PRESBYTERIAN DISSONANCE

By Roberta P. Seid, PhD

I just returned from the 218th Presbyterian General Assembly [GA]in San Jose which went from June 21-28th. As it drew to a close, there was good and bad news for opponents of the anti-Israel campaigns that have roiled mainline churches and disrupted Jewish-Christian relations.

The good news is that the Assembly soundly defeated a divestment resolution (called Overtures), reinforcing its 2006 decision to move away from the biased, anti-Israel positions that had characterized the divestment measure it passed at its 2004 Assembly. The Presbyterians had been the first mainline American church to get on the divestment bandwagon, and its second step away from extremism is hopefully a bell weather for the path other denominations will take.

The better news is that the Assembly overwhelmingly passed Overture (11-06) that directly rebuked the one-sided, anti-Israel approach the Church had been taking. It called on Presbyterians to recognize the “complexity” of the conflict, to be a voice for both Palestinian and Israeli victims, and to “avoid taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality where one side is clearly at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.”

The other good news is that members of Jewish organizations were allowed to speak at the committee on Israel-Palestinian Overtures. In the 2004 General Assembly deliberations, Jewish voices had not been invited. This time, ten Jewish organizations that span the political spectrum sent speakers, including StandWithUs, the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, B’nai B’rith, the JCRC, the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, the United Synagogue on Conservative Judaism, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the American Jewish Committee.

These Jewish organizations hailed the Church’s decisions as a step forward, away from the frankly anti-Israel resolutions of the 2004 GA. But they urged only cautious optimism for good reason, for there was also bad news.

By a vote of 504 to 171 (with 7 abstentions), the Assembly approved one-sided, anti-Israel Overture 11-01 whose multiple clauses seem a direct contradiction to Overture 11-06.

The premise of Overture 11-01 contradicts 11-06’s plea for recognition of the complexity of the conflict. It invokes the World War II-era theological declaration that Protestant churches used to resist Nazi efforts to take them over, now transposed to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It calls upon the Church to weigh in on details of international policy because “the sovereignty of God thus judges all claim of sovereign nationhood, all boundaries, all exercises of force, and all uses of resources by human beings. The Church is thus called to help discern where the Spirit is working in the world, guided by Scripture and its confessions.”

The Overture goes on to endorse the “Amman Call” which the World Council of Churches passed in June 2007, just three days after the Hamas coup in Gaza. It lays all blame for the conflict on Israel’s “occupation,” and “illegal settlements,” demands the right of return, Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders and removal of the security fence (“a grave breach of international law”) from “occupied Palestinian territories,” a shared Jerusalem, and a contiguous Palestinian state. It also leaves the door open for divestment, with its first “peace making” directive a call for “defining and promoting measures, including economic ones, that could help end the occupation.” It places no demands on Hamas or other terrorist groups.

Other clauses in 11-01 are equally disturbing. One instructs the Assembly to continue distributing resources about the conflict. Though it doesn’t specify which resources, the Church’s track record is one of notoriously biased sources that distort facts. They include the works of anti-Israel theologians like Gary M. Burge and Palestinian Christian Naim Ateek whose ideas are also anti-Jewish, one-state solution advocates like Jeff Halper, and divestment activists like Jewish Voice for Peace who give the added benefit of assuaging any worries about anti-Semitism charges since its members erroneously claim to represent a large segment of the American Jewish community when in fact, they are a fringe element. The educational recommendations to teachers made on the Presbyterians’ Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IPMN) promote tendentious, factually distorted materials like the film, “Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land,” which gives pride of place to veteran anti-Israel spokespeople like Noam Chomsky. The film even comes with a teacher’s manual.

Another clause urges Christians to visit “Israel/Palestine,” spend “significant time” in the West Bank and Gaza, and meet Israeli and Palestinian “peacemakers.” There is no encouragement to visit the southern Israeli town of Sderot whose civilians have been barraged with thousands of mortar and rocket attacks since Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in August, 2005. Given that the term “peacemaker” often refers exclusively to Christian and other peace organizations, it is notable that there is no specific recommendation to meet with Israeli officials who are the people agonizing over how to protect their citizens from terrorism and yet also protect innocent Palestinians whom they hope will be their peace partners. Nor is there a specific call to meet with Palestinian leaders to persuade them to stop terrorism, accept compromise and prepare their people for reconciliation and state-building. The underlying presumption seems to be that it is hopeless to talk to either Palestinian or Israeli officials.

Finally, clause six skirts around divestment but leaves it looming as a possibility by calling for continued “corporate engagement….with companies supporting or profiting from the occupation of Palestine and/or other violence in the region.” By mentioning the “occupation,” it undermines the spirit of the 2006 Overture which cautioned against specifically targeting Israel.

