Mr. Hurwitz,
I am now saddened. It seems as if dialogue has turned to stone throwing again. Anyway, here we go:

*Moral Dysplasia- You say "If you are unable to see the distinction between a Hamas member and a two-year child, and are unwilling to assign them different values depending on their level of innocence, you are suffering from a profound case of moral dysplasia."

If you would read my post more closely, I make no such claim. What I say is that I am suspicious of the doctrine of moral equivalence when employed by governments in defense of sovereignty. The issue at stake in what I said is that governments make "sovereignty" a highest good, to which many grievous acts can be committed in defense of said state. To use your example (turned a bit to my advantage), Israel might state that a military action resulting in the death of the 2 year old you mentioned so as to get at the Hamas member is not morally equivalent to the mortar attack that sparked the military response. Their defense, so as to not be morally equivalent, is national sovereignty and the defense of borders.

I disagree with this logic. Sovereignty, while important, is not a highest moral good. Instead, defense of life, to which (and this relates to another element of my post about just war theory) the doctrine of proportionality applies, is the highest good. What I mean here is that while we certainly want to defend borders, if the action needed to defend those borders requires a disproportionate response in lives, then the defense of those borders is not justified. To bring the point home: is the defense of Israel worth every single Jewish citizen's life? Every Palestinian life? Of course not! Reason: if it cost everyone's life, then there would be no nation afterward, or if there were, it would be a barbarous confederacy that would earn the world’s ire. Therefore, the use of violence by both Palestinians and Israelis needs to be reevaluated in this light, and the cost in human lives for the sake of borders needs to be addressed.

With this being said, I find it hard to believe that you would even use Cast Lead as your example of proportional response or sovereign defense. Please explain to me how targeting hospitals and primary care facilities, farms, water sources, electrical infrastructure, and several schools even comes close to a good outcome in terms of proportionality. Furthermore, on the first day of bombing in Cast Lead, nearly 1,000 civilians were either killed or seriously injured. Additionally, the bombings started at nearly the very same time Palestinian children were leaving school. So, I ask you again, how can you site an operation that, on its first day, resulted in the largest one day casualty count in 60 years?

Now, with that behind us, you are right. After that opening sortie by IDF, it does seem that many steps and measures were taken to protect civilian lives. Why the disparity between the two phases? Who knows?

Well, actually, I have an idea. As a military strategy, it was something akin to “Shock and Awe” in which an overwhelming amount of force was used in the shortest possible time to stun the opposition into a quick withdrawal. To that end, maybe that use of overwhelming force possibly saved more civilian lives than it cost in the long run; we will never know. It did, however, cost the Palestinian people dearly and even further destroyed what little infrastructure they had. However, this only highlights the fact that force should be avoided at most costs because it can cost more in its execution than it seeks to defend.

Oh, and by the way, Israel violated the cease-fire agreement which led to this whole debacle… Call it a “pinpoint” incursion all you want, I would think that Israel would want to pursue other avenues than using a unilateral action during a “tinderbox” political situation. Also, as a pre-emptive rebuttal, I certainly condemn the mortar attacks Hamas used in retaliation for the incursion. In the end, again, military action can create more problems than it solves.

Also, in defense of my argument that the deaths in this conflict are carried disproportionately by Palestinians, I would point out that in the entire affair leading up to Cast Lead, there were no Israeli casualties (I do mourn the maiming of an Israeli child in one of the attacks), in comparison to 19 Palestinians (three civilian, one child), who, arguably members of the PA security forces, cannot be classified as “thugs” or “terrorists.”

So, as for the “fourth D” of deception, I would hope that that consideration could be dropped. If not, then I guess we shall never agree…

*You know as well as I do that the Palestinian Authority is a interim government that has made great strides towards reform while also having an internal struggle for control between Fatah and Hamas. Therefore, to label the entire government as “murderous thugs” does not set forth any sharp/crisp distinctions present in the current political dynamic. In the end, there has been a great deal of reform within the government, led by Mr. Abbas (though Fatah, seems to be moderately stable), and if you want to label Salam Fayyad as a terrorist thug, then be my guest (you will lose all credibility at that point, unless you think the World Bank is a terrorist organization).

In fact, in leaving the negotiating table, Israel seems to be suffering from this same dullness in distinctions. While I understand the principle involved, refusal to negotiate with a government that is attempting to continue to reform is not very helpful. In this case, maybe the United States’ situation in Afghanistan might give you a concrete example. There, our former enemies are, bit by bit, being brought to the negotiating table so as to actually further the cause of peace there, while also creating mortal rifts within the Taliban itself. This is led, again, by being able to make distinctions, something that Israel does not seem to want to do (especially under the current leadership of the Likud coalition).

*As I suggested in the earlier post, there are reasons for the emphasis on Israel. If you do not accept those reasons as valid, that is your right. For my part, they are reason enough. This is not a double standard. It is a matter of priorities. While China, Iran, and others are certainly guilty of detestable crimes, I and other Presbyterians feel compelled to reflect and speak on the situation in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza because it is the lead “domino” in a geo-political quagmire that has embroiled the world.

Again, Presbyterian reflection on this situation is not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that no wants to be held morally liable for all the bloodshed that has taken place. To this end, I direct you towards the closing lines of my first post:” Instead, while violence might be necessary for the sake of defense, we should all mourn it, confess it, and own it for what it is: human sin. Israel, at times, has failed. Palestinians, at times, have failed. The United States, at times, has failed. We are all guilty.”

