Here is an extremely thoughtful piece by our friend Will Spotts, originally posted on his own blog, cross-posted by permission. Well worth spending time on.

Over the last several years a peculiar kind of activism has emerged within many Christian denominations. It has not, of course, been confined to Christian groups; it has also found a place of honor on college campuses, on conspiracy websites, among political “activists”, among ultra-left and ultra-right wing groups, and among a certain class of celebrity. On its good days this peculiar activism has presented itself as pro-Palestinian. That is a tenable position; it could have some moral support; people of good will could hold it; depending on what precisely it entails, it could be a completely good thing. Far more commonly, this activism presents itself as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. This is less tenable; the fact that no other nation is treated in quite the same way is alarming; there is, for example, no anti-Denmark or anti-India movement that would be acceptable to this cast of supporters – or really to people of good will generally. It is true that there have been anti-Communists, and it is true that there are anti-Capitalists; but I can find no remotely similar parallel to the anti-Israel anti-Zionist emphasis. This peculiar, widely-supported activism goes farther on many occasions: it becomes anti-Jewish. The transition from anti-Israel and anti-Zionist into anti-Jewish is made without generating any reaction among its supporters.

That this transition is greeted with silence by the supporters of the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel anti-Zionist movements is, to a degree, predictable; people will often fail to see the downside of a movement in which they have become emotionally invested. It would take something truly extraordinary to shock into contemplating the ultimate extremely harmful effects of their chosen actions. The thing I can neither understand nor accept is this: the general silence from the larger population. This peculiar and fashionable activism occurs within Christian denominations, but it does not have the support of all or even most of their members. This activism occurs on college campuses, but it does not have the support of all or even most faculty members or students. This activism occurs in political circles, but it does not have the support of all or even most progressives or all ultra-conservatives. This activism occurs in unions, but it does not have the support of all or even most union members. So why, when it is transformed from pro-Palestinian (which could be a good thing) through the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist phases (which cease to be good and become disturbing), into its anti-Jewish end point (which is vile and reprehensible), do the members of these communities who are not emotionally invested remain silent? Why do they fail to react? How is it that Christians in many denominations are OK with an anti-Jewish animus being expressed by their own churches? How is it that college communities have no problem with this profoundly loathsome philosophy that propagates ignorance? How is it that the members of unions and of political parties that seem to be motivated by the idea of improving things can remain silent in the face of what has had hideous consequences so many times in history?

I have little concern with the activism of various college campus communities – mostly because there is little I can do about it. The sad fact is that many colleges and universities have become havens for fourth-rate scholarship fueled by third-rate intellects wielding a coercive power over students – who are often intelligent but lack the experience to defend themselves against such tactics. It is also unfortunate that professors with activist mindsets insinuate themselves into national policy debates for which they lack the necessary competence. This pattern will not change until all the interested parties – faculty members, administrators, students, trustees, alumni, donors, and potential employers – begin to hold academics accountable, judging their works accurately and attaching appropriate costs to intellectually shoddy and morally defective scholarship. I am not much concerned with the actions and stands of unions, political parties, and civic groups. Here again, there is little I can do about it anyway. The members of these groups are responsible for the conduct of their leaders and of the groups as a whole; and the overall effectiveness of any anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activism these might originate is limited because they generally address a host of issues. I am also little concerned with the lunatic rants of the political fringes, whether left wing or right wing. These may be disturbing, but thus far, they have little impact (by themselves) on the larger society. For the corrosive effect of their doctrines to be fully realized it will require greater participation than these fringes are (at this time) capable of mustering.

Churches are a different story: these have access to mainstream United States society. (The National Council of Churches, for example, often claims that it ‘represents’ fifty million Christians.) It is true that the public political statements of many churches are devoutly ignored, but they are capable of a slow, consistent, unceasing campaign that eventually filters into the common dialogue and poisons the well for any meaningful conversation or change. These create curricula for their members, presenting information from a trusted source, transforming attitudes. These indulge in publicity stunts, disgraceful worship services (that are more about political theater than anything whatsoever to do with God), and highly visible actions that gradually legitimate their peculiar agendas. Over time, when they have repeated the same statements often enough, these acquire the status of fact – no matter how incorrect or even offensive they might be, and no matter how they were originally perceived.

