion that Presbyterians would feel comfortable treating in the same manner. We would not have denominational officials saying things like, “African American groups go nuts … because we refuse to be one sided,” or “I know how … viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Buddhist community,” or “The phrase “the right of Italy to exist” is a source of pain for some members of the … committee.”

Presbyterians would not be quoting people for our edification saying things like, “France acts as a spoiled child … Even though the state of France is supposed to be a democracy, it acts as a NAZI state,” or “Tibetans in the diaspora must get a life,” or “If we are not careful, Christian churches … will turn into Museums and be on tours run by Hindu tour guides as if in a theme park.”

Presbyterians would not be indulging in speculations about the blood purity and origin of Norwegians – suggesting that their ancestors were really Khazars pretending to be Norwegian.

Presbyterians would never dream of suggesting that Koreans control the banks or Congress or the U.S. media.

The reasons for this are manifold.

First, the PC(USA) does not really have the institutional bias problem against any of these groups – so it is very easy for Presbyterians to see just how wrong those bigotries would be. Self criticism is much harder. If a person is a Presbyterian, he or she has some vested interest in the label Presbyterian being a good thing. Instinctively Presbyterians know that the anti-Israel bias and toleration for antisemitic themes is objectively bad … therefore they cannot bring themselves to see the PC(USA) as participating in these things.

Second, even people who don’t agree with the direction of PC(USA) action recognize that most pro-Palestinian activists are decent people. It’s true. Their motivation is often good. They are spurred by compassion and empathy and a legitimate desire for peace and justice. Nonetheless, the bias itself, the tenor of the dialogue, the use of antisemitic tropes is not good. The motivation doesn’t matter at this point. Tragically, the history of the church has demonstrated exactly where this type of rhetoric always leads. It is objectively bad; it is objectively harmful; it is objectively dangerous. Surely, truly well-meaning folks could manage to advocate for Palestinian friends and partners and for human rights without indulging in a type of discourse that is always wrong, always harmful. And surely, when they can’t do so, the rest of Presbyterians should be able to confront the issue even though its practicers are “well-meaning”.

Third, there is another type of argument that has become common in the PC(USA). It runs a little something like this: a person will employ a well-known antisemitic theme and someone will – shocked and horrified – call them on it. The one who employed the theme will immediately respond, “Every time someone criticizes the government of Israel, he is accused of antisemitism.” A large number of people (in this case Presbyterians) who imagine they’d never personally indulge in antisemitic discourse, jump in to support the original antisemitic speaker. This notion is eventually amplified to rather strongly suggest that antisemitism and anti-Israel bias are ultimately a result of Israeli and Jewish action. As a certain PC(USA) mission network informed the General Assembly in 2010, ““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.”

Fourth, to actually acknowledge the facts – that the PC(USA) has a long-standing institutional bias; that the PC(USA) is applying two double standards – one in how they judge Israel versus how they judge other nations, and the other in how they treat Israel, Judaism, and the Jewish people in Presbyterian actions and statements versus how they treat all other nations, religions, and ethnic groups; that the PC(USA) needs to take much greater care to avoid blatant antisemitic themes – is to damage relationships within the denomination. Even though true, very few Presbyterians will actually admit these things because it would cause offense and make future cooperation with their colleagues more difficult. Some of the most courageous do try to speak out, but even they constantly backpedal and downplay the facts.

The bottom line is that there is a wall that keeps Presbyterians from responding to something profoundly ugly, destructive, and unfair within their own denomination. If commissioners (and Presbyterians generally) want their Middle East witness to have integrity, if they want to actually help, if they want to (as they have said) break down the walls, they must first break down this will. Then Presbyterians will see clearly to break down others.

Will Spotts

Comments on: "The Wall" (10)

  1. Elizabeth Carlson said:

    Will, you are doing a superb job. You are so clear thinking and articulate. Thanks for all your good work.


  2. Elizabeth Carlson – Thank you so much.


  3. You have written a very brave piece with an excellent analysis. You have articuletely and succinctly identified some very slippery items. I hope it will have some impact.

    However, I will point out two statements in this essay I respectfully disagree with:

    “I acknowledge the security issues the barrier is intended to address, but it does not bode well for the prospects of long term peace.”

