[The following, by Will Spotts, is crossposted from The PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine.]

CLASSES OF PROBLEMATIC ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BY CHURCH GROUPS

#1 Israeli Exceptionalism

The PC(USA) (like many mainline denominations) has displayed a peculiar singularity of focus on Israel. This has been thoroughly documented, but a brief perusal of the articles from the Presbyterian News Service, of the public statements of their representatives, even of the proposed actions at the upcoming General Assembly will confirm this as a unique priority. It is not the PC(USA)'s only issue of concern, but it assumes a top place in their attentions. If (as is mostly self-evident) Israel is being given disproportionate attention in the PC(USA) (and other mainline denominations), a natural question arises: Why? In itself, an extraordinary focus on a single nation is not evidence of anti-Judaism at work, but it does indicate the presence of some type of bias. That this focus is overwhelmingly negative, and that this focus is on the only Jewish state in existence is alarming. I have heard several possible rationales articulated, and I think it would be prudent to consider them.

A. One possible reason for this disproportionate and negative emphasis would be if Israel were, in fact, worse than any other nation in existence - the chief among human rights abusers, and generally morally repellent. This allegation is advanced when Israeli actions are equated with those of countries like Sudan (as was done by former PC(USA) Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick), or Nazi Germany (as was done in the Warsaw Ghetto reference in the PC(USA)'s 217th General Assembly pre-assembly event, or in the UMC's educational materials.) It is advanced when Israeli actions are cast as 'blatant savagery (without correctly even describing the actions or providing information about the circumstances). It is advanced when words like genocide and apartheid are used to describe Israeli policies. Statement after statement from various officials has mirrored this essential charge. If it is true then the singularity of focus by the PC(USA) is justified. If it is not true, then the assertions made are themselves delusions and slanders - and (of equal importance) no justification for Israeli exceptionalism can be found there.

Let's examine the allegation. If Israel were intent on genocide, then Israel must be a miserable failure at genocide - because this attempt would be unique in history: the population allegedly targeted has dramatically increased. If one attempts to use a differing definition of genocide, then one is functionally lying because it is clearly known how the word is commonly understood. Even if a person were to grant some bizarre alternative definition, the rationale would fail because the unique nature of the charge would no longer apply. More precisely - if genocide is regarded as mass murder of a population, then Israel is clearly not guilty of any form of it. If, in deceitful form, genocide is regarded as the displacement of a population during a defensive war, then Israel would be at most as guilty as Israel's neighboring states.

In this rationale, the Arab-Israeli conflict is generally blamed explicitly on Israeli intransigence - usually the occupation is cited as the root cause of the conflict, and in much literature the term occupation refers equally to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and Israel proper. (In many instances 60 plus years of occupation are referenced. At least one of these is in the materials commissioners will see at the GA.) This deranged blame placing ignores the entire history of the region ... But let's say, for the sake of argument, that we do place the entire blame for the conflict on Israel. What then? Would Israel be justifiably condemned singly above all other nations? Even if it were "all Israel's fault" would Israel (as has been frequently asserted) be the chief player in the culture of violence in the world? Would the government of Israel be responsible for more deaths than other governments?

In terms of loss of life, in all conflicts from 1950 to the present, the Israeli-Arab conflict (including all deaths of Israelis, Palestinians, and citizens of neighboring states) ranks forty-ninth. One out of every 1700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has been killed in this context. For comparison purposes, the death toll in conflicts in Sudan amounts to one out of every 50 persons killed in conflicts since 1950.

If one were to look at other human rights issues a similar picture would emerge. Israel has freedom of worship - a rarity among states in the region. Israel has freedom of speech and a free press; name one other country in the region whose newspapers print the same level of criticisms of their government. Israel has a court system that frequently rules against policies of the Israeli government; there is no counterpart court system in surrounding nations. Israel does not target civilians in military strikes - yes, civilian casualties occur - but, unlike its military opponents, Israel does not deliberately attack civilians or celebrate when civilians are murdered. [The Middle East Study Committee report is acutely dishonest on this issue, but I'll cover that in a later post.] Unlike other military forces, Israeli soldiers are statistically very unlikely to commit rape - interestingly enough, this lack of rape has actually been criticized by those who demonize Israel. Israel has a sizable non-Jewish population - that lives in safety; what other nation in the region has a sizable Jewish population? The instances of collective punishment, closures, and the separation barrier, while sometimes draconian, are generally responses to the ceaseless attacks against Israeli citizens. These responses may not always be justified - but they occur within a context.