Activism surrounding this issue falls into three general categories: pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel / anti-Zionist, and blatantly anti-Jewish. Church organizations in the United States (and in many parts of the world) have engaged in all three. One type does not necessarily lead to the others – and they are different in kind and moral character. The unfortunate fact is that in many cases church organizations do not confine themselves to those activist endeavors that are morally good, or even morally neutral. It is true that these organizations often do participate in what can be rightly termed good, what is probably well-intentioned, and what is potentially helpful; but so far, they have not confined themselves to those things. Instead they have supplemented the positive with the morally problematic anti-Israel / anti-Zionist approach, and with the utterly reprehensible anti-Jewish approach. The corpus of public statements, actions, and information disseminated by these church organizations is far too large to treat systematically here, but for representative instances of this activism please see “Example One: Email List Endorsed by a Mainline Denomination”, “Example Two: Study Guide”, “Example Three: Sabeel Event”. For more detailed (but far from exhaustive) examples from one denomination, see “With an Everlasting Hatred: The Case of Israel and Corruption in the PC(USA)”.

Let me say upfront that I find no fault in pro-Palestinian activism. Much that attempts to pass itself off as that is, in reality, anti-Israel / anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish activism. There is a tremendous need to set aside blame-placing; it is pragmatically impossible in this instance because the situation is intractably complicated. There are not two competing narratives, but many – all of which omit facts, all of which assign widely disparate interpretations to other facts, and all of which have underlying self-confirming biases. The sheer number of players (nations, organizations, and individuals) with agendas of their own renders any meaningful assignment of blame impracticable. All blame aside, the fact remains that the situation as it currently exists is unacceptable. Efforts spent trying to find workable solutions are laudable, and many of these fall into the category of pro-Palestinian activism. These can include raising legitimate interests of Palestinians, pressuring the government of Israel about how it treats Palestinians, bringing human rights abuses – whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians – to the public’s attention, seeking ways to strengthen a Palestinian economy and civil society, providing humanitarian assistance, fostering relationships between Americans and Palestinians, seeking and fostering peaceful solutions between Palestinians and Israelis. If done rightly, this kind of activism can stimulate honest discussions of the aspirations and legitimate interests of both parties, and about the roles other powers have played in the conflict – the clarity such discussion provide can only be very helpful. Far from being inherently wrong, such an activism is generally positive, and in many cases a pure good. It is important to note, however, that pro-Palestinian activism is not sufficient in itself – as it ignores Israelis entirely. What needs to change is the climate activists have encouraged in the United States and elsewhere that treats the situation as a zero-sum game – so that a person cannot be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian at the same time, and so that solutions are not sought that are designed to foster the well-being of both. As long as we are being shepherded into a corner that must treat one party as good and the other as evil, positive activism becomes impossible, and activists themselves become a significant part of the problem.

Anti-Israel / Anti-Zionist Activism

Where this activism acquires a more sinister cast is at the point where its focus shifts from pro-Palestinian to anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Part of this stems from the zero sum thinking I mentioned previously – it seems a natural (though overly simplistic) extension for many pro-Palestinian activists to regard Israel and Zionism as the source of Palestinians’ problems and therefore as things that must be opposed. However, when people are willing to abandon fundamental fairness, they demonstrate a high level of moral blindness. Whenever Israel is treated and evaluated in a way distinct from the way in which other nations are treated, this is bias. When that treatment is inferior to that accorded to other nations it is anti-Israel bias. It is self-evident that people can display a pro-Israel, and even an anti-Palestinian bias; this has been demonstrated among some Christian Zionists. But the corrective to this cannot be to adopt an anti-Israel bias – as has been done by many organizations claiming to represent the Christians who do not fall into the Christian Zionist camp. Such an attempted corrective would be hypocritical in the extreme, ethically wrong, and utterly unhelpful. Yet there are several ways in which activist factions within mainline church organizations have done this – with the official imprimatur of those organizations.

