Saturday, June 5, 2010
[The following, by Will Spotts, is crossposted from The PC(USA) on Israel and Palestine.]
I am persuaded the PC(USA)'s Middle East Study Committee was designed to reach a predetermined result. Whether this happened by intent or by accident, I'm not prepared to say. But the weighted composition of the committee (demonstrated by the prior public stands of committee members), the views of PC(USA) staff assigned to the committee (demonstrated by their prior public statements and actions), and the perspective of the large majority of contacts made by the committee (demonstrated by those contacts' statements, actions, and chosen group affiliations) all worked together to insure only one possible result.
I recognize this will be a difficult proposition for Presbyterians to accept. It is often a part of human nature to want to believe that things work the way they should - especially in an institution to which one has dedicated a considerable portion of one's life.
I am also persuaded the recommendations of the Middle East Study Committee are, in the main, unhelpful, one-sided, sometimes unfair, sometimes unjust, and sometimes naive. Some of these are actively harmful; some of them seem to be deliberately misleading. Here again, many Presbyterians will have difficulty accepting this assessment.
However that may be, I would hope that Presbyterians - especially General Assembly commissioners - would take the time to read the 172 page report.
Some elements of this report are idiosyncratic; these probably do more to illustrate the mindsets of committee members than they do to illuminate the situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately the mindsets of committee members have a direct bearing on the reliability and legitimacy of the committee's recommendations.
1. Early in the report, it becomes apparent that the Middle East Study Committee has an astonishingly high self image. Not only do they modestly suggest that they be transformed into a standing committee to monitor Presbyterian compliance with their many helpful recommendations, but they describe themselves this way:
"Our voice is one, which is priestly, prophetic, and pastoral.... From the VAST experiences and study of the members of this committee, from numerous meetings with people and leaders of diverse communities throughout the Middle East (including Iraqi and Iranian church leaders), from meetings with political and religious leaders in Washington and New York with a wide spectrum of perspectives, from debating and challenging one another, and from traveling together for TWO WEEKS IN THE MIDDLE EAST , we strive in this report to tell the truth as we see it and understand it."
Really. Who Describes Themselves in This Way?
2. The MESC maintains that the "exodus of Palestinian Christians" stems mainly from Israeli actions. They list two factors, but for one and a half of them, the MESC blames Israel:
"[T]he increasingly rapid exodus of Christians from Israel/Palestine caused by anti-Palestinian discrimination and oppression, the growth of Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism"
3. Their letter to American ecumenical partners contains a puzzling assertion:
"And unfortunately, where we have disagreed on matters of practice and policy, this has become an opportunity for those who do not share our concern for all parties in the region to divide us and even to manipulate one denomination's policy to criticize another denomination's approach. Let us be of one voice."
Apparently, if one does not walk in lock step with the Middle East Study Committee of the PC(USA) one must either be the victim of manipulation, the manipulator, or fail to share the concern the MESC claims to have for all parties in the region. I'm wondering exactly who this describes. Is it perhaps related to the opinion expressed by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network (also communicated to this GA): "American Jewish Organizations ... use threat and intimidation to censor debate about Israel within and without the Jewish community"? Or is it more closely related to the assertion made in "Steps Toward Peace in Israel and Palestine" (2005 Conference sponsored by the PC(USA)'s Office of the General Assembly): "The clear intention of the Jewish community, in most cases, is to change our minds. This is not, for them, simply an opportunity for open sharing to learn from and better understand one another. It is clear that there is an effort underway to convince and stir up enough Presbyterians to change the decisions of the 216th General Assembly (2004)"?
4. In its letter to Palestinian Friends the MESC offers criticism:
"We still see the occupation as the major obstacle to regional stability, and to the just solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We do not see it as the only obstacle. Being oppressed does not justify using the means of the oppressor; nor does suffering from the breach of international law permit similar breaches, even if smaller in scale. We are alarmed by acts of violence committed by militants and extremists.
We are also alarmed when we hear some Palestinians use anti-Semitic language against Jews and Israelis. We know that you are well-versed in the language of human rights; it has meant the building of a strong civil society in the face of incredible odds and overwhelming oppression of occupation. We hope that this zeal for equality would include all."