In love,
Rev. Samuel Weddington

(continuation of response to Samuel Weddington)

You complain that not every Arab wants to kill Jews, and that innocents are being punished. I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, the innocents live in a nation that has elected murderous thugs as their government. These thugs have, in fact, vowed to kill every Jew on the planet (have you not read the Fatah or Hamas charter, seen their newspapers or television shows, or listened to their leaders?). The innocent along with the guilty have always suffered during war, because it is impossible to treat each and every person in an enemy country based on their individual characteristics , no matter how hard one tries. (Unless, of course, techniques such as selective assassination are used - as suggested in the Goldstone report – though when Israel is suspected of doing this, there is still international condemnation). When the adult population stops voting for genocidal fanatics to lead their government, the suffering will end.

Your complaint that “Palestinians” (there are no such people) suffer disproportionately is similarly invalid. You offer no support for your claim that “bloodshed…is experienced primarily by Palestinians“ [sic], probably because there is none. The percentage of combatants to innocents killed during Cast Lead and in previous years is higher than any other war in history, and is much higher than the wars that the U.S. are fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Civilian represented 60% of military-related deaths during World War II; by contrast, independent observers have concluded that civilian casualties were 25% during Operation Cast Lead). There is no question that Israeli soldiers target terrorists, not civilians, during military actions. By contract, the Arab militia deliberately targets civilians, especially children.

Perhaps we should add a fourth “D” here: Deception, the propensity to manufacture ‘facts’ that have no basis in reality.

Regarding moral equivalence, it is you who is guilty of this by treating the death of a soldier in the same way as the death (deliberate or not) of a civilian. If you are unable to see the distinction between a Hamas member and a two-year child, and are unwilling to assign them different values depending on their level of innocence, you are suffering from a profound case of moral dysplasia. And although you may live in the world of moral equivalence, most of the rest of humanity has set values, which usually condemns the deliberate murder of innocents. In fact, wasn’t your first complaint that ‘innocents’ were accidentally (not even deliberately) harmed? How does this fit in with your idea that it is the number of deaths, not the cause of or reason for those deaths, that is more important?

I ask you again – where are the church’s reports and condemnations of Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, China, etc.? Where is the call for the boycott of Chinese goods? And where was the condemnation of Hamas when they fired 8,000 rockets at Israel, or when over 1,000 Israelis were blown apart during the second terror war? By condemning Israel now for defending itself while giving the aggressors a free pass, the church is certainly guilty of double standards.

(to be continued)

Re response of Samuel Weddington (continued):

You complain that not every Arab wants to kill Jews, and that innocents are being punished. I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, the innocents live in a nation that has elected murderous thugs as their government. These thugs have, in fact, vowed to kill every Jew on the planet (have you not read the Fatah or Hamas charter, seen their newspapers or television shows, or listened to their leaders?). The innocent along with the guilty have always suffered during war, because it is impossible to treat each and every person in an enemy country based on their individual characteristics , no matter how hard one tries. (Unless, of course, techniques such as selective assassination are used (as suggested in the Goldstone report) – though when Israel is suspected of doing this, there is still international condemnation). When a majority of the adult population stops voting for genocidal fanatics to lead their government, there will be no need for innocents to suffer.

Your complaint that “Palestinians” (there are no such people) suffer disproportionately is similarly invalid. You offer no support for your claim that “bloodshed….is experienced primarily by Palestinians“ [sic], probably because there is none. The percentage of combatants to innocents killed during Cast Lead and in previous years is higher than any other war in history, and is much higher than the wars that the U.S. are fighting right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Civilian represented 60% of military-related deaths during World War II; by contrast, independent observers have concluded that civilian casualties were 25% during Operation Cast Lead). There is no question that Israeli soldiers target terrorists, not civilians, during military actions. By contract, the Arab militia deliberately targets civilians, especially children.

Perhaps we should add a fourth “D” here: Deception, the propensity to manufacture ‘facts’ that have no basis in reality.

Regarding moral equivalence, it is you who is guilty of this by treating the death of a soldier in the same way as the death (deliberate or not) of a civilian. If you are unable to see the distinction between a Hamas member and a two-year child, and are unwilling to assign them different values depending on their level of innocence, you are suffering from a profound case of moral dysplasia. And although you may live in the world of moral equivalence, most of the rest of humanity has set values, which usually condemns the deliberate murder of innocents. In fact, wasn’t your first complaint that ‘innocents’ were accidentally (not even deliberately) harmed? How does this fit in with your idea that it is the number of deaths, not the cause of or reason for those deaths, that is more important?

I ask you again – where are the church’s reports and condemnations of Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, China, etc.? Where is the call for the boycott of Chinese goods? And where was the condemnation of Hamas when they fired 8,000 rockets at Israel, or when over 1,000 Israelis were blown apart during the second terror war? By condemning Israel now for defending itself while giving the aggressors a free pass, the church is certainly guilty of double standards.

(to be continued)

Mr. Hurwitz,
Thank you for your kind replies. I am heartened when you write: "I myself disagree with many acts taken by Israel, as do others in this thread and elsewhere. Obviously, this does not make us anti-Semitic."

While we might disagree on particular points made so far, it is good to see that we agree here. In my case, I have spent much time dedicating myself to the study of the Holocaust and the plight of Jews, and furthermore, in studying the dialogue between Jews and Christians that peaked in the late 70’s. In my case, as a Presbyterian, anti-Semitism is a charge I do not take lightly, especially coming from a world-renowned Jewish organization.

I will also walk the second mile with you: Though not an Israeli, I certainly can understand the want, the need, to protect one's citizens. To this end, I do not condemn Israel. However, as I think the point has been made over and over again, there are some deep disagreements about things like the border fence, the situation concerning Jerusalem (access to and from by Palestinians), the expansion of settlements, and many others. I am not so unfair as to simply take the Palestinian's side in a complex matter.

I also agree that, in some ways, the Israel/Palestinian situation seems to be a hotplate that many like to bring commentary to, while neglecting reflection on other situations that are also grievous.

At this point, I only offer three insights in defense of the current focus:
First, the reason that I think this issue is getting much more play than others is that the West, I believe, is finally starting to understand what the existence of the state of Israel means in a region of the world embroiled in violence. It is clear that regimes, such as the one in Iran, will not rest until it does something about Israel. In the West, many of us have been largely ignorant of this phenomenon.

Secondly, the United States, as the world’s sole superpower and staunchest defender of Israel, historically, is in a bit of a quandary. What should we do? We have not only been committed to Israel’s defense, but we have also been dedicated to bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Palestine/Israel for more than thirty years. In the end, after so much time, investment, and attention, people are tiring of the violence, and some resolution (maybe any resolution if some be hasty) is demanded by many in this country. To this end, we are both Americans and Presbyterians, and it is built into the very core of our beliefs as Reformed Christians to promote social justice and the cause of peace. Therefore, though some may think us irrelevant, we are committed to the cause of finding some resolution, and have been at work for a very long time on this issue alongside our secular political leadership, attempting to bring peace into being. This is important. You claim that our church is in no position to make an informed commentary, or raise objections. On this point, I disagree. Among are numbers are national policy makers, academics, those who have experienced and witness the struggle first-hand, as well as well-read members. We are a church which believes that while we inhabit the “earthly” city (using a reference to St. Augustine), we are to be at work establishing the “heavenly” city that we are all journeying towards, using all the skills, insights, and resources available to us.

Thirdly, and very importantly for me personally, we as Presbyterians have a very informed, I believe, understanding of what Israel and the Jewish people mean to us as Christians. Rather than the anti-Semitism of the past that cast Jews as “Christ-killers,” Presbyterians and Reformed Christians around the world have been in dialogue with our Jewish brothers and sisters because we believe that we are both the covenant people of God (as the apostle Paul puts it, we- the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham- are both the Israel of God). What this means is that we understand Judaism to be the womb of our very own faith, and as such, we are committed to honoring our “father and mother.” Therefore, for us, Israel is extremely important to us, even at the cost of other issues.

With this being said, I understand that your response was to Mr. Krauss’ comments. To the degree that Mr. Krauss’ comments were aimed solely at Israel is unfair, and as a sarcastic response, I understand your cutting commentary. However, while I hope that you did/do not take offense at my post, I very much believe fighting fire with fire only brings the house down faster.

Yet, I would like to point out that with elements of untruth in Mr. Krauss’ post came a kernel of truth. In this case, the kernel of truth is this: crimes against humanity have been committed. I correct Mr. Krauss by further stating that these crimes have been committed by both sides (a point I made in my post). Without this confession, I fear, there is no future.

Again, thank you for your responses, and let us both pray that God will make a way forward.

In love,
Rev. Samuel Weddington

Re response of M. Samuel Weddington:

Thank you for reading and commenting on my letter. It should go without saying that criticism of Israeli policies or actions is not per se antisemitic. I myself disagree with many acts taken by Israel, as do others in this thread and elsewhere. Obviously, this does not make us antisemitic.

Regarding telling Israel what to do, the church seems determined to impose what it calls "peace" whether Israel (or the Arabs) wants the church's interference, accepts whatever the church decides its "just" (based on what?), or whatever the consequences to Israel's security and viability. The fact that both Fatah and Hamas have repeatedly stated that the 'two-state' solution is the next step in their quest to eliminate the Jewish state is obviously of no concern to the church, which feebly says in response that it "hopes" Israel remains the home of the Jewish people. Since when does a Presbyterian committee, which has no foreign policy, military, or diplomatic background, is ignorant of Middle East history, and is biased towards Christian Arabs, know better than the Israelis themselves what will bring peace? Again, the hubris of the church is attempting to impose their (ill-informed, biased, and ignorant) views on a sovereign entity is astounding.

I ask again why the church has never prepared reports or recommendations about the world's grossest violators of human rights - Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and China. Why has not a single word been written about these tyrannical regimes, or about the millions killed in the Congo, Darfur, or Chechneya? Where is the outcry over Christians murdered for their religious beliefs in Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan, and kept from worship at all in Saudi Arabia? While millions suffer, while Iran is building a nuclear war and threatening the world (especially Israel), the church wastes its time and energy on report after report complaining about Israel's successful attempt to stop terrorism. Yes, double standards and hypocrisy are the very basis of this report and other attacks on both Israel and Jews.

(to be continued)

With respect to Mr. Weddington's complaint about my second post:

That post was a sarcastic rebuttal to Reinhard Krauss' obnoxious and biased comment, in which Krauss accuses Israel of "crimes against humanity", claims to be the arbiter of "the truth", and attempts to define what "supporting Israel" should be (note the beginning line of my post: "With respect to Reinhard Kruass' comment:"). It was almost a verbatim re-post of Krauss' original comment, with just a couple of words changed to reverse the perspective.

I did this to show the bigotry and illogical reasoning in Krauss' post, which no one else writing here (including Mr. Weddington) seems to have noticed. It's interesting how Mr. Weddington and perhaps others did notice the bigotry and unfairness of my post, however, which was virtually identical. In that respect, I think my point - that Israelis are demonized for doing the exact same thing and responding the exact same way to violence against them as others do - was made very clear.

Mr. Hurwitz,
I am also alarmed at some of you language in your second post. You state: "I am profoundly saddened by the unwillingness of the Presbyterian Church to acknowledge the centuries of crimes against humanity perpetrated by it against the Jewish people..."