An inexplicable excessive focus on Israel / Palestine. A brief perusal of the articles carried by the news services of various organizations demonstrates an extraordinary level of attention focused on this issue among all others in the world. These articles overwhelmingly portray all Israelis in a negative light and almost never portray any Palestinians in a negative light – even the actions of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are generally ignored. (For instances of this phenomenon, see this article addressing Archbishop Desmond Tutu by Sudanese activist and former slave Simon Deng, and “Example One: Email List Endorsed by a Mainline Denomination”.) The sheer number of political pronouncements and actions carried out by these denominations is staggering. This treatment is not matched by the treatment of any other political situation in the world. A couple of denominations have addressed Sudan, but these have not provided study guides, volumes of information, special seasons for prayer and so-called witness. China and Iran receive virtually no negative coverage. The tendency toward active blame placing is scrupulously avoided in other situations.

False information / biased presentation. Activists have presented information which incorporates demonstrably false assertions, which excludes relevant facts, and which presents facts in a misleading manner. When these offer one narrative only and exclude opposing voices this is evidence of bias. Such presentations are immoral and harmful, but they have often sprung from church organizations. While this is done by activists on all sides, it is by far most frequently biased against Israel. In a hideous irony, much of the time those offering such demonstrably false and misleading narratives are claiming to be giving complete background information. (For an instance of this see “Example Two: Study Guide”.)

Refusal to categorically reject violence. There is an obligatory rejection of violence targeting Israel that is most often mentioned by church organizations. However, there is a consistent failure to treat this in the same manner that perceived Israeli faults are treated. There is also an alarming tendency to make excuses for violence perpetrated against Israelis – whether civilians or soldiers. One denominational official referred to the “need for violence”. Many materials (endorsed by various “Christian” organizations) have cast violence as legitimate resistance to the “occupation”. Several denominational organizations have officially endorsed statements that cited the “occupation” as the root cause of all violence and ‘evil acts’ in the Middle East. Something is very wrong when representatives of those who pose as advocates for peace and justice feel the need to blame the victims of violence and murder for the actions committed against them.

Supporting the Destruction of the Current State of Israel. The commonly asserted rationale for the anti-Zionist movement is to regard the current State of Israel as a colonial settler enterprise and to call for either a bi-national, Jewish minority state for two peoples and three faiths or a Jew-free Palestinian State and a multi-ethnic, minority Jewish, secular State of Israel. Either of these options is a direct call for the destruction of the current State of Israel and notoriously neglects the prospects for the safety of the minority Jewish residents of such a state. Most activist church groups pay lip-service to a two-state solution and a safe and secure Israel, but actively work for an option that effectively destroys the current State of Israel. It is telling that this line of rhetoric refuses to call for a Jewish state – but only for some state perhaps named “Israel”. The sometimes hidden, but often blatant subtext of this rationale is the assertion that the existence of a Jewish state is a racist concept. That activist church groups support this assertion, but support the destruction of no other state in existence evidences an extraordinary anti-Israel animus.

Anti-Jewish Activism

Many people attempt to justify anti-Israel activism on the grounds that it is not technically anti-Jewish. In theory there is some truth in this assertion, but in practice the singular bias against the only Jewish state often amounts to a functionally anti-Jewish bias. Many of the arguments employed and statements made by various activists (including those supported by church organizations) leave behind whatever fig leaf distinctions one might have offered in theory, and blatantly embrace clear historic anti-Jewish themes.