Yet in this criticism acts of violence are relegated to the work of militants and extremists. In this criticism antisemitic language is confined to "some" Palestinians. In this criticism, the MESC's opinions of the acts of Israel - "overwhelming oppression", "large[r] scale breaches of international law", "major obstacle to regional stability" - starkly outweigh any negative actions of Palestinians.
5. The Middle East Study Committee claims to review commitments of the PC(USA) and its predecessors for 62 years.
On one side, the MESC says the PC(USA) is committed:
"To the right of Palestinians to self-determination and to have their own separate, contiguous, economically viable, sovereign nation-state within the wider borders of "the land."
Full stop. No qualifications. But to that it does add criticism of Israel:
"Arising from this ... commitment has been our denomination's steady call for the government of Israel to put an end to its military, political, and economic occupation of Palestinian land after 1967 and its practice of establishing and expanding settlements there."
On the other side, the MESC says the PC(USA) is committed:
"To the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and legitimate borders."
This is not strictly accurate, but it has been often recently repeated. That statement should, in theory, be able to stand by itself. The PC(USA) is for the right of Israel to exist .... Full stop. No qualifications.
In this case - the case of Israel, the Middle East Study Committee does not stop. It follow its commitment with the clause:
"borders that are not contended for on the basis of some literal reading of "biblical" geography...." [scare quotes in original].
This seems to imply that majorities of Israeli Jews or the Israeli government is basing its claims on "some literal reading of "biblical" geography."
The Middle East Study Committee goes farther - reminding everyone of the PC(USA)'s call:
"to Israeli Jews to fulfill their "land responsibilities," responsibilities that include the covenant obligation to extend to "others" in their midst--that is, to Israeli Christians and Muslims--a full equality of civil rights and a full measure of justice."
The Middle East Study Committee reserves words and phrases like "legitimate", "bas[ed on] some literal reading of "biblical geography", "land responsibilities", "covenant obligation", "full equality of civil rights and full measure of justice" exclusively for Israel. In one fell swoop this committee rejects biblical geography yet asserts unique requirements to the Jewish people based on biblical covenant. Ethical commissioners might wonder how the Middle East Study Committee thinks it gets to have it both ways.
But the Middle East Study Committee is not content with this treatment weighted against Israel. Instead, it felt the need for a footnote:
"The phrase "the right of Israel to exist" is a source of pain for some members of the 2009-2010 Middle East Study Committee, who are in solidarity with Palestinians who feel that the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights."
In short, the Middle East Study Committee is saying, 'we're for the right of the State of Israel to exist ... but not really.'
6. Some participants of the Middle East Study Committee produced "vignettes". They do not seem to be included in the portion of the report commissioners are supposed to approve. Instead these impressionistic revelations are simply provided to commissioners. Yet these reveal a great deal about the opinions of their authors.
In her vignette, Rev. Susan Andrews resorts to extraordinarily biased language to describe some of her contacts and her opinions of Israeli actions:
"I see the angry settler in Hebron--greeting us with contempt in his voice and a pistol on his hip. And the soldiers who kept us waiting as they cleaned up the early morning blood from a confrontation between a Palestinian resident and an Israel soldier."
Interestingly, the only angry and contemptuous person Rev. Andrews describes is a settler in Hebron. Contrast this with her description of an ICAHD activist:
"I see Angela, a Jewish human rights activist working for the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, who showed us the inequities of roads and houses and schools and freedom between East and West Jerusalem, and who grieves the very loss of the soul of the Jewish people amidst the power politics of the Israeli government."
Without explanation, Rev. Andrews describes the formation of the nation of Israel in terms no one could possibly suspect of bias, anti-Israel animus, or blatant falsehood:
"I see a church packed with Christians in predominantly Muslim Amman, Jordan--most of them from families displaced by the 1948 invasion of Palestine by Israeli soldiers."