Does Israeli society have inequities and problems? Yes. Are there abuses of Palestinians? Yes. Is Israel the singular human rights abuser it is often portrayed as being within the PC(USA)? Not only does the evidence not support such a contention, any notion that the imbalance in the critical attention given to can be justified by Israel's misdeeds is unsustainable. One is forced to conclude that one must look elsewhere to ascertain the true reason for this peculiar Israeli exceptionalism.

B. Another possible reason for this negative focus on Israel is the possibility that the Israeli-Palestinian situation, more than any other conflict, threatens wider war. This is perhaps true. Quite frankly it is an extremely tricky process to analyze potential future scenarios - and this particular one is certainly possible. The conflicts between Israel, the Palestinians, and neighboring countries could spin out of control into a far wider war.

Ironically, this fails as a reason to account for the excessive negative attention focused on Israel because one of the major reasons this situation could escalate centers around the existing negative attention focused on Israel. In other words, the threat of wider conflict exists precisely because of disproportionate emphasis placed on the conflict. It begs the question of why the emphasis was there originally.

That the Arab League and the OIC place an extraordinary emphasis on the existence of Israel - which these have historically continually opposed - is certainly true. That many other nations have responded to that opposition by directing excessive negative attention toward Israel is also true. But one must wonder why these direct disapprobation toward Israel. It is as though these believe that if Israel didn't exist, there wouldn't be an issue of contention. Why might that be? Because Israel has fewer people? Less land? Because many nations already oppose Israel? Because Israel is expendable?

No rationale for demonstrated excessive critical focus on Israel because Israel is a potential flashpoint of wider war makes sense unless it is a function of appeasement. While this form of appeasement that treats the Jewish state singularly as expendable is not de facto antisemitic, it could hardly be considered a good or valid motive for church action.

C. A third reason often offered for the disproportionate negative focus on Israel exhibited by the PC(USA) (and others) is the fact of US support for Israel. They are somewhat consistent in that they apply a heightened level of criticism against the United States - presumably because they are speaking as Americans, and can therefore be "self-critical". This seems to be an attempt to rationalize obsessive critical focus on Israel as self-criticism by proxy.

Upon closer examination, however, that rationalization fails for a host of reasons. First, what is one to make of statements and actions by the Word Council of Churches or the World Alliance of Reformed Churches? Unless these organizations are regarded patronizingly as extensions of American church groups, their extraordinary negative focus on Israel could not be construed as 'self-criticism' by proxy. Second, self-criticism by proxy is, by itself, an extraordinary and dubious concept. I can think of no other situation in which this would be attempted. Third, those who would offer this rationalization create a fiction of the history of Israel by pretending that US support for Israel has been a factor since 1948 - which is quite simply not the case. Fourth, this attempted rationalization ignores the fact the US policies have often not been in the best interests of Israel. One cannot examine our oil policies, our relationships with the direct enemies of Israel, or the concessions we have sometimes bullied Israel into accepting and suggest anything like the relationship between nations this rationalization would necessitate. It is simply untrue. Fifth, much is made of the veto of UN Security Council resolutions - which has been used by all permanent members of the Security Council - while the effect of voting blocs such as the OIC has been deliberately understated. When a Secretary General of the United Nations can officially appear at an event observing the nakba - standing in front of a map of 'Palestine from the river to the sea' - treating the UN as honest broker is untenable. Sixth, this rationale necessitates a view of alliances that its holders do not exhibit in their treatment of any other US ally. For example, the United Kingdom almost never appears in critical statements by US church groups, is almost never featured in denominational news services, has never had its legitimacy as a nation questioned by denominational officials, has never been had its leaders demonized by offices of the PC(USA), has never been a target of divestment. It is self-evident that the rationalization of US support for Israel is not the motivating factor in the observable obsessive negative focus on Israel.