Exploiting the bind of the “Jewish Lobby”. One assertion that is common to most anti-Israel activists, including their factions in leadership positions in most church organizations is that United States support for Israel is a result of the activities of the powerful Jewish Lobby. Virtually all the main players in this field have made the assertion in those terms; however, recently there has been a trend toward the use of the phrase “Israel Lobby” instead of the more traditional “Jewish Lobby”. [One can easily detect this gradual shift in language by reviewing the public statements and resources put out by various “Christian” organizations over the last five years. Today, “Israel Lobby” is the more common phrase – and it is partially designed to reflect the impact of “Christian Zionists”, but it is still used interchangeably with “Jewish Lobby”.] It is the same accusation being made by the same people – who have suddenly become slightly more sophisticated in denying their racism. The fact is, the “Israel Lobby” to which they refer is composed primarily of Jewish Americans. The fact is, this argument is no different from the historic arguments raised by anti-Semites that “the Jews control the government”. Congress is said to “pander to the powerful Jewish Lobby”; the white house is said to be “owned by the Jewish Lobby”; American interests are said to take a back seat to those of “the Jewish Lobby”. One denomination asserted this was a product of Jewish political acumen. But all of these charges overlook – perhaps deliberately, perhaps inadvertently, the real bind in which Jewish citizens find themselves. If they participate in the political processes of the United States, they are accused of controlling the country in some sort of conspiracy. If they fail to participate in those same political processes, the nation will often act in ways that harm them. It is a lose – lose situation. No other ethnic group is treated in the same way as are Jewish Americans – regardless of the influence they wield and money they spend on our political system. For those who have raised this argument – including virtually all of the activist organizations – a question remains: how is it that you can treat Jewish people differently than you treat anyone else while at the same time denying you are exhibiting a form of bigotry? It can’t be done – the “powerful Jewish Lobby” meme is a form of bigotry plain and simple.

Jews control the media. Similar to the “powerful Jewish Lobby” claim, is the assertion that the US media is controlled by Jews. The notion is that gullible Americans are deceived by biased media coverage in the United States – because their media is controlled by “forces” that prevent them from seeing the truth. European media are generally held up as exemplars of fairness. The fact that the US media is often slightly less biased against Israel than European media is taken to be proof of a conspiracy. Factors such as the resurgence of European anti-Semitism, and clear European media biases (such as that exhibited by the BBC and documented by the Balen Report, or the mangling of the Al Dura incident by France 2), are generally discounted. This particular charge was often leveled at European Jews in the years leading up to World War II. It is no different in character today.

Claims of discontinuity between Jews today and the biblical people Israel It is commonly said by “Christian” activists that Jews today have no relationship to the biblical Israelites. Few of these activists will offer the whole Khazar argument – because they find it embarrassing, but they still insist on creating the distinction. According to their arbitrary preferences, Jews today must be regarded as European colonists. That many Jewish residents of Israel did not emigrate from Europe is conveniently ignored. The more sinister fact that the Jewish population in the Holy Land was historically repeatedly purged and suppressed by "Christians" in the name of Christianity is also fairly universally ignored. The general goal of this claim is to dismiss any historic connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel – as if there had not been a virtually continuous Jewish presence in the land over the last two thousand years. Some go so far as to attempt to re-define Judaism in terms they prefer to expunge all references to the land. No evidence is presented to support these claims, but they are repeated by “Christian” activists with a surprising frequency.

The use of the holocaust. It is often argued that support for Israel springs entirely from Western guilt over the holocaust. It is also suggested that Jewish people use the holocaust to manipulate others. Some “Christian” activists have affiliations with people who have publicly denied the holocaust or who have sought tirelessly to minimize it. Even among those (a clear majority) “Christian” activists who acknowledge the holocaust, two assertions are common: that Jews act today out of an irrational fear that springs from this event, and that Jews need to move on. Aside from the manifestly offensive nature of these notions, there is also a patent falsehood carried within them. The experience of the holocaust demonstrates once for all that taking genocidal threats seriously could hardly be construed as an irrational action. Similarly, comparisons offered by “Christian” activists between the holocaust and perceived Israeli abuses of Palestinians are both so extraordinarily inaccurate as to be deranged, and the product of a grotesque and inexplicable callousness. Yet such comparisons are frequently offered.