    The sentence implies the security barrier is a cause of the conflict, not a result of it. In the BDS playbook, the existence of the barrier is presented as a reason for joining BDS. The wall was built precisely because the “prospects of long term peace” were not good. It was built at a time of continuous attacks on the Israeli population. These attacks were coordinated and supported by the Palestinian agencies that were supposed to be engaged in making peace with Israel.

    The separation barrier has curtailed the ability of the extremist Palestinian groups to harm Israelis. Also, many sectors of the economy in the PA areas have flourished since the erection of the wall. Both of these are encouraging.

    My second critique is this sentence:

    “They [pro-Palestinian activists] are spurred by compassion and empathy and a legitimate desire for peace and justice.”

    Perhaps they appear to be “spurred by compassion and empathy” and effectively use the language of compassion and empathy. I question how genuine is their empathy if they can engage with (and accept unquestioningly) only one side of the narrative in the conflict.



  4. Nycerbarb,

    Thanks for your kind comments and also for your tone in disagreement.You might be surprised how rare that is.

    I take your points.

    I won’t argue them per se, but I’ll explain where I’m coming from. In the first case, i do not believe (nor did I intend to imply) that the security barrier is a cause of the conflict. I also don’t have a better suggestion in terms of addressing the security issue; and I acknowledge the issue must be addressed. I wasn’t speaking of fault here. I had not considered the economic consequences in PA areas – so I’ll have to think about that. Nonetheless – personally, I don’t like the thing itself; when I saw it I knew how I’d react if I were on the wrong side of it. I don’t think it augers well (I don’t think it is a good sign) for long term peace prospects.

    In the second case – some of them are basically Haman. But others I know personally are not. Empathy and compassion are not necessarily virtues because they can be selective. One can very easily feel empathy and compassion for people with whom one has some sort of connection. In this instance, they are operating with a horrible blind spot. For me, the real issue is their actions – bad actions are not excused by ostensibly good motivations. There are some actions and ideas that are always bad, that must be off limits. But again, something keeps most Presbyterians from seeing their own actions (and those of the denomination) rightly.


  5. Nycerbarb – one other thought. You said, “I hope it will have some impact.”

    I’m not optimistic in that regard. I’d give about 50/50 odds at this point on divestment passing; at least one major anti-Israel resolution is pretty much guaranteed.

    But when it comes to what I believe to be the real problem – the bias and the free pass given to rather blatant antisemitism – I doubt anything will be done. Even divestment opponents don’t want to have the wall breached. When the people who are working hardest on the one side already cede 3/4 or more of the ground uncontested, the actual debate will be very far weighted in an anti-Israel direction from the outset. And virtually no one will mention the antisemitism issue … they will think it unhelpful.


  6. fizziks said:

    Hi.. I was interested in particular beause you mentioned the Khazar hoax. This is a particular pet peeve of mine and I am wondering how much of a problem it is within the PCUSA community. Is the Khazar hoax – ie that Jews are descended from Khazars, something that is regularly claimed by the PCUSA or its members, in church or elsewhere?


  7. To be honest, I would imagine relatively few Presbyterian members in normal churches have even heard of Khazars.

    Nonetheless, this theme has been advocated by the national denomination in a variety of ways. Originally, it was oblique – just claiming a lack of relationship between modern Jews and the people of Biblical Israel. The idea, of course, was to dispel any notion of a biblical claim to land – which Presbyterians hypocritically reject while affirming “holy sites” … doh. It also is designed to ward off historic claims to the land. And it has the virtue (as it always has when used by antisemites) of allowing Christians to behave badly and spread slanders about Jews because they would not really be the Israel of the Bible – this was how many Christians managed the cognitive dissonance created by the fact that Jesus and all his earliest followers were Jewish paired with centuries of Christian anti-Judaism.

    Now the IPMN and others with varying degrees of official status in the PC(USA) blatantly use the Khazar hoax. The PC(USA) offered a national “resource” that contained it.


  8. fizziks said:

    Do you have a link to that resouce? I would be very interested.


  9. I’ll get back to you when I have a chance to get it.

    I do know offhand that the IPMN prepared a booklet called Steadfast Hope that is sold directly by the PC(USA). That contains this quote: “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.”


  10. […] Jun In his latest posting on the subject of this week’s US Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) General Assembly (GA), Will Spotts […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: