| Middle East study group approves recommendations amid ambiguities |
| Written by Leslie Scanlon, OUTLOOK national reporter |
| Tuesday, 02 February 2010 20:54 |
|
LOUISVILLE – A General Assembly Middle East study group has approved recommendations that include asking that the two years from 2010 to 2012 be “a time of Presbyterian prayer and action for the Middle East.” It calls for sending a high-level joint delegation (with shared costs) of Presbyterians, Jews, and Muslims to Israel-Palestine, “to identify opportunities for positive investment,” and to report back to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in 2012. And it calls 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.” Altogether, the study group voted during its meeting Jan.29-30 to approve 30 recommendations covering everything from refugees to nuclear arms proliferation. One of its members, Byron Shafer of New York City Presbytery, voted against the package of recommendations, saying, “I endorse most of the recommendations, but I have strong enough feelings about some that I cannot vote for the whole package.” He voted, for example, against a recommendation to call on the United States government “for the strategic use of influence and the withholding of financial and military aid to enforce Israel’s compliance with international law and peacemaking efforts.” And Shafer voted against another recommendation involving a document written by Palestinian Christians, released in December and known as the Kairos document, or “A Moment of Truth.” The committee’s recommendation states that the committee endorses the document “in its hope for liberation, non-violence, love of enemy, and reconciliation,” and asks that a study guide for the document be created. Shafer also said that “at the present time, I have no intention of filing a minority report,” although he pointed out that part of the study group’s report has not yet been written, so it’s too soon to say for sure. In the end, the committee voted to introduce its recommendations with language stating: “Given the complexities of the issues in the Middle East and the diversity of the members of this committee, it is inconceivable to achieve unanimity on all the details of these recommendations. However, every good-faith effort has been made to negotiate differences, honor majorities, and come to consensus, without forsaking our deepest convictions.” The committee ended its meeting in a somewhat difficult spot. It has no more in-person meetings scheduled, and faces a March 5 deadline for submitting its work. But it still has work left to do — including writing or finding an additional historical analysis to accompany one that has already been submitted, but which some committee members said they did not consider to be balanced enough in perspective to be able to stand on its own. That section as it’s written now includes some words that are “volatile and not helpful,” said committee member Susan Andrews, a former General Assembly moderator and now general presbyter of Hudson River Presbytery. That section, while thorough and passionate, “is through a lens,” she said. “It is not pure fact.” The study group decided to consider another historical section to accompany that first one – either by finding someone to write a new section or by identifying an acceptable one already written. But there is concern that the report already is too long – more than 120 pages, with some committee members suggesting that shortening it might be wise, although they also want to preserve the complexity and nuances of the material. The study group likely will use conference calls to complete its writing tasks – working against the clock and with its members geographically dispersed. The 218th General Assembly created the committee in 2008, giving it the responsibility of preparing “a comprehensive study, with recommendations, that is focused on Israel/Palestine within the complex context of the Middle East.” Its nine members were appointed jointly by Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of that assembly, and his two immediate predecessors as moderator, Joan Gray and Rick Ufford-Chase. The committee has met several times previously, and last August, its members traveled together on an information-gathering trip to the Middle East. Shafer replaced one of the original appointees, John Wimberly Jr., a pastor from Washington, D.C. who resigned. The committee’s report, while still being shaped and not yet final, has other parts under consideration as well – including sections that explore the history of the region and Biblical and historical themes, and personal vignettes written by a handful of the committee members. It also starts off with seven introductory letters, each one to a specific audience – including Presbyterians, American Jews and Muslims, Palestinians, Israelis, and Christians in the Middle East. In its discussions, the committee acknowledged that its recommendations will not satisfy everyone – including, in some instances, its own members. And the committee’s deliberations were studded with moments of tension and disagreement – representing the passions that so often swirl through discussions involving Israeli-Palestinian relations and Middle East politics. In the letter to the Israelis, for example, the committee discussed what language would be fair and what would be too incendiary – whether, for example, to use the phrase “separation barrier” between the Israeli and Palestinian zones or whether to call what’s there a “wall/fence.” They stuck with “separation barrier.” In that same letter, the proposed phrase “land grab” was changed to “land expropriation and settlement expansion.” And there was prickly debate over whether to keep in or remove language referring to Israel’s right to exist. Shafer, a Presbyterian minister, described that “right-to-exist” language as a “bottom-line” issue for him – he said he could not approve the paper overall unless it was included at least once. “I personally am not prepared to deny the right of Israel to exist,” Shafer said. But Nahida H. Gordon, a Palestinian biostatistics professor from Case Western Reserve University, said she could not endorse any language that implied that “Palestinians don’t have a right to exist, they are an expendable people.” Gordon said of the language regarding Israel’s right to exist: ‘Every time you use the word `right,’ it negates me as a person,” and downplays the suffering of the Palestinian people. Eventually, after much discussion, the committee chose to add language in a footnote stating, “the phrase `the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some study committee members who are in solidarity with those Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable rights.” Ron Shive, a pastor from Burlington, N.C., and chair of the committee, worked hard to try to keep the committee’s work rolling forward – and to find common ground where possible, as did others on the committee. Some on the study group spoke of what Shafer described as the “glory of ambiguity” – sometimes deliberately choosing language that might be read a bit differently by different audiences. Marthame Sanders, a pastor from Atlanta who formerly served, along with his wife, as a mission volunteer in a Palestinian Christian village, urged committee members to consider saying of the report, “it’s imperfect, but I can live with it.” Through the discussions, “we have come to moderate our language, we have taken out absolutes, we have intentionally included some ambiguity,” Andrews said. As a result, “I can sign off on it.” But Shafer could not – asking that his dissenting vote on the package of recommendations be recorded for the record. The study group concluded its meeting Jan. 30 with discussion of a pre-assembly event it plans to hold on July 2, the day before the 219th General Assembly convenes in Minneapolis. Trackback(0)
Your Responses (4)
Response from Happy and Proud,
March 01, 2010
Boston, MA
This 'report' is not only hostile to Jews, and 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.