Andrews goes on:
"The second idea that has stuck with me focuses on the mantra we so often hear from our Jewish friends. "Never again" --never again will the world allow the horror and hatred of a holocaust against God's people. But that mantra can have two meanings--never again will MY people go through such devastation, even if it means oppressing and destroying others in the process. OR, never again will ANY people go through such ugly destruction. And all of us--Christian, Muslim, Jew--must work together to find true shalom in the Middle East and around the world."
And finally Rev. Andrews sums up what she learned from her Middle East trip (which was, by the way, entirely predictable given her pre-existing opinions and given the one-sided roster of contacts the MESC visited):
"The second was a plea from our Israeli Jewish brothers and sisters to engage our Jewish partners here in the United States in such a way that they can hear our message--and be transformed into peacemakers with and for the people of both Israel and Palestine."
This vignette reveals no conception at all in Rev. Andrews's mind that those who dispute the facts she embraces and differ with her opinion need to be heard and considered. Instead, they apparently need to have their thinking adjusted to match hers. A STUDY COMMITTEE BY ITS NATURE DEMANDS OPEN HEARING AND CONSIDERATION AND IT IS PRECISELY THIS THAT REV. ANDREWS REVEALS HERSELF UNWILLING TO DO.
7. In her vignette, Nahida Gordon describes an idyllic Palestine before Israel:
"Before Israel, we Palestinians were more like the birds--we lived in a multicultural society of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I had friends who were Jews and Muslims. Why cannot the world allow us to strive for that again?"
She concludes with a question that contains a false characterization of the formation of Israel:
"[W]hy were the Palestinians deemed to be an expendable people for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity?"
[I have no doubt Nahida Gordon believes what she is saying to be true, but the characterizations are wholly insufficient to describe the period surrounding 1948. And the implication that somehow, after Israel, a new idyll will emerge is insupportable.]
8. Lucy Janjigian adds this to the conversation:
"Around 1946, militant Zionists began blowing up British soldiers and policemen. July 22, 1946, was Palestine's September 11. Irgun Zionists blew up the King David Hotel that housed the British Mandate Government, killing 92 Arab, Armenian, British, Greek, and Jewish personnel, including my aunt's sister Eugenie, and a Greek girl I knew, a recent graduate from our school.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations announced the Palestine Partition Plan."
She goes on to quote an Israeli activist.
"Israel acts as a spoiled child," remarked one Israeli activist. "America has helped create this undisciplined child. It depends on the U.S. for its lifeline of funding and weapons." She continued to say "that even though the state of Israel is supposed to be a democracy, it acts as a NAZI state." She did not feel she could live in the country much longer if it continued to be an oppressor, ignoring human rights."
9. Committee member John Huffman claims to be a moderate theological pro-Zionist. In his vignette, he opines:
"It was with great reservation that I accepted the invitation to join this General Assembly task force. I know how controversial is this topic and how viciously attacked any truth-tellers are by majority voices in the American Jewish community that are quick to attach the label "anti-Semitic" to anyone who even suggests that there are serious ethical and legal issues at stake. I support the security of the State of Israel and believe that American tax dollars should be used for that purpose. But it should not be done at all costs on Israeli-dictated terms resulting from a masterful manipulation of the United States political process."
He goes on:
"I personally plead for a reversal of the apartheid actions that now are integral to Israeli domestic and foreign policy. Something must be done to remove the ghastly wall that is such a reminder of the Soviet unjust endeavor to exclude. And I would hope for the negotiation of a land swap that will inconvenience the fewest possible Palestinians and Israelis in a realistic understanding that, as painful as it is, the clock cannot be turned all the way back to 1948 but that reparations can be made."
Is Huffman implying that a return to 1948 and the removal of Israel's existence is somehow desirable or less painful?
10. In a profound display of bad taste, the Middle East Study Committee decided to end one section of its report this way:
First, they came for the socialist, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionist, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
We all do have a shared responsibility to guard human rights everywhere, and now is the time for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to speak out, stand up, and take action. We must be those who will say, "Never again" not just for the Jew, but for every suffering victim in the world today," including the Palestinians."
Judge for yourselves: Is this the work of fair minded people who value truth and who honestly seek a just peace? Or is it the work of people who have wholeheartedly committed themselves to one side in a conflict at the expense of another?
Will Spotts