One speaker at the Committee noted the contradictions between the two Overtures. How could the Presbyterians be a “prophetic voice” if they are even-handed as 11-06 demands and refuse to condemn Israel as 11-01 recommends, one speaker asked. After all, the prophetic call is that Presbyterians “dare not be neutral.” The Committee apparently didn’t see a contradiction. The same large majority voted for each resolution: 47 to 17 voted for 11-01, and 47 to 15 voted for 11-06.

How can this apparent contradiction be explained, and what does it bode for the future?

The fact is that the Church is deeply divided about Israeli-Palestinian issues. Anti-Israel forces dominate the Church bureaucracy and leadership, the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), and the various Middle East related organs, from the Church’s Office of the Middle East and Europe headed by Victor Makari to the IPMN and the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship. But Presbyterian pews around the country tend to be sympathetic to Israel, and were caught by surprise with the 2004 divestment resolution. Presbyterian leaders have emerged who are dedicated to reversing the anti-Israel positions, from Reverends William Harter and Jim Cushman to Jim Roberts and Gary Green. They have been struggling to counter the anti-Israel positions of the entrenched bureaucracy. They have an uphill battle.

The almost 1,000 Presbyterian Commissioners and advisory delegates and the other 3,000 Presbyterians who came to San Jose were polite, informally dressed, and very congenial, warmly greeting old friends and newcomers alike. They seem to be a cross-section of Middle America. They don’t raise their voices. When one speaker was too emphatic and loud at the Peace and Justice Committee, he was reprimanded. They scrupulously follow Robert’s Rules of Order. They earnestly want to do what is right according to their religious precepts, especially helping the disadvantaged and the powerless, and take their deliberations very seriously. They also seem to be tending toward a pacifism that reverberates with the comfort and safety of Middle America and with the Presbyterians’ secure place in the world even as they make moral judgments about what the Jewish state, populated by Jews who are in a war zone and who have rarely had a secure place in the world, should or should not do. One animated group conversation I overheard described the response of a church-going Presbyterian who had been asked what Jesus would do about taking military action. Agitated, he had blurted out, “Of course Jesus would never take military action. But Jesus would be wrong.” Incredulous, derisive laughter followed—but the comment underscored the dilemma Presbyterians face as they weigh in on real world politics.

The Assembly itself functions as an almost pure representative democracy. Since 1790, American Presbyterians have been sending delegates to their annual Assembly, where selected delegates are randomly divided into special Committees that vote on what Overtures to recommend to the General Assembly so it can decide the Church’s position on a wide range of issues.

But that very democracy is one of the reasons for the contradictory vote on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Many of the committee members, who are all chosen randomly just months before the Assembly starts, and many of the delegates-at-large simply don’t know much about the conflict and its history. Yet, they are asked to make judgments on it that will represent the voice of the 2.2 million-member Presbyterian Church.

They are easy prey for the Church’s anti-Israel bureaucracy. They rely on them as experts, and see no reason to distrust their input. When points of information or clarification were requested as the Committee delegates debated the Israel-related Overtures, ACSWP supplied the answers. The Presbyterian Peace Fellowship (PPF) sent letters to delegates before the Assembly began which blamed the “40 years of Occupation” for the conflict, and urged delegates to vote for the eight anti-Israel Overtures and against the three balanced Overtures that were to be presented in committee.[1]

As with many similar groups that have sprung up in other denominations, the anti-Israel activists dominate key church positions and are well organized. They led the original divestment campaign in 2004. Taken aback by the check on divestment in 2006, this year, they and their allies, such as JVP, mailed the delegates their literature. They frame their political agenda in the theological and peace and justice language that resonates with Presbyterians, with Palestinians depicted only as innocent victims of a predatory, land-grabbing power, Israel.

Delegates could also be easily saturated by the many events that showcased anti-Israel speakers. Instead of the controversial Palestinian Christian Rev. Naim Ateek who has been accused of blatant anti-Semitism, the Church brought Israeli-Arab Archbishop of the Galilee, Elias Chacour of the Melkite Catholic Church. But Chacour shares Ateek’s anti-Israel views, as became evident in his talks. He just presents them in more acceptable language.

Chacour led the services at the Wednesday morning Ecumenical Service where the current Church leader (“Stated Clerk”) Clifton Kirkpatrick warmly endorsed him, introducing him as “one of the great reconcilers and peacemakers of this century” and where Chacour disarmed worshippers by stating, “I am a Palestinian,” then opening his clothing and saying, “I have no bombs”—thereby belittling Israelis concerns about terrorism while eliciting appreciative laughter. He praised the Presbyterians’ previous anti-Israel positions, declaring that “your church has shown the courage of saying the truth in the face of mighty people.” As one attendee told me, he warmed worshippers’ hearts with his vision of Jews, Muslims, and Christians all living peacefully together.