Claims about character traits of Jewish people. There is a notable tendency to claim to describe character traits of Jewish people as if these were monolithic. In some cases this is well intentioned but poorly stated and conditioned by ignorance; but all such stereotypes are offensive. One denomination actually released materials for the use of its members in conversations about anti-Israel activism that included these “helpful” comments:

And:

And:

In many other cases, however, stereotypes are invoked not out of ignorance or benign intent, but as an integral part of a concerted campaign of demonization. Contemptuous descriptions occur rather commonly among many anti-Israel activists. For example:

And:

Explicitly religious anti-Jewish imagery. One particular very common practice among self-identifying “Christian” activists is the use of expressly Christian imagery to demonize both Israel and the Jewish people. The use of this set of images by Christians has always led to contempt for and violence against Jews; this has been demonstrated so frequently in Christian history as to be beyond doubt – there is a clear causal link. This is in every case a perversion of Christianity; Christians need to be aware of the history of this practice and its hideous consequences. And Christians need to REFUSE to allow Christian imagery to be misused in this way – ever. The misuse of certain of these images is clearly linked to anti-Jewish hatred in the Middle East today. Comparisons of Israel to Herod or the pharaoh of the Exodus, and the labeling of the founding of the State of Israel as an "original sin" are highly problematic. More common and conspicuous is the use of crucifixion imagery. References to the Israeli crucifixion system, to Jesus as the first Palestinian shahid, to the Israelis attempting to seal the tomb of Jesus – all exploit this dangerous practice. [It must be observed that many individuals have taken the sufferings of Jesus as signs of identification. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, and it can be of great comfort to Christians. However, the function of this in public statements and activist worship is not to focus on encouraging the suffering party, but on demonizing the forces perceived as causing this suffering. Even were that judgment wholly accurate – which I dispute – the use of this imagery as a method of demonization is in itself perverse. The application of it to the Jews has such an extreme amount of historical baggage as to make it entirely unacceptable.]

Double standards on land issues. Many activists argue that the focus on land in some streams of Judaism is primitive, unspiritual, unworthy of a religion, and generally wrong-headed. These will often attempt to suggest that true Judaism has no such focus. The point of this is to show that the land of Israel is not connected to Judaism; or, if there is some connection, that represents a defect in Judaism. One of the major problems here is the fact that Judaism is being evaluated as a religion based on a double standard. These activists generally will not mention the views of land espoused by many Muslims (whether or not these are faithful representations of Islam). There is a large contingent that believes that because the land that currently makes up the State of Israel was once under the control of Muslims, it must therefore be returned to Islamic control. At the same time, many Christians have advanced the arguments about the Christian presence in the Holy Land as if land had any significance in Christianity. The net effect of this argument is a hypocritical double standard. Jews are criticized for a belief in the significance of a particular land, while Christians and Muslims are permitted to regard certain lands as “holy”. At the same time many Christian activists are insisting that Judaism (alone) abandon its teachings about a holy land, these are also invoking other elements of the covenant between God and the people of Israel as if they were binding. This is an attempt to have it both ways – to use the Hebrew Bible to criticize the conduct of Jewish people while denying that large portions of that same Hebrew Bible apply. Some very influential Christian activists have gone so far as to suggest that the ideal state for the Jewish people is to live in Diaspora communities forever – seeking the good of their host countries. Similarly, it is regularly asserted that the Hebrew Bible is irrelevant to the situation in the Middle East today – when it seems to contradict the views of various activists. Appeals to scriptures are regarded with contempt. Nonetheless, Christian activists appeal to both exclusively Christian scriptures and the Hebrew Bible when it suits their purposes. And none have criticized appeals to the Koran. The inconsistencies here are jarring.