D. A fourth reason offered for the excessive negative focus on Israel is the assertion that the underlying basis for Israel is racist and colonialist. This has been blatantly stated by some officials in the PC(USA) and other denominations. The issue, of course, is that Israel is a Jewish state. If Judaism were to be considered a racial or ethnic designation, then any state with a racial or ethnic basis would merit the same level of negative attention currently lavished on Israel. Were Judaism regarded as a religion - then any state with a religious designation would, no doubt, be subject to the same level of disapprobation as Israel is. The lack of Jewish presence in Israel's neighboring states would certainly not have escaped their attention. Yet in no case do we see this ... except one - the Jewish state. Clearly, this too is a false rationalization.

E. A fifth reason offered for negative scrutiny applied to Israel is the existence of a cabal of Zionists who control the governments of the world. Yup ... that's what they say. Some church spokespersons are more subtle and polished: they'll opine about 'the powerful Jewish lobby'. But the gist of the rationale remains the same. In this instance, churches view themselves as combating the global forces of evil, the sinister and shadowy Jewish / Zionist lobby. They will sponsor speakers (as the PC(USA) has done) who cite the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to support their allegations. If this allegation were true, then yes, the PC(USA) would justified in its obsessive critical attention leveled at Israel. As absurd as it sounds, an observer would still be well advised to consider the possibility. I find this particular conspiracy theory unpersuasive for a variety of reasons.

1. This hypothesis assumes activities without an actual offer of proof; and it treats the Jewish people in a manner distinct from all others. If this has in mind a worldwide lobby - then it is remarkably ineffective; UN initiatives, statements from European countries, from the EU, and from the OIC, as well as conferences like Durban clearly demonstrate this. If the allegation is solely concerned with the US Jewish lobby, then it treats one minority group in a manner distinct from that to which subjects any other group: it is as if there is a presumption that Jews alone, of all types of persons, should be disqualified from political participation. If this argument envisions a handful of secret, behind-the-scenes conspirators, then it fails to demonstrate that these have any interest in Israel.
2. This hypothesis fails to identify the ends to which such a conspiracy would be directed. For a conspiracy to work, it must have specific goals. If this cabal controls and uses the governments of the world for some nefarious objectives of its own, what might they be? It would seem to me that a piece of land roughly the size of New Jersey would be beneath the notice of such all-powerful forces of evil. To make money? Yes, there are profits to be made from conflict - but there is also an incredible amount of money wasted on this particular conflict. To oppose Islam, to foment dispute between Moslems and Christians? Other than that dispute fomented by historic jihads and crusades? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense either. To get oil? If this cabal already controls the governments of the world, it would seem it already controlled the oil resources of the world as well. To stage a worldwide imperial government? Possible I suppose - but again, I highly doubt that PC(USA) officials believe that; I might also point out that many leaders in the denomination actually support some system of global governance or other. More significantly, I fail to see how obsessing about the state of Israel would in any way resist or even mitigate such an imperialist ambition.
3. This hypothesis fails to identify the actual players. The word Zionist is a catch-all, used to indicate unidentified conspirators. To substitute 'the Jews' would be to indulge in the rankest form of scapegoating. Its advancers cannot really believe that all Jewish people are somehow involved, or that such a massive collaboration can remain hidden. So who do they mean? Who are the forces they oppose that justify their actions and statements against Israel? The government of Israel? Yet these have offered zero evidence that the government of Israel controls US policy. I would think rather the reverse more likely. Was it really an initiative of the Israeli government to return Sinai to Egypt?

Sadly, little can be done for those who attempt to advance this rationale. It constitutes a departure from sanity, and perhaps they should be pitied. However, if those clinging to the cabal rationale are the ones crafting PC(USA) policy, then we have a problem.

All of the rationalizations we have examined fail to account for the posture of Israeli exceptionalism being exhibited within the PC(USA). Very few other possible explanations remain. Such an exclusive negative focus on Israel is not, by itself, automatically antisemitic, but antisemitism would explain the data. Other possibilities, no doubt, exist, but members of the PC(USA) would do well to thoroughly examine the motives that drive its statements and actions on the conflict between Israelis, Palestinians, and neighboring states.

Will Spotts

[Part I is here.