| Wiesenthal Center accuses Presbyterians of declaring war on Israel |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, OUTLOOK national reporter |
|
LOUISVILLE – Once again, relations between the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and American Jewish leaders have hit a rough spot – with criticism emerging of a not-yet-finished report on the Middle East that’s headed to next summer’s General Assembly. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a human rights organization, posted an alert to supporters on Feb. 22, with the headline: “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Ready to Declare War Against Israel: Take Action Now.” The alert, regarding a report that’s not completed yet from a General Assembly Middle East study group, states that “adoption of this poisonous document by the Presbyterian Church will be nothing short of a declaration of war on Israel and her supporters.” Following that, top Presbyterian leaders – in Louisville this week for a series of meetings – were flooded by more than 2,700 e-mails of protest, according to Sharon Youngs, communications director for the Office of the General Assembly. The Wiesenthal Center posting included a link people could use to send a pre-written e-mail to Gradye Parsons, the PC(USA)’s stated clerk; Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the 218th General Assembly; and Linda Valentine, executive director of the General Assembly Mission Council. At the assembly, based on indications so far, “there will be a huge amount of outside press” covering the Middle East issues, Tom Hay, director of operations for the Office of the General Assembly, told a joint meeting of the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly and the General Assembly Mission Council’s Executive Committee on Feb. 23. The e-mail from the Wiesenthal Center describes the Middle East study group – whose members were appointed by Reyes-Chow and the two General Assembly moderators who preceded him – as being “dominated by activists openly hostile to Israel. They are poised to place the policy of the PC(USA) on a collision course with Israel’s survival.” In response to the Wiesenthal Center’s posting, Parsons issued a statement on Feb. 23 regarding the work of the Middle East study group. That statement quotes both from previous General Assembly policy statements regarding Israel, and from the draft of an introductory letter the study group wrote to the American Jewish community – one of a series of introductory letters, each one addressed to a particular audience. That letter includes this passage: “We want to be sure to say to you in no uncertain terms: We support the existence of Israel as a sovereign nation within secure and recognized borders. No `but,’ no `let’s get this out of the way so we can say what we really want to say.’ We support Israel’s existence as granted by the U.N. General Assembly. We support Israel’s existence as a home for the Jewish people. We have said this before, and we say this again. We say it because we believe it; we say it because we want it to continue to be true.” The 2008 General Assembly created the Middle East study group – which traveled as a group to the Middle East last summer, held its final meeting in late January, and is required to have its report complete by March 5. As the Outlook reported then, the study group approved 30 recommendations at its meeting Jan. 29-30 – but still had work to do, including writing an additional section of historical analysis. Those recommendations range from asking that the two years from 2010 to 2012 be “a time of Presbyterian prayer and action for the Middle East” to one 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.” While the Wiesenthal Center criticism is focused on the study group’s work, the General Assembly Mission Council also will be discussing this week three other key reports involving Israel and the Middle East that also will be coming to the General Assembly in July. The council’s Discipleship Committee will be considering two theological reports – one called “Christian and Jews: People of God,” and a second report called “Toward an Understanding of Christian-Muslim Relations.” Another issue likely to catch some attention is a recommendation from the denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment committee that the assembly denounce Caterpillar. Inc., because the corporation is making a profit from products it sells and which are being used for “non-peaceful” purposes in Israel-Palestine.
That recommendation follows four years of attempts by MRTI to engage Caterpillar in conversation about the business it conducts in the Middle East. |
Comments
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 disproportionat e 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 disproportionat ely 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
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 disproportionat ely 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)
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 disproportionat ely 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)
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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, delegitimizatio n, 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 misrepresentati ons 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.
RSS feed for comments to this post