Supersessionism / replacement theology. One other assertion is common to many Christian activists: the Jewish people may have been given a promise of land at one time, but they broke this covenant and it no longer applies. In some instances the covenant breaking occurred because of unfaithfulness to God; in other instances it is said to have occurred because of abuses (e.g. social justice issues). Some go so far as to say that this covenant was broken because the Jewish people refused to accept Jesus and that the “Church” has replaced biblical Israel. Ironically, many who make some form or other of this argument would reject the concept of necessity of belief in Jesus – considering this exclusivist and primitive; but these seem to have no problem asserting the rejection of the Jewish people. Whatever the case, all of these formulations are misrepresentations of Christianity (though quite a few self-identified Christians hold them), and they all focus on the rejection of the Jews by God as the result of some perceived universal character flaw of the Jews.

I want to be very clear: I am not calling for support of Israel. I am not calling for opposition to Palestinian aspirations. I am not calling for the evasion of discussions about U.S. policy and Israel. I am, however, calling for fundamental fairness – which is an ethical imperative for all persons of good will regardless of their political agendas or affiliations. I am calling for the utter rejection of misinformation, half-truths, rhetorical distortions, and double standards currently being applied on all sides, but most notably in the presentation of the anti-Israel case in this debate; such a rejection is an intellectual imperative for all sane persons. I am calling for an understanding of the processes through which certain forms of activism can be and are being transformed into manifestations of and an encouragement for the hatred of the Jewish people; such an understanding is a minimum prerequisite for any progress among those who truly desire peace and justice. And I am calling for a total renunciation of the insensate hatred that is already beginning to result from this peculiar brand of activism – not just a renunciation by supposed leaders, but a renunciation by everyone who is, in any way affiliated with them.

So far, there has been a conspicuous silence among (most of) the members of many Christian denominations. Some continue to vocally attempt to defend the indefensible. Large majorities simply continue to attend worship services, participate in their communities, observe the holidays, financially and morally provide uncritical support to factions that misuse their religion as a weapon to advance alien agendas; all the while, what can only be described as a gross evil grows up among them. This curious silence in the face of the most rank anti-Jewish statements and actions is odious across the board, but it is particularly striking as a moral failure among Christians. I say this not because that specific moral failure is unusual in history – in fact, over the last two millennia church organizations have often (though not always) led the way in terms anti-Jewish hatred. What makes it striking is the fact that it violates everything Christianity claims to be about. To the partisans: please take care how you conduct yourselves because there is a very great danger here. If the anti-Israel bias and anti-Jewish statements and actions are unintentional, move to correct them. To the unaligned members: if the leading partisan factions of various denominations insist on maintaining this, so far unrelenting, campaign of anti-Israel bias, anti-Jewish provocation, and the provision of false information others, please do not become complicit in this evil: privately correct this if possible, or publicly oppose your own leaders if you must. Christians cannot evade responsibility just because we are not in positions of power in so-called Christian organizations. When we attend, fund, affiliate with, support in any way organizations that engage in loathsome behaviors, we become guilty. Instances of official anti-Jewish animus have happened many times in the Church; and many times the members have participated or at best remained silent. It is still early in US churches – this direction can still be stopped – before it achieves the horrendous results it has so often done in the past. But if we do not stand up this now – if we do not reject the message sent from leading factions in many “Christian” denominations while it is still a minority opinion and has not yet fully developed – we will forfeit (once again) any claim to decency, morality, or Christian witness. It seems to me the time to ask: how will the future view our actions now? Will this become yet another chapter in Church history where the gulf fixed between Christian theory and Christian practice is insurmountable? Will this become yet another thing for which future Christians will have to apologize or try to make excuses? The old line that the actions of church organizations and the inactions of majorities of Christians don’t really reflect true Christianity is growing very thin. So far the silence speaks volumes.

-Will Spotts