Centuries of Presbyterian crimes against humanity? Centuries of Presbyterian crimes against the Jewish people? I'm not really sure what history you are referring to here? Is it because Presbyterians are Christians that you assume we have committed crimes against humanity and the Jewish people?
Don't get me wrong, the church certainly has blood on its hands. However, if you were to do a modicum of research on the Reformed tradition, I think you would realize how misinformed your opinion is. In fact, to start a dialogue here, I would encourage you to read the Declaration of Barmen (which is included in our historical confessions; you can find it here http://www.creeds.net/reformed/barmen.htm), and look at the Reformed tradition's history of support of Jews and the people of Israel.
I'm sorry if it seems I am picking on you through this post. However, I don't think our church should take charges of anti-Semitism lightly, especially given our tradition's commitment to God's covenant people.
In love,
Rev. Samuel Weddington

In response to Kerry Hurwitz:
With all due respect, your response is over the top.
Is disagreement with some of the current policies of the nation of Israel, ipso facto, anti-Semitism? I think not. At the heart of your argument you rail against our hubris in having an opinion about the subject at all, primarily because we seem to have some opinions that condemn current actions undertaken by the state of Israel (as well as our own government, the Palestinian authority, and other Arab countries if analysis be fair).
You are right. We have no right to tell what Israel to do. In fact, as I understand the work of the committee, we aren't telling the nation of Israel what to do. What we are doing is:
-setting forth our opinion and analysis of the situation
-based on that analysis, allocating and directing OUR funds in a way that does not involve the hypocrisy of profiting off of what we do not condone
-based on that analysis, attempting to promote and push social justice as far as we can in influencing OUR elected leaders
-making suggestions to involved parties based on these guidelines; suggestions, nothing more

However, I am also troubled that aside from this, you really seem to be lost about the gravity of the situation and why we feel motivated to act. You state: "It takes incredible hubris to think you have any right to tell a democracy under attack by genocidal neighbors, who have vowed to kill every Jew on the planet, what you think it has the 'right' to do. When the authors of the report move to a war zone where terrorism causes the equivalent of the death toll of 9/11 every three weeks and where rockets target schoolchildren and destroy the economy of the entire southern part of the country, then they will have the right to criticize Israel's actions."

1st, your neighbors aren't all genocidal maniacs. Some of your neighbors, in fact the majority of them, are innocents. In many of them (and I point out many Christian communities spread throughout the region), there are groups and faiths that don't have the complicated history that Muslim/Jewish relations do. Secondly, while we do not have the hubris to tell YOU what to do when you are under attack, nonetheless, it is not hubris to point out the bloodshed that you point to (a 9/11 every three weeks) is predominately experienced by the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government. While all murder and terror is wrong, response to all violence must be proportional (yes, I actually believe in just war theory).

I am also surprised that you mention the economy in the south. While I am truly sorry that violence there disrupts the economy, or perhaps completely destroys it as you suggest, at least the settlements can have an economy. For most Palestinians, a functioning economy is a pipe dream.

In the end, you suggest that anti-Semitism is defined by the three D's: "double standards, de-legitimization, and demonization." As far as I am concerned, the report (which has not even been released yet) fulfills none of these criteria.

However, and I extend myself here, I would suggest that your response to this debate has an anti-Semitic strain to it. Here's why:
Anti-Semitism, as its etymology suggest, is hatred towards all people of Semitic origin, just not Jews. While, in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the term was used primarily to describe hatred of Jews, anti-Semitism has a long history in relation to other Semitic peoples and non-Semitic cultures. I give as witness the relationship between North African Semites and (up until the middle part of the 20th Century) their colonial masters (France, Italy, etc.). There, it was clear that the three D's you defined were in force (and in some cases, still are in the mother countries).
In Palestine's case, I would also say that three D's are in force. For one, Palestinians and Israel's neighbors are demonized, as a group, when they are characterized as "genocidal neighbors, who have vowed to kill every Jew on the planet..." Palestinians are also delegitimized when they, as a people, are declared not to be a people when it is said "No nation wanted this territory until the terrorist "Palestine" Liberation Organization literally invented the concept of the "Palestinian" people in the 1970's." Wow, this is the very definition of de-legitimization! Palestinians are also held to a double standard just in the very body counts that come from the episodic violence marring the region. Are the lives of ten Palestinians worth one Jewish life? More often than not, the body counts tend to follow this regrettable conversion ration.

Look, I pray and I weep over Israel and Palestine. Violence, war, and hatred are to be condemned wherever they flourish. However, by pretending that one form of violence is not equivalent to another is ethical chicanery. Yes, I am highly suspicious of the doctrine of moral equivalence or lack thereof, often used to defend defensive actions taken by governments in defense of its sovereignty. In the end, I truly find a large proportion of that doctrine's invocations to be little more than political maneuvering.

Instead, while violence might be necessary for the sake of defense, we should all mourn it, confess it, and own it for what it is: human sin. Israel, at times, has failed. Palestinians, at times, have failed. The United States, at times, has failed. We are all guilty.

Regarding Reinhard Krauss' comment:

I am profoundly saddened by the unwillingness of the Presbyterian Church to acknowledge the centuries of crimes against humanity perpetrated by it against the Jewish people, and instead lend its voice to those seeking to destroy the state of Israel and commit genocide upon Jews. At the same time, I hope the church — for the sake of Jews and Arabs alike — has the courage to raise its voice in support of humanity and against the gender apartheid, slavery, oppression of women, anti-Semitism, and support of terrorism in the Arab world.

Kerry Hurwitz
Boston, Mass.

This 'report' is not only hostile to Jews, it is antisemitic in tone if not intent.

