The Presbyterian Church (USA) is on record as opposing the 1967 Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Not all Presbyterians are in agreement on either the issue itself or the fact that the denomination has chosen to take a position in the first place. However, in recent years the nature of that opposition has moved beyond opposition to the annexation of Palestinian land into the Israeli state. Increasingly, factions within the denomination are envisioning the Israeli state itself as the problem.
Members of the pro-Palestine lobby–outsized in its voice and influence–claim that “anti-Semitism” is a straw man designed to enable opponents to dismiss their contentions without serious consideration. Yet, a recent pastoral letter entitled, “The Things that Make for Peace” [link] identifies and expresses concern over the state of discourse around this issue. That it is signed by many leaders within the denomination–not a few of them left of center—rebuts the straw man theory. These charges, issued as they are by mainstream representatives of the PC (USA), cannot be written off as part of a right wing conspiracy. Instead, it is evidence that pro-Palestinian advocates have crossed the line and are attempting to drag the entire church into serious error.
“The Things that Make for Peace” recognizes that differences of opinion on the issue of Israel /Palestine have always existed within the denomination. What has changed, however, is “the focus and tone of that conflict.”[1] The rhetoric of the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the PC (USA)–which published the controversial and arguably anti-Semitic Zionism Unsettled: A Congregational Study Guide (2014)–has become increasingly radical.
The debate within the denomination has shifted. We are no longer discussing the moral justification for the Israeli occupation. Instead, we are now debating whether or not the Israeli state has a right to exist. The letter notes, “Zionism Unsettled announces this shift from its opening section, saying: ‘put simply, the problem is Zionism.’ It makes no distinction between different forms of Zionism, arguing that any form of Zionism is inherently discriminatory.”[2]
The importance of this observation cannot be overstated. The writers of the letter make abundantly clear that with the publication of this resource (Zionism Unsettled) the debate within the church has strayed into serious error:
“…[T]o argue that any Jewish desire for any form of statehood within their historic homeland is inherently discriminatory is not only patently false but morally indefensible. And the conclusion is obvious: if Zionism is the problem, the ending Zionism (i.e., Israel) is the solution” (emphasis mine).
Here’s where the letter gets interesting. The writers point to the unequivocal support offered to Zionism Unsettled by no less than infamous white supremacist and notorious anti-Semite David Duke.[3] Citing Duke as saying: “In a major breakthrough in the worldwide struggle against Zionist extremism, the largest Presbyterian church in the United States, the PC (USA), has issued a formal statement calling Zionism ‘Jewish supremacism’.”[4] Tellingly, the very term “Jewish supremacism” was coined by Duke himself.
The letter writers go on to cite an overture before the 221st General Assembly that takes us into uncharted territory. This overture questions whether the denomination ought to continue its decades-long support for a two-state solution. Such a solution would allow for a secure Israel with a Jewish majority as well as a Palestinian nation. The only logical conclusion–claim the letter-writers– is that the General Assembly is being asked to consider: “a state in which Jews no longer would have the majority, which means an end to the state of Israel.”[5]
Repeated overtures to the General Assembly asking the denomination to instruct the Board of Pensions to divest from corporations doing business with the nation of Israel is also problematic. These initiatives stem not from concern over the business practices of corporation. Instead, they are misguided efforts to align our denomination with an international movement that seeks to end the Jewish state. This alignment by our denomination places an insurmountable barrier between the PC (USA) and the American Jewish community.[6] The letter-writers note this and that such an action negatively affects our witness to the gospel: “If our strategies do not clearly express our motives and goals, i.e., that we want to establish justice, security, self-determination, and peace for both Palestinians and Israelis, then we need different strategies. This is why we oppose divestment.”[7]
Those who favor Palestine have consistently applied the epithet used by former United States President Jimmy Carter—Israel is an apartheid state. Whatever is happening in Israel, it isn’t apartheid. The use of the term apartheid is politically explosive, profoundly offensive, and factually inaccurate. It presupposes that the Jews have no prior claim to the land. The letter notes, “[A]ny responsible review of the history of the Holy Land must acknowledge that Jews have been present there for literally thousands of years, and have a legitimate, thought certainly not exclusive, claim to it.”[8] Calling Israeli policy in the Holy Land “apartheid” or “colonial” fails because the Jews are as close to indigenous to that region as any other ethnicity or religious group.
In actual instances of colonialism–take South Africa, for example–a non-indigenous people (here either British or Dutch) occupied and claimed exclusive right to a land and a people based on their belief in some variation of the belief of manifest destiny or a divine right to rule. Clearly this is not happening here since the Jews have lived in this region, as the letter notes, for millennia. Moreover, such a claim sends a devastating messge:
“To raise the accusation of apartheid negates the legitimacy of Israel having any share of the land, and pushes [the PC(USA)] from challenging the occupation to denying the ancient Jewish connection to and presence in the Holy Land. The PC(USA) cannot allow itself to do that.”[9]
The letter ends with a recommendation that the PC (USA) maintain its current policy of active engagement in the issue. It is possible, they claim, for the church to continue to offer substantial critique of unjust Israeli policies as well as acts of violence by both Israelis and Palestinians. Certainly many Presbyterians disagree even with the current state of the denomination’s engagement on this issue. However, the status quo ante is here preferable to the denomination going on record as calling for the end of the Israeli state.
Given that the last divestment overture (2012) failed by two votes and that pro-divestment activists have been calling commissioners at their homes and lobbying for their votes, I hold out little hope that the denomination will do the right thing. There seems to be, in our current moment, a collective death-wish fueled by the political extremism of small faction within the church and the collective apathy by those who are charged with making these decisions. Repeatedly the church strays into public questions issuing ill-conceived advice for an audience that no longer exists.
[1] “The Things that Make for Peace,” available online at: http://johnvest.com/2014/06/13/the-things-that-make-for-peace/ (Accessed 14 June 2014).
[2] Ibid.
[3] David Duke, “New Publication by Main Presbyterian Church in US Calls Zionism Jewish Supremacism.” Available online at: http://davidduke.com/new-publication-main-presbyterian-church-us-calls-zionism-jewish-supremacism/ (accessed 14 June 2014).
[4] “The Things that Make for Peace,” available online at: http://johnvest.com/2014/06/13/the-things-that-make-for-peace/ (Accessed 14 June 2014).
[5] Ibid.
[6] See, for example: Edward Bernstein, “A Call to PCUSA to Reject Zionism Unsettled.“ Available online at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-edward-bernstein/a-call-to-pcusa-to-reject_b_5484692.html (accessed on 14 June 2014).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
Comment by Earl H. Foote on June 17, 2014 at 5:13 pm
This is an excellent article. The movement to single out Israel for boycotting is intrinsically anti-Semitic, in effect if not in intent. I hold similar, if less strongly felt, reservations about boycotting fossil fuels. The latter suggestion is impractical and misguided. The former is doing the work of anti-Semites, as can be seen by the endorsement from David Duke.