Response from Brian Henry,
March 01, 2010
Toronto, Canada
The authors of this Middle East study can't bring themselves to say that Israel has a right to exist. What more needs to be said about this report? Clearly the authors side, not with peace, but with those Palestinians and others who want to destroy Israel.
The endorsement of the Kairos Document shows they've even abandoned non-violence, because the Kairos Document unambiguously endorses terrorism as "legitimate resistance." See clause 1.5, which addresses “armed resistance” and okays terrorism as “legal resistance.” Clause 4.3 also justifies terrorism. The word is put in quotes as the authors consider the murder of innocents legitimate, and they argue: ‘”The roots of ‘terrorism’ are in the human injustice committed and in the evil of the occupation. These must be removed if there be a sincere intention to remove ‘terrorism’.” In other words, on-going terrorism is a legitimate means toward their political objectives; i.e., an end to “injustice” and “the occupation.” In context, an “end to injustice” would include inviting the millions of grandchildren of Palestinians displaced by the Arab wars against Israel to settle in Israel and turn it into a Palestinian state. The document doesn't say what it means by the end of “the occupation.” However, the groups carrying out the terrorism endorsed by this document define all of Israel as occupied. I've published an article on the Kairos Document, written from a Canadian angle here: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/02/18/palestinian-christians-revoke-6th-commandment/
Response from Richard Stewart,
February 18, 2010 Carefree, AZ
I read the foregoing review of the Report from the Middle East Study Group I believe the "Report" fairly represents my own views but freely acknowledge I have no historical experience on which to form this judgement. However, I do have more than 55 years as a Presbyterian Elder/Trustee.
I do see a parallel in the work of the Study Group with that of the framers and patriots of our American Republic trying to achieve concensus on our delaration of Independence and our Constitution... it is no easy job. Let's take the Report and give it a fair hearing. Write a Response
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
First of all, what gives your church the right to dictate to a sovereign nation what it ‘should” or “should not” do? Have you issued reports of this sort to Sudan, China, or Saudi Arabia? When you do, and when you show as much attention to the millions being slaughtered in the Congo and Sudan, perhaps we will listen to your complaints. It takes incredible hubris to think you have any right to tell a democratic U.S. ally under attack by Islamic radicals bent on extermination what you think it has the “right” to do.
Your “report” is so full of factual misrepresentations it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, the 1967 armistice line is not “internationally recognized” by anyone. It was a temporary truce line settled after five Arab nations attacked Israel, an “internationally recognized” nation, in 1948. I don't hear any condemnation 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 about the fact that Israel won those wars and wasn't eliminated. Who are you to “blame” us for winning a war of annihilation started by the Arabs? Apparently, you'd rather see us dead.
Second, Judea and Samaria are not “occupied.” They are territory originally assigned to Israel in the 1948 "internationally recognized" U.N. partition plan. That territory was captured by Jordan after it attacked Israel in 1948; its Jewish inhabitants were massacred and the few survivors fled. Its recapture in 1967, again in a time of war begun by Jordan and other Arabs, only re-draws the armistice line where the U.N. had declared it to originally be. Israel later offered that territory back to Jordan, which refused to take it. No nation in history until now has ever been criticized for not “giving back” all territory won in a defensive war (Israel already gave the entire Sinai Peninsula and the entire Gaza strip, uprooted tens of thousands of its own citizens, for “peace.” That “peace” brought about 8,000 rocket attacks aimed at civilians).
Third, there already is 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 kill every Jew on their planet. 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? Your proposal smacks of genocide. No wonder you are marginalized and ignored.
Fourth, the only mention of Israel's “right” (as you put it) to exist is in a footnote saying that this existence impinges on “Palestinian” existence! Some “right”, as you put it. Aside from the fact that the existence of one person or group of people does not cause the existence of another to be “negated”, this is in no way an independent confirmation of Israel's “right” to exist. And, of course, neither Israel, Jews, nor me personally require your acceptance of our “right” to life. That “right” is given by God, not your church.
I'm not going to waste my time by continuing; it would take hours. Suffice to say that your proposed “report” is a racist, anti-Semitic document, as (is) your attempt to (illegally) boycott Israel. The Jewish people completely reject your self-declared “right” to tell us whether and how to live, especially as adopting your suggestions would be suicide. You should be ashamed of yourself by promoting this hateful attack on Jews.
Kerry Hurwitz
Boston, Mass.