First of all, what gives the Presbyterian Church the right to try to dictate to Israel what it 'should' or 'should not' do? Have you issued reports of this sort about Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia, or the human rights abuses of Hamas and the Palestine Authority? If you are singling out Israel for approbation instead of or more than despotic regimes which murder millions and actively support genocide, then you are guilty of antisemitism according to the 3 D's enumerated by Natan Sharansky - double standards, delegitimization, and demonization.

It takes incredible hubris to think you have any right to tell a democracy under attack by genocidal neighbors, who have vowed to kill every Jew on the planet, what you think it has the 'right' to do. When the authors of the report move to a war zone where terrorism causes the equivalent of the death toll of 9/11 every three weeks and where rockets target schoolchildren and destroy the economy of the entire southern part of the country, then they will have the right to criticize Israel's actions.

The 'report' is so full of factual misrepresentations it's hard to know where to begin. First, the 1967 armistice line is not 'internationally recognized' and has no legal standing. It reflects a truce declared after five Arab nations attacked Israel, an 'internationally recognized' nation, in 1948. I don't hear any condemnation by the church of that attack or the two subsequent attacks in 1967 or 1973 that attempted to move that line into the Mediterranean Sea. Your only condemnation is that Israel won those wars and wasn't eliminated. Who are you to 'blame' Israel for winning a war of annihilation started by the Arabs? Apparently, you'd rather see Israel eliminated, and its citizens murdered, rather than deal with the consequences of surviving.

Second, Judea and Samaria are not 'occupied'. This territory was assigned to Israel in the 1948 'internationally recognized' U.N. partition plan. It was captured by Jordan after it attacked Israel in 1948; its Jewish inhabitants were massacred and the survivors fled to Jerusalem. Its recapture in 1967, again during a war begun by Jordan and other Arabs, only reflects the original plan declared by the U.S.

After the 1967 war, Israel offered the recaptured territory to Jordan in exchange for peace. Jordan reused and answered with the three "no's" of the Khartoum meeting - no peace, no recognition, no negotiations. No nation wanted this territory until the the terrorist "Palestine" Liberation Organization literally invented the concept of the "Palestinian" people in the 1970's.

No nation history has ever been expected to unilaterally return territory won in a defensive war, in exchange for absolutely nothing, as the church suggests. Israel had already given up the entire Gaza strip in the hope that it would bring about peace, uprooting tens of thousands of its own citizens. The result was eight years of rocket attacks aimed at civilians, until Operation Cast Lead destroyed (at least temporarily) the rocket factories.

The report's authors do no seem to understand that there is already a 'Palestinian' government in both the 'West Bank' and Gaza. Both governments have declared war on Israel and have as their charter the requirement to murder every Jew on Earth. They are already armed by the U.S. and E.U. And now you want these genocidal governments to have more 'internationally recognized' power so they can better attack and massacre their neighbors? This proposal enables genocide. It is an attack on the very existence of the Jewish people.

The only mention of Israel's 'right' (as you put it) to exist in the report itself is in a footnote saying that this existence impinges on 'Palestinian' existence! Again, the right of Jews to life, not to mention the existence of their sovereign nation, is nowhere in evidence. Aside from the obvious fact that the existence of one person or group of people does not cause the existence of another to be 'negated', this statement in no way confirms Israel's 'right' to exist. And, of course, neither Israel or the Jewish people require your acceptance of our 'right' to life. That 'right' is given by God, not by the Presbyterian church.

I'm not going to spend more time continuing; it would take hours. Suffice to say that the proposed 'report' is an inflammatory and biased document that can be fairly as antisemitic. The Jewish people should reject your self-declared 'right' to tell us whether and how to live, especially as adopting your suggestions would be suicide. The church needs to engage in serious self-reflection and dialogue with the Jewish community before releasing this ill-conceived and hateful document.

I think we should hold off passing judgement until each of us has read the report.

Peace, everybody
Jill

I am a Christian Presbyterian survivor of the ethnic cleansing of a major part of Palestine when the state of Israel was created in 1948. The house where I was born in West Jerusalem was confisctaed by the Israeli government, icluding all its belongings. The original deed still shows my Father's name. The house still stands there, owned by a French Israeli, and because my parents were Christians they were not allowed to return to it. To all those who choose to support the actions of the Israeli government, right or wrong, I would remind them that the denial of Israel's Ethinc Cleansing of Palestinians is just as Immoral as denial of the Holocaust.

I agree totally with the comments by Reinhard Krauss from Rolling Hills Estates, CA.
We all need more understanding of the situation in the Middle East and more support for those who are working for peace and justice in the area.

The PC(USA)is not declaring war against Israel nor any other nation. The PC(USA) recognizes the right of Israel to exist within the borders established after the 1948 war, i.e. with sovereignty over 72 percent of the land. The PC(USA) also recognizes the right of Palestinians to have a sovereign nation within the remaining 28 percent of the land. However, this is impossible so long as Israel continues to claim Jerusalem as its undivided capital, to build new and expand existing settlements within Palestinian territory, to erect a Separation Wall that further serves to confiscate Palestinian land, and to maintain its military occupation over the Palestinian territory of West Bank and its enforced imprisonment of the people of Gaza. This is the moral issue that moves the PC(USA)to be concerned about the basic human rights of Palestinians.