Chacour then was featured at a 10 AM press conference with Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, where he praised Haifa as a model of true integration that should be extended throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. He expressed his “wishful” hope for one “secular democratic state where Christians, Jews and Muslims can worship God or not worship God,” and declared that it was necessary to “prove to Israel that every non-Jew is not an enemy.” He also blamed Israel for the Holy Land’s declining Christian population, denying that Israel is the one nation in the Middle East where the Christian population has grown in the last half-century instead of declined.

Chacour’s busy day was not yet over. On Wednesday night, local Presbyterian churches sponsored a dinner for him which drew over 250 people. Those who did not attend the Chacour events needn’t have worried about missing his message. The next day, the back page of the General Assembly News featured two large articles about his talks.

But Chacour was not the only featured speaker. On Wednesday, delegates could go to the “Peace Breakfast” or an afternoon event at the Israel/Palestine booth to meet Jerusalem-born Mubarak Awad who is often hailed as the Palestinian Ghandi. But Awad has condemned Palestinian violence only for tactical, not moral, reasons, [2] and according to the Princeton student newspaper, he told a 2002 audience that “The history of the Jewish religion has contributed to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and Israel cannot continue to exist.” [3]

On Wednesday, delegates could also attend a session entitled “Facts on the Ground” put on at a local Presbyterian Church wtih Awad, and two speakers who share his views, veteran Jewish anti-Israel activist Jeff Halper, and Israeli-Arab American, Jonathan Kuttab.

The victory of Committee and Assembly approval of Overture 11-06 also could have passed unnoticed by the delegates at large. The General Assembly News report after the Assembly vote did not even mention 11-06, and instead wrote about 11-01, and about the Assembly’s rejection of a floor amendment to delete 11-01’s clause approving the “Amman Call.”

These Assembly actions occurred within a larger, disconcerting debate.

In 2005, after the divestment resolution had roiled Jewish-Presbyterian relations, the Church set out to prove that it is not anti-Israel and has always supported a two-state solution, by issuing a record on its past positions.[4] Unfortunately, those they issued do not indicate much support for the Jewish State. In 1948, as five Arab armies invaded to destroy the newly declared state of Israel, the Assembly simply stated that “We believe that a solution to the problem will be achieved only by a return to the principle of faithful devotion to the welfare, needs, and rights of both the Jewish and Arab peoples.” It did not even mention, let alone endorse, the UN compromise recommendation, the 1947 Partition Resolution. The Assembly apparently had nothing to say—or nothing it now wished to highlight—about the conflicted region until 1967 when Israel, ringed by amassing Arab armies and threats of annihilation, won the ensuing Six Day War. The Church’s 1967 statement was notable for its neutrality and failure to blame the belligerent Arab states. It expressed “deep concern over the unrest and recent conflict in the Middle East…and it registers its wholehearted and prayerful support of individuals and nations who are seeking to bring peace and concord to that area of the world.”

If in 1974, PC (USA) did affirm Israel’s right to exist, its subsequent statements primarily showed support for the Palestinians. In 1977, when the PLO was still a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying Israel and when no international policy makers envisioned a PLO-led Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, the PC(USA) urged support for “Palestinian self-determination and urged the inclusion of all parties, including the PLO, in negotiations seeking a comprehensive solution.” The priority on supporting Palestinians over Israel and Jews has continued.

In an effort to reverse what seemed to be a pattern of anti-Jewish theology and bias against Israel, the PC (USA’s) Office of Interfaith Affairs issued a statement on May 2, 2008, “Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias.”[5] It was warmly welcomed by Jewish organizations. But a month later, just before the 218th General Assembly met, these same organizations were stunned and outraged to find that the Vigilance statement the Church finally released had been gutted, and no longer admitted that “anti-Jewish ideas and bias” were reflected in the Church’s re cent positions.[6]

It is little wonder that Jewish organizations are calling only for cautious optimism about PC (USA) 2008 positions on Israel. The anti-Israel forces will renew their efforts at the next biennial General Assembly in 2010, and the battle will continue. We can only hope that the Presbyterian leaders who have worked so hard to reverse this bias will have the support they need.

It is clear that the vast majority of Presbyterians means well and wants to do good. What they vitally need is education about the issues so they can, in good conscience and with knowledge, counter the anti-Israel indoctrination of their leadership. The 2008 General Assembly was a start, and pointed the way to what needs to be done for 2010.

Roberta P. Seid, PhD, is a historian who teaches at the University of California, Irvine, and is Education/Research Director of the international education organization, StandWithUs.