While I have a great deal of respect for the work of Simon Wiesenthal in bringing many of the most atrocious Nazis to justice after the post-war years, it should be no surprise to us that the Wiesenthal center made this declaration.
As with all issues, there are extremes of conservative as well as liberal responses. It is not unfair to state that in regards to the issue of Israel, its existence, and its defense (morally, intellectually, and militarily) Wiesenthal was an ardent nationalist, and the organization bearing his name is even more so. If you look at center's mission statement, the defense of Israel against all comers is central to its ideology.
In fact, this claim about our church is one in a long line of false claims made by the Wiesenthal center and its leadership against public institutions and individuals around the world. I submit the following examples:
Paris, France, 2007- Stanley Samuels, head of international relations for the Wiesenthal Center, was convicted for defamation (though he later won a "technical" appeal) when he accused the Committee for Charity and Support for the Palestinians of sending money to the families of suicide bombers. The court ruled that Samuels' statements were "seriously defamatory." (http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/nazi-hunting-centre-convicted-for-defamation-37453_34238.html)
Jerusalem, Israel, 2008-2010- When the building of a branch "tolerance" museum of the Wiesenthal center met resistance from not only Palestinians, but also US Jews and Rabbis, because it was being built on top of the Maamam Allah cemetery (a thousand year old Muslim cemetery), requests that building be halted were ignored. The center's response? "Wherever you dig in Jerusalem you are going to find graves and archaeological sites. We are fully committed to resolving this issue in a respectful manner." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4721336.stm)
Hmmmm, so you have to break some eggs to make omelets? Of course, the response completely ignores the fact that the difference between previous encroachments upon the gravesite 20 years previous is different in kind from the modern encroachment because the modern site of the museum is a site within the graveyard that is actively attended to by individuals.
I could go on. However, so as to no belabor the point, the center has quite a history of hyperbolic commentary, as well as its oftentimes obstinate defense of egregious actions and positions. In regards to the issue of Palestine and Israel, the Wiesenthal center, if we are to judge by history, will never support any sort of two-state solution. If support of a two-state solution that holds justice as a goal (which most assuredly requires accountability from both sides for its historical actions) is anti-semitic or “declares war on Israel,” then I think that we truly need to revisit some definitions because we are not speaking the same language.
So, to the committee, I say: keep up the good work! You know you are doing a good job when you get the demagogues' attention.

I suggest we all find something else to do until the study group issues its report. We haven't seen it yet. We owe it to the group to read what they say, not speculate on it. The Presbyterian News Service did PCUSA-Jewish relations a huge disservice by issuing a press release about the report before it has even been released or, to my knowledge, finalized.

The central problem of the PCUSA's approach to the Middle East is its selective vision, and its tendency to speak in a historical vacuum. The result is rank hypocrisy.

Let me be clear at the outset where I stand. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not only destructive to the Palestinian people but morally corrosive to Israel's values as a Jewish, democratic state (the only democracy in the Middle East). For those reasons, the occupation must end. I am a firm supporter of the two-state solution.

That said, I also know that exactly such a solution was offered to Yasir Arafat at Camp David and he rejected it, choosing war and terror attacks instead. At Camp David, Israel offered a deal no one ever expected it to put on the table, including sharing Jerusalem, and Arafat said "no." Instead, he preferred to die as the head of a guerrila movement than as head of a small state.

In the years that followed, Palestinian terror bombings in the heart of Israel's cities, from Hamas and Fatah alike, killed hundreds of civilians, often targeting women and children in cafés, shopping centers, and the like. And the Palestinian Authority at the time gave cash awards to the families of the "martyers" (the term the PA-controlled media used to describe the murderers). Yet, the PCUSA reflexively decried the erection of the security wall between Israel and the West Bank as if Israel did it in a vacuum, for no reason at all. I hate the wall, too (I have visited the region ten times, most recently in November 2009.) Yet, what would we do in the United States if terror bombers were coming over the Canadian border, blowing themselves and our teenagers up in malls and on city buses, while the Canadian government did nothing to stop it but actually gave cash payments to the murderers' families? Build a wall? Judging from our post-9/11 response, where the US killed some 6,000 civilians in Afghanistan in a bombing campaign, I venture to say far worse. Yet, Israel has never so responded even though its Air Force could flatten Palestinian cities if the order were given. No country in the world has shown the restraint that Israel has in the face of the murder of about 1,000 of its citizens (the proportional equivalent of 20,000 Americans, by the way).

In 2005, Israel withdrew from 100% of the Gaza Strip, uprooting thousands of Jewish settlers in the process. It was the right thing to do, but hugely traumatic to Israelis. How did the Palestinians respond to the end of the occupation in a major section of their future homeland? The Hamas terrorists, committed to the absolute destruction of Israel and the institution of an Iran-style theocracy over the whole country (how well will Middle Eastern Christians flourish in such a society?), continued to lob rockets into the nearby Israeli cities, particularly Sderot. Hundreds of families there had to sleep in bomb shelters as literally many hundreds of rockets rained down. Again, picture missiles hitting downtown Detroit from Windsor -- what would we do? Remember -- there was no occupation left in Gaza at that point. Yet, just as was true when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the attacks continued. Where was the PCUSA outrage then? Or do we subscribe to a peculiar form of racism where we just don't expect better of Arabs, and save our moral expectations for Jews?

The conflict does not start and end with the Israel occupation of the West Bank. It starts and ends with the unwillingness of the leadership of the Palestinian people and many of the surrounding states to accept Israel's existence as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people. The PCUSA may have accepted that. But the neighbors who count have not.

For the PCUSA to continue to condemn Israel, ignoring this core (if inconvenient) fact is abject hypocrisy. We are condemning the speck in Israel's eye while ignoring the plank in our own, i.e., the unwillingless of the US to risk military casualties in anti-terror operations through selective ground operations, instead resorting to "no-risk" air campaigns. Of course, it's not "no risk" if you're part of the Afghani wedding party blown to bits from 20,000 feet. Yet, that happens all the time -- with deafening PCUSA silence. It's much more interesting to pretent that Israel is the font of oppression while ignoring far harsher oppression in the Arab and Muslim world, or the world at large, for that matter. (For example, did the PCUSA show any real interest in the crushing of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, where tens of thousands of civilians were cornered and mercilessly shelled in a military operation?)

Of course we have an interest in the protection of indigenous Christian communities in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. But I have been there. I have Palestinian and Israeli Arab friends, Christian and Muslim. I assure you that not ONE of my Christian friends wants to live under the rule of a Palestinian regime. This includes a friend who lives in East Jerusalem and whose family lives in Bethlehem. Last November, this friend actually said, "I miss the Israelis." Would my friend say this publicly? Out loud? No, because anyone who does is at risk of being killed. But if you get honest answers, you will hear that the main pressure on the Christian communities of the region right now is Muslim fundamentalism, not the Israeli occupation, though they are happy with neither.

Finally, the PCUSA membership should be aware that our Middle East office is not balanced or staffed by those with a genuine empathy for all sides of this issue, but by those with overt sympathies toward the Palestinian cause. It has become, sadly, a Palestinian propaganda organ in my view. To the extent its leadership purports to speak for us in the pews, it is woefully unbalanced at best, and loses all credibility at worst. We would do well to follow the example of such learned and balanced Presbyterians as Dr. Irvine (Dusty) Anderson in Cincinnati. Instead, I fear that we're off on another Israel-bashing exercise that will seriously damage Presbyterian-Jewish relations and do nothing to help resolve the conflict.

I hope I'm wrong. I will be watching carefully. And I hope that, as before, the people in the pews rise up and say "no" to ill-advised and hypocritical dabbling in this complex and horribly painful issue.

Douglas E. Duckett
Elder
Knox Presbyterian Church
(speaking only for myself)

Jesus says, according to the Bible, that God is love. I'm not sure where the GA gets it's mandate to decide between two hurting and conflicting nations as to who is more loving than the other. Maybe we should remove the mote in our own eye, address our, Presbyterians world wide, address our own issues of just behavior before we tend to those of others. Maybe if we exhibited compassion to all the people of the Middle East, helping sooth their hurts and needs, we would help them solve this long-standing and hurtful situation. We are too busy, for my taste, spending time looking for places to cast the "needed" stones of response.

I'm as saddened by the response of many who've commented here as I am by the Wiesenthal Center's statement about the PCUSA declaring war on Israel. Can you imagine what feelings you would have if your homeland were occupied by a foreign power for 60 years? Imagine if your family home were taken over or destroyed and the olive trees your great grandfather planted a hundred and fifty years ago were uprooted by a bulldozer....yes, one made by the Caterpillar Corporation. Imagine a life of daily humiliations at check points, living behind a "security barrier" in the West Bank or in a virtual prison in Gaza. Unless you've been there and seen it all for yourself you have no idea what it's like for the Palestinians, many of whom are our Christian brothers and sisters and all of whom are members of the one human family.

I'm grateful for the courage of our church to speak out against this continuing injustice. It's not the Jewish people we condemn but the policies of the State of Israel which is guilty of countless violations of UN accords. We who love Israel and the Jewish people must confront them with the truth that their government is guilty of crimes against humanity. I'm confident that whatever action the next General Assembly takes will acknowledge both the facts on the ground and our commitment as a church to follow in the way of Jesus who was not afraid to speak truth to power and who cared for the least among us.

My wife and I worked in the Middle East (Lebanon specifically)for the ten-year period, 1953-1963. We heard all sides of the issue. The fundamental issue then as it still is, is the issue of Justice. Until the world can recognize this, peace will never come for any side. The history of what brought us to this point is all there for anyone to read. There has been evil on both sides. The Palestinians need their own sovereign state just as do the Israelis. It is quite obvious to any one seeking the truth and peace, that the present conditions in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem,in no way suggest movement in
that direction. There is little symmetry as to the violence of one side against the otnansenher. Both sides need to apologize to the other, grant forgiveness, and then move on.

In 1948 George Orwell wrote the book "1984" where "what's bad for us, really are good, that truth is a lie, and up is down and down is up..." Well it seems it has taken the progressive wing of the PCUSA to finally bring his "novel" proclamation to fruitiion in 2010. Calling on the United States to repent of its sinful behavior such as "undermining democratic process in Iran & Palestinian National Authority" (HAMAS, FATAH, MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI ARE JEFFERSONIAN? NEXT THING WE WILL HEAR AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THAT KIM JON-IL IS THE WASHINGTON OF THE FAR EAST.)and "continuing support of non democratic regimes" (OTHER THAN ISRAELI, LEBANONESE AND FLEDGLING IRAQI DEMOCRACY, WHERE DOES DEMOCRACY REALLY BLOOM TODAY IN THE REGION? SHOULD AMERICA DISENGAGE SUPPORT WITH ALL NON DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES IN THE REGION? THE ANTITHESIS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE REGION IS SHARIA LAW (ISLAMIC THEOCRACY), NOT AMERICA! TRY HOLDING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY NEXT TIME IN RIHAD OR TEHRAN.) The motto for this year's General Assembly should be "Up is Down and Down is Up". Goofy is the only way I can characterize some of these recommendations.

I find it very saddening that so many people are willing to condemn our church before we have had an opportunity to even consider, much less act, on any recommendation before us. No action has been taken. No war has been declared. Yet observe how quickly people form opinions, take up sides, and begin lobbing verbal assaults, not because anything has actually happened, but rather based on assumptions of what could happen. I believe our church to be a prayerful and discerning church that will take into account both our commitment to Israel as a nation and our shared spiritual heritage with them, as well as our earnest desire to promote social justice for not only Muslim Palestinians (with whom we also share a spiritual heritage through Abraham), but also Israelis and Christians in the Middle East. May God grant us wisdom and courage equal to the challenges before us.

I am in total agreement with the 1st responder "Rod Pinder, Orlando, FL.
These statements and the one concerning Caterpillar are non-productive and equally distracting from PCUSA's Christian mission.

However loyally the PCUSA stands with Israel's right to exist, etc., wet need to stand equally loyally by fellow Christians in the Middle East who have all too often been victims of violence; political, economic, and legal discrimination; segregation; and at the very least suspicion and treatment as "the other" by all governments there--including Israel. I hope the document(s) being prepared for the next GA make it clear we intend to hold Israel before God to the same high standards of behavior toward their minorities as we seek to show toward our own.

Christian demoninations generally and Presbyterians specifically would be wise to avoid taking a side in this tragedy, since they will only enrage both of the quarrelling parties.

Israel by no means is in the right without fail and without exception, particularly with reference to their treatment of Christian Arabs. Muslim majority nations commit outrages of the gravest sort against their own Christian citizens with appalling regularity. Advocating for Christians native to the region is clearly a duty, regardless of who mistreats them.

That said, an American denomination has no business advocating a foreign policy for implementation by the US vis a vis any other nation. Setting aside the very real problem of deficient expertise in national security matters by the GA staff or its Washington office, there is no unanimity within the membership concerning any given issue. While some proportion of the clergy and particularly the GA staff hold strong opinions and frequently find themselves in agreement with many political groups, particularly those on the left, correlation of their individual political opinions with regional political sympathies or the views of one wing of one of the political parties is not an indication that they possess revealed truth. Wyoming is not Long Island, nor are rural communities south of the Mason-Dixon line the San Francisco Metropolitan area. Opinions concerning political questions will continue to vary.

Enthusiasm which villifies those others in the church whose views differ only grows the division and potential schism within our kirk. Let us not risk having our faith and practice driven by our politics, rather than vice versa.

My recommendation is that our kirk render to the government that which is the government's, to the Lord what is the Lord's, and steer well clear of this morass which sucks down foreign policy professsionals of all faiths with relentless regularity.

We have more sheep to tend in our home pasture than we appear to be able to do effectively as it is. We need more humility and focus on what is stuck in our own eye. Let us get our back porch repaired before generating earnest position papers on the condition of the front porches of two of our neighbors.

If we dabble here, no good will come of it. Let us feed the Lord's flocks where we are, and walk humbly with the Lord.

The GA's Middle East Study Group says it supports the existance of Israel as a soverign nation. I suspect they know the Palestinian terrorist are bent on Israel's destruction. As are the good folks in Iran that the group wishes our government to cease undermining itself in their demoncratic processes. You people seem determined to aggravate Presbyterians in the pews as well as our Jewish brothers and sisters. I hope someone gets a good feeling by denouncing Caterpillar because that's the only thing that will come of it.

I am grateful that we support the continuation of the State of Israel and that we renounce "crimes against humanity perpetrated against Palestinian peoples." On the other hand, unless we present unambiguous facts that lead to an unequivocal conclusion, we would do well to avoid inflamatory language like, "calling on the United States government 'to repent of its sinful behavior throughout the Middle East, including its ongoing war in Iraq, its undermining of democratic processes in Iran and the Palestinian National Authority, its continuing support of non-democratic regimes, and its acquiescence to the ongoing Israeli Occupation.'” Such accusations reduce our credibility and alienate those we should try to reach. They also are counter the cause of peace. They are not prophetic, they are merely provocative. We can do better. In the Love of Christ, I pray that we will.

I wonder to what degree the cause of peace, of justice, and for that matter the exhibition of the kingdom of heaven through the PCUSA is served through our geopolitical statements. It certainly makes some of us feel good to be "prophetic." It also yet again directs attention away from the denomination as a servant body. Rather it paints our leadership, however well intentioned they may be, and however right their statements may be, as caring so little about the members of the body that their attrition through political gangrene counts as acceptable cost. Perhaps we would be more effective by making our witness more through servant action than words.

Every side has its militants, including the Palestinians, the Israelis, US supporters of both sides, and a host of regional and world powers. When it comes to assessing responsibility for the current conflict, all feet should be held to the fire, not just those that are militant Palestinian. The Israeli government should be no less immune to criticism than Palestinian militants whenever the international community recognizes its behavior to be unjust and excessive.

Web letter1 02-24-10

Re: Wiesenthal Center accuses Presbyterians of declaring war on Israel

I am profoundly saddened by the unwillingness of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to acknowledge the crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Palestinian people, and instead lend its voice to those seeking to suppress the truth. At the same time, I hope our denomination — for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians alike — has the courage to raise its voice in support of the Jewish people and against the oppression of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel.
 
Reinhard Krauss
Rolling Hills Estates, Calif.
 

Good grief. I'm sorry that our Presbyterian leaders have had to endured the oppressive inconvenience of the shrill, over the top response from the Wiesenthal Center, but their bullying cannot be met with our timidity. Thanks to the study group for their work and to Gradye Parsons for his lucid, balanced, supportive, and yet unapologetic statement to the American Jewish community.

How can we get word back to the GA committee that these proposals on their part will antagonize many more of us in the pew. I was a GA commissioner in 2006 and the church at that point started to back off on it anti Israel bent and took a more neutral stance. I have close friends who ministered to the Palestinians back in the 60's and 70's They feel as though all the fault lies with the Israelis and will not acknowledge that the Palestinian militants are the major voice - and the cause of most of the trouble in the Mid East. Such short sightedness will not accomplish anything. When one has stood on a low hill in Israel and looked east and see Jordan and look west and see the Mediterranean -as I have - you can grasp the reality of the danger